Noah's Ark and the New World

Enola Straight · Post by **Enola Straight** » 2007-01-10 01:44pm

The Flood, two of every animal, yadda-yadda-yadda.

After the Ark landed on "the mountains of Arrarat", humans, animals and plant life once again spread throughout the "world"

How did theologians explain how the abundance of life existed in the North and South American continents, separated from Asia Minor by thousands of miles of Africa, Europe, the Mediterranian sea, and the Atlantic ocean, in only a few thousand years?

How do they explain the people that were there?

The story of the confusion of languages at the Tower of Babel dosen't seem to explain away the incongruity.

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2007-01-10 01:47pm

God did it

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2007-01-10 02:07pm

To give a bit more in-depth answer than wautd (which is still accurate, BTW), they don't. Not really. At least, I've never seen them explain why North and South America aren't barren wasteland; along with Australia, for that matter.

Most creationists accept Pangaea, at least to the extent that Terra originally had one large supercontinent, but they contend that it broke up into its current configuration in the Flood. By the time the Ark supposedly ran aground, the world map is supposed to look almost exactly like it does now. You're right in surmising that Australia and the Americas should be almost entirely lifeless if that's the case. Obviously, they're not, but "Flood Geology's" flaws don't begin or end there. The filthy non-Aryans just got here by boat (and other misc. handwavium ad nauseum).

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2007-01-11 12:33am

The version of the story I've heard is that Pangaea broke apart after all of the animals radiated from the Ark to their appropriate homelands. It's like continental drift at hyper speed.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-01-11 02:54am

The funniest thing about the "Institute for Creation Research" is that they know an ark of the described dimensions couldn't possibly hold two of every species. So they theorize that the ark only contained a relatively small number of species ... who naturally speciated into the world's present biodiversity after being released from the Ark.

Naturally, many people have pointed out to them that this theory requires the mechanism of evolutionary speciation, to which they respond "no it doesn't, that's not real evolution". So to recap, when an animal population changes, that's not real evolution. Even if an animal population splits into two species, that's also not real evolution. I'm not sure what they think real evolution is, but I suspect it's like what they do in Pokemon.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2007-01-11 02:58am

It's like continental drift at hyper speed.

It's like making Earth a giant frypan. All life would be dead.

It would be dead anyway actually but the idea of landmass running amok with millions of surviving animals and humans on it is particulary laughable

Flood Geology my ass.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2007-01-11 08:32am

Darth Wong wrote:I'm not sure what they think real evolution is, but I suspect it's like what they do in Pokemon.

I can only conclude that is precisely how they define "macroevolution" in their heads: Rapid and drastic metamorphosis encompassing a single or very few generations.

CaptJodan · Post by **CaptJodan** » 2007-01-11 10:17am

Darth Raptor wrote: I can only conclude that is precisely how they define "macroevolution" in their heads: Rapid and drastic metamorphosis encompassing a single or very few generations.

It is. This past weekend my dad was on about how he could never believe in evolution because he couldn't believe we came from apes and why weren't fish growing legs and coming out of the water wholesale? Yes, it's your typical "I know jack shit about Evolution" argument. It goes hand in hand with the "And I don't care, because it's wrong so I don't need to investigate and learn it".

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2007-01-11 03:17pm

CaptJodan wrote:
Darth Raptor wrote: I can only conclude that is precisely how they define "macroevolution" in their heads: Rapid and drastic metamorphosis encompassing a single or very few generations.
It is. This past weekend my dad was on about how he could never believe in evolution because he couldn't believe we came from apes and why weren't fish growing legs and coming out of the water wholesale? Yes, it's your typical "I know jack shit about Evolution" argument. It goes hand in hand with the "And I don't care, because it's wrong so I don't need to investigate and learn it".

Look up the so-called "Walking Catfish" and show it to him.

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2007-01-11 03:27pm

The real question is why bother? Just have a rapture, flood the shit out of whatever is left, then repopulate as necessary.

Honestly, God sucks, anyone else with his powers would get his work done in a fraction of the time.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2007-01-11 03:31pm

The real question is why bother?

Being God, I would've simply insta-killed all people whom I don't like (if it's 99% of humanity, so be it) and leave it at that. Then remove the remaining people to a separate settlement for a few years, and make them repopulate the earth. All. No massive damage to my own Earth. No need to concern with stupid solutions, arks and rainbows.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2007-01-11 03:38pm

Stas Bush wrote:
The real question is why bother?
Being God, I would've simply insta-killed all people whom I don't like (if it's 99% of humanity, so be it) and leave it at that. Then remove the remaining people to a separate settlement for a few years, and make them repopulate the earth. All. No massive damage to my own Earth. No need to concern with stupid solutions, arks and rainbows.

You´ve probably never played Sim City. If you had you´d know that destroying your City with earthquakes and volcanoes can be a lot of fun if you´re a sadistic bastard.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2007-01-11 06:48pm

Being both omnipotent and omniscient gets really fucking boring. That's probably why god designed all these crazy ass, area-of-effect methods of killing people, rather than simply stopping their hearts or something.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-01-11 07:33pm

Darth Wong wrote:Naturally, many people have pointed out to them that this theory requires the mechanism of evolutionary speciation, to which they respond "no it doesn't, that's not real evolution". So to recap, when an animal population changes, that's not real evolution. Even if an animal population splits into two species, that's also not real evolution. I'm not sure what they think real evolution is, but I suspect it's like what they do in Pokemon.

Its simple. To them, "real" evolution is godless atheism. The "speciation" after the ark was all caused by God and therefore isn't "real" evolution. As to why God would cause rapid speciation...well...oh look, they're debating stem cell research again. Guick, get to FOXNews to protest, everyone

WarHawk · Post by **WarHawk** » 2007-01-12 11:50pm

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/noah's_ark.htm

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2007-01-13 12:11am

WarHawk wrote:http://www.arkdiscovery.com/noah's_ark.htm

Your link is slightly fscked...

Sam Or I · Post by **Sam Or I** » 2007-01-13 12:46am

Darth Wong wrote: I'm not sure what they think real evolution is, but I suspect it's like what they do in Pokemon.

No, not at all. Thats just how they got all those animals on the boat, with the pokemon balls.

The bible explained through Pokemon, how'd of thought?

Medic · Post by **Medic** » 2007-01-13 01:36pm

Sam Or I wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: I'm not sure what they think real evolution is, but I suspect it's like what they do in Pokemon.
No, not at all. Thats just how they got all those animals on the boat, with the pokemon balls.

The bible explained through Pokemon, how'd of thought?

Your post convinced me to re-read this article on this pokeman-like morphology I dug up about a month ago. This time I went deeper and found a gem pitched by scientists just years after Darwin's Origin basically pitching current creationist and ID-ist claims.

A late 19th century critic of Darwinism and natural selection and for "saltationism" was such (his name's Mivart):

Source wrote:Time and time again Mivart discussed a remarkable trait and then raised the question: How could such a functionally important feature have evolved gradually, through an insensible gradation of intermediates, to its present state? How, for instance, could mammals not only have survived, but multiplied in number and become diverse, if the first mammal had merely possessed a vestige of mammary gland, which, in turn, produced only a drop or tow of milk? How could sexually reproductive organism have persisted generation after generation if, initially, their reproductive organs were merely a hint of their necessary functional states? Turning Darwin's argument of purpose on its head, Mivart asked: How cold anything but the fully formed version of a feature, particularly on that was essential for sustenance of life or procreation, be beneficial to an organism? Using flatfish (soles, flounder) as one of many examples leading to doubting Darwin's assumption, Mivart questioned the advantage of selection causing one of the fish's eyes to be dragged gradually from one side of its head, across the rough sand of the ocean floor, until it reached its present position near the eye that had been on the opposite side of the body. Clearly, on various levels, the notion of gradual change did not make biological sense.

In other words, the long-dead, scientific debate of over a century ago that never did make inroads to Darwinism was scientists arguing for irreducible complexity. Now, we still don't have a generation-by-generation paleontological record but we have found seemingly perfect transitional forms between hippo's and whales, what's really a more reasonable conclusion? That a hippo only ever morphed from one form to the next but at a pace virtually equal to the plodding, gradation that Darwinism predicts or a .... plodding, gradation of change?

I was really disappointed when I read that; I thought maybe Professor Jeffrey Schwartz wasn't actually putting forth ID-type claims, but that it was a genuine scientific debate. It was actually both, but that debate is so long dead because it's virtually indistinguishable from ID claims nowadays that hold no weight and have been dealt with thoroughly.

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2007-01-13 01:49pm

How did all the animals get where they are...interesting story.

Now i was never taught that Genesis was literal fact, more of an folk tale, but i did know some YECs (my first girlfriend's parents) who gave me this version of the story, over dinner if you can believe it. It's almost like Titan AE or something, so dig this...

After the cataclysm, the ship was carried by the waters (which went back up into the bubble of water surrounding the Earth) into space. Yes space. Noah's ark was protected by God from space.

They were eventually put back down as some of the water fell to Earth again, creating the oceans. As theyflew back down...are you ready for this...?

Ok, as they fell down Noah THREW THE ANIMALS AND PLANT SEEDS OUT OF THE ARK...FROM ORBIT...

They landed where they did now and the Ark landed on the mountain, some humans hopped out FROM ORBIT and landed on various continents.

So in conclusion, Noah's Ark was in fact a starship capable of magically powered spaceflight and, prior to the Flood, animal species were vastly stronger as were humans, capable of falling from orbit without injury.

I couldnt make it up if i tried. And i'm a sci-fi author, all i do is write fiction.

Elheru Aran · Post by **Elheru Aran** » 2007-01-13 02:02pm

18-Till-I-Die wrote:(snip insanity)

What the hell?

That has never been seriously espoused by any of the YEC's i know, and trust me, I know a fair few.

Are you sure these guys weren't like Scientologists or something? I know Mormons have some fairly wacky beliefs...

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2007-01-13 02:14pm

Elheru Aran wrote:
18-Till-I-Die wrote:(snip insanity)
What the hell?

That has never been seriously espoused by any of the YEC's i know, and trust me, I know a fair few.

Are you sure these guys weren't like Scientologists or something? I know Mormons have some fairly wacky beliefs...

Frankly i dont know what the fuck they were. Nice people, all told, but that was not even the beginning of the crazy. Generally they were perfuse with a bunch of New Agey shit too like crystals, the continent of Mu, John Edwards, and such.

They claim to be Christians but really your guess is as good as mine.

Elheru Aran · Post by **Elheru Aran** » 2007-01-13 02:18pm

There you go then. Crazy as fuck. The standard Christian crowd would've had absolutely no truck with that bunch, giving them that whole 'they're cool but, umm, we'd rather not see them around...' treatment. They can be quite safely disregarded.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2007-01-13 02:42pm

I know Mormons have some fairly wacky beliefs...

Jesus living on a far away planet with several wives?

That's in fact less ridiculous than some of the mainstream Christiantiy... after all, maybe Jesus was an alien.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2007-01-13 02:51pm

The Ark being a spacecraft like the Titan actually makes more sense than the original story. God should definitely be able to design something like that, and Noah had something like 700 years to build it. Space constraints are no longer a problem when you just have to keep two viable embryos of every plant and animal.

I have actually encountered "Sci-fi Christians" like the ones 18 is talking about. They claimed that the Tower of Babel was some kind of hyper-advanced interplanar transport device, and that humanity literally would have made it to Heaven if God didn't shut the project down. Also, Heaven is a real planet out there somewhere.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2007-01-13 02:54pm

I have actually encountered "Sci-fi Christians" like the ones 18 is talking about.

Heh. I like to think about this idea, that Moses went up to the mountain where an UFO was concealed in smoke. Actually if you make God, Angels etc. spacefaring aliens, the Bible makes more sense...

they're limited in power, but perhaps insanely powerful. The tales of their domination of people on Earth have been transformed into religious myth. Looks like something more plausible than an humanlike, vengeous and sociopathic God floating in the void.