Summations Only

I'm sorry, what? "Evolutionists" have discarded the Theory of Evolution? When did this happen? Why wasn't I told at the big conspiracy meetings? Wait, now I'm really confused. This directly contradicts your above statement.So which is it? Do "evolutionists" discard the theory when they encounter a problem or do they keep looking?

They do however discard problematic theories when presented with alternate theories without any problems. When Einstein explained the precession of Mercury, for example, they abandoned their quest to justify Newton with respect to that phenomenon. When quantum mechanics explained black-body spectra, no-one went on trying to explain them on the basis that energy was not quantized. The heliocentric solar system put an end to the addition of ever more epicycles to the geocentric system. So while it is true that scientists don't abandon an idea just because it has one or two little problems, they'll drop it like a hot brick in favor of an alternate theory which doesn't have any problems.Now, scientists have a theory for why air-breathing organisms aren't dead which is superior to your problematic ideas about the Ark. Their theory is that there never was a global flood. This is superior to your notion in that it has no awkward problems to patch up and anomalies to explain; in that it is borne out by all the evidence; and in that it doesn't involve magic.If you want to make like a scientist, you would adopt this superior theory, abandoning your previous hypothesis with a gladsome cry of: "Oh, I get it ... if Genesis 6-8 is completely wrong, that explains everything!" If you don't do that, then it would be more dignified, not to say less hypocritical, for you to cease to draw parallels between the behavior of scientists and your stubborn adherence to the fables you learned in Sunday School.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Dr AdequateIf you want to make like a scientist, you would adopt this superior theory, abandoning your previous hypothesis with a gladsome cry of: "Oh, I get it ... if Genesis 6-8 is completely wrong, that explains everything!" If you don't do that, then it would be more dignified, not to say less hypocritical, for you to cease to draw parallels between the behavior of scientists and your stubborn adherence to the fables you learned in Sunday School./////Hmmm...
Adopting a new Hypothesis would be appropriate but admitting that Genesis was wrong does not logically follow.Genesis supplies a lot of information that paralells what Science tells us, and is too, too specific and on target to just be pushed under the rug and ignored.There was a mass extinction of all species of man, except our own, 40 thousand years of "days" ago.
Genesis specifically refers to just such an event:Gen. 6:7 And the LORD, (the Reality of the Universe) said, I will destroy man (of these types and species) whom I have created (for the purpose to mentally model my image of Reality), destroy them, (of these types and species), from the face of the earth, (deeming them extinct); both (this species and kind of) man, and (his present abstract idea of) the beast (of the earth), and (his idea of) the creeping thing (of the earth), and (his idea of) the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them (in this process of evolution).That Genesis left out the detail, that these"'days" were thousands of years long, makes literary art clearly at work in by-passing the problematic statement to those ancient readers.
But Genesis does tell us that the survivors came in three racial stocks, please this Noah kind of man, which suggest this refers to Cro-magnon man, perhaps:Gen. 5:32 And Noah, (an archaic type of Homo sapiens forebearer), was five hundred (thousand) years old: and Noah begat (three racial stocks of Modern Homo sapiens); Shem, (Mongolian), Ham, (Negroid), and Japheth, (Caucasian).Genesis also mentions the now confirmed interbreding between our ancestors that accounts for the presence of Neanderthal genes in all men living today, (with some exception for Africans).Gen. 6:4 There were giants, (Homo Erectus, two species, Methuselahian and Methusaelian), in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God, (the Methusaelian Homo erectus), came in unto the daughters of men, (Lamechian Homo antecessors, and even Neanderthal), and they bare (Neanderthal) children to them, the same became mighty men, (hybrids preceding the advent of Archaic Homo Sapiens, Cro-Magnon man), which were of old, men of renown.These rather scientifically supported statements in Genesis implies a new hypothsis ought refer to whatthe church has been explaining in regard to they way they understand genesis.The "flood" seems more likely to refer to people, us, flooding Out-of-Africa.
This is actually a Scientific Hypothesis called by the name of "Noah's Ark:"www. anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htmThe replacement model of Christopher Stringer and Peter Andrews:
This hypothesis is also referred to as the "out of Africa", "Noah's ark" and "African replacement" model.All other lines of humans that had descended from Homo erectus presumably became extinct. From this view, the regional anatomical differences that we see among humans today are recent developments--evolving mostly in the last 40,000 years.Using this different Hypothesis, one can add that the "Ark" that actually carried all the names and visions of the animals Out-of-Africa 40 thousand years of "days and nights" ago was the Skull of modern men:

So... Noah built the skull of modern men? Was Noah an ape? Or did he use a rib and is Noah actually God Himself? This seems incredibly strange and really stretching the story.I mean, if the story is going to be used as a metaphor, there are metaphors that are much better. Like having the story be about a local flood instead of a global one. That makes a lot of sense, and barely stretches anything. But having Noah be the creator of modern brain anatomy? That just doesn't make any sense at all, and stretches the story beyond all reasonable limitations.No. There was never a global flood, "all animals" were never herded onto an ark, and Noah is likely entirely fictitious.
It does make for a good children's story, though.

stile:So... Noah built the skull of modern men? Was Noah an ape? Or did he use a rib and is Noah actually God Himself? This seems incredibly strange and really stretching the story.I mean, if the story is going to be used as a metaphor, there are metaphors that are much better. Like having the story be about a local flood instead of a global one. That makes a lot of sense, and barely stretches anything. But having Noah be the creator of modern brain anatomy? That just doesn't make any sense at all, and stretches the story beyond all reasonable limitations.No. There was never a global flood, "all animals" were never herded onto an ark, and Noah is likely entirely fictitious.
It does make for a good children's story, though.//////////kofh2u:The story was written in a way that it would be acceptable to early audiences yet in a style that encouraged popularity and common retelling from memory just so it would reach us, today, in this Age when knowledge abounds and men run to and fro so easily, able to see the analogy clearly:Dan. 12:4 But thou, Daniel, shut up the words (of the Old Testament), and seal the book (read by many concerned with death and hell; [Rev 1:18]), even to (2K25AD), the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, (traveling freely by land, sea, and even air), and knowledge (in the Information Age) shall be increased and become great. The story used a measure to Scale that pretty much fits over the entire Central Nervous System where the visions of all the animals would all so easily becarried into the nextAge by theonly survivors of a mass extinction of humanoids.

If that scale were correct, that would make the average human spine over 4 feet long.Let's call your claims what they are: bunk.

Hi Jzyehoshua, Sure there is, all you have to do is read the blueprint.

quote:

---

Genesis 6:14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

​

6:15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

​

6:16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.

---

The ark was to be 550' long, 91' wide and 55' high. That means that it would be the shape of a rectangler box.It would have a main deck that would be 44' from the exterior bottom, and that is where the door would be placed.That means the ark could have a 40' draft more or less leaving 15' above the water.You would have 3 floors below the main deck plus the bottom. Thus you would have 5 floors of 50,050 sq ft with a total of 250,250 sq ft.
The ark would contain 2,752,750 cubit feet.Rooms was to have been built on all these floors which would have provided all verticle and horizontal bracing needed to keep the ark together, from the exterior pressure.Over 18 acres of storage space can be put in the ark. I have been waiting for over 2 years for someone to give me a list of creatures needed to accomplish replenishing the earth with none forthcoming.Recently a 6 story wood frame building withstood a 7.5 earthquake with little damage. The footprint was much smaller than that of the ark.The world's largest wood frame building is the nine-story, 30-meter-tall Stadthaus tower in London.The ark was not a boat and that ark would float.God Bless,

Or it could have been an ellipsoid, like a submarine, which would make more sense. If that building could float, it would be relevant to the topic. Actually, the ark's large footprint is the problem, not the solution. It's so long that it would "hang" between wave crests, flex and eventually break - if it didn't leak itself to death first.

Well, no, it doesn't. I could certainly measure and record your height, width, and depth front-to-back but that would not indicate that your body was in the shape of a rectangular box, now would it?Specifying dimensions and specifying shape are two completely different things.

Hi ringo, Show me anywhere in the blueprint that that there would be one place that the ark would not be 300 cubits long.Show me anywhere in the blueprint that there would be any place where the ark would not be 50 cubits wide.Show me anywhere in the bluepring that there would be any place where the ark would not be 30 cubits high.

quote:

---

Genesis 6:14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

​

6:15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

​

6:16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.

---

The wood structure withstood the pressure of a 7.5 earthquake. That is a lot of stress for a wood building.The ark had to withstand a lot of stress according to what YEC'S and most here believe the flood produced. Problem is there is no evidence for any of the wild claims made concerning the flood. How tall are these waves you are talking about and what caused them?There are ocean going barges 459 feet long today traversing the oceans and surviving.You probably never had a boat built out of cypress wood. If you build it out of dry wood you have to leave 1/4 inch cracks between the boards because when it gets wet it swells and will buckle it they are placed too close together.God Bless,

Truer words have never been spoken.

Hi crash, There was no place the ark was not 300 cubits long, no place it was not 50 cubits wide and no place it was not 30 cubits high.Show me one place where the blueprint changed the dimensions.If there was no place I was not 5' 9" high, no place I was not 19" wide and no place I was not 13" thick I would be the shape of a rectangular box.God Bless,

Show me where it says that in the Bible. True. But simply describing your height as 5'9" is not the same as making the claim that there's no place where you're not 5'9".

How much stress is it? and where is it concentrated?

It isn't a blueprint. It's a vague description. The dimensions given - length, width and height - could apply to an ellipsoid just as well as a box. They don't have to be very high. A few feet would be enough to cause a fairly large differential in bouyancy from end to end of the ark. That would produce stresses in the structure causing the wood to flex and the joints to work loose. Wooden ones?