Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Noah's Ark

2007-03-22T02:11:50Z

Timbo: I

[[Image:Michelangeloflood.jpg|thumb|300px|right|''The Flood'', by Michaelangelo, detail from the Sistine Chapel, 1509.]]
According to the book of Genesis, '''Noah's Ark''' (often referred to just as the '''Ark''') was built by [[Noah]] on the directions of God to preserve Noah and his family and representatives of each of the animal kinds from the [[Great Flood]].

== Design and construction ==

The Ark was constructed with [[pitched]] [[gopher wood]] and had three stories divided into multiple rooms, a window, and a door.<ref>''Genesis'' 6:14, 6:16</ref> The dimensions were three hundred [[cubit | cubits]] long by fifty cubits wide by thirty cubits high.<ref>''Genesis'' 6:15</ref> which equates to approximately 450 feet long, by 75 feet wide, by 45 feet high.

Noah was instructed by God to take aboard the Ark his wife, his three sons and their wives, male and female pairs of all the "unclean" kinds of creatures, seven (or seven pairs) each of the "clean" kinds, and enough food and supplies for everyone.<ref>''Genesis'' 6:18-7:3</ref> <ref>''Genesis'' 7:6, 7:11</ref>, God shut them all inside the Ark and started the Flood. AND FROM THESE LIGHT BROWN SEMITIC PEOPLE WE NOW HAVE DARK SKINNED AFRICANS, CREAMY
PALE SKINNED SCANDINAVIANS, OLIVE SKINNED ASIANS WITH THEIR ALMOND SHAPED EYES AND REDDISH SKINNED NATIVE AMERICANS. WE CALL THIS THE EVOLUTION OF THE SPECIES.

The Ark's passengers were aboard for about a year<ref>The flood began on the 17th day of the second month of the 600th year of Noah's life (Genesis 7:11) and the ark's passengers alighted on the 27th day of the second month of the 601st year of Noah's life (Genesis 8:13-15)</ref>. The Ark came to rest somewhere in "the mountains of Ararat", believed by many to be the mountains with that name in modern Turkey.<ref>''Genesis'' 8:4</ref>

Before they left the ark, Noah released a raven then a dove to see if the earth was dry enough to exit.<ref>''Genesis'' 8:14-16</ref>. For theories on the spread of animals after the flood see [[Post-Diluvian Diasporas]]

AHEM. Every school child who has studied fundamental physics knows that a wooden boat the suposed size of Noah's
ark would have collapsed under it's own weight! Aside from that, how in the world would animals that only live
in the tropical rainforests of South America been able to find their way to Noah's back yard? And what about all the air breathing trees, shrubs, flowers, woody plants and grasses? Noah would have had to collect seeds from all the thousands of individual species of these? How did he get to the Sierra Nevada range of mountains to collect seeds from the Dawn Redwoods which only grow in that area? Have you ever seen a tree after it's been under water
for a year? It's stone dead as are it's roots and it's seeds.

==Controversy==
Many people, including some Christians do not believe that Noah's Ark existed and have raised many objections to the existence of the Ark and the Flood. These include the following:
* a lack of room for all the animals, usually on the basis of the biblical reference to ''kinds'' being the same as ''species'' (and there are about 1,250,000 identified animal species on Earth <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species</ref>). Supporters of the account reject that ''kinds'' is to be equated with ''species'', so use a much lower number.
* a lack of geological evidence for a global flood. <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html</ref><ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/rapid_post_flood_speciation.shtml A Critique of Rapid Post Flood Speciation] by [[Reasons to Believe]] an [[Old Earth Creationist]] ministry</ref>
* The inability of the eight humans on board to care for all the creatures on board.
* The difficulty some animals would have getting to or from the ark, especially those adapted to a specific habitat, such as the sloth, which can only travel hanging on the branches of trees, and animals that live on islands and could not swim to those islands after the flood.

Young Earth Creationists have written a number of responses to such criticisms, such as John Woodmorappe's ''Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study''<ref>http://www.rae.org/noah.html</ref> which argues that ''kinds'' is not to be equated with ''species'', and that there would therefore be a much smaller number of creatures on the ark, and that there are ways that the humans on board could have cared for all the creatures on board. Creationary geologists have also pointed out that much of the Earth's geology is sedimentary (water-laid) rocks, as one would expect from a global flood.

In 1977, Ron Wyatt promoted a site on Mount Ararat which he claimed was the remnants of Noah's Ark. <ref>http://www.wyattmuseum.com/noahs-ark-04.htm</ref> However, his findings have since come under criticism from a variety of sources including mainstream archaeologists and other Young Earth Creationists prompting [[Answers in Genesis]], one of the world's largest creationist ministries, to make a general statement that Young Earth Creationists should not use Wyatt's claims since they are at best highly dubious.<ref>http://www2.andrews.edu/~merling/</ref><ref> http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Bible]]

Conservapedia talk:About

2007-03-22T01:05:27Z

Timbo: /* What kind? */

Is that "LIBERAL BIAS" economic or social?

Well, I'm going to assume economic bias, unless I hear otherwise, and change the page accordingly.

==What kind?==

"Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind."

What kind is this, exactly? Is it the kind of source that has an inherent bias and slant towards a point of view? Because in my readings of CP articles, there hardly seems to be an attempt to be factually correct and completely bias-free... – [[User:frijole|Fʀɪɺøʟɛ]] ( [[User_talk:Frijole|тɐʟк]] • [[Special:Contributions/Frijole|¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs]] ) 12:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia will never become one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind. Nope. --[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Thank God somebody said that. This site is utterly useless. I mean, totally useless. There is no way I could use this for research on a project, not even one on conservatives.

When are you conservative, home schooled, fundamentalists going to realize that you've been lied to all these years!
I've read some of the trash that constitutes "conservapedia". Why are there no references to our ancient ancestors?
Why no mention of Homo Habilis, Cro Magnon or any of the other fossil remnants of early humans that
scientists have discovered over the years. Could it be that the conservatives don't know how to put a literalists
bibilical spin on the overwhelming evidence that WE EVOLVED and that the Earth is indeed ancient?
Anyone who would use this forum to gather knowledge is simply using nonsense, lies and distortions to substantiate
there own myopic, misguided understanding of the world.

== WHAT? ==

Another example of the closed mind of the conservative. Running scared, as it were, from anything that might challenge or make them think out-side of their comfort zone. This is the most biased site I have come across, and the claims it makes are unfounded and untrue. While
Wikipedia is a world-wide resource, this I imagine will be mainly used in the United States... I'm suprised that you don't have to go through security and background checks and prove you're a legal US citizen to join this site.
Good luck!

:: I agree. Whereas this site forces you to use American English, Wikipedia allows Commonwealth English in articles. Some of the articles on this site are a disgrace too. Many are one sentence long, and articles that are somewhat controversial, e.g. [[Homosexuality]], are locked. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bias ==

Anything that anyone doesn't believe in can be considered a bias, but shooting down the other point of view as a bias and creating a site with the other biased side without trying to make a non biased site is completely ridiculous. I am a conservative my self, but I believe that creating this site for the reasons that wikipedia is biased for showing a liberal view and making this site have only a conservative view is even more biased. By doing this for all of the wrong reasons, and degrading wikipedia, you have shown how naive some people can be.
--[[User:Erik|Erik]] 23:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Well said, this site gives conservatives a bad name. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:About

2007-03-22T01:03:21Z

Timbo: /* What kind? */

Is that "LIBERAL BIAS" economic or social?

Well, I'm going to assume economic bias, unless I hear otherwise, and change the page accordingly.

==What kind?==

"Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind."

What kind is this, exactly? Is it the kind of source that has an inherent bias and slant towards a point of view? Because in my readings of CP articles, there hardly seems to be an attempt to be factually correct and completely bias-free... – [[User:frijole|Fʀɪɺøʟɛ]] ( [[User_talk:Frijole|тɐʟк]] • [[Special:Contributions/Frijole|¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs]] ) 12:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia will never become one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind. Nope. --[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Thank God somebody said that. This site is utterly useless. I mean, totally useless. There is no way I could use this for research on a project, not even one on conservatives.

When are you conservative, home schooled, fundamentalists going to realize that you've been lied to all these years!
I've read some of the trash that constitutes "conservapedia". Why are there no references to our ancient ancestors?
Why no mention of Homo Habilis, Cro Magnon or any of the other fossil remnants of early humans that
scientists have discovered over the years. Could it be that the conservatives don't know how to put a literalists
bibilical spin on the overwhelming evidence that WE EVOLVED and that the Earth is indeed ancient?
Anyone who would use this forum to gather knowledge is simply using nonsense to substantiate
the're own myopic, misguided understanding of the world.

== WHAT? ==

Another example of the closed mind of the conservative. Running scared, as it were, from anything that might challenge or make them think out-side of their comfort zone. This is the most biased site I have come across, and the claims it makes are unfounded and untrue. While
Wikipedia is a world-wide resource, this I imagine will be mainly used in the United States... I'm suprised that you don't have to go through security and background checks and prove you're a legal US citizen to join this site.
Good luck!

:: I agree. Whereas this site forces you to use American English, Wikipedia allows Commonwealth English in articles. Some of the articles on this site are a disgrace too. Many are one sentence long, and articles that are somewhat controversial, e.g. [[Homosexuality]], are locked. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bias ==

Anything that anyone doesn't believe in can be considered a bias, but shooting down the other point of view as a bias and creating a site with the other biased side without trying to make a non biased site is completely ridiculous. I am a conservative my self, but I believe that creating this site for the reasons that wikipedia is biased for showing a liberal view and making this site have only a conservative view is even more biased. By doing this for all of the wrong reasons, and degrading wikipedia, you have shown how naive some people can be.
--[[User:Erik|Erik]] 23:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Well said, this site gives conservatives a bad name. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)