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 9)
9 PagesFirst 7 8 9 
on Feb 03, 2006
Thanks Sgsmitty...I agree.

And Jill I agree with you about the respect for both sides. I don't feel I've got that from you. If you're referring to my question....What if you're wrong? It wasn't meant to be disrespectful only a challenge. I ask that alot in person and have never had a problem with another in my asking that. Maybe it's because there is no eye contact, body language, facial expression or tone of voice here on JU........ who knows? I didn't flat out say you were wrong....I asked what if? Meaning.....are you prepared for that? That's all.

You may want to check out this site as well...... www.carm.org I actually found this a year or so ago from another blogger somewhere in the great blogging world. It's one of my favorite sites now. This guy's done his HW. I've checked out thoroughly and find this guy to be trustworthy and honest. I especially like his "questions that Atheists most commonly ask" section. I think it was 20. You may as well.







on Feb 06, 2006

Oh please KFC.  You obviously have no idea how haughty you come across.  Jill's hardly anti-religious.

Few people, at least in the United States, start out as unbelievers.  Most of us are presented with the Christian faith.  Some of us have had it shoved down our throats. 

For many of us non-believers, we started out as believers and then gradually lost our faith as we started looking objectively at the evidence as we saw it.  You talk about "preconceived" notions that others have without realizing how brainwashed you come across to those of us who see Christianity as just another mythology club that got out of control.

It doesn't matter to me what you believe. It doesn't hurt me.  But don't sit there and act like you're somehow open minded.  You ask for contradictions, you're given an entire site full of examples (heck, if I recall, the first page of the bible has a big one -- light before the sun and stars).  Did you look at them? I doubt it.  You arne't open to other points of view because you are so certain that you have no need to even look at other sources of evidence.

on Feb 06, 2006

BTW KFC, you asked for contradictions, this site covers some of them pretty well:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#beasts_or_man

 

on Feb 06, 2006
You don't have to be anti-religion to doubt the literal perfection of the Bible. Many, many Christians consider the Bible a guide, and even consider it to be inspired, without granting it literal, supreme accuracy. One of my teachers in college was a minister, taught the religion courses at my school, and would *grill* you if you posed the Bible as the infallible word of God.

That didn't make him less of a Christian, imho, only skeptical enough not to let ink and paper guide him more than his own relationship with God. How many people, given dubious interpretations of the Bible, have been led against their concience and done the wrong thing? We have a thousand years of brutality that people excused with their own interpretation of the book.

In my opinion, you can hear the words of God come from people, but no person is perfect. Untold numbers of people are between God and the book you read when you read the bible, over thousands of years. Some of it doesn't even claim to be the word of God. That doesn't mean you can't find the "still, small voice" there, it just means that no material object can be a perfect ideal.

That said, I don't want to discourage anyone from their beliefs, only explain mine. I have just too often seen the Bible used as a bludgeoning tool, seen words twisted to mean hateful things, and seen people who would trust a book instead of their own concience in dealing with their fellow men. I can't accept the idea that such an abused item can be perfect.
on Feb 06, 2006
That said, I don't want to discourage anyone from their beliefs, only explain mine. I have just too often seen the Bible used as a bludgeoning tool, seen words twisted to mean hateful things, and seen people who would trust a book instead of their own concience in dealing with their fellow men. I can't accept the idea that such an abused item can be perfect.


So very well said BakerStreet!

I don't feel I've got that from you.
KFC, you just seem to be one of those people who doesn't see any wrong doing in themselves. Many people have asked "what if you're wrong?" You asked "Have you ever been wrong?" I said "Yes, have you?" to which I got no answer. I have never meant you any disrespect and certainly have nothing against christians. You seem to wear your christian status as some sort of chip on your shoulder. You've stated that you think your screen name is offensive to many. I don't find anything offensive about Christ or his followers. I judge people on their own merits.

I feel I am respectful, you don't. We will have to agree to disagree. I have nothing against you personally because I don't even know you. You keep trying to prove something with me and it just isn't going to happen. I've even stuck up for your stance here on this thread yet all you ever do is leave comments for me that might start with "I agree on____" but then you get straight to the criticism.

I have nothing wrong with people who live according to their convictions. You have the right to draw conclusions according to the experiences you have along the path of your own life. My problem is when others try to prove their way is the right way. I have never suggested anyone give up their faith or that they are wrong in having it. I just have no interest in being preached to.

Science can draw plenty of legitimate questions about the things that happened in the bible. If you have already accepted it as the word of God though, you can explain anything that happened because an almighty creator could have done anything in any manner he chose. No tools that we have today can prove or disprove that.
on Feb 07, 2006
KFC, I tend to agree with some of what others are saying concerning your reactions. From a Christian perspective (and others as well I think) the world is a world of free choice. From the Christian perspective there will be those who will not see it, get it, understand it, believe it, etc. and you certainly will not be the deciding factor.

Faith in God, for most, is very difficult. There are alternate theories, beliefs, etc that are backed up by whatever evidence the adherents wish to believe. Of course that could be said for any theist as well. Arguing over the bible is dubious as well, I just wish that someone during one of the many "rewrites" of the bible would have simply removed all the contradictions, or perceived contradictions that exist. That would have been easy enough back in Nicea but hey I was not there.

Science, by its’ very nature calls everything into question, even itself. There have been many scientific truths or theories that science itself disproved hundreds of years later. Who knows, the theory of evolution may one day get disproved. For many, some of the answers go a long way to invalidate the belief in God. For others, the answers found or even the new questions raised point out the intricacies of God.

Usually, to me at least, it seems that when someone strikes out to attack God it boils down to roughly two differing points of motivation. One, they strike out against God to validate their own unbelief and the insecurity that may come from that. Or two, they are really striking out again religion because of past pains from said religion or they simply enjoy pressing the ‘Easy’ button to see others get spun up.

Likewise, at least to me, when I see thumpers brow beating the rest of the world I boil it down to a desire to validate their beliefs and to fit in and be accepted by everyone. This may stem from there own insecurity in their belief. Or secondly to use their belief to beat on and judge others which in the end might be a result of some form of jealousy they have that the unbeliever gets to do what ever they want.

As I said before, on JoeUser, there appears to be a far more vocal group who speak out against Christianity as opposed to those thumpers condemning the world. Not much that can be done other than to smile and read on…
on Feb 19, 2006
I guess someone forgotto check The King James Bible.Noah was a Human being as were you and I.
on Feb 19, 2006



I guess someone forgotto check The King James Bible.Noah was a Human being as were you and I.


And your point would be?
9 PagesFirst 7 8 9