Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Steven Den Beste's essay
Published on January 28, 2006 By Draginol In Pure Technology

Steven Den Beste's site seems to be down but I had a copy fo an article he wrote some time ago that talks about the reason why Noah's Arc is a fairy tale.  There are many many reasons why Noah's Arc is fiction but this is one of the better arguments I've seen.

Steven's site is located here.

I just had the distinct displeasure of encountering someone who is a Biblical literalist (and who actually believes that all evidence supports the fairy tale of Noah's Ark). Let's review the story, briefly:

God decides that the human race is sinful and wants to destroy it. But Noah is virtuous and God warns him about the upcoming catastrophe and tells him to build an Ark (a big ship) and to load it with breeding stock of animals, so as to repopulate the earth. Noah does this, and with his wife and three sons and their wives embarks on the ship. God then covers the earth with water for 40 days and 40 nights, drowning all animals. (It's not completely clear how this would harm whales and seals, but let that go.) Then the water begins to recede and Noah's Ark grounds on Mount Ararat. He releases his animals and the world is repopulated.

This is ecological nonsense. If the whole flora of the world was released from a single point, most of it wouldn't survive and they sure wouldn't be found where they are today.

It's also genetic nonsense. There are a lot of ways of showing this, but one is particularly unambiguous: human Y chromosomes. Nearly all the genetic information each of us carries comes from both our parents. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and one of each comes from our mothers and one from our fathers. One pair controls the sex of the child. One of these is normal sized and the other is extremely small (relatively speaking), and they're called "X" and "Y" respectively. (But the Y chromosome still carries millions of codons.)

In mammals, XX is female and XY is male. (This is not universal. In birds, XX is male and XY is female. In some insect species, females are diploid and males are haploid. And when you look at plants, sex isn't determined by genetics at all.)

Each human parent contributes 23 chromosomes to the baby, in egg and sperm. The egg always has an X chromosome and the sperm may have an X or a Y (unless there's an abnormality, about which more in a moment). If the sperm has an X then the resulting fertilized egg is XX, thus female. If the sperm has a Y then the fertilized egg is XY, male.

So the sperm cell determines the sex of the child (in mammals). But sometimes when the egg or sperm are formed there's a mistake, and they get more or less than 23 chromosomes. This can happen with any of the chromosomes. When it happens with the sex chromosomes you get individuals who may have three or one instead of the normal two.

If the egg forms wrong and has no X, and if the sperm cell has a Y, then you get a fertilized egg with a Y chromosome but no X chromosome. This egg isn't viable. The X chromosome contains genetic information without which a baby can't develop; the result is a miscarriage (so early, in fact, that the mother may not realize she's been pregnant).

The other three abnormal situations all result in children. If there's only one X chromosome ("Turner's syndrome") then the person looks female. XXY ("Kleinfelter's syndrome") is male. XYY (sometimes called the "supermale") is also male.

The development of male features is controlled by the presence of testosterone in the baby in the womb. This in turn is stimulated by the presence of the Y chromosome. There is, however, an extremely rare condition where the genes which describe the testosterone receptors are damaged, and in such an individual testosterone will be ignored even if it is present. The genes describing those receptors are not on the sex chromosomes but it's possible for them to be present in a person who has a Y chromosome, and if this happens the resulting person will look female. However, such a person will also be sterile, because no ovaries form.

The point is this: if a person is fertile and has a Y chromosome, then that person will be male.

I am male. I have a mother and a father. I got my X chromosome from my mother and my Y chromosome from my father.

Each of them also had two parents, so I have two grandfathers. My father's father gave his Y chromosome to my father. My mother's father gave his X chromosome to my mother.

I got my Y chromosome from my father and he got it from his father. I carry my paternal grandfather's Y chromosome. He got it from his father, and from his paternal grandfather, etc.

My mother got one of her two X chromosomes from her father and one from her mother. There's a 50% chance that the X chromosome I carry came from my maternal grandfather, but no chance whatever that I carry his Y chromosome. (He gave his Y chromosome to my mother's brother, but I'm not descended from my uncle.)

I have many male ancestors but my Y chromosome only came from one of them. I have many male ancestors but only one by strict patrilineal descent. They're the same person. That doesn't mean I have no genetic information from any of my other male ancestors; there are 22 other chromosomes to talk about and I may have gotten some of them from other men way back when. But the Y chromosome itself can only have come from one place, and it is from my strict patrilineal ancestor. My lineage from all my other male ancestors includes at least one intervening woman, and at that step their Y chromosomes were not passed on.

If any two men have the same strict patrilineal ancestor, no matter how far back, then those two men will have the same Y chromosome.

Which brings us back to Noah. According to the story, the ark carried 8 people: Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives. Genetically only five are important, because the three sons carried no genetic information not present in Noah and his wife.

So if the story is true then the entire human race is descended from just five individuals. And four of them were women; Noah is the only man among the five. 10 sex chromosomes, and nine of them are X. Of the ten, only one was a Y. Noah carried it and passed it on to his three sons.

And they passed it on to their sons, and their grandsons, and great grandsons, and ultimately to all living men. So if the Noah story is true then every existing Y chromosome in men should be identical because they'll all be copies of the one carried by Noah.

And they aren't. Human Y chromosomes have been tested many times and they are not all the same. There is enormous variety among them. It is impossible for all human men to have the same strict patrilineal ancestor.

Therefore the Noah story is not true.

 


Comments (Page 2)
9 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Jan 28, 2006
Who gives us the right to pick and choose what in the Bible is literal or not? If I think that God is who He says He is, and I believe that He's all-knowing and all-powerful, it opens a whole lot more doors.


But Marcie, the Bible wasn't written by God. It was written by men. Holy, inspired men, who were also fallible. Not only that, it has been translated and translated so many times over, and often by men who we cannot even say, in good conscience, were holy and inspired! I believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly. But I cannot take it as a perfect, entirely accurate book of text.
on Jan 28, 2006
If God had written the Bible and handed it to us, that would be a valid point, Marcie. In reality the Bible is a lot of diverse material collected by MEN over the course of centuries. Given it is the creation of MEN, I think we have the right to question it.


Good point Baker.
on Jan 28, 2006
If you believe in the literal interpretation you should.


Well, as I just wrote to Marcie, I don't take it absolutely literally.

But the main point of my post is that Steven's pontificating, posturing article is full of crap.
on Jan 28, 2006
Don't they bother to READ what they preach?


From my experience LW, many don't really read.

Excellent points as well.
on Jan 28, 2006
If God had written the Bible and handed it to us, that would be a valid point, Marcie. In reality the Bible is a lot of diverse material collected by MEN over the course of centuries. Given it is the creation of MEN, I think we have the right to question it. I wonder what kind of mess we can get into staking our lives and souls on something that rolls out of a printing press...

Ponder this, for a moment. If God's word is true and perfect, how could questioning dent it? If it isn't all literally true and 100% of God, then isn't it awfully destructive to promote it as such? If you believe in the Devil, what would make him more tickled than having people spend all their time in conflict about paper and ink when they have real lives to lead...

No, I believe anything that is truly of God can be questioned and tried and will always be found worthy. When people say you aren't allowed to question something, it is usually because they doubt it's ability to stand up to scrutiny...


I didn't say anything about QUESTIONING the Bible. Go ahead. I agree with you wholeheartedly. My question is who decides what in the Bible is literal and not literal? Who has the final say in that? If I say the whole thing is written in code, does it have ANY validity whatsoever? No. Because who has the tools to unearth what the Bible is really trying to say. If I say everything's true but this chapter and this verse and blah blah blah...how do I really know?

Take the gospels. They were written by several different men about Jesus life, and there are several different perspectives on Jesus' ministry. Of course there's going to be conflicting text about what happened. If I stand on the south corner of an intersection and you stand at the east, we're going to be looking at the same "accident" but your version isn't necessarily going to be the same as mine.

But the main point of my post is that Steven's pontificating, posturing article is full of crap.


Agreed.

But Marcie, the Bible wasn't written by God. It was written by men. Holy, inspired men, who were also fallible. Not only that, it has been translated and translated so many times over, and often by men who we cannot even say, in good conscience, were holy and inspired! I believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly. But I cannot take it as a perfect, entirely accurate book of text.


I understand that. And that is your choice. It is also my choice to believe that the Bible that I hold in my hands today says what God wants it to say to me. I don't believe God would let his Word get so screwed up that the "stories" are not true.
on Jan 28, 2006
My pastor at home in Detroit Lakes preached on these types of topics last week. I don't understand why there has to be such a disparity between science and religion. I mean...the prophet Isaiah said the Earth was round far before we ever "discovered" it was...
on Jan 28, 2006

Sure sounds like God meant the entire Earth.

It is a "story".

God did not write those words.  I am not a literal bible person.  man wrote those words.  Probably to explain a catastrophic event.  It may not have happened, I dont know.  But if it did, perhaps it was the New Orleans of 10k BC?  For the observers, that would have been the whole world.

on Jan 28, 2006

In light of that, I find Dr. Guy's hypothesis to be entirely plausible.

Thank you.  I was using logic, but your science is much better.  And I agree.  It may or may not have happened.  We dont know.  If it did, I doubt any but the medeteranian was flooded.

But thank you for validiating what I could only hypothesize based upon an amature observation.

on Jan 28, 2006

Who gives us the right to pick and choose what in the Bible is literal or not?

Ourselves.  We are empowered by god with free will and intelligence.  It is our right and destiny to question.  Else why give us the ability to?

on Jan 28, 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory
on Jan 28, 2006
I think you'll find about as many adults believe in Santa Claus as believe in the literal, solid reality of Noah's Ark story.


KFC stands by the literal story. Can you name one adult person who believes in the actual existance of Santa Clause? I think that was a very presumptuous statement. Look at all the the claims of Ark sightings and people who believe them.

God did not write those words. I am not a literal bible person. man wrote those words.


I totally agree.
on Jan 28, 2006
Andrew, your link sent me to the Wikepedia definition of the word Black. ?
on Jan 28, 2006
I googled Sea deluge theory and it did have this to say

"It has been suggested that the survivors' memory of this event was the source of the legend for Noah's Flood."

I can by that. "Legend" is a bad word choice though since a legend is a story that is supposed to be realistic and possible but then again they say the "Legend" of Sleepy Hollow and we all know there is no such thing as a headless horseman.
on Jan 28, 2006
JillUser, you didn't catch the whole of the link. Try this: Link

"In 1998, William Ryan and Walter Pitman, geologists from Columbia University, published evidence that a massive flood through the Bosporus occurred about 5600 BCE. Glacial meltwater had turned the Black and Caspian Seas into vast freshwater lakes, while sea levels remained lower worldwide. The fresh water lakes were emptying their waters into the Aegean. As the glaciers retreated, rivers emptying into the Black Sea reduced their volume and found new outlets in the North Sea, and the water levels lowered through evaporation. Then, about 5600 BC, as sea levels rose, Ryan and Pitman suggest, the rising Mediterranean finally spilled over a rocky sill at the Bosphorus. The event flooded 60,000 mileĀ² (155,000 kmĀ²) of land and significantly expanded the Black Sea shoreline to the north and east."

The article further states:

"Fundamentalist Christians claimed that "Noah's Flood was not a local flood in the Black Sea area, but a world-wide flood that has left its mark on every continent on this planet," [1] and that the timing was wrong, although this claim is not compatible with science, since it would require the sudden production and then disappearance of three times more water than is contained in the Earth's oceans, and for millions of locally endemic land-dwelling species to have been collected from and then returned to their endemic habitats."
on Jan 28, 2006

Reply By: Larry Kuperman

WOW! I just hypothesized, you and Blue Dev said basically I was right.  Thanks!

I guess logic wins out every once in a while.

9 Pages1 2 3 4  Last