patrick.net

Kevin says

I wish I could figure out some way to fit two of every living land animal into a 1.5M cubic foot boat.

I find it really weird how people try to find scientific justifications for their religious beliefs.

no reason to feel that any of the animals carried on the ark were full grown ... except Noah and his family. No need for them to be full grown, I don't think. Plus, there were only a few specialized breeds within any species. No need for anything but the base models to create more.

mammals could have all been young and small.
birds and reptiles could have all been eggs.
swimming things were ok

I dunno .... not too tuff to fit everything on a boat. Plus, lets not forget, God is into doing things in a manner that messes with science!

marcus says

Are you okay with evolution of other animals such as horses and other primates, but not man?

selective breeding - yes
morphing DNA that results in a new species and the old species keeps going along just fine - nope

That's what I come up with using my mind and reading what I can find. But, I'll ask Peter when I hit the gates!! lol

liv4ever says

The ark (Heb., te·vah′; Gr., ki·bo·tos′) was a rectangular chestlike vessel presumably having square corners and a flat bottom. It needed no rounded bottom or sharp bow to cut rapidly through the water; it required no steering; its only functions were to be watertight and to stay afloat. A vessel so shaped is very stable, cannot be easily capsized, and contains about one third more storage space than ships of conventional design.

The ammonia smell must have been overpowering. Did it have abundant exhaust fans?

Not to mention shoveling all that literal crap. Too much for a dozen people or so.

What about the bees and ants? Not only do you need a colony, not just a Queen and her mate, but for bees, flowers for sure.

Don't hummingbirds and other creatures need living flowers for nectar?

What did the carnivorous animals eat? Many will only eat a fresh kill.

No refrigeration mentioned, so how did the meat for the carnivorous animals not spoil for 40 days?

Why are there only koalas in Australia, separated from the main Asian land mass by sea, but no koalas in India or SE Asia or elsewhere?

liv4ever says

Queen Elizabeth 2... Titanic

Both are boats made of metal and screw-driven. Naval Architecture isn't my strong point, but I think it's reasonable to assume that no BC era boat design could be so large using ancient methods.

Even the great Naos of the Portugese and the biggest Galleons of the Spanish would have been dwarfed by the Ark. The Golden Hind of Francis Drake would be a fraction of the size of the Ark.

Who manned the bilge? Noah and all his sons must have been full time at them, assuming it floated at all.

Again, attempts at scientific justification for bible stories is amusing.

It wouldn't matter one tiny bit how big the boat was, how large the animals are, whether they're in suspended animation, or whatever. God was in control.

Why do you feel the need to try to find scientific reasoning here? You're already starting from a world view that says that a divine being not only exists, but created the earth and man in its present form, talks to people from burning bushes, can bring the dead back to life, and has performed who knows how many other works that can't possibly be explained by actual science.

Is this some desire to not be seen as backwards and ignorant amongst educated people? Because, no matter what you do, that is going to happen anyway. You're not going to convince anybody that you're right and you're not going to be accepted as making a rational argument.

I just don't understand. If you want to believe that there's a magical being who created life on earth more or less as it exists today, go right ahead and do that. If such were true, there would clearly be no value in learning the truth of the universe anyway, because the bible has already told you how everything works.

"plausible" -- at a stretch. "concrete"? Not really. Far to many "mights" "could possibly" and circular references to the bible itself.

"Actual science" means using the scientific method. Testing a hypothesis. Performing experiments. Looking at anecdotal evidence and deciding that that must have been what the Bible is referring to is not science.

How on earth can you claim that Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein disagree with me? Newton was certainly ignorant (we only knew a fraction of what we know now). Einstein was not a creationist. Let me guess -- did you find one of the misattributed quotes about christianity and god and think he did?

I have little problem with people who choose to believe in a higher power in a broad sense, and I'll even accept people who want to believe in the divinity of jesus if they keep it out of the classroom and congress, but creationism is pure and utter bullshit no matter how you slice it.

There are certainly plenty of scientists who are christians. Not a credible one is a creationist though. I think they're misguided and are simply clinging to tradition, but they aren't going around trying to convince everyone that the earth is 6000 years old and that god created man, so they're fine.

Yeah, like I said: Not a creationist.

I don't know why I'm even arguing with you.