The poster with the t rex swimming in the flood with the ark in the background gave me a chuckle. It's over two hours long, though.
https://www.tvguide.com/a/img/resize/fe9a1b861b5b59ba27d7e9f2e05c4a5dc840267c/catalog/provider/1/2/1-14178007921.jpg?auto=webp&fit=crop&height=675&width=1200
Unintentionally hilarious?
Can it get any more hilarious than the original story as told?
If you want to hear a real thigh-slapper, have you heard about the academics who take evolution seriously and think "facts" are determined by voting and forming a consensus?
shareNowhere near as funny as the folks who ignore all facts and base their beliefs on a book of ancient myths. I mean how much funnier can you get than the famous "Ark Encounter"?
shareIt's not just academics. Scientists who work in the private sector generally agree, too. LOL.
shareI'd think something that can and is observed has a fairly decent shot at being taken seriously.
A story about all the worlds animals lining up in pairs and dutifully marching onto a boat to hang out for a year or so is a bit more of a stretch.
its about as funny as people that think we evolved from nothing.
shareNo one says we evolved from nothing.
Propping up straw men to knock back down is fun isn't it?
did you say abiogenesis? LOL
shareI didn't say abiogenesis.
But speaking of . . . that's not an example of coming from "nothing."
If you, or the other poster, asserted that the claim is made that we evolved from non living materials then fine, abiogenesis. But there were starting materials, so that's not coming from "nothing."
Jesus.
You evolved from Homo Stupidus.
shareWell at least they explain the extinction of the dinosaurs. No way was Noah stupid enough to put a couple of T Rex's on the Ark!🤣
shareGood point.
shareAnd even a brontosaurus or another "good" dinosaur would be too large to be practical.
Now, let me just say I'm an atheist and I don't believe the story of Noah's ark to be literally true. Though it may have been symbolic.
But merely because the story says Noah took two of every animal, practically, there would be many he couldn't gather due to geography or available space. Many species would have perished in the flood.
Come on, you can do better than that.
It would make sense would it not, to take juvenile mammals such as a 'T Rex' aboard the Ark - thus easier to manage, less food, less space.
The 'great flood' is a reality, and the evidence is in abundance should you wish to find it, you are free to choose.
If you would like to know the truth, then may I suggest you start with 'Is Genesis History?' (YouTube).
*
T Rex is extinct though. So is every other giant land animal. I think the Flood would be a great explanation if I were a believer.
T Rex is extinct though. So is every other giant land animal
Extinction doesn't prove they were not on the Ark, heck the Dodo was probably on board!
All DNA sequences needed to make every 'kind' of air-breathing animal was on board the Ark, but not all species were onboard, just the source code stored within a particular 'kind' pair.
A time is coming when all will be revealed, we are not there yet, but it's coming, and then the inhabitants of the earth will need to make a choice, it will be the great separation event = the 'wheat and the tares' (Matthew 13:24-30).
*
All dinosaur species went extinct about 65 million years ago with the exception of birds. Likely due to a meteor striking the planet and changing the climate. No global flood.
shareI will leave you with this rather interesting dichotomy...
...a number of years ago, astrophysicists reached the conclusion that because there was terrestrial scarring on the planet Mars, the planet at some point must have been subject to 'global flooding' of some kind, despite not a single drop of water ever been found.
However, when they look at the earth, a planet 2/3 full of water, any notion of a 'global flood' is immediately dismissed as theological nonsense.
Do you not see the foolishness?
Oh, and one final thing, if dinosaurs really did become 'extinct about 65 million years ago' - then can you tell me how palaeontologist Mary Higby Schweitzer discovered soft tissue remains on a T-Rex specimen?
Look it up, if you're not familiar with it, peer reviewed, observable, testable, and photographed, yet this would be impossible if the remains were '65 million years old.'
*
Well the dinosaurs and all sorts of other animals are extinct. Why would the flood not be the reason for that?
Also, it's foolish to take the Bible too literally. It's gone through several translations. And Noah's "two of very kind" could be a generalization. He didn't have to collect every wild rat, venomous snake and termite in order to make the story true.
You are confusing 'kind' with 'species' - these are not the same.
Noah didn't have to 'collect every wild rat' - just 2 of the rodent 'kind' - and within that 'kind' contains all the necessary DNA sequence coding to create all the many 'species' of rodents.
Kind = a group of animals of various species that are able to reproduce with one another, so for instance a lion and a tiger are a different species, but of the same 'cat kind' - and so can reproduce and create a 'liger.'
As for it being 'foolish to take the Bible literally' - well the Bible is written in a number of different styles, historical, allegorical, poetic and apocalyptic, and so there are times when the Bible is literal, and other times it is not, it's all about context.
*
I'm just saying this strict literalist interpretation that Noah preserved every "kind" is silly. There were many animals which were probably just too impractical to keep so they were allowed to perish.
Members of the same genus can't interbreed. Generally ones which do produce infertile offspring. When you say "kind" do you mean genus? For example, a horse and a zebra can breed but they create infertile offspring. Even a black rat and a brown rat can't reliably breed and produce fertile offspring.
If I was a creationist, it would be obvious to me that dinosaurs, woolly mammoths, saber-toothed tigers and such were killed off in the flood.
Your interpretation of who God is, and what He is capable of doing is perhaps alittle too narrow. 'Impractical' is nothing to an infinite God, if He decides He will save all the 'kinds' of creatures.
Again, all you need are pairs of babies m/f to breed, not some full sized adult mammoths for instance, babies.
What many forget is that God was front and centre when the rain came, He had a deep covenant with Noah, but it was God who shut the door, not Noah.
*
There was not enough room in Genesis to give a complete list of animals. It's literature, the Bible speaks in generalities. When it says "two of every kind" it doesn't mean Noah dug up every species of cricket. Don't be too literal.
It's very reasonable to believe that the mass extinctions of many animals were due to the flood.
Again you are confusing what i said, I never said Noah 'dug up every species of cricket' - JUST 2 of its 'kind,' a male and a female.
I'm not sure why you keep confusing 'kinds' with 'species' - Noah didn't need every 'species,' just every 'kind' - thus lowering the amount of creatures needed on the Ark exponentially.
So, 2 cat 'kinds' for instance is all that's needed to produce the 41 species that we have today, as all the DNA code sequencing was embedded within the 2 cat pair on the Ark.
In regards to the 'flood' itself, YES it was indeed a kind of 'mass extinction' event, as the world was 'filled with violence' (Genesis 6:11) - so all creatures left on land would have died, hence why we have billions of fossils in the geological column.
In addition, there was of course the 'Nephilim' - GIANTS (Genesis 6:4) - which were a hybrid species resulting from 'relations' between earthly women and 'fallen angels' - which is a whole different subject, but to summarise, the Nephilim were killed in the flesh during the 'flood' - BUT their spirits survived, and are what we call today 'demons' - this is why demons strive to 'posses' humans, because they are disembodied spirits in need of bodily form.
*
I'm a scientist. I work with scientific terms. In biology we have genus and species.
For example, there is the genus Panthera which includes lions, tigers and leopards. A lion is a separate species and a tiger is a separate species. Members of the same genus generally cannot produce fertile offspring. This can only be done in a lab. Tigers and lions can produce offspring, a liger, but it is usually infertile.
So no, one cat would not suffice. Noah needed two lions, two tigers, two leopards, blah blah blah.
"Kind" in the Bible refers to a species, not a genus. A kind is a tiger. The genus Panthera is not a Biblical "kind" and they do not interbreed between species or "kinds".
The Bible does not say Nephilim became demons. Demons are the third of the angels cast out of heaven with Lucifer.
But we agree that there are no brontosaurus left because they were too big for Noah's ark and died in the flood.
It's foolish to believe that Noah took two of every species. Never take a historical source too literally.
I didn't say 'one cat' - I said 2, a pair.
The Nephilim didn't become 'demons' - it is inherrent in their nature.
A third of the angels 'fell,' and all good things within them began to decay, and thus their nature became 'demonic.'
I find it intriguing that a 'scientist' who doesn't believe in the Creation event would defend his view on what 'demons' are in the Bible?
You are free to believe whatever you wish to believe, God has given you that right.
I personally have encountered demonic entities and angelic entities, both are very real, and 'demons' are disembodied spirits of the 'Nephilim.'
I think we will leave it here Barbarian, wishing you all the best, take care & God Bless.
Love *
No, I meant one big cat species wouldn't have sufficed. Lions and tigers can interbreed but their offspring are infertile and unhealthy. You would need two lions, two tigers, two panthers, blah blah blah.
And yeah, I'm an atheist. But it's just fun to play with the logistics of Noah's Ark and see if it's possible.
I think too many critics get hung up on language and literal interpretations. So it was a "world" flood. But the "world" to those ancients was just the middle east. Noah did not have to go to the Arctic and get two polar bears, and to the Antarctic and get two penguins. Those areas were not necessarily affected by this "world" flood.
We'll just have to disagree on demons. I was taught they were the third of angels who were struck down with Satan. That was before earth was even created.
Hey Barbarian,
I think it's good that you're questioning the Bible as an athiest, keep doing it.
Just to pick up on the 'demon' thing again, it was not 'Satan' that was 'struck down,' but Lucifer.
Lucifer only became 'Satan' after the fall.
*
Oh, this is a cause for amusement. The Ark Encounter young-earth people have had to invoke a version of evolution to make their story seem rational. SO, A single "kind" of cat (Or maybe, in the case of cats a couple of 'em because even a complete simpleton can't imagine that a domestic pussycat and an African lion are easy to obtain in a couple of thousand years from one ancestor) through some sort of turbocharged micro-evolution leads to the current range of species in the few thousand years allowed.
I mean, you have to love the effort to tie in dinosaurs on the Ark and invent some rationalizations for all the impossibilities. Of course, anyplace the rational becomes too tortured, they can invoke divine intervention and... you can't argue with that.
rex
░░░▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▄▄░░░
░▄▀░░░░░░░░░▀▄░
▄▀░░██░░░██░░▀▄
█░░░░░░░░░░░░░█
█░░▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄░░█
░█░░▀▄░░░▄▀░░█░
░░▀▄▄░▀▀▀░▄▄▀░░
░░░░░▀▀▀▀▀░░░░░
No rational, intelligent person can take this, or any other story from the Bible seriously. Take the philosophy (do unto others, don't kill, respect your parents, etc.) and leave the silly fairy tales.
share