Talk:Essay:Noah's Ark Was Real

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I'm not sure what to make of this, is it a parody?

If not then how could the climatic conditions required for Arctic animals be maintained alongside those of desert dwelling species?

How can the geographic distribution of species and fossils be explained by all the animals disembarking from the ark at the location?

How could a vessel be large enough to hold the enormous number of animals it would take to preserve a minimum 2 of every species let alone be large enough to hold fodder for a year especially considering the highly specialized feeding requirements of many animals?

What about animals that have lifespans shorter than a year, but also require very specific conditions to be met in order to be able to reproduce? Jamesmackenzie 14:28, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

Keiko the killer whale (a cold-water species) was maintained for years in a Mexico City (hot environment) aquarium. Polar bears are exhibited in zoos located in temperate and hot locations around the world. Add to that a species of penguin found in the Galapagos Islands at the equator, when it should be near Antarctica.
In the Bible, God tells Noah that "every sort of animal shall come to him" (Gen 6:20); if God can tell the animals to go to the ark, He can tell the animals where to go when leaving the ark.
40,000 animals the size of sheep can fit into 167 railroad boxcars, which is roughly 30% of the capacity of the ark. Furthermore, you have to take into account that not every animal is full-grown when it's aboard; after all, how much space does a 30-foot anaconda take up versus a two-foot baby? Then there are birds and reptiles which could have been cared for while they were eggs; there's hibernation. [1] Karajou 15:02, 28 October 2009 (EDT)
Galapagos penguins survive so far from the south pole because of two cold ocean currents that well up at the Galapagos islands making the water temperature much colder than would otherwise be expected for its latitude.
40,000 sheep may be able to fit jammed into 167 railway boxes, but they cannot live there for a year and all their fodder for a year cannot fit either.
How would hummingbirds (of which there are hundreds of species) have been supplied with enough food given the extremely specific nature of their dietary requirements, or koalas for that matter who require a huge amount of eucalyptus and only eucalyptus per day?
How were parasites, viruses and pathogenic bacteria be prevented from totally overwhelming the animals on the ark given that the conditions would be ideal for their propagation?
How were carnivorous animals kept fed for a whole year given the great number of prey animals it takes in the wild to support even a few large predators?
It is strange that you feel the need to justify the story of the ark as if it were even remotely possible, but in the end you resort to explanations via magic anyway. If magic had to be used why didn't god just get rid of all the sinners in the blink of an eye? Jamesmackenzie 07:39, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

In answer to Mr. MacKenzie

Mr. MacKenzie:

Did you take the trouble to read the essay itself, or the Noah's Ark article? Your comments suggest to me that you have not. You overlook many key passages in which I answer every one of the objections you raised. With one possible exception: animals having life spans less than a year. I answer that those life spans were probably a good deal longer, before the altered state of the earth's atmosphere took their toll. Recall that the average life span of the descendants of Adam was about 900 years. After the Great Flood, man's life span dropped ninety percent, and in a hurry. We must assume that the life spans of animals varied in similar proportion.

Where did User:Karajou resort to invoking miracles? For that matter, where did I? Did I not explicitly state that one must employ an economy of miracles, to go along with scientific parsimony as prescribed by William of Occam?

While I'm on the subject, you overlook one other thing. You assume that true randomness exists in a God-centered universe. It does not. Nothing, of whatever character, happens without God's direct authorization. We can guess how likely a thing might be, but if God wants to act out of the ordinary, such is within His capability and, more to the point, His authority. Hence if God wants to ruin a man for repeatedly testing Him, or testing "the fates" or "Lady Luck" or whatever he wants to call it, that's His prerogative, too. (And I've seen Him do it, too. Ask any Las Vegas gambler who doesn't know to quit while he's ahead.)

Nevertheless, you overlook still another thing: God gives explicit warnings, and equally explcit instructions, to certain people when and as He pleases. He did this in Noah's case, again in Abraham's case, and then in Moses's case, in which He gave far more detailed instructions for an amazingly intricate building project: the Tabernacle and all its furnishings. And then there is Jesus Christ Himself, Whose very ministry was a miracle.--TerryHTalk 08:22, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for the reply.
Can you substantiate the claim that humans and other animals lived longer life spans in the past? The bible obviously doesn’t count because its verisimilitude is highly questionable. I ask because the current scientific understanding at least as far as humans are concerned is that life expectancy has steadily increased with time rather than decreased.
Anything that could not be repeated by humans using the same technology as was available at the time in question is a miracle/magic. All the animals moving to the ark and not killing each other as they assembled are certainly magical or miraculous.
If true randomness cannot exist then how can free will exist? Also can you substantiate that this universe contains properties that might be associated with a god?
As for my questions being answered I cannot find that in the essay or the article, particularly the parasite question and the point about specialised food supplies (koala bears). Also I’d like to add another question – If Noah and his family of 8 were the only human survivors then how come such a population bottleneck is not shown in human DNA evidence? Jamesmackenzie 14:55, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

If you're going to dismiss the Bible a priori, then we have nothing to discuss. You question the "verisimilitude" (I think you mean "veracity") of the Bible, but I do not. We address Biblical inerrancy in another article on this site, and I can also direct you to this article that discusses the subject in somewhat greater detail.

Let me take just one aspect of the issue: prerdictions of future events. For centuries, skeptics believed that the Book of Daniel, for example, must have been written long after Alexander the Great conquered the Middle East. Then in 1947, in the middle of the high drama surrounding the establishment of the Republic of Israel, a small boy threw a rock into a cave near Qumran, and the rock's impact produced the sound of breaking pottery. The little boy checked it out, and then showed up in Jerusalem hawking what he found. These were the first of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Those scrolls include manuscripts of Daniel that clearly predate Alexander, and predict his conquest of the Holy Land exactly as it occurred. And Daniel isn't the only one.

There, by the way, is a modern miracle for you. The finding of those scrolls persuaded the United States to grant diplomatic recognition to the Republic of Israel, and made the difference between Jewish statehood and a Second Holocaust.

As I said, Daniel isn't the only one. Isaiah is another. And Isaiah predicted the most striking event of all: the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Any text that can get all these things absolutely right, four hundred years or more ahead of time (and against odds of ten thousand quinquagintillion to one, by the way), can certainly be trusted on other events that it recorded. Like the genealogy of Adam, and the tremendous average lifespans, and the genealogy of Shem and the tremendous decline in lifespan. And like the Great Flood and the plans of Noah's Ark.

I have no trouble accepting the assembly of the animals. The same God Who gave Noah his instructions for building the Ark was certainly capable of assembling the menagerie that Noah would carry. Nor is that necessarily as difficult as you are attempting to portray. Are you assuming that the continents in Noah's day were distributed as they are today? They weren't. Initially they all fit together, like a gigantic jigsaw puzzle. The Flood got started with a hairline crack that appeared in this landmass and then went all the way through it. That crack persists as the Mid-Oceanic Ridge System. See Hydroplate Theory for some further details, and a link to an outside source that explains it in far greater detail than I have space to use here.

How can free will exist without randomness? Well, it can't. But that does not mean, by the way, that we need to accept the authority of any one human being who is trying to pretend that he's God. It does mean that God not only knows what is going to happen well before it happens (and can give memoranda of instructions to whomever He chooses, whenever He chooses), but that He has decided ahead of time what is going to happen. Perhaps He has decided ahead of time to bring you to me, figuratively speaking, so that I may testify to you concerning His Existence, His Pre-eminence, and His Role in human affairs, ancient and modern.--TerryHTalk 17:23, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for the reply, I'll have a proper read of it tomorrow morning and answer you then, as for now, before I sleep I just wanted to say that I did indeed mean to write verisimilitude - a word which means "the appearance of truth or likelihood", so for something to have its verisimilitude lacking or questionable is not to have a lack of truth but to have a lack of a semblance of truth. Jamesmackenzie 18:52, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

My answers to your questions

Galapagos penguins survive so far from the south pole because of two cold ocean currents that well up at the Galapagos islands making the water temperature much colder than would otherwise be expected for its latitude.

Still the water there is a lot warmer than it would be around Antarctica, and these penguins have no problem with the hot conditions once they're out of the water.

40,000 sheep may be able to fit jammed into 167 railway boxes, but they cannot live there for a year and all their fodder for a year cannot fit either.

I didn't say there were 40,000 sheep jammed in 167 boxcars, did I? What I stated was a matter of capacity, and you seemed to also overlook the fact that I said this number of animals occupied 30% of the Ark's total capacity, leaving enough room for other animals, and fodder for a year.

How would hummingbirds (of which there are hundreds of species) have been supplied with enough food given the extremely specific nature of their dietary requirements, or koalas for that matter who require a huge amount of eucalyptus and only eucalyptus per day?

Again, you missed what I said above, so I'll say it again. Baby birds come packaged in eggs. Baby reptiles come packaged in eggs. Baby mammals feed upon their mother's milk, and if they don't have a mom, someone is going to get milk from elsewhere and do the job. Any zookeeper or farmer knows that, and I find it strange that a self-professed scientist doesn't. Do baby koalas slurp on eucalyptus juice before they get their teeth in, or is it mother's milk?

How were parasites, viruses and pathogenic bacteria be prevented from totally overwhelming the animals on the ark given that the conditions would be ideal for their propagation?

The conditions on earth during that period of time from the creation were just about perfect; viruses were virtually non-existent. As to parasites, even a monkey can pluck them from another monkey, or a tick bird can remove them from a cow; that kind of behavior has been observed and proven, IAW step one of the Scientific method.

How were carnivorous animals kept fed for a whole year given the great number of prey animals it takes in the wild to support even a few large predators?

Again, mother's milk. Didn't you see that displayed in the Noah's Ark segment of the John Houston film The Bible?

It is strange that you feel the need to justify the story of the ark as if it were even remotely possible, but in the end you resort to explanations via magic anyway. If magic had to be used why didn't god just get rid of all the sinners in the blink of an eye?

I never resorted to a magic explanation; that one is your's. And God doesn't just "get rid of all sinners" when He knows it's much better to give them an opportunity to come to repentance through Jesus Christ. You came here with the standpoint that God doesn't exist, so now I request that you prove beyond doubt on this page that God doesn't exist...and use the Scientific method when doing so. Karajou 16:00, 29 October 2009 (EDT)
Where does all this mother’s milk come from, either there are adults on the ark providing it, thereby mitigating your argument by infancy, or there is a huge stockpile of milk taking up yet more space on an already impossibly full ark leaving alone questions of spoilage! Also owt but milk for a whole year, really?
The parasites I was specifically thinking of are the internal type that cannot be groomed off, but also must have been on the ark from the start.
According to Christian doctrine god is omnipotent. He knows who will repent and who won’t depending on what warnings he gives therefore he can simply erase those who he knows will not fit into his criteria for survival.
You know that I cannot prove beyond doubt that god doesn’t exist. However you should also know that I cannot prove that the Dagda and the Morrigan don’t exist and therefore the impossibility of proving the existence of anything does not prove its existence. You have however inspired me to write an essay on why I think my atheism is scientifically justified, I’ll send you a link when i get around to it.
By the way, no hard feelings right? Just a bit of stimulating debate! Jamesmackenzie 17:15, 29 October 2009 (EDT)
First, and most important, there are no hard feelings anywhere! As to the mother's milk - and I did indicate this small tidbit from John Houston film - farmers milk cows and goats on a daily basis. Karajou 23:57, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

General Reply to Jamesmackenzie

Two points dispose of all of Mr. MacKenzie's objections. First, there is no logical objection to the biblical account. It cannot be disproved. Let's be clear about that. It may not comport easily with someone's everyday experience 5000 years later, but the same could be said about many other facts in history also. There is simply no logical flaw in the account.

Second, the theory of evolution has even greater difficulties explaining how species survived massive flooding. No one credibly denies that worldwide flooding occurred; even today the world is over 70% covered with water, nearly all habitation occurs within 100 feet of sea level, and limestone deposits from water are found at all heights. Local, but massive, flooding occurs frequently and widely, with devastating affects. The theory of evolution does not have a more plausible explanation for how species survive this in the long run.

Put another way, if you think the saving of species from massive flooding was difficult with God's assistance, it is even more difficult without such assistance.

Finally, Mr. MacKenzie need not speculate about animal behavior 5000 years ago. Animals fled to high ground in the tsunami that devastated Indonesia merely 5 years ago. Mr. MacKenzie would likely claim (based on materialism) that such behavior is impossible or implausible, yet it undeniably occurred. No need to go back 5000 years; why not simply address behavior of 5 years ago that confound materialists?--Andy Schlafly 19:21, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

"Two points dispose of all of Mr. MacKenzie's objections. First, there is no logical objection to the biblical account. It cannot be disproved. Let's be clear about that. It may not comport easily with someone's everyday experience 5000 years later, but the same could be said about many other facts in history also. There is simply no logical flaw in the account.”
There are indeed logical flaws in the story, and it can be disproved. The lack of a population bottleneck in humans from any time around when the flooding was supposed to take place is disproof of the story. The population bottleneck as described in the bible is not something that could hide; a population bottleneck of 8 individuals is extreme (the species would be classified moribund). In fact the extremity of the so called bottleneck is another logical flaw in the story, since a species requires a minimum population to remain viable (MVP(1)). The MVP for primates is estimated to be over 5,000 individuals accounting for inbreeding. Even ignoring inbreeding the MVP would still be around 1,000 individuals. That makes the most favourable (and somewhat unrealistic) estimate for minimum number of humans required for the species to survive as 125 times higher than what the bible claims we had.
There are other logical flaws too, to name but a few: where did all this water come from? Where did all this water go to? If the world was flooded so recently then how come aquatic species are so localised and varied? Why did human lifetimes rapidly drop after the flood?
“Second, the theory of evolution has even greater difficulties explaining how species survived massive flooding. No one credibly denies that worldwide flooding occurred; even today the world is over 70% covered with water, nearly all habitation occurs within 100 feet of sea level, and limestone deposits from water are found at all heights. Local, but massive, flooding occurs frequently and widely, with devastating affects[sic]. The theory of evolution does not have a more plausible explanation for how species survive this in the long run.”
The world has indeed seen times of much higher sea levels, however it has never been totally submerged. Limestone deposits found at high altitude are more the consequence of isostatic action rather than eustatic action. During the times of high sea level the world would have been more like Indonesia and the Philippines, a global series of island chains and archipelagos, certainly extensive enough for terrestrial life to survive upon with some adaptation (island gigantism/island dwarfism, or terrestrial animals such as whales returning to the oceans).
Also tsunamis aren’t really the same as long term flooding; the flood of a tsunami lasts days or weeks at most. It is certainly not difficult for animals from nearby lightly affected regions to rapidly colonise the tsunami hit area. However in the case of a tsunami it is also the case that not all animals will be killed even in the worst affected regions. These animals that do manage to survive will sometimes do so out of luck, but most will do so because they were stronger swimmers, or fast climbers etc. Then as the survivors repopulate the region they will pass on the traits that helped them survive the last tsunami to their offspring. In this way the gene pool of the animals that populate this region will have changed from how it was pre tsunami. Hence in this example evolution by natural selection has occurred!
"Put another way, if you think the saving of species from massive flooding was difficult with God's assistance, it is even more difficult without such assistance.”
I think you are making a chronological error here. Sea level change is gradual, and landmasses do not abruptly disappear into the sea. In fact the shrinking habitat, isolation of high ground from previously connected land and increased competition that will occur as a landmass is gradually overrun (over thousands of generations) by the ocean creates an exquisite set of conditions for evolution to occur in.
As for humans previously having an extremely long lifetime, I’d like to specifically call that into question, especially given the fact that one of the justifications for the feasibility of the ark is that Noah lived hundreds of years and spent more than a modern lifetime constructing the ark. From a biological point of view the idea of historical humans living to the age of 900 is preposterous. There is a fairly consistent trend observable in archaeological evidence of human lifetimes lengthening over time. I’d be interested to hear about the remains of ancient humans that show signs of extremely (and unfeasibly even by modern standards) advanced age in their bones and teeth.
(1)Minimum viable population – This is the threshold number of individuals required by a species to remain viable. It is defined as the point when the likelihood of extinction due to insufficient numbers of individuals remaining reaches 95%
Also as an aside, whilst it is perfectly correct to spell Mackenzie a few different ways, including MacKenzie, I spell my name in the former manner. James Mackenzie 21:37, 1 November 2009 (EST)
Your reply is extremely verbose, but identifies no logical flaw in the biblical account. All of Christianity, and historically all of evolution, are based on one Adam and Eve. Evolutionists have recently changed their story, but not due to any logical difficulty with a beginning of only a few. There is no problem with Noah et al. populating the world post-Flood. Indeed, the population size of today is compatible with a small number about 5000 years ago.
There is no shortage of flood water. If Earth were merely slightly flatter than today, then 99% of current inhabitants would be under water without the need for one extra drop of water.
Evolutionists cannot explain the survival of species over time any better than the Bible does. Living creatures settle near water. Water inevitably and surprisingly floods, killing the living species. This wipes out evolution. Adding intervention by God and an Ark is one logical explanation; evolutionists don't offer any alternative, let alone a logical one.
Finally, you duck the undeniable point about tsunamis: animals flee to high ground just before it hits the shoreline. Ducking the point doesn't change the fact, which even liberal media like PBS have fully admitted.--Andy Schlafly 22:08, 1 November 2009 (EST)
I’m not sure what to make of your response; it seems to me that you have missed the point of many of the things I wrote. I think you misunderstand the implications of population bottlenecks in humans. Our DNA contains a lot of information about our ancestral history, from which we can clearly see past population bottlenecks. For example the results of the mega eruption of (???) which reduced the human population to around 10,000 individuals are clearly visible in our DNA, it is like a giant red arrow on the human genome. However there is no such bottleneck visible for such a small population as described in the story of Noah’s ark, nor is there any population bottleneck at any time period even close to 5000 years ago. The implications of this are thus: either the story of Noah’s ark is not true or DNA is meaningless, and let me make this abundantly clear - we know DNA is not meaningless, the influence of DNA has been repeatedly displayed in experiments under scientific conditions.
I’m not sure what you mean by “and historically all of evolution, are based on one Adam and Eve. Evolutionists have recently changed their story, but not due to any logical difficulty with a beginning of only a few.” so I will have to refrain from attempting an answer.
I will again assert that there is a problem with 8 closely related individuals repopulating the world, in my last post I explained how this cannot be the case using the science of MVP which you have yet to respond to with anything other than complete dismissal. In any case I shall add to why the world wasn’t repopulated by such a few with DNA haplotypes. I don’t know the exact specifications of Noah’s family, but it really makes little difference. Noah, his wife and his children together could amount a maximum of 1 Y DNA haplotype and 2 Mitochondrial DNA haplotypes (of which only 1 Mitochondrial DNA haplotype could survive the death of Noah). Even adding a few cousins and the like you will only be able to add a few more unique DNA haplotypes (even with the most liberal of predictions) to the list. This poses another insurmountable problem to the idea of the repopulation of the world at such a late date with so few people. There are many DNA haplotypes in the world today which fit on a family tree showing their relationship with each other. There is no way to reconcile the model of DNA haplotype descent that must be the case had the story of Noah’s ark been true with what can actually be observed. Unfortunately for advocates of Noah’s ark being a factual account, as with population bottlenecks, the family tree of DNA haplotypes can and has been verified as fact through the use of repeatable experimentation in scientific conditions. Furthermore the mutation rates of specific DNA haplotypes are predictable and known, and are totally at odds with the current diversity of DNA haplotypes descending from a very small amount as recently as 5000 years ago.
With your implication that if the world was flatter it could easily be covered by water, you seem to be ignoring the massive elephant in the room. For the world to become flat firstly there would need to be impossibly fast tectonic action so violent it would destroy everything on earth. Secondly you ignore the fact that should the world suddenly become flat the ensuing wave of water would obliterate everything in its path regardless of it being sheltered in a relatively flimsy ark. Thirdly the cause of the flooding according to the bible is rain, not tectonic action. Given the preceding absurdities I feel I scarcely need to assert the fact that there is no evidence of any such tectonic action occurring in the past and indeed much geological evidence suggesting it didn’t.
You say that evolution fails to account for the survival of species when confronted with flooding. Firstly you mistakenly assume that flooding has a 100% death rate for animals affected by it. You also mistakenly assume that flooding always affects 100% of a species range. You also assume that most ‘floods’ are much more rapid then in reality. As for animals retreating to high ground just before a tsunami hits the shoreline, I haven’t read anything about this and can offer little comment. However I expect that the vast majority of animals do not retreat like this but are ignored by the media in favour of the few that do. In any case since when has endorsement by the mass media ever been a measure of truth? James Mackenzie 01:07, 5 November 2009 (EST)
James, first, it's obvious you didn't read the Biblical description of the Great Flood. What does Genesis 7:11 say? The "fountains of the great deep broken up" is tectonic action employed when a fault exposes an underground water source under pressure. And for the most part animals and people end up dead due to flooding, and how many fossils were not found in sedimentary (sedimentary means "water-laid") rocks? Second, you're restricting yourself to DNA haplotypes as written on a blackboard, yet refusing to see first-hand that living organisms can and do multiply very rapidly from a very few into thousands or more in a short period of time. Rats, mice, rabbits, salmon, sardines, pigeons, ants, and cockroaches do it. Want an example of a large animal doing it as well? Plains bison herds in the country number about 45,000; a century ago they numbered less than 100. Sounds like a traditional small gene pool to me. And third, evolutionists are always changing their story, and it's always going to be any story except Adam and Eve. What is it now? Some monkey named "Ardi"? Two years ago it was "Lucy"; before that it was another Australopithicus; before that it was good'ol Piltdown; before that it was Darwin's face mounted to a chimp.
Honestly, James, we've been through this many times with many others in the past, and all you're doing is putting the same old spin on the same old story. It's been debunked thoroughly on every point; it fails the Scientific method because you can't even get past that first step; and from what I've read from the above, you're just accepting evolution and old-earth stories at face value without even trying to investigate at least one aspect of them to see whether or not it's even true. From where I stand, you have to prove it's true. So please, go ahead and do exactly that. Karajou 01:43, 5 November 2009 (EST)
James, your massive essay is unresponsive. If you don't know about animals fleeing to high ground before a tsunami hits the shoreline, then open your mind and learn about it first. Really, is that too much expect? Instead, you seem to take a position of deliberate ignorance, and then go on trying to disparage it anyway. Even evolutionist sources (like PBS) admit that this phenomenon occurs, but lack any plausible materialistic explanation.
As to massive flooding, materialists don't explain the survival of species through historic flooding any better than the Bible does. So if you find the biblical explanation deficient, then by applying your same standard you'd find evolution even more deficient. Instead, you use unproven speculation upon speculation to try to salvage your theory, while giving the biblical theory none of the same benefits of the doubt. That's called a double standard, an unattractive characteristic common to the liberal ideology.--Andy Schlafly 17:41, 5 November 2009 (EST)

Quick Reply to Karajou

You obviously have no idea what a DNA haplotype actually is, otherwise you would not have made such a nonsensical statement as "Second, you're restricting yourself to DNA haplotypes as written on a blackboard, yet refusing to see first-hand that living organisms can and do multiply very rapidly from a very few into thousands..." DNA haplotypes have nothing really to do with genetic viability of a small population expanding into a larger one.

And what's next? A nonsensical rant about Adam and Eve, Piltdown man (which has some suspicious links to anti evolution advocates) and Darwin's face on a chimp. It is clear that you are deeply confused about evolution, you think that Darwin's face on a chimp was an evolutionist idea? It was a cartoon by creationists intended to lampoon Darwin. You accuse me of accepting old-earth and evolution at face value, this is highly ironic since from your posts I can be reasonably sure that you do not come even close to understanding what evolution actually is. I'm frankly not surprised that you have gone though this many times before, and I’ll wager you will go through it many times again because the problem here is not with everyone else. It is your incomplete understanding that creates this cycle, a cycle that can only be broken if you actually investigated evolution from a pro evolution scientific position. But I imagine that this will never happen because I'd guess you aren't interested in the truth, rather you are probably trapped within an ‘us and them’ mentality that can never allow you to explore the possibly that the position you hold is untenable.

Please prove me wrong, explain to me in simple terms what the theory of evolution entails and if you do a reasonable job of it I will concede the point to you. Also could you tell me when DNA haplotypes have been debunked or when population bottlenecks have been debunked? I suspect what you when you say debunked is actually ignored or dismissed with no justification.

I don't like having to make such a negative reply, whilst I disagree on many levels with Andy and others I have been debating with on this page none of their replies have made me angry, whist yours has me frustrated at the ludicrous way you have responded to my points without even knowing what they are. James Mackenzie 16:16, 5 November 2009 (EST)

Two things, JamesMackenzie: First, I did investigate evolution, I know full-well what evolution consists of; I know it's a claimed "change over time" scenario; and I know full-well that evolutionists such as yourself have no intention of backing those claims up with absolute proof. I and others on this site are fed up with being given a the "hearsay" argument by evolutionists, and hearsay is all they got. Second, when directed to provide proof of evolution as per the Scientific Method, you back down and turn your reply into the rant that is here. It is you who is ignoring the debunked evidence.
So, when directed to prove it, you demonstrated an attitude problem. I think you need to edit somewhere else. Karajou 16:42, 5 November 2009 (EST)
Just a quick note, you seem to have misunderstood the scientific method. The aim is not to 'prove' the theory of evolution, this, as with all general theories, is logically impossible. Science operates by trying to falsify theories. DWiggins 16:45, 5 November 2009 (EST)
Oh yes, the process of falsification. And if evolution is falsified, then what's the problem? Karajou 16:49, 5 November 2009 (EST)
Before I get bogged down in explaining the fundamentals of the scientific method all over again, may I suggest you read in more detail what it is and how it works. The article on this site actually has some rather good details on this. DWiggins 17:03, 5 November 2009 (EST)
DWiggins, if you look at the history of that article, you'll discover the fact that I wrote it...[2]  :) Karajou 18:06, 5 November 2009 (EST)

With all due respect, I would not consider 3 edits out of around 100 to in anyway constitute a claim to having 'wrote it'. I said some rather good details, insofar as it gives a reasonable overview of the scientific method but is rather clumsy in addressing more specific aspects, omitting several key points. DWiggins 18:28, 5 November 2009 (EST)

That's a pretty big contribution. -- Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 18:38, 5 November 2009 (EST)

James, your own postings are extremely verbose with little on topic and yet ... you accuse Karajou of a "rant"??? This talk page is your criticism of the biblical explanation of survival by mammals of a massive flood. Do you think evolution has a better explanation of how mammals could survive a massive flood? I'd love to hear it if you have one. I don't think anyone denies that all of the inhabitable earth has been flooded.--Andy Schlafly 18:56, 5 November 2009 (EST)

Arguments don't go away when you call them verbose.

1. He wasn't saying that small populations don't become larger over time. That's the story of human history, but a small family with nothing other than stone tools would be fighting an enormous struggle just to survive until tomorrow and maybe raise and sustain enough children to replace those who have died. They would all live together. Disease would strike and spread fast. Up until the Renaissance, one out of every three children died before they were five, and that was within societies that had some degree of agricultural development, trade, and infrastructure. A small clan left to nothing but their own strength cannot possibly create, feed, and keep alive enough offspring to grow the population.

That's what happened when the Spanish deported the people of Rapa Nui as slaves. Passed a certain point, the population does not recover.

2. Evolution is not a theory about the Great Flood. You don't disprove it because it doesn't address the Great Flood. That's like saying the Bible is false because it doesn't talk about atoms, photons, DNA, or redox reactions.

3. There is nothing you could tweak in the atmosphere that would make people live to be 900. Changing or adding anything other than oxygen and maybe some nitrogen would be lethal, and oxygen can only increase so much before it becomes toxic. The basic nature of life in general is that it does not last nine hundred years.

4. About the Running From a Tsunami thing - There is a completely naturalistic way to explain this. The animals hear the infrasound produced by the wave rolling in and run away. The animals that can't hear infrasound get spooked and run too. Regardless, nature is infinitely more complex than the human mind can possibly understand. Just because you can't tell me why the animals run doesn't mean it's magic.

5. About the Milk thing - Infant animals are small and able to sustain themselves on milk, but where does the milk come from? Saying they lived off milk is saying they weren't infants since milk is produced only by adults. So did they pack the milk in the ark? If they did, where did it come from?

6. If the water came from under the earth's crust, wouldn't it have been steam? What have you seen coming out of the mantle that isn't scalding? Is there any evidence that such a split happened, or is it just a semi-plausible explanation for something you already made up your mind to believe?

7. Limestone takes time to form. The flood would've had to last for hundreds of years (or longer) in order to build up the global layer of rock. The more likely explanation is that, at one point in geologic time or another, all land was underwater. The limestone formed there and was transported above sea level by the normal processes of the earth.

DanPugachev 19:06, 7 November 2009 (EST)

Dan, logic is concise, while running from logic takes many words. The biblical account is perfectly logical. You can't identify a logical flaw in it.
You have free will to reject logic. But if you reject it, then lots of new questions are raised about your substitute. Massive flooding undoubtedly occurred. How do you think mammals survived it? Evolution does not have a plausible, detailed explanation.
Most evolutionists run from facts that disprove their theory, just as animals run to high ground before a tsunami hits shore. No, that isn't random running from being "spooked" by some mysterious ultrasound, any more than chickens randomly return from distant places at the exact same point of nightfall each day, and jump into their chicken coop in the exact same order. I know, you never heard that about chickens either. There's much an evolutionist has "never heard of." I urge to you open your mind and let logic in.--Andy Schlafly 20:13, 7 November 2009 (EST)
In answer to his #6, he's implying that water underground is steamy-hot, as well as a figment of my imagination. If he'd pay more attention to geology - specifically the geology of the Great Plains - he'd probably find mention of the Ogalalla Aquifer [3], which is a remnant of the "waters of the great deep" bursting forth in Genesis. In answer to his #5, I stated that twice above, but apparently he forgets that people get milk from cows. That's cows, Dan; it means you tie Bessie to the hitching post, grab a small stool, and sit for an hour filling a wooden bucket. It's where milk came from in the days before people went Krogering. Remember, Andy, that these people expect and demand that we accept whatever explanation science has to offer - and that's any explanation except the Bible. Karajou 00:55, 8 November 2009 (EST)
First off, it's not some mysterious ultrasound. It's infrasound, and it's completely different. It is emitted by tsunami waves and is very well documented as causing signs of discomfort and fear in animals and even human beings, though we cannot consciously detect it. So why do the chickens return? It isn't some combination of sense of smell, homing using the sun, and possibly detecting the earth's magnetic field (which many birds do)? Is it the hand of God, who somehow forgot to warn the people about the tsunami? It's just the animals? Stories about animals being impressive do not disprove evolution in any way.
Evolution does not explain it because evolution is not a theory about surviving a flood that may or may not have occurred. Outside of the Biblical story, can anyone produce a single piece of physical and indisputable evidence? Karajou, you'd call any massive aquifer a remnant of the great flood, when it is perfectly explainable that the Ogalalla formed from water moving down through the soil and into the water table when the North American glaciers melted. If it resulted from a massive flood, wouldn't you expect to see aquifers like the Ogalalla (which, yes, I have heard of) all over the world? There aren't. And if the flood happened, as it was asserted earlier, when a fault broke Pangaea apart in a process like the seafloor spreading we see today, anything that would be released would come from the mantle as steam or superheated water that would boil on the surface. DanPugachev 12:36, 8 November 2009 (EST)
Indisputable evidence for the Great Flood:
Fossils, of which more than 99.9% of them were found in sedimentary ("water-laid") rock. They are usually intact, and deposited as if they died in agony. Step 1 of the Scientific Method in this case: observe the burial and fossiliztion of an animal. Cannot be done due to weather conditions and biological influences (scavengers) which tend to destroy the carcass and scatter the remains (note...that fact alone is observable, iaw Step 1).
Footprints, which were deposited when the ground was wet and muddy. Footprints include raindrops[4]. The traditional explanation from science is that they harden into rock over the course of millenia just by sitting there, as if no one ever heard of the first rainstorm to come along and wash them away. Step 1 of the Scientific Method in this case: Make a track and fossilize it under the natural conditions described by science and see what happens.
Folded layers of rock, which cannot fold unless they are first wet layers of mud. There is an "S"-curve in the rock in this image[5], which didn't get that way if it was ordinary dry rock. This is indicative of differing types of sediment depositing in layers, then something violent happening to cause these layers to bend before they harden. Experiment: try setting down several layers of flat slate or similar hard rock, then bend the whole without breaking it. Then do the same with wet layers of clay.
Oral traditions, which are found world-wide in every language and every culture; it is a preservation of a single event. In more than 70% of these traditions, the following are present: global flood; large boat or raft; less than ten survivors; carrying away of a large number of animals; landing on or near a mountain range; sacrificial offering to the gods. Science in this case, needs to dismiss this as simple folk tales Karajou 13:08, 8 November 2009 (EST)

I'm in New Zealand at the moment and have only somewhat irregular access to internet, which is the cause of my periodic outbursts interspersed by silent periods, I regret posting my last thing in a bit of a foul mood, the point of this talk page isn't evolution is is Noah's ark, and I allowed Karajou to lead my reply off topic. The point remains that there is no pro Noah's ark answer to the questions of DNA haplotypes. And now that Karajou has likely googled "DNA halotype" he will be unable to reconcile the statement that he originally made in response to that point.

"As to the mother's milk - and I did indicate this small tidbit from John Houston film - farmers milk cows and goats on a daily basis"

I intended to answer this glaring example of doublethink a while ago but got caught up in other things. There would have to be hundreds of cows/goats to feed all the animals on the ark, but what would these goats and cows eat? And anyway can't there be more than 8 animals of each type? Furthermore the milk of other species is not very good for animals, this would further reduce resistance to disease and parasites (which is lower in infants too). James Mackenzie 22:41, 8 November 2009 (EST)

James, you have been told quite clearly several times that 1) there was a lot of stored fodder onboard the ark; 2) that animals onboard occupied a smaller percentage of the total capacity of the ark; 3) that hibernation played a role, saving feeding time; 4) that young animals and unhatched eggs took less room than adults. Apparently, these simple and rational explantions cannot alter your agenda, which was to come to this site and push whatever Bible-hating mantra you have. You've been told; you don't want to listen. Since you want to push the argument ad nauseum, then you need to go elsewhere. Karajou 10:01, 9 November 2009 (EST)
You say that you have answered the problems I have posed but this is not the case.
  • Please can you tell me how the story of Noah’s ark can be true given the current distribution and affiliations of the human DNA haploid genotypes?
  • Also can you explain how the story of Noah’s ark can be true when there is no evidence of a global flood event in all of dendrochronology?
  • Finally can you explain away the fact that there is no global break in human activity shown in archaeology for the period in question?
Please let’s do this in a more structured manner, perhaps if you can directly address these 3 points then maybe you can present 3 counter points in support of Noah’s ark which I will attempt to falsify prior to positing another 3 points of my own and so on. James Mackenzie 15:19, 10 November 2009 (EST)

Is this debate necessary?

I talked to my pastor about these issues. According to him, Noah may or may not have been able to care for all these animals, but since the Bible does not specify how it happened, it must be assumed that it is not relevant to the overall account of the Flood. We know that individuals such as Alexandrina Maria Da Costa have found sustenance in the Love of God, so why wouldn't He bestow such a gift on the animals in the Ark? Maybe a materialistic explanation can be found, but it is by no means necessary.--TSpencer 20:19, 9 November 2009 (EST)

If archaeological and geological evidence shows something to be hypothetically impossible then divine intervention can be given as the solution, however if the evidence shows that something never happened then it never happened. This is the point of this debate, without physical corroboration the bible is about as historically realistic as the lord of the rings. How many serious political and social decisions are made according to what's written in the lord of the rings? conversely how many are made because of what's written in the bible? This is why this debate is necessary. James Mackenzie 15:41, 10 November 2009 (EST)
This "debate" happens here all the time because there's always one or two individuals who want to force the issue. He listed questions above which were answered previously; in one case three times. His pattern indicates someone who refuses to listen, totally contradicting the "open mindedness" that his side claims to have a market on. And now he's bringing up dendrochronology? Since I already know the answer to that one, I doubt it will be something he'll listen to. So, since he's bringing up the constant argumentum ad infinitum - with some egotistical pressure, I might add - I'm going to have to declare his presence here at an end. Karajou 16:02, 10 November 2009 (EST)
Well we have the Word of God that it happened. The only 'evidence' that could be found in this case would be the remains of Noah's Ark, which could serve as an additional argument. The absence of evidence, on the other hand, would prove nothing, as wood decays. The Ark would also likely be used as a shelter for Noah's family, and maybe as firewood later on, so we can't expect it to have been preserved to this day.
My point is that this debate seems be on whether specific, materialistic methods could have fed all the animals. The Bible says nothing of the actual method used, and it has left no evidence. And maybe it is simply impossible to feed that many animals with eight people. Why should we shy from accepting that the Lord could provide for them? --TSpencer 11:06, 11 November 2009 (EST)

Tell you what, since he's here to demand that we accept his viewpoint, I'm going to make a demand of my own. Jamesmackenzie, since you came to this particular page with the intention of pushing your opinion that Noah's Ark did not exist, I'm going to call you on it. According to the Bible, Genesis 8, the ark rested in the mountains of Ararat. You, Jamesmackenzie, are going to scour the area once known as the Kingdom of Urartu, which now is occupied by eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, and northwestern Iran, and I don't care how you do it. You can use Google-Earth or take a jet to do some hiking, but you are going to go over every square foot of that ground before you carry on with your opinion in this website. That is the only way I will accept from you the proof needed that the ark doesn't exist. Karajou 16:22, 10 November 2009 (EST)

Well, it wasn't easy but I have scoured the entire area using Google Earth and there is nothing there. I assume that is the end of the Noah's Ark story. Should I start making appropriate adjustments to articles? --VincentV 15:29, 11 November 2009 (EST)
Way to go, VincentV. You must be brilliant. With your wisdom, can you explain and give us the detailed evolutionist explanation for how mammals survived the massive flooding that no one denies happened?--Andy Schlafly 15:41, 11 November 2009 (EST)
I detect an element of sarcasm in your post. I have just spent a lot of time undertaking a difficult task. I don't know why you think that sarcasm is an appropriate response. Also, I am not sure exactly what you mean by "the massive flooding that no one denies happened". Are you saying that no-one denies that the entire world was flooded in the manner described in the Bible? --VincentV 15:49, 11 November 2009 (EST)
Your non-answer is an example of liberal style. The question was clear, and it's clear you don't have an answer.--Andy Schlafly 16:36, 11 November 2009 (EST)
I confess that I do not understand why you are acting in such a confrontational manner. In order to answer your question I must understand it. I asked whether you were saying that no-one denies that the entire world was flooded in the manner described in the Bible? You didn't answer. Is that what you are saying or not? Further, I am also at a loss to understand why you asked that question of me in the first place. I professed no expertise in providing "detailed evolutionist explanations". I am willing to give it a go, but all I did was carry out a task suggested by Karajou. He said that, upon the task being carried out and no ark being found, he would accept that the ark does not exist. Obviously you have different criteria in terms of evidence. I was only seeking to satisfy his evidentiary criteria. --VincentV 16:44, 11 November 2009 (EST)
Vincent, if you don't want to open your mind, then no one else is going to open it for you. There is no logical flaw in the biblical account of the Flood. Can you accept that? If not, you're wasting your time and ours. And, by the way, evolutionists cannot explain how mammals survived the undeniably massive flooding that did occur.--Andy Schlafly 21:23, 11 November 2009 (EST)

To be perfectly fair, your statement rests on the assumption that there was a global flood. I have not yet met a scientist who agrees that a flood on the scale described in the Bible occurred. I think you are misapplying the theory of evolution as well. The theory does not really try and address the question you have posed about surviving flooding, it is an attempt to answer the question of 'the origin of the species'. DWiggins 20:43, 12 November 2009 (EST)

Your first sentence is missing some key words. You next two sentences are missing the point. Mammals didn't take airplanes to dry land a hundred miles away. Massive, undeniable flooding is an unsolved problem for evolutionists' story of descent.--Andy Schlafly 21:29, 12 November 2009 (EST)
Agreed. DWiggins, suggesting that a Global Flood did not occur flies in the face of 100% of the evidence. You can keep your mind closed and believe your "truth" but don't expect to be welcome here when you have to confront the actual truth, and not liberal "truth". MichaelZ 21:39, 12 November 2009 (EST)
Thanks for the heads up on my last post, it seems I cut a sentence too many (fixed now). Indeed, if there were a global flood then it would be difficult to account for the survival and subsequent geographic spread of many species of mammal. But I expect you'll find that those who believe in evolution are unlikely to believe in a global flood, and so as far as they're concerned the problem doesn't exist. The question is down to the evidence for such a flood, and if it were '100%' then I don't think there would be any discussion whatsoever MichaelZ. There are few things in this world which are for certain, and when it comes to science there is no such thing as absolute certainty, science works on 'provisional truths'. DWiggins 23:07, 12 November 2009 (EST)
I think what the deniers of the Great Flood are forgetting is the omnipotence of God. Miracles happened, and Noah's Ark is one of them. HarryG 23:18, 12 November 2009 (EST)
We are not talking about anyone 'forgetting' such a thing. The fundamental point here is that not everyone shares the same assumptions, for example regarding a belief in God, the Biblical flood, or evolution. To simply counter an argument with, an opposing assumption/belief doesn't really advance the discussion as we will always simply revert to the overarching question concerning the existence of God. DWiggins 00:03, 13 November 2009 (EST)

Open mindedness

I notice I was banned for posting on this page (what happened to your sysop pledge?), what really got to me was that you said I needed to adjust my understanding of open mindedness. I am very open minded, hence why I am presenting these arguments here for you to falsify. If you can falsify them I’d be happy to admit that Noah’s ark really existed, however you are more concerned with blocking me then attempting to answer my questions. The whole thing is fairly ironic since your idea of open mindedness seems to be accepting the words of a collection of writings without looking at the physical facts and ignoring them when they are presented to you, just as your idea of ‘liberal’ seems to be anything that you do not agree with (no true Scotsman).

As I see it there are a couple of ways this can progress from here; either you can answer my questions and we can have a civilised and rational debate, or you can just ban me again because you feel your beliefs are unable to stand up to scientific scrutiny. Should you take the cowardly option then please go through all my contributions to this Wiki and delete them, since it is highly hypocritical to remove me but keep the positive changes I have made to articles.

I find it the epitome of tedium to have to repeat myself, I’d much rather advance the discussion without recourse to repetition, but regrettably I checked the whole page again to be certain and I still cannot see any answer to the question of DNA haplotypes. Please could you reproduce it along with the answer to my other 2 questions (dendrochronology and the uninterrupted archaeology).

“Second, you're restricting yourself to DNA haplotypes as written on a blackboard, yet refusing to see first-hand that living organisms can and do multiply very rapidly from a very few into thousands..."

I am not accepting this as an answer because it has nothing to do with what DNA haplotypes are. Generally it should be down to you to learn for yourself what a DNA haplotype actually is and why it is relevant, but I will give a brief explanation anyway. The explanation is more for the benefit of others reading our correspondence so as to highlight how little you must know about the question you claim to have answered.

In this case DNA haplotypes have very little to do with population size or expansion so I will ignore them completely in this explanation. The greatest relevance of DNA haplotypes in this case is variation, that is to say there are far too many different DNA haplotypes in human populations than would be possible if everyone alive today was descended from 10 or less people 5000 years ago. This is the case because of the way DNA haplotypes are passed on, particularly the special Y-DNA haplotypes and MTDNA haplotypes. Y-DNA haplotypes are passed from father to son and never occur in females, MTDNA haplotypes on the other hand are passed from mother to child. DNA haplotypes each have an average rate of mutation which causes DNA haplotypes to branch into different groups. Given that we know the approximate rate of mutation and can calculate the maximum possible number of DNA haplogroups in Noah’s family we can work out if the story of Noah’s ark is feasible. In this case it is not even remotely close. Further confounding the feasibility of Noah’s ark is the massive chronological discrepancy between the time that the MTDNA founder lived and the Y-DNA founder lived. If Noah’s ark was real then surely we should expect the two founders to be alive at the same time? Instead the molecular clocks show us that the Y-DNA founder was born thousands of years after the MTDNA founder.

Since I put a good deal of care and effort into typing this explanation I feel like I deserve either to be given the actual answer to these specific questions. It is simply not enough to flatly claim this has already been answered when it demonstrably has not. Also please answer these specific questions, don’t just say something on the lines of “evolution is false because...” or the “bible is true because...” for the time being the accuracy of evolution or the bible are irrelevant, the important thing to be addressed is the above question and also dendrochronology.

Anyway ban me if you want to, it might shut me up but it won’t make what I said untrue. The human haploid genotypes will still exist, in reality all you will be doing is shutting yourself off from something that you do not understand. You should look up the definition of willful ignorance... James Mackenzie 17:06, 15 November 2009 (EST)

In short, you can't do it, or you won't do it. The bottom line for us is the fact you came to this site and page declaring that the article was a parody, with the intent that we prove our side satisfactorily to you; when given answers, you brushed them aside. You've already made up your mind that the Bible is a fantasy, and nothing that we say or do will change that position, and your own close-minded attitude is written above for all to see. Karajou 00:32, 16 November 2009 (EST)
There is a very odd definition of open-mindedness being applied here. James is holding just as much to his own view as you are Karajou. Surely the statement 'you've already made up your mind that the Bible is true, and nothing that we can say or do will change that position' applies to you as much as the reverse does to James. No one has provided satisfactory answers about the ark since such statements remain pure conjecture since most go well beyond any available evidence, including what is actually stated in the Bible. DWiggins 07:42, 16 November 2009 (EST)
DWiggins, you're missing the central point here. The user came to this site with an agenda in mind, a declaration that the article was a parody, and a demand that we prove our position to his satisfaction, when the burden of proof was on him. He failed, with an attitude. As far as available evidence goes, he could have that ark set down right in front of him, but he still wouldn't change his mind; his refusal to even look at the answers above - let alone answer them - proves it. Karajou 13:50, 16 November 2009 (EST)

If you refer to the claim that this article is parody then maybe the onus was on him to prove it. But the question of parody went out the window a while back and the discussion had refocused onto the actual details of the Noah's Ark story itself. You said earlier that you would not be satisfied with his view that it is fiction unless he actually scoured every corner of a certain region for evidence. In this case the burden of proof lies with you, and it would be a case of you providing evidence to back your claims, not the other way around. Most of what has been said is purely conjecture. Even if the story is real we have no actual way of knowing the finer points of how animals and food were stored etc. so we should stop debating this as if we can. They are theories, and as things stand they are not falsifiable. DWiggins 14:17, 16 November 2009 (EST)

No, the burden of proof lied with him, period. And we do know the finer points of the storage of animals and food; this was detailed in my statements above, as well as the documented experience of zoologists, farmers, and anyone else involved in animal husbandry and animal behavior. They are not theories; they are facts, but apparently these facts are conveniently set asside by so-called professionals at the mere mention of two simple words: "Noah's Ark". And if you cannot falsify this subject, then it must be true.
As requested, this debate is stopped. Karajou 14:24, 16 November 2009 (EST)

I understand that you stated that this debate is stopped, but I just have one little fact that no one has really touched on, as of yet. According to the Bible, the ark was 1,518,000 cubic feet (assuming a cubic foot at the time was 18", which would likely have been close) There are over 2,000,000 documented species of animal (only about 25,000 of which are fish) on the planet, and it is believed the actual number could be significantly higher than that. Assuming we store birds and reptiles as eggs as long as possible (they would likely hatch while on the ark)we still don't have room to house all the species, at least 2 of each, and food. The cow and goat milk argument is ridiculous as well, as it is widely know that many mammals cannot handle the fats and lactose in cow's milk, rabbits are a prime example. Even if it were possible, the average jersey cow produces just over 5 gallons/day while the average newborn elephant drinks over 3 gallons per day. That means that one cow wouldn't be able to feed the two elephants on board the ship, and this does nothing for the other 5,000 species of baby mammals that will require sustenance. Now, I am just making this point, if you can counter it specifically, great, but please do not ask me to explain any other facet of this argument, I have no desire to talk about what has already been sufficiently, in my eyes, discussed. McDunkit 11:08, 19 November 2009 (EST)

Let me jump in here and say, McDunkit, that your species point does not apply. I would refer to you baraminology, which explains to a decent extent the creationist view of speciation. There were not, remember, two of every species, but two of every kind; multiple species may belong to a kind. Take canines: foxes, wolves, domestic dogs, jackals: all canines, all, I believe, capable of interbreeding. They probably all belong to the same kind, and are simply variations on the kind. Thus only one pair of canines, not a pair of each canine species, would have sufficed for Noah. Same deal with cats, and bears, etc. In the creationist model for speciation, there would have been a post-Flood speciation also, so that new variations on a kind that did not exist before the Flood, now exist. As you can see, two of every kind is a dramatically smaller number than two of every species. AddisonDM 11:42, 19 November 2009 (EST)