mDNA is passed intact from the mother, it does not get mixed with paternal genes. So if a modern population derived from a single female on the ark, all mDNA of the species would be nearly identical. There would be just a smattering of mutations from the few thousand years since the flood.

But that isn't the case, species have considerable variation in mDNA. Some species, such as humans and cheetahs, have rather narrow diversity, indicating they came from tiny populations that were nearly wiped out. But other species have have substantial range.

Have any of the science-minded creationists tried to explain this?

God did it.

I think that even most hardcore creationists are willing to concede that the flood was probably not worldwide.

I am interested to hear how Christians view the story of Noah's Ark. More broadly than just the mDNA question, do the Christians here believe this story actually happened?

If so, aren't there significant logistical problems involved? i.e. fitting all the animals in there? How do you intellectually accept this story?

Specifically interested to hear from Jibinjas, Aaron, Well Named, Naked Recitude, and NotReady. Also would like to here from Frito if he is still around.

there is no shortage of Biblical literalist creationists in the US that have no choice but to cling to belief in a global flood. This includes both my parents.

there's also still more than enough con-men pseudo-scientists pandering to them to perpetuate the belief.

Flood stories:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

You should answer this as it's your question. If the basis of truth is DNA then say so and carry on. If not, then what is the basis of truth?

Oddly enough, I've seen creationists using mtdna to prove that noah's ark happened.

I'm sure they would deal with each example on a case by case basis. But I dunno.

Supply a specific example, perhaps, and we could maybe provide an advocacy to the negative.

Answered at the 3:19 mark, though the entire video is worth a watch (as it helps to setup the response) given you can tolerate Jeffery's voice.



Same here.

If you press a biblical literalist hard on the subject of Noah's Ark and get past the usual obfuscation, you can present them with a number of specific points like this that demonstrate the ridiculousness of this fairytale ever having happened as described in the Bible.

That's the moment when they admit that God provided ancillary miracles as and when they were required i.e. insert additional magic until the story holds.

This fits into the overall pattern of a trickster God who makes the universe look exactly as though it's 13.8 billion years old but tells us otherwise.

This is an older thread and I stand by my comments: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...hs-flood-13252

There is the salient difficulty which is germane not only to the "scientific" but also the "religious". Whether believed or not, the religious, on the whole, during our time have bought into the sensory or materialistic approach to history or religion itself.

Our culture is a culture of materialism which means that if the event cannot be "seen", via the senses or machine like creation, it does not exist. Everything is mandated to be earth bound. And so we have religious who will climb to the top of a mountain in order to find the "ark". We have movies which present some "magical ark" thus titillating our imaginations. they've bought into that which the scientific mandates but of course it doesn't jive with the realities involved.

Likewise the scientific demands "proof" which they expect to be presented scientifically which is another name for material or measurement, etc... It come out of our universities as mockery, dismissive behavior, or rock throwing at that which does not fit their preconceived conceptions. This is superficial thinking and thoughts, the superficiality of our times.

The "ark" cannot exist, perforce, because it cannot be weighed within the conceptual process of the scientific. One of the curiosities of modern science is the "god gene" which is no more than a continuation of this very same thought process.

In the search for the "beginning" or "basis' or "point force" necessitated by the modern scientist we have the difficulty with light as "particle" or "wave" all buoyed by probabilistic meanderings. It exists, it doesn't exist?????

Foreshortened, the religious would be expected to "think like a scientist" in examining their presuppositions and the scientist would have to acknowledge the presence of a spiritual realm which can very well be appreciated by the modern exegesis of quantums. The mathematicians lead the way for they, of all of the scientifically endowed, understand that there is the existence of a realm which is not material.

I won't say its a short and easy step but individually its not much of a problem if a man becomes a materialist which is a valid philosophical stance but when the entire culture shifts in that direction this can only affect the education of the individual soul from this life into the next. Knowledge of the spiritual world is absolutely necessary in our times , but again it arrives slowly.

I'll stop here as its getting haphazard. yowser!


If anyone knows how to search older threads I believe there was an another thread to the question of the ark.

So what is your alternative?

the scientist would have to acknowledge that physical objects do not appear to behave classically on the quantum scale. anything beyond that is speculative or philosophical.

again this is a philosophical claim - at this point not scientific, not all philosophers agree about it, and you're improperly conflating Plato etc. with the religious notion of a spiritual realm.

Deepak Chopra has a lot to answer for IMO.

OP's post touches on an issue that always amuses me when creationists discuss the plausibility of Noah's Ark.

When faced with the disparity between the number of species currently inhabiting the Earth and the likely carrying capacity of the Ark, they are quite happy to state that the survivors subsequently "evolved". Evolution never happens, except of course if it's convenient to back up absurd myths.

The flood was a localized flood. This can be supported Biblically. The idea
that the flood was global is a modern 20th century doctrine.

[/end thread]

Dammit, another win for DS.

As much as I'd like to simply omit the story of Noah's ark for the reasons listed here and the many more you can think of, it is impossible (imo) to omit the story and still believe the rest of the bible. Each story hinges on the previous one up to the time of Jesus, where He Himself makes reference to Noah, and Adam for that matter, as a real person.

As far as what actually happened, I have no idea. People smarter than me have given some interesting answers for some of the objections, I'm not really qualified to talk about dna etc.

Last year I met with some of the staff of "creation ministries" and I tried to present some of the popular arguments against the creation story and the flood to see how they respond, but I was severely outmatched to provide any substantial follow up comments to their rebuttals. It always seems to me that the smartest person in the room will win this battle, irregardless of the war as it were. Also, probably Goddidit.

This is an individual matter but a proper start is :

"The Philosophy of Freedom" which speaks to the nature of thinking and is best suited for our intellectualistic age.

http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA004/...004_index.html

Other sources are "The Light Course" and the "Warmth Course", both of which speak to a science which deals with experimental findings and relates to the modern scientist's basic findings of the above states.

The two scientific courses do call for some understanding of the basic conceptions of Anthroposophical presentations.

"Theosophy" and "An Outline of Occult Science" are good starters here.

Not trying to put you off but you cant learn differential equations without some basis in mathematics and likewise one has to start from basics but the Philosophy of Freedom can quite well be appreciated without precursors.

Philosophy of Freedom was great (though that's remembering back some twenty five years or so). Id start there - the others are a bit hard to take, IMO.

Damn, Bunny you're back; now all we need is Madnak and get this place rolling again.

He's probably some high flying neurosurgeon or something by now..

Deepak is just a Steiner wannabe on the BS scale.

Why a single female?

Fun video but it might not have it quite right 2:20 because the flood would kill all plant life (which the overlay does mention but not the effects that would have) which would rot and there would be a substantial methane injection into the atmosphere. This would probably cause a warming, and it would happen fast since methane is massively more effective as a greenhouse gas than Co2, so no one would freeze to death (in any case, the seas would be warmed by sunlight as they are now, otherwise they'd just freeze too in the video's scenario), there'd also be plenty of oxygen available, and since 'tropical' storms get their energy from warm seas there'd be no shortage of them now. With no land to cause them to lose their energy and dissipate, the world would be subject to super storms that would travel around getting bigger and more ferocious, and they would be long lasting. Hurricane dodging would be the new sport.

*Speculating... If it had got cold enough to freeze the seas, this might actually have plunged the earth into a new ice age due to an increased albedo effect caused by a positive feedback loop of snow and ice causing more sunlight to be reflected, causing more cooling, causing more snow and ice....

Another example of 'lack of' evidence for a global flood is that 5 miles of water is heavy and it would cause tectonic shifts, which we'd be able to observe the effects of. There's no evidence of that.