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 5)
9 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 7  Last
on Jan 29, 2006
Okay fine. Let's have a show of hands. How many people believe that the entire world was flooded, and that Noah got a pair of every land animal on the face of the earth on a relatively small ship.


Well no surprise here. I do. But where do you get "small ship?"

Also if this wasn't a world wide flood why didn't the story go....they all fled from that place to higher ground? They had 120 years to do so.

The size of the ark was approx 450 long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. It had a deck total of 97,700 sq feet and would be the equivalent to more than an area of 20 basketball courts.

It was not unil 1884 that this huge boat was exceeded by modern man when the Italian vessel Eturia was built. The QMary had a total length of 1018 feet so the ark was half this size.

It has been estimated that a modern train hauling 150 boxcars could easily handle the amount of animals that have been estimated at that time. But the Ark had a carrying capacity of more than 520 stock cars. More than enough.

"The Ark was according to the specifications laid down to be 300 cubits long by 500 cubits wide by 30 cubits high. The ratios of these numbers are very interesting. They obviously reflect an advanced knowledge of ship building. The Babylonian account which speaks of the Ark as a cube betrays complete ignorance. Such a vessel would spin slowly around. But the Bible ratios leave nothing to be desired." Frederick Filby ("The Flood Reconsidered, p90)

I've also read in the past how the ratios used have been scrunized and utilized by the ship building business. Many are amazed at how perfect these measurements are and written so long ago.

At the risk of getting scoffed at....AGAIN....since 1840 a number of reports have come to the world's attention concerning the sighting of an ark-like structure on Mt. Ararat. Even prior to this there have been many ancient reports about this very thing which includes the testimonies of Herodotus (Greek Historian), Josephus (Jewish Historian), the Koran, and Marco Polo.

I do have a summary of eyewitness reports since 1840 including a French explorer who later wrote a book "Noah's Ark, I Touched It." by Bernard Navarra. He cut some of the wood out and subjected it to C-14 testing at two universities. In the 30's Dr. Alexander A. Koor, Russian Colonel, scholar, researcher, author, historian and etymologist of ancient languages discovered and translated an ancient Sumerian inscription found at Karada Pass near Ararat. It read...

"God sowed the seeds of the world into the waters....the waters filled the earth, descending from above....His children came to rest on the mountain peak."

So yes unless proven otherwise I will believe the written account of the bible and the world wide flood.
on Jan 29, 2006
Oh and LW......the first chapter of Genesis is a summary and the second is a detailed account. Adam and Eve were the first two. Your verse in Luke that you brought up on another thread actually proves that. It stopped at Adam didn't it? It said that Adam was the son of God? Why? Because Adam didn't have parents.
on Jan 29, 2006
Tova,

G-d also says, through the world He created, that the world is much older than a few thousand years. We cannot deny the truth of one of the sources just because we believe in the other.

When I was a kid, I played with Playmobil. Knights and castles was my favourite environment. I created a world to play with. I arranged stuff to be the world where I would build my castle and farms and navigate my knights.

And the world I created seemed, from the perspective of the knights as I played them, much older than it really was. I created it ten minutes ago, but I pretended, when playing, that it was much older. The castle was older than ten minutes. Certainly the mountains (cushions) were older than the castle?

If my knights had free will or at least the ability to walk around as programmed, and if I would not interfere with the world I created after creation, would it not be stupid of the knights to rely on the idea that the world was created ten minutes ago? Would they have not have to face the world as I intended it to be faced? Do they not have to act as if the mountains were older than the castle and farms?

If I gave them a holy book so they could know the truth, would they not die like the knights they are when they drop off the mountains because that is the world I created, even if they know they themselves are made of plastic and that the mountains are really cushions arranged ten minutes ago?

From the perspective of the beings in the world, the world looks quite different from the world seen by the creator. And if the Playmobil scenario doesn't make enough sense, imagine I wrote a computer program that behaved like my Playmobil world.

In my computer program the knights would go and find a hundred-year old treasure hidden by pirates, in a world I created twenty minutes ago. Any knight who believed that the world cannot be older than twenty minutes because my book said so, could not have found the treasure.

And he would envy the knights who found it. And he would not understand why the devout believer in the creator's truth has so little success why the others have so much.

And I would look at the screen and realise that the one knight, the true believer, has not understood why I told him the truth. It was not so that he would ignore the simple facts he can see in the world, like the hidden treasures and the castle, it was to give him hope, because he seemed like he had lost hope.

Does this make any sense at all?
on Jan 29, 2006
My thinking is that no one here believes it in the exact way it is described. If anyone does, I wouldn't imagine it would be enough people to even consider addressing as a 'group'.


There you go. I think a group is forming. And that is just the ones brave enough to say "Hey, yes that is my belief!"
on Jan 29, 2006
Does this make any sense at all?


I see your point Leauki. I do see it.

My point is this...When Job asked God, WHY? God could have just said, "Well Job Satan wanted to test you and I let Him because I knew your story would be told through out the ages to help other believers."

But God DIDN'T tell Job that. Instead he asked Job..."Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?"

But God told us Job's story through the prophets. So there are gonna be things we don't understand today, that others will easily understand later.

I am no scientist, so I find God's explanations in the Bible believable on my level of knowledge of WHO HE IS. Because he CAN create the world, He CAN certainly do things beyond my understanding, so if He says he parted the red sea, and rained down Manna from heaven, who am I to call Him liar? Because that is what He is being called when people say He can't control the contents of the very Book that introduces man to the definition of sin and then to Him. And not just a liar, but a poor steward of the humans He died to save. And I think that's a HUGE stretch.

If I could logically work out all things about God, then to me He wouldn't be God. How can my finite mind wrap itself around an infinite perfect wisdom?

God told us His truth for His glory. How does it glorify Him then to turn around and say, yeah, you are powerful, but um, that Bible thing, you have no control over it.

I hear all this talk about free will, but my free will had me running away from God. He pursued me....He caught me, and I fought him every step of the way. But he parted many red seas in my life (yes I do believe He did it in reality, and also symbolically in my life). He gave me evidence everyday He changed me and the things around me. He works in my life.

I can not take His Grace and His Mercy and reject His word....or the word He allows to speak for Him. That is like saying, yeah I know you created all this and you are awesome, but um, you really can't be trusted with the integrity of the book.

God chose to work through men and to use literature as the main medium of communication. He is God and coulda chose any medium, He coulda invented one. But He chose the written Word. I believe that choice shows something about who He is.

It shows me God is watching over it and us. It can be traced, it can be researched, felt, smelled, whatever.

I write stories. And when I write I often have to reread what I've written to see where I am going.

The writers of the Bible didn't have that. They didn't have the previous book to read and then write their own. It was written by many different authors but you kow what? When I read, I hear one writer's voice.

Do you have a favorite author that you love so well, if you pick up a piece of his work you've never read before, you know without a doubt who wrote it? I have a few such authors....I can recognize their "voice" in writing without fail.

The first time I read the Bible entirely it wasn't to be saved, it was to argue better. I wasn't a believer. But I couldn't get over the fact the writer's voice was consistent throughout every single book of scripture.

That is why I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. For me to believe any less would mean I am worshiping a God who is not worthy of worship because He can't be trusted to keep His word pure.
on Jan 29, 2006
Yes, and through it all.....God's word is still here. All the nay sayers through the years......dead and buried but God's word endures and will continue to do so when we are all dead and buried as well.

Well said Tova. You speak so much more eloquently than I. The one thing I've figured out is we don't know the whys. My first question to God is......why did you put that tree in the Garden in the first place? But I am confident that not only is he in complete control of this world but there is a definite plan in place and we're seeing it unfold right before our very eyes.

Wait a minute. You said the Bible was a LITERAL document, meaning it was to be taken word for word as the truth. Word for word, it refers to humans, in the plural sense, BEFORE Adam was created. If Genesis 2 is simply a more detailed accounting, then why aren't any of the other things created in Genesis 1 detailed in Genesis 2? It doesnt go into detail about the creation of light, or darkness, or the earth and its flora and fauna, what it does it talk about a SPECIAL place, a garden that God made, and the special beings God made to tend it.


Oh this is easy LW. Because the whole bible is about God and Man. The answer to your question can be found in 2:4:

"These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." The word "generations" is in Hebrew Toledoth which means an account or accounting.

The first chapter is a chronological detailed account. The second chapter is the geneology of mankind. It is a topical focus not a chronological. Read it again and see if you can see this.

Notice this. God spent the first 11 chapters on the creation of the earth and how the world got its beginnings and then spent the next 39 chapters on one family that would change the world and be called a people for his name. Out of this family a Savior would be born.

This goes to show that God put more emphasis on his relationship with man than he did in creating the world. Man is more important to the God of the Universe than anything else.

The US is the trinity......Father, Son and HS. This is plural of majesty.

"7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. "


This may be something you never thought before (I'm taking a guess here) but this breathing into Adam shows the intimacy between God and man. He was literally in his face giving him life. Think about the intimacy here.

Notice he "put" Adam into the Garden. That word means "gently placed."

KFC

P.S. I don't teach children......I teach adults.





on Jan 29, 2006

The size of the ark was approx 450 long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. It had a deck total of 97,700 sq feet and would be the equivalent to more than an area of 20 basketball courts.

BTW, 450 x 75 wide (and the boat wasn't a square so this is giving it its best case scenario is only 33,000 square feet. Logistically, a modern super tanker would have a hard time supporting the San Diego zoo (a trivial job compared to what the Ark would have had to do) for 40 days. If you take into account all the decks then it would have been as large as you say but you're taking it as a given how large a cubic was.

I realize that Christian Answers tries to make a case that you could fit all those animals on there, I'll leave it to others as to whether it's a convincing case.  I'll say this -- Noah must have been quite a guy that he and his sons could build a ship bigger than any other ship until metal ships came about.  He mus thave had magical wood.

Bakerstreet: I suggest you check the link I give above out, it tries to seriously argue that Noah's Ark happened in the most literal sense. 

on Jan 30, 2006
The thought is that they may have been small or baby animals and for some or most of them could have been in hibernation.

Remember also that Noah and his sons had 120 years to do this. And with no rainy days......everyday was a good day.

I did have some material, ( can't find it at the moment )that spoke about experts in the field of shipbuilding explaining this boat was very remarkable in its measuements and has been used for years as an example in the expertise of boat building.

Thanks for the link....didn't know about this one.

Oh................. and with God.....anything is possible.

on Jan 30, 2006
Yeah, I took a look. I don't want to mess with people's beliefs, but it's what I expected. In the end, they can always defeat any argument because they can just answer it with "God did it." I don't think the site does any kind of a job of really convincing anyone, and their numbers are bogus.

I *am* surprised you could even find a couple of people here at JU that still believe the literal interpretation, but a couple out of how many? I guarantee you, if you polled people as to whether they believe aliens abduct people, and whether Noah literally saved every species of non-aquatic animal on earth, I think you'd find your time better spent debunking alien abduction stories.

on Jan 30, 2006
I'll say this -- Noah must have been quite a guy that he and his sons could build a ship bigger than any other ship until metal ships came about. He mus thave had magical wood.


Remember he had devine intervention!


His, using science to explain why Noah's Ark couldn't exist is not surprising. Scientific theories are somehow more acceptable to most people to accept than to believe that anything that the bible says ever happened.

Whether one takes the bible literally or not, I guess it depends on how liberal your thinking is, on whether your belief is secular or not, i.e., creationism, theoism, etc.

As I child I heard the story of Noah's Ark and believed it to be true. As a child and a young person growing up, to me that flood did get rid of everyone and all living things. Noah did have two of every animal and beasts, etc. and that Ark was a big strong boat. As a grown up I can see things differently and decide for myself whether I believe that the flood did take the entire earth or only just that portion where Noah and his family lived, in just the way how only Sodom & Ghomerrah was destroyed and not the entire world at that point.

on Jan 30, 2006
What about gay animals?

But seriously, not all animals reproduce sexually. And how did he even make sure that he had specimen of all the major diseases with him? Or did they "evolve" again after the flood?

I think with some faith one can say, without violating much logic, that a guy named Noah and his family did build a boat and, together with their animals, survived a major flood, perhaps as the only members of the tribe or nation in question.

That would also go some way towards explaining why the languages spoken south of the flood zone (presumably the black sea) are not related to those spoken in the north. All of Noah's (cultural) descendants speak hamito-semitic languages (Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic, Koptic, Berber, Ethiopian). The other affected peoples' (again cultural) descendants speak Indo-European languages (Iranian, Germanic, Latin, Sanskrit/Hindu, Tocharian, Lithuanian, Russian etc.).
on Jan 30, 2006
Note that this does not mean that Noah spoke the ancestor of these languages. The language family seems to come from Africa, and this is probably where Noah's closest relatives picked it up.

The point is that if Noah's nation had vanished, he and his family had a higher probablity of assimilating into the hamito-semitic world, finally spawning the famous nations of later (Arabs, Jews etc.).
on Jan 30, 2006

His, using science to explain why Noah's Ark couldn't exist is not surprising. Scientific theories are somehow more acceptable to most people to accept than to believe that anything that the bible says ever happened.

Yea, funny thing that science. Theories vs. Fiction.  The bible isn't a theory. It's barely a hypothesis.

I wrote an article an article awhile back called "intelligent gravitation".  Why do things fall? If the bible said that God pushed objects down, I have no doubt there'd be people who would believe that.

on Jan 30, 2006
I think with some faith one can say, without violating much logic, that a guy named Noah and his family did build a boat and, together with their animals, survived a major flood, perhaps as the only members of the tribe or nation in question.


True, the same that one can reason that chemical reactions magically happened and wonderously became life of some type that then evolved into everything that is today. There is a fair amount of faith involved with that as well. Although there is much evidence, there is no proof. The only real point is that those who believe such things (evolution, God, little fat guys in loin cloths, etc) are deeply commited to those beliefs and I doubt anything said here will change that.
on Jan 30, 2006
Yea, funny thing that science. Theories vs. Fiction. The bible isn't a theory. It's barely a hypothesis.


No, it's a written account by eyewittnesses. Better than a theory.

Jesus himself said, in his parable, to the rich man who went to hell, that if they do not listen to Moses (who wrote about Noah) and the prophets neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead. The rich man who saw the truth too late just wanted to warn his brothers who had not passed onto the other side of eternity.

The funny thing about unbelief? It's never satisfied. It always wants more evidence.

9 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 7  Last