Is the Noah's Ark story true?

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
"and what's wrong with that? I'd ;ike to knowww...'cuz here I go...a-gainnnnn!"

Did I say anything was wrong with it?

I made clear my position on this issue early in the thread. This whole subject is silly. Obviously, absent a considerable bit of magic a literal interpretation of Genesis 7 is false. Now a few people are willing to accept magical answers, at least so far as the issue concerns their faith. That's their right of course, and I feel no need to waste my time debating whether or not magic is real.

I will say that I believe most Ark Story literalists are being intellectually dishonest with themselves because in every other area of their life they expect, even rely upon, non-magical, logical, yes, scientific reasoning. It is only when such reasoning undermines a cherished spiritual story that they turn and disparage it.

I even know of a couple of Ark-literalists who actually enjoy forensic investigation shows on television -- which is just terribly ironic. They applaud the powers of deduction and the wonders of science showcased on CSI or Cold Case, for instance. But bring up the Ark (or any other Christian myth) and suddenly they'll denounce everything they had just praised.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
an EX-Cellent Question! As a Christian, I've answered it to my pastor many times--the evidence that I've decided I should see are some bonafide miracles--as they happen. None of the "a sunset is a miracle" stuff--I want the Elijah-kind--where heavens open and fire laps up every drop of water around the altar--lots of bells and whistles. And a BIG post-i ...[text shortened]... coming thru the atmosphere with God's hand at the other end saying "SEE ? I TOLD YOU!!!"

LOL. Well said.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Again you are assuming the limitations we have today were the same
ones that were taking place then. If for example life spans were that
long it stands to reason within life there were fewer errors in DNA that
could cause issues so the number required for a stable gene pool
would more than likely be much less.
Kelly

I think trial lawyers should always ask potential jurors if they believe the Flood really happened just like Genesis 7 says. If the person answers, "Yes," then the prosecutor should toss them immediately. The defense would have a field day with so much gullibility.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, especially that one who believes in the Flood, the prosecution has offered a lot of so called 'evidence' of my client's guilt. They say that the footprints match, the hair samples match, the eyewitness descriptions match. But don't let them fool you with their 'science.' Science is just a big word for 'I reject God.' You see we have no way of being certain that the same physical laws present in the court room today, the ones that keep you in your chairs and that permit you to hear my voice, were in operation in the time and location of the crime. How do we know that the DNA found at the scene remained constant over time? The blood and hair could have belonged to completely different people, even different animals, and then through change was altered to look like that of my client. How do we know that light behaved the same way when and where the crime took place? The speed of light is not constant. Famous scientists all agree that it has been much, much faster in the past. It could have been slowing down in a burst in the area and at the time of the crime. This would distort wavelengths and cause people to see things differently than they normally would. So how do we know? Were any of us there at the time of the crime? No. It's all a matter of faith. The prosecution would have you believe it's a fact, but all they really have are a whole lot of unsubstantiated and biased assumptions. In closing, let me remind you again that my client could not be guilty, because he was walking on the moon with Elvis Presley at the time in question. Thank you."

Originally posted by telerion
I think trial lawyers should always ask potential jurors if they believe the Flood really happened just like Genesis 7 says. If the person answers, "Yes," then the prosecutor should toss them immediately. The defense would have a field day with so much gullibility.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, especially that one who believes in the Flood, the ...[text shortened]... e was walking on the moon with Elvis Presley at the time in question. Thank you."

Nice....

Originally posted by KellyJay
Lack of genetic diversity such as today brothers and sisters off spring
would generally have off spring that more tha likely would have issues
correct?
Kelly

Yes, if two very similar genetic make ups produce offspring the chances of defects is greatly increased. They don't have to have original defects.... The very similarity in them will generate defects.... Look at pure bred dogs today.... Always stupider than mongrels because they lacked diversity, not because they were faulty to begin with.....

Originally posted by abnoxio
On the surface it sounds so ridiculous as to be discarded offhand.

And so it is. But a great story for kids.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I do not care what you think about evolution my views on it are in this
thread, which is I view evolution as what took place after the flood. The
only place I believe we disagree is how much credit we give to that
process within life.
Kelly

It's not about what I think.
It's about what 99% of the best minds in the world studying the subject think.
Or do you think all of them have a lobby against Christianity?
Think about this one...

Originally posted by KellyJay
I do not care what you think about evolution my views on it are in this
thread, which is I view evolution as what took place after the flood. The
only place I believe we disagree is how much credit we give to that
process within life.
Kelly

Wait... but the only reason you deny Theory of Evolution is because it goes agains YOUR personal interpretation of the Bible???

Now that's a real leap of faith...

Originally posted by twhitehead
So are you going to answer the question or just quote some Bible verses at me in the hope I will go away? Or do you think that there is an answer in those verses? If so, I am sorry, but I don't own a Secret Decoder ring and as hard as I try I cant see how those verses are even remotely relevant to my question.

The question I answered was why I thought everything didn't eat meat
before the flood, you think I should give you something else?
Kelly

Originally posted by Mexico
Yes, if two very similar genetic make ups produce offspring the chances of defects is greatly increased. They don't have to have original defects.... The very similarity in them will generate defects.... Look at pure bred dogs today.... Always stupider than mongrels because they lacked diversity, not because they were faulty to begin with.....

Why, do you suppose that is true? The answer to that question will
show why the longer life spans negate that issue.
Kelly

Originally posted by serigado
It's not about what I think.
It's about what 99% of the best minds in the world studying the subject think.
Or do you think all of them have a lobby against Christianity?
Think about this one...

Well go away than if it isnt' about what you think, you don't matter!
If the 95% of the best minds in the world want to come here and
talk we can talk to them; however, you and I are here now and I do
think what you 'think' matters, even if you don't! Don't let anothers
opinion stop you from thinking yourself, I don't care what side of the
debate your on that is pure and simple WRONG.
Kelly

Originally posted by serigado
Wait... but the only reason you deny Theory of Evolution is because it goes agains YOUR personal interpretation of the Bible???

Now that's a real leap of faith...

You should really read the posts here before you speak about what
others believe! I have never said I don't believe in evolution, ever!
I have said I dont' give it the same amount of credit others here do
for the changes that life has gone through. If you think that isn't true
I suggest you read the posts again.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why, do you suppose that is true? The answer to that question will
show why the longer life spans negate that issue.
Kelly

Go on pretend I'm really stupid for a minute and show me where your going with this.... Because in no way does lifespan change the fact that lack of genetic diversity generates flaws in the genetic make up.... Now I'm no geneticist but as far as my understanding goes this is correct....

Originally posted by KellyJay
The question I answered was why I thought everything didn't eat meat
before the flood, you think I should give you something else?
Kelly

And it was not a question I asked - which explains my confusion over your Bible verses. To repeat my post:

Originally posted by twhitehead
Just as a matter of interest. Do you believe that?
If so:
How do you explain the existence of meat eaters today? Did God create them after the flood, or did they evolve from animals living before the flood?
If they evolved, doesn't that contradict your claims about the possible extent of evolution? (Many animals require special organs to eat meat)
Or did God use his guiding hand in that particular case, to violate the normal laws of evolution that you propose?
If such large changes are possible - by whatever means - then maybe we can resolve the whole Noahs ark problem by simply suggesting that maybe all animals alive today are descended from a tiny number of species collected by Noah?

Originally posted by Mexico
Yes, if two very similar genetic make ups produce offspring the chances of defects is greatly increased. They don't have to have original defects.... The very similarity in them will generate defects.... Look at pure bred dogs today.... Always stupider than mongrels because they lacked diversity, not because they were faulty to begin with.....

I think the problem has to do with recessive genes, not specifically similar genetic makup. Maybe a biologist can enlighten us?