Biology question

[JohnR7]

Supernatural events and miracles can't be reproduced or directly observed, their cause is only speculation. If it were possible to reproduce, you could always get a person say a prayer in such a way that God would always respond. Faith is necesary for the belief in God, and faith is definetly not scientific.

There is nothing supernatural about this. God watches over His word to perform it. He is 100% reliable and dependable. The Bible is filled with the promises of God. Only the promises are conditional. If we do our part, then we can be sure that 100% of the time, God will do His part. He is in a covenant relationship with us. That is as binding as any contract in any court of law.

There are christians who become offended by this. But it is because they do not understand that it is not us who approach God, it is God that comes to us with a offer. We simply reject or accept the offer that He gives us. If we do our part,then He is faithful and true to do His part.

If you go to a doctor and he offers you a "cure" then you have to follow the doctors advice. It is the same with God, you have to follow His advice to receive His "cure". If you do not do what the doctor tells you to do, you will not be cured. If you do not do what God tells you to do, then you will not be cured.

Miracles as a cause for these effects is merely speculation because similar, and more valid, hypotheses can be contrived that do not involve supernatural intervention.

It sure seems that way. It sure seems like whenever there is a miracle or a cure there is a way to explain it away. But not always. We have a man on video that was blind. His eyes were glazed over. They use to use that video at the beginning of the program so I put it on the computer and studied it frame by frame. In about three or four frames, the man received his sight. A blind man could see. As far as I know, there is no way to explain that one away. The man received a miracle. They only thing I suppose you could do was to question if God were a part of it or not. You can not see the cause. You can only see the effect that the man was blind, his eyes were glazed over and his eyes physically changed and now he can see. Of course you can also see a very surprised look on his face when he looks at the audience.

 

[samiam]

The largest wooden boats ever built were much smaller than the ark and they leaked when they flexed under wave action even though braced with steel. The tendency of a beam to flex under load goes as the cube of its lengths so building models won't tell you much about this problem. Here we have a giant wooden boat with no method of steering that was supposed to have survived a year long flood that rearranged all the world's geology. Absurd!

The answer that Answers in Genesis states is that "A flat-bottomed barge like the Ark wouldn’t have problems with sag. If the lower deck were made of logs, four layers deep, it would have been very sturdy. If they were teak logs, especially specially treated by being buried for a while, the ark would have been especially seaworthy.".

cite

- Sam

 

[Cantuar]

Being a Christian - I have no problems in believing the account of the flood

That doesn't follow. Many Christians have a lot of problems in believing the account of the flood since it contradicts all the available evidence.

Why wouldn't the boat have been seaworthy?

A boat that size, made of wood and pine pitch, wouldn't be seaworthy in conditions a lot less rigorous than those during the flood. There are a lot of papers, many written by Christians, that go into details.

so Noah just had to wait for them to arrive.

How would the koalas have got there from Australia? And would they have had to bring their food with them, since eucalyptus isn't indigenous to the Mediterranean area?

Up until the flood there were no predators or prey -

Where is your evidence that carnivory appeared after the flood, rather than after the Fall?

The world was very different before the flood

Your scientific evidence being?

Size/space-wise: I would have thought most of the animals etc. would have been youngsters

So what does the Genesis account mean when it refers to animals and their mates?

But maybe some of this may help any non-christians see where the christian's view comes from.

There seem to be a lot of Christians who don't accept the flood account as being a recent worldwide flood. It might be a good idea if you remember to refer to people who do accept it as "fundamentalist Christians" or something, to distinguish them from the large number of other Christians.

 

[Cantuar]

You have to consider God's miracle of supply. They did not have to fill the food bins, because they never went empty. Just as when Isreal lived in the desert for 40 years and their shoes did not wear out and they did not have to replace their clothing. So God would have kept the animals groomed. Also, there would not have been as much of a mess to clean up after, because their food would have been what God provided for them and closer to what they needed. So there would not have been as much waste, compared to them eating a diet different from the one that God intended for them.

You're not asking science teachers to put this stuff in their classes, I hope.

 

[Cantuar]

I am not interested in a christianity that is powerless. That would be like a toothless tiger or lion. I want to see a demonstration of the power of God in my life and in the life of others in a powerful way and in a positive way, not just a feel good experance but changed lives and lives changed for the better. Drug addicts who are delivered from their addiction, alcoholics that are set free and their life, job and family restored. That is the sort of effects I am looking to see.

Addicts and alcoholics have recovered without divine intervention, since both atheists and theists have recovered from addiction. There's no evidence whatever that there's a deity involved. Part of the attraction of prayer is that it gives people a feeling of control in a terrible situation - the attitude I keep hearing of "how do you atheists stand hearing that a loved one is terminally ill, when you can't do anything about it like I can by praying? I feel so sorry for you, being so helpless." Just the idea of giving someone some control over his life can go some way to enabling him to overcome an addiction. And then there are the people who say things like, " I was an alcoholic or an addict, and then I found Jesus, and now Jesus fills my life, I think about Jesus all the time, I pray to Jesus about everything, all I need is Jesus, and I'm not an addict any more, praise Jesus" - to me, that still sounds like an addict talking, but the focus of the addiction is different.

You aren't giving objective evidence for divine intervention; you already believe in God, so you see God in places where a nonbeliever doesn't.

 

[Cantuar]

If they were teak logs, especially specially treated by being buried for a while, the ark would have been especially seaworthy.

Where did they get the teak from? Isn't it a South American tree? And does that mean gopher wood is teak? If so, the whole ark would be built out of a very hard wood that grows thousands of miles away on another continent.

 

[Sophismata]

You contradict yourself. here you imply that people overcoming addiction is supernatural/a miracle and yet also claiming it scientific.

Why would it not be "scientific" as long as you can observe the effect. There are a lot of things in science that you do not see the cause, but you can observe the effect of that cause. From the effect you can start to understand something of what caused that effect.

I am not interested in a christianity that is powerless. That would be like a toothless tiger or lion. I want to see a demonstration of the power of God in my life and in the life of others in a powerful way and in a positive way, not just a feel good experance but changed lives and lives changed for the better. Drug addicts who are delivered from their addiction, alcoholics that are set free and their life, job and family restored. That is the sort of effects I am looking to see

*Emphasis is Mine

You claim things can be scientific even though they are the direct effect of God/a miracle which is not something that is testable in any way, ergo, supernatural.

There is nothing supernatural about this. God watches over His word to perform it.

But then, you state it is not supernatural. Maybe you need to read definition of supernatural:

su·per·nat·u·ral 1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil

Here is another contradiction:

It sure seems that way. It sure seems like whenever there is a miracle or a cure there is a way to explain it away. But not always. We have a man on video that was blind. His eyes were glazed over. They use to use that video at the beginning of the program so I put it on the computer and studied it frame by frame. In about three or four frames, the man received his sight. A blind man could see. As far as I know, (1)there is no way to explain that one away. (2) The man received a miracle.

You state that:
1. There is no way to explain that one away.
2. Explanation: The man recieved a miracle.

Statement 1 and 2 obviously contradict each other and statement 1 is obviously false, while statement 2 is questionable.
I could say Invisible Pink Unicorns gave the man sight, or I could say the video is fraudulent in some form or another, weather the man was really not blind to begin with and the glazing over was some sort of special effect. I could replicate this effect very easy, or if I wanted something more reliable, I could ask one of my video/multimedia designer buddies to do it. From what you have stated there is not enough evidence to arrive at any sort of conclusion (neither scientific nor supernatural). It seems you are trying to utilize the fallacy of a False Dilemna:

1. Either it can be currently explained scientifically or
2. It is a miracle.
It can't currently be explained scientifically, therefore it is a miracle.

that's as valid as

1. 2+2=5 or
2. 2+2=6
2+2 != 5 therefore, 2+2=6

So for future purposes, please get your thoughts together before posting them. And now that we got scientific vs. supernatural obfuscation out of the way, let us continue the discussion:
We are trying to scientifically verify the zoological implications of Noah's Ark. If you have an opinion that is not based on scientific evidence, e.g. "Godidit" or does not pertain to worldwide flood (or at least, all of the world's animals fitting into one Ark), it is irrelevant, please do not post it unless it is somehow connected. This, I reiterate my original arguments:
How can ~20 million animals, including extinct ones, fit in the Ark if it is difficult enough getting all the ones in that do exist.
How the massive pile up of defecation did not cause problems within the Ark wether it be 1 million or 20 million species on the Ark, that's a copious amount of fecal matter.
And how predators and prey can live harmoniously in extremely cramped conditions.

 

[JohnR7]

Addicts and alcoholics have recovered without divine intervention, since both atheists and theists have recovered from addiction.

To give up addiction or alcoholism is a choice for life. To choose life is to choose to go toward God, not away from Him.

 

[JohnR7]

You're not asking science teachers to put this stuff in their classes, I hope.

Oh no, we will be teaching this to the kids long before they get old enough to study science. We start at one year of age.

 

[Sophismata]

None of these things are relevant to the topic at hand.

To give up addiction or alcoholism is a choice for life. To choose life is to choose to go toward God, not away from Him.

I choose life, I choose not to go toward God. Statement falsified by counterexample.

Oh no, we will be teaching this to the kids long before they get old enough to study science. We start at one year of age.

And thus, you serve as an example that creationists, and many Christians are biased by teaching children something when their minds are most impressionable.

 

[JohnR7]

And thus, you serve as an example that creationists, and many Christians are biased by teaching children something when their minds are most impressionable.

Lots of non christians on this forum were raised christian. How much of an impression did it have on them?

 

[Cantuar]

To give up addiction or alcoholism is a choice for life. To choose life is to choose to go toward God, not away from Him.

And here's me thinking that choosing God involved doing things like believing in him. Oh well...

 

[Cantuar]

Oh no, we will be teaching this to the kids long before they get old enough to study science. We start at one year of age.

In a free country people can indoctinate their one-year-olds with just about anything they want to. I'm glad to see, however, that you don't agree with teaching this stuff in public school.

 

[Sophismata]

Lots of non christians on this forum were raised christian. How much of an impression did it have on them?

Apparently, they were unbiased enough to consider the alternative, and reject their previous stance.

 

[Volos]

Originally posted by oneiric:

The dimensions of the ark have a ratio of six to one. The Ark was six times longer than it was wide. This is the best ratio for modern ship building. Model stability tests have shown that the design is stable for waves up to 200 feet high and that the ark could have rotated 90 degrees and still righted itself.
The volume of the ark would be 450 feet long by 75 feet wide by 45 feet high.

originally posted by samiam:
The answer that Answers in Genesis states is that "A flat-bottomed barge like the Ark wouldn’t have problems with sag. If the lower deck were made of logs, four layers deep, it would have been very sturdy. If they were teak logs, especially specially treated by being buried for a while, the ark would have been especially seaworthy.".

I don’t know if you bothered to do the math about the process of 4 men building such a craft but it produces some very interesting effects.

Basic materials: Take oneiric’s dimensions. Just to make calculations easy figure that each log used is exactly ten feet long and of uniform circumference. Building the exterior of the ark and along with the roof, the decks mentioned and the extra layers samian mentions would take a total of 149,500 logs of gopher wood. Minimal interior bracing would require 15,000 additional logs.
Pegs to hold the ark together would require an additional 500 trees
Scaffolding for construction of the ark would require an additional 1000 trees
For a total of 166,000 trees.

If we figure eight trees a day could be harvested, transported and hewn to size in a given day (figuring 4 adult males using only simple hand tools this is actually a very generous figure) that means that it would take a little more than 56 years to gather the necessary wood for the exterior of the ark.

If we assume that the logs of the ark were held together by pegs, (which is how ancient ships were held together) we can calculate that the minimum number of pegs that would have to be carved would be 598,000. If 100 pegs could be carved in a day it would take a bit less than 17 years to make all the pegs necessary.

Assembling the ark: This is a tricky calculation and one based entirely on guess work. The calculations are hampered because it would have necessarily taken more time to construct the upper portions of the ark. The top of the ark would have been about five stories high and an elaborate scaffolding system would have been necessary to bring up wooden logs and hold them in place while securing and pitching them.
If a 10x20 section could be completed each day, this includes getting the log, trimming it to fit, notching, pegging and pitching. Given 4 adult males this is again a very generous estimate. At that rate it would take 26 years to assemble the ark.

By the way it would take approximately 1,586,250 gallons of pitch to complete the ark.