If Noah's Ark was found how would that alter the evolution theory? Maybe a better question would be... Would the discovery alter the evolution theory?
Yes. But not on a belief scale. It would alter it through the animals and plant life associated with it. Dating would be meticulous. Genetic testing horrendous. Just from the scat we could establish what a monkey looked like at that time. Carbon 14 at a minimum would give us perfect timing within a season. Maybe find traces of humans on things like clothe or even retrieved blood droppings.
But you know what, I do not think it would alter it one bit because it is so vague of a theory. We evolve no doubt but the parameters are yet to be discoverd.
It would not alter the theory of evolution because there is no way two of every animal and bug alive would fit on any boat and certainly not the size of the boat described, which is about half the size of a modern cruise ship. Even if it were possible the genetic gene poor from two of a species would not be enough to allow the species to survive. Just forget about the ark, It's nothing but a religious threat to keep humans in line.
Yes, the ark had massive sex exchanges and then all animals evolved from dinosaurs.
Almost every ancient culture has a flood story. Why not Noah? Why couldn't he have collected two of every animal in what he perceived as the whole world? Why couldn't he have floated for what felt like forty days and nights? Have you ever seen what some people call a mountain? They are puny. Why couldn't his boat have landed on one as the waters receded.
Nothing about it is far fetched; when you take into account how a story grows and changes in the retelling over the course of generations.
Do you have any idea of how many species of bugs exist in just one square mile or kilometre never mind the larger mammals and reptilians. And as I said before two of any species would not be enough for the species to survive. There would also be genetic evidence if they had managed to propagate the species.
It's simply not possible no matter how you look at it. Sure there have always been local floods, but nothing that covers everything for days. No plants would survive for the animals to eat after the flood. It truly is a ridiculous notion.
So all insects and plants including bees drowned over night and then just reappeared after the flood?
I don't know? Why not? Can they not come back to life via the evolution theory? After all the components of what made them what they were might have still existed. Very drowned ones maybe, but using those drowned components evolution might have done it's thing, only quicker.
A couple of billion years of evolution to produce the proper diversity of bugs and you think it can happen again in a few thousand?
What do you think would happen to all the dead plants and trees with no bees?
Why not? How do we know the species that exist today were not new species? In turkey that is. Do we know what species existed immediately after the flood? Could they have been imported like the animals we have here now, that did not exist when our ancients were alive?
That would depend on whether the trees and plants actually died. Would depend on their roots. Also too how much room would a bee need in the Ark?
It's a story radman. I'm not sure it's meant to be taken so literally. Did it say anything about bug collecting? And think about it logically. Take a guy. An ancient. No car. Maybe a camel or two. Doesn't go more than a kilometer or two away from his tent in his lifetime. So, maybe he does catch two of every animal he is aware of and puts them on his ark. Let's say he lives in the Shenandoah valley. It floods as far as he can see. That is his whole world. The waters recede, everybody exits the ark and he thinks he and the other inhabitants repopulate the world. And neither he or his descendants, for a few generations, encounter other humans. Was there a world wide flood? Did he save the world? If not, does it negate the fact that his descendants believe he did so strongly that they wrote a story to commemorate it?
A point to ponder. Every culture had a flood story. Why did this particular one survive all these thousands of years while others got lost and refound? Humanity could have chosen any of the ancient myths to carry forward into the modern world, but they choose this one, along with the rest of the Bible. Do you ever wonder why?
Why do you tell me it's just a story and then tell me it may have happened?
Someone on here told me their grandfather cured their father of Polio with spit. She was told this as a young child and she still believes it. Does it make it real? No.
But, are you denying that her father was spit on?
I'm sure her father is a very nice man. But according to the tail he was spit on by his own father.
A very likely scenario. I believe some Greeks do it often. As a matter of fact, I convinced the kids it wasn't mommy's kiss that made the boo boos better. I told them it was magic spit that women got when they had a child. You'd be surprised how fast the tears dried up when I offered to spit on the neighbors kids. And mine started laughing and forgot the pain. Very magical. Maybe a miracle even.
They did things like that in the days. Menstrual discharge from a woman was used to heal broken bones in the aborigine culture.
I really like the idea that "it is impossible". It most assuredly is.
Exactly, every culture has a flood story. Just read the Epic of Gilgamesh, which is earlier than Noah. The ancient Sumerians called it "The Deluge" instead of the flood. I think there probably was a flood, but it would have been a regional flood driven by environmental change.
How could it be a threat to keep people in line?
Rad man, Your argument is complete if you just say No God exist, it would satisfy every aspect of your argument and each and every one will understand and accept the position you are coming from...
There is no need to qualify and re-qualify that argument.
But the Story did include God, which means that anything that one may choose to include become a real possibility. So therefore all the natural and physical constraints you present as an argument is already Moot.
For all who believes the story do so because they have already accepted that God is beyond and above any and all physical/natural constraints.
And I am convinced that neither you nor them is really interested in hashing out that age old argument for the umpteenth time.
To all those people who believe that story I'd like to open a trust fund in my name and offer you to put $1000 into that trust fund so as to bless you because I have the power to heal and heal I will for $1000.
The story is believable because it is true....
Pity you cant benefit from that....worth far more than dollars
Of course it's true. You God wiped out every living thing including plants, tree and insects including bees to kill a few people. Sure he could have just killed the people himself, but that's not how he rolls. Do you know what happens without bees and plants?
Yep,Thats why you cant believe..
your only have eyes is so filled with death that it is impossible for you to see Life in anything.....
if you knew the cleansing power of water, you flood your eyes with it that you may see....
But as it stand you are in danger of drowning for what is meant for Life you will believe it to be death and death it would be unto you....
Who can save the man that has no desire to be saved...?
Not even God from heaven, what so ever you perceive him to be.
There's no way anyone will find any evidence of a fictional ark. Cute story by the way.
Check it out, early days yet but makes one think. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io3P2b68DHk
It only makes a certain type of person think. Reality is wondrous enough for some of us.
So archaeology does not make you think? Ok.
LOL Not that YouTube nonsense - no.
Genuine archaeology is fascinating though. Bit too difficult to understand for some it seems. I don't blame you - learning is hard.
I don't disagree with you there. Learning can be difficult for some.
So anything on you tube is nonsense? Or is just stuff that does not align with your perceptions of how you understand things?
No - just the stuff that is nonsense. Which is probably stuff that aligns with your lack of discernment. Certainly the easy option is to not question anything at all. That way you don't have to learn anything.
I don't blame you - learning is hard.
Did you actually watch the link? If archaeology is nonsense to you, makes no difference to me.
How is it that a seemingly intelligent man like you can arrive at the assumptions that you have?
Questioning before assuming is not only easy but very useful in discussions.
What discernment might you be referring to? What is it I must learn in your opinion?
Nothing for you to learn. You stick with the easy option. If you think that YouTube video is actual archaeology - go with that. Odd you think that my considered judgement is an assumption. This would be where the discernment comes in and if you prefer the easy option.....
As I said - I don't blame you at all. Learning is hard. It must be very frustrating for you that others make a considered judgements that you need to put down as "assumptions."
Haha, I don't know whether you intend to be funny but you are.
Considered judgement based on what? Hubpages reading? And you think youtube is an easy option lol
So be it, I can do little about your considered judgement lol.
I like that you are entertaining but we are now way off topic.
Way off what topic? The fact you asked the question in the first place speaks volumes. Clearly you have not bothered to do any research. If you had - you wouldn't have asked this question.
As I said. I don't blame you. Learning is hard.
The topic is not about me or how you perceive me. It is about Noah's Ark. If you have nothing to contribute regarding your opinion about Noahs Ark. Why not leave it at that?
If you would rather talk about me, what would be the point? You have already arrived at your own conclusions and there is little I can do about that. In other words, it makes no difference to me what you conclude about me. It will only ever make a difference to you.
Oh sorry - I already did that and you told me I was making an assumption and rejected any input I may have had as being my perception only. Guess you are not really interested in learning or other people's input after all. Just looking for a fight huh?
I don't blame you - learning is hard.
What input was that, about how you perceive me? Fight about what? Now you make no sense?
I wonder if you actually read what you or anyone else writes. Apparently not. Too lazy to go back and see what you wrote at me after I gave you my input? Figures.
Lol If that was what you call input. Ok so be it.
There you go - stick with denigrating my opinion and not bothering to learn anything. I don't blame you - learning is hard.
Denigrating? From such a simple and clear statement, how on earth did you arrive at that?
I am trying to learn how you arrive at the conclusions that you do and failing miserably. I agree, it is hard.
Couldn't be bothered to go back and read what you said huh? I don't blame you. Learning is hard. Bet you never have these issues in your real life.
The story will be modified, but nay sayers will be nay sayers and they will hold fast op the old stories or embellish new ones just so that they can remain naysayers...
Here is a fantastic site concerning the foold and evalution http://www.answersingenesis.org. I like the viedeos.
Interesting what he says about the dinosaurs. In one breath he says the dinosaur was created on the sixth day then in another breath that some were found fossilised and some were found with flesh etc making it impossible for them to have come from before the flood? Was he meaning that the fleshy ones were from the ark?
Yes the earth is about 6000 years old and belivers fill up on fossil fuel on their way tto church. Good one.
This was what really happened. The story has just kept being exaggerated over the years.
There is no reason to take the flood story literally and no evidence that it occurred in the manner that literalists insist. It is well established that the greatest danger to early civilisations was from localised flooding, and just about every population group around the world has an ancient flood myth. But that's no reason to assume that every myth describes the same flood.
It is quite conceivable that Noah and his family were real people who experienced a catastrophic flood in their valley/lands/territory, and that just about all his people were killed. It is conceivable that he lived by a large river and had constructed a large raft/boat some time before. It is conceivable that during some monsoon he went around collecting up his livestock and a few other wild animals and put them on his 'ark'.
Much of Genesis was written during the exile of the Jews to Babylon and Persia. In that time we should not be surprised if they were influenced by Babylonian and Persian beliefs and legends, and swapped stories around the campfire. So we should not be surprised if the Jews perhaps lacking a flood account themselves, assimilated the Epic of Gilgemesh and adapted it to their belief systems, changing a few details of the story along the way. A few thousand years later several million evangelist Christians take a legend literally and formulate a load of pseudo scientific ideas to make it 'real'.
"A few thousand years later several million evangelist Christians take a legend literally and formulate a load of pseudo scientific ideas to make it 'real'." Amazing what brainwashing does. If you tell someone a lie (the more outragious the better) over and over, eventually they'll believe you.
Perhaps it would be prudent for you to go back and read the account of Noah and his family. I just did. The reason many believe it to be a true story is because it's written as a true story.
"This is the account of Noah and his family." is how it starts. The word account describes how it should be taken as it doesn't say story of Noah and his family. The account continues with "13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth." Doesn't seem like a loving or forgiving God to me. Notice that God plans on destroying ALL people and the earth.
Further in the account "2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.” You will notice that the word earth is used as opposed to region and he want to wipe the earth of every living creature that he's made.
So when you say that it's possible it was just a regional flood you are attempting to justify your question regarding the ridiculousness of the earth surviving a flood as described in the account. It is simply not possible as described in the account to fit every creature in a boat that size. And furthermore it's not possible to repopulate the entire earth with trees and plants with just a few bees.
I was replying to DH, but your certainly welcome to comment.
I think Rad Man, the point they are trying to make is that what may have just been a regional flood was given grandiose importance. Embellished, if you will, like many fables, but then written to be an all-encompassing "truth." In other words yes it is false, but it could simply be an embellishment of a real occurence (no connection to God really necessary).
Once we establish it's not an actual account and God wasn't involved, what do we have left and how does this effect the rest of the bible? Are they all just stories? To many hold onto this as being factual, they through out all common sense in an attempt to justify and rationalize the bible.
Try not to get hung up on the God element. We all know natural disasters occur. If the ancients attributed it to God's intention it is just how they perceived it.
Well of course, Rad. For centuries the fear of this God has been driven into people. "You dare not question the Bible or badmouth the God within it's pages lest you be struck by lightning or with disease!!" It is that fear, mixed with humanity's gullibility(surprising that's a word) and a number of other factors that perpetuates such fables as truth. They make emotional decisions that they later back up with "facts" and believe they've used reason. In a way they have, but, it's complicated and certainly not true critical thinking.
I doubt there was a world wide flood as was described in the bible. We don't have a flood story and our lineage and the stories attached to it goes way back to our source. The people of Noah's time may have perceived their country as being the whole earth. Or the people who wrote the bible many hundred years later (or however many years later it came into being) interpreted the original story incorrectly.
I cannot completely rule the 'whole world flood' event out, even though I doubt it. As there seems to be a lot of evidence of other cities or part thereof, under water along coast lines all over the world that would indicate a major world wide flood did occur at some stage. In saying that, it could have been waters naturally rising. No one knows.
If that archaeological find is not Noah's Ark it may still have been built to survive a flood?
I being a Christian believe that Noah's ark is real and because of personal experiences and choice I believe it not because someone brainwashed me. Any who I think the discovery of the ark kinda makes the theory of evolution invalid if it ever was valid. Since its called a "theory" has it ever been actually confirmed (forgive my ignorance).
Suggest you do a search and just a little reading to find out what scientists consider a "theory" - it is not the wild guess unsupported by anything that many people take it as.
As far as it being confirmed, there are thousands upon thousands of bits of evidence supporting it. Whereas the tale of Noah has exactly one - the story written thousands of years ago of physically impossible events that destroyed life on earth.
You, and everyone else, then have a choice - study and learn about the "theory" of evolution or quickly and easily read of impossible events from people millenia ago. Choose which version makes the most sense to you, or which is the easiest to learn about, or which makes you feel better inside. However you make your choice, it remains your choice to make.
"I being a Christian believe that Noah's ark is real and because of personal experiences..."
Cuz you were like totally on that boat, dood.
"Tell Me Lies, tell me sweet little lies
~Tell Me Lies, Tell me tell me lies~
Oh no no, you can't disguise
~You can't disguise, no you can't disguise~
Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies"
A quote of course.
Do you do logic?
Oh the beauty in such balance. Please let me know no truth but let me accept Lady Wisdoms suggestions.
The wonderment of our faith in the "ark" is our testament to belief in things impossible for man yet routine for God
The wonderment is our ability to believe any nonsense provided it is said in earnestly. Dale Carnegie wrote about a time when people believed a person who said there are blue grasses.
What I don't I understand is how people can believe that a merciful god killed nearly all humans including innocent children and animals.
That is just too funny riddle666 - there are blue grasses. I do not know if the existed pre Noah.
Kentucky blue is real and it is blue and there are others.
Nothing to do with Noah. It was one of his public speaking seminars, a student when asked to make a speech said about putting some fertilizer (or something similar to that, which I can't remember) that made the grasses green.When he was pointed out that it was not possible he repeated it with such passion and vehemence that some of the other students believed him.
Ha ha ha ha.
The name Kentucky Bluegrass derives from its flower heads, which are blue when the plant is allowed to grow to its natural height of two to three feet.
Great research data. Have you ever seen the whole field of blue waving back and forth in the wind on a sunny day, atop your horse? Or have you laid in it staring up at the clouds. The grass is far more blue than green.
But you make the point perfectly -- if all you do is collect data through info systems rather than your own -- Noah could not have existed to you.
What "systems" can we use to collect data pertinent to the tale of Noah?
Certainly not the bible - although we can use our eyes to see it, there is no real "data" in the book.
Human systems. Not empirical systems. Such very valid systems such as intuition, faith and belief.
Wow- you defended your irrational beliefs with such a knee jerk reaction, I felt like hugging you. Intuition is some what different to faith and belief.
I have strong intuition, because I understand where it comes from. Faith an irrational beliefs in majik are not the same thing at all.
But systems such as intuition, faith and belief provide zero data. Lots of emotional attachment to the belief, but no data.
Is that how we determine that Noah's ark story is true and actual? By means of intuition, foregoing any data in favor of believing whatever we want to?
Wilderness, because those systems provide you with no data does not mean they do not. I can tell how someone is feeling without using in of my 5 ordinary senses. Because your systems are non extistant does not mean mine are. And emotions are a different system. We are talking about Noah here. I have a sense that there was some kind of dude like that.
Well if you have a sense, then it must be correct. The problem is I have a sense that you are wrong and there was no dude like that. My senses nullify your senses.
Yes - that is the problem with these so-called "senses". There is never any independent verification possible and thus they can never be verified as correct. They are emotional "feelings" rather than data, and are useless for determining reality - they can only help determine personal perception of reality, which may or may not have a connection with truth.
Then, by definition, you have ESP - extra sensory perception. A sense beyond an different from the 5 that all people have.
I doubt that that is true, however - instead you filter what data there is through your experiences, through your emotional wants and desires, and come up with what you want to be true. This "sense" then tells you it is true, but not necessarily "true" in that it is solidly connected with reality. Instead it has a connection only to your own, very subjective, perception of reality.
I've got Kentucky blue grass in my back yard. It's green, unless you are color blind.
The account of Noah in the bible is a complete fabrication. And it's a good thing to because it would indicate that your God committed genocide, which does not seem like a good thing to put on a resume.
Look at where we got the whole notion regarding blue grass. The student was correct, if you change the nutrients you can change the nature of the color of pigment in a plant. I would suggest you are lacking iron and phosphates in your grasses dirt.
But again that brings us to the nature of Noah's Ark. Fairy tale perhaps. But it is what you view the story though that determines its validity. The nutrients I ingest allow me to see it for what it is. If they found the ark, it would not change my perception.
Rad Man, your senses nullify my senses for you, not for me. But in general I see your point. I suppose that is why back in Noah's time it required 3 witnesses to put a man to death.
Not to mention that you have a sense that Noah existed because you were told he did. If you were never told he existed you would not have had that sense.
Rad Man, no one ever ever told me Noah and the ark existed -- thanks for making me realize that.
That is correct. Everything we see as truth and reality is always filtered through our own wants and desires, through the five sense we all posses, and through all of an accumulated lifetime of experiences. Any cop on the beat will tell you that the worst evidence in the world is an eyewitness account - 5 eyewitnesses will "see" 5 different things.
Well this ex private cop will tell you more. Ask a great eyewitness 5 times and you will also hear 5 different things -- add into the mix five different ways of asking and it grows huge.
The accounts of Noah and his love for animals and a huge boat is really cool. But the best version ever is Bill Cosby's sometime in the 60s.
There you go, you heard it from Bill way back in the 60s. Be honest please.
Hah! We agree here, at least - I've got Bill's version on vinyl and it's great. Judging from Bill's story of Noah, though, Noah had no love of animals after the ordeal.
Rad Man, I suppose you may be right Bill swears his story is true? And Bills' Noah hates animals and was plenty pissed at God. But definitely never heard it in church. Except maybe my dad gave me Bills's.
My brother stole my vinyl. WHAT NOW God!!!
I think this makes it clear. Noah and the Ark are official. Officially what -- well I do not know.
by Murphy4 years ago
Is the story of Noah's Ark a Myth or Truth?Think about that logically and rationally, not emotionall or spiritually.. Is the story of Noah's Ark a Myth? Can you imagine how big that boat had to be in order to house 2...
by secretmemoir7 years ago
Given that there are over a million species described how would you fit them on a boat? Even if you were to take only the mammals, you're looking at a minimum of 5000 described species - in pairs (plus all their...
by Dan Harmon7 years ago
I've always been intrigued with the biblical story of Noah and the ark, so I thought I would examine what might have happened at that time.First of all, some assumptions were necessary. In the immortal words of...
by Mark Knowles8 years ago
Please keep out of this thread unless you are Mark Knowles or Gardner Osagie.We have both decided on a formal debate, structured as follows:Three rounds of:The Affirmative always goes first(that would be Gardner)Then...
by marinealways248 years ago
Can you explain without faith how Noah's ark is logical without using faith?Did they have the dino's on Noah's Ark?Logic tells me that noahs ark is faith based. I mean, did the dino's wait in the single file line to...
by Writer Fox3 years ago
No matter who you are, your ancestry is traced from Noah and his wife. This is where your family tree begins. Could this be Noah's Ark?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7iycpe16V0
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.