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 6)
9 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7 8  Last
on Jan 30, 2006
*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


Again, scriptures are proven by your very words.

"Wide is the gate and narrow is the way which leads to life and few there be that find it." Jesus

Thanks!!
on Jan 30, 2006

But that is indeed my point. Life did not spring up all over at once. It started somewhere, some point in time. So somewhere, all Y chromosones were the same. And like the mutation that begat man, the Y chromosone mutated as well. And continues to do so.

I'm not sure what you are getting at.  I am saying that there isn't a single "human" female that is the mother of us all.  Similarly, there is no single Scottman that is the originator of the Scottish race or a single mother of all Native Americans.  At some point, enough genetic change had occurred between organism X and organism Y that they could no longer reproduce together and at that point they're considered a seperate species. 

Evolution is like going on a run. Different people run at different paces. Eventually, over time, the two runners will be so far apart that they can't see each other anymore (analogous to being a different species).  But that second runner doesn't suddenly become the mother of all her kind because there were plenty of steps inbetween.

Bakerstreet:  I agree there are almost certainly more people who believe in alien visitations and UFOs than who believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis and Exodus. But that doesn't mean much.  I would bet that nearly 20% of American society believes in the bible very literally (Genesis and Exodus in particular).  Obviously that number decreases over time as people become more educated and there is less indoctrination into <insert religion here>.  But it's still a substantial number of people.

 

on Jan 30, 2006
Obviously that number decreases over time as people become more educated and there is less indoctrination into . But it's still a substantial number of people.


The inference that could be made is that all educated people do not believe in a literal bible. Obviously this could not be a blanket statement or one that could be convincingly defended by stating that there is some other "problem" with the person. However, the fact remains that some so-called "educated" people loose their belief in a literal bible and indeed their faith in God. Some of this is attributed to an "awakening" of reason. Also, for some it is that the desire to not belief, to not have to be concerned about eternity, karma, etc., is so strong that the wealth of ideas, theories and alternate beliefs provides a convienent shield to hide behind and embrace. Just my observations of those edumacated folks I have meet through my years of college and professional career.
on Jan 30, 2006

The inference that could be made is that all educated people do not believe in a literal bible. Obviously this could not be a blanket statement or one that could be convincingly defended by stating that there is some other "problem" with the person. However, the fact remains that some so-called "educated" people loose their belief in a literal bible and indeed their faith in God. Some of this is attributed to an "awakening" of reason. Also, for some it is that the desire to not belief, to not have to be concerned about eternity, karma, etc., is so strong that the wealth of ideas, theories and alternate beliefs provides a convienent shield to hide behind and embrace. Just my observations of those edumacated folks I have meet through my years of college and professional career.

Educated people generally don't believe in a literal bible. So as people become more educated, they are less likely to believe in the literal words of the bible.

I personally don't think most people have a "desire" to not want to believe in an afterlife.  I have no idea if there is an after life or not but I certainly hope there is.  

When you see people trying to seriously argue the literal truth of Noah's Ark or the Garden of Eden or whatever, it comes across to a "non-believe" such as myself as much the same as those people who are so into say Star Trek that they learn Klingon and dress up in Federation outfits.  Some people will believe anything. Scientology is just as, if not more whacked out IMO yet you have people like Tom Cruise espousing the "Science" behind that.

I personally don't care what people believe.  I only care when they start to try to argue their beliefs to be facts to me.

on Jan 31, 2006

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.


Chemical reactions do not need to "magically happen". It turns out that there are certain natural laws that make them happen. It's nothing to do with magic, or with faith. Chemical reactions happen whether you believe in them or not.


evolution


Evolution has also nothing to do with faith. We can actually see evolution. It doesn't require that we believe in it.

Also, your "reasoning" is faulty. While we indeed do not know how life started (but chemical reactions are a safe bet), evolution has nothing to do with whatever happened then. So your "conclusion" about evolution based on your ideas about the uncertainty of how life started is faulty.

Evolution does not rely on life having started via a chemical reaction. In fact, evolution says nothing about how life got started at all. It is merely what happens with life once it is there.

Many people don't understand that. That's why they keep thinking that Creationism is an alternative to evolution.

I assume all of our current diseases, most of which are small lifeforms, evolved after Noah? Or did he carry a pair of each type of bacterium on his boat?
on Jan 31, 2006

When you see people trying to seriously argue the literal truth of Noah's Ark or the Garden of Eden or whatever, it comes across to a "non-believe" such as myself as much the same as those people who are so into say Star Trek that they learn Klingon and dress up in Federation outfits.


Hey, wait a minute!

Trekkies do not believe that Star Trek is real, they do not think that "Klingons" really exist and they know that the Klingon language is a made-up language like Esperanto.

And lerning Klingon is apart from very nerdy and pointless for communications purposes certainly a good way to train one's brain. It cannot hurt to learn another language, even an artificial language. And there are a few people who speak Klingon well enough to get some use out of the language.
on Jan 31, 2006
(double post)
on Jan 31, 2006

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


Who exactly witnessed the creation?
on Jan 31, 2006
Who exactly witnessed the creation?


God. He is the only eyewitness account we have. No other "religion" even suggests an eyewitness.

He gives us the details and even asks Job himself, "Where were you when I set the foundation of the world?"
on Jan 31, 2006
I would bet that nearly 20% of American society believes in the bible very literally (Genesis and Exodus in particular)


I would bet its much higher.

Every time you see a Baptist Church...1st Baptist, American Baptist, those churches are full of people who believe it.

When a church states in their doctrine or statement of faith, they are a "Bible believing" church...it means exactly that. They find the Bible to be the perfect word of God.

Now I can only speak from my experience. I have lived in and have family who live in no less than 25 states. There are an abundance of Bible believing churches in those places.

The Methodist Church, the Baptist Church, the Berean churches, most non denominational churches, Nazarene churches, Assembly of God churches all believe the Bible is the infallible word of God. That's just off the top of my head.

I go to a non denominational church right now. It has over 1600 members and we teach the Bible as truth. Are there unbelievers among us? Certainly. But the majority are Bible believing...

So to say only 20%...well I think that is way off.

Also, my church is filled with Doctors, Scientists, Biologists, Professionals, they don't have any problem reconciling their faith and the Bible with man's knowledge. Because man doesn't know everything yet, and half of what we "know" tends to eventually be wrong.

That's my take.
on Jan 31, 2006

God. He is the only eyewitness account we have. No other "religion" even suggests an eyewitness.

He gives us the details and even asks Job himself, "Where were you when I set the foundation of the world?"


The details G-d gives us are the details we find when we do scientific research. What is in the book is not the details He gave us, but the approximation inspired authors wrote down.

I believe in the truth of the Bible. I believe that I must follow certain laws and I do. (I also believe that most people do not have to follow these laws.) But to believe that what I read into the Bible, when it contradicts what I know from real life, is a fact would be arrogance.

The truth is that this world was created by G-d. But the fact is that it is much older then the Bible suggests it is. One of my conclusions is the result of my belief, the other is the result of scientific research. If the two contradict each other, I must have made a mistake somewhere. It would be arrogant to say that the mistake cannot be in my beliefs.

And arrogant, says the law, I must not be.

on Jan 31, 2006
But to believe that what I read into the Bible, when it contradicts what I know from real life, is a fact would be arrogance.


I don't think you should "Read anything" into the Bible either.

But when God says He did something in 6 days...well real life as we know it today...is a mighty small box to put a powerful God in.

We'll have to agree to disagree I think.

You can not persuade me God is not all powerful and capable.

I can not persuade you to see Him outside the "box of reality" you place Him in.

on Jan 31, 2006

You can not persuade me God is not all powerful and capable.


I didn't say He wasn't. I was talking solely about my (and humanity's) abilities, not G-d's.


I can not persuade you to see Him outside the "box of reality" you place Him in.


I see Him outside the box of reality. In my example the creator of the world with the knights and the castle was outside the reality of that world. That's how I see G-d.

I see a human inability to understand the Bible and a tendency to believe that a limited understanding of it and the world constitutes proof that science is wrong. But that doesn't mean that I think that G-d is not outside the box of reality. Quite in contrast, it means that He must be.
on Jan 31, 2006
I wrote an article about this subject here: http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/index.asp?aid=8279
on Jan 31, 2006
I personally don't care what people believe. I only care when they start to try to argue their beliefs to be facts to me.


I completely agree, but on the other side of the coin. Believing in evolution is just that, a belief. Evolution, while it looks good on paper and has what some consider strong evidence, is still a good theory and not a fact. That people argue it as a fact that removes the possibility of a God is when I *may* respond, if I even dignify it with a response.

Is there an afterlife? WIthout there being a spiritual world I do not see how that can be. If you then admit there is a spiritual world then you can begin to search for what is truth, where it came from, where it is going.

In a couple of weeks it will all be moot because GalCiv2 will be out and all the free time will be spent with that!
9 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7 8  Last