Noah's Ark

[Mickmeister]

I was thinking this weekend while I was in the duck blind about the ludicrousness of Noah's Ark. For one, there are roughly 20,000 species of fish, 6,000 species of reptiles, 9,000 birds, 1,000 amphibians, and 15,000 species of mammals. That would take one hell of an ark to house all of those animals, plus the sheer resources required to feed them. There would also be the issue of cramped spaces and the animals fighting and killing each other, which would be unavoidable, therefor making some species extinct, since there was only one male and one female of each species. Then the issue of plant life being completely destroyed, thereby no food for the plant eating species. If the entire planet had been flooded, would there not be fossilized remains of sea life scattered across the continents? Next, with all life being destroyed, including flooded plant life, how was the earth's atmosphere oxygenated? Finally, where did all of that water go?

 

[spidergoat]

The only reason we even discuss it in a semi-serious way is because this myth of part of our contemporary culture. The thousands of other religious myths of cultures that may or may not still exist do not often get a second thought.

 

[cosmictraveler]

I was thinking this weekend while I was in the duck blind about the ludicrousness of Noah's Ark

Strange thoughts you have, I'd be thinking about why am I here, in this freezing cold , cramped little shelter trying to shoot something that I could buy in a store. :shrug:

Finally, where did all of that water go?

Evaporation? :shrug:

 

[NMSquirrel]

Strange thoughts you have, I'd be thinking about why am I here, in this freezing cold , cramped little shelter trying to shoot something that I could buy in a store. :shrug:

ain't you supposed to be doing that without the tech toys?

BUSTED!

 

[Anti-Flag]

Finally, where did all of that water go?

Simple, someone took the plug out....

 

[NMSquirrel]

if each religion has the ark story then it would make sense that either there was only one noah and all the religions are familiar with him, or there was more than one noah, in which case there would be room for more species..

i think research from zoo's on how many different species can be transported in that manner would be beneficial to understanding how it could be done.

of all the stories in the bible, i think noah has had the most research done on it..

this also assumes that there were no mountain peaks that animals could have taken refuge at,i would sooner believe that there was more than one peak poking out of the flooded lands..(animals are quicker than humans to get to higher ground..)

as far as where did all the water go..its still here..there are several theories that say the water level was lower in ancient times..

 

[Anti-Flag]

if each religion has the ark story then it would make sense that either there was only one noah and all the religions are familiar with him, or there was more than one noah, in which case there would be room for more species..

Including isolated places such as Australia?

this also assumes that there were no mountain peaks that animals could have taken refuge at,i would sooner believe that there was more than one peak poking out of the flooded lands..(animals are quicker than humans to get to higher ground..)

Doesn't that negate the point of a global flood covering all land and the very need for an ark?
It also ignores the repopulation of humans.

as far as where did all the water go..its still here..there are several theories that say the water level was lower in ancient times..

But the world isn't currently flooded, so where did the excess go?

 

[spidergoat]

if each religion has the ark story then it would make sense that either there was only one noah and all the religions are familiar with him, or there was more than one noah, in which case there would be room for more species..

i think research from zoo's on how many different species can be transported in that manner would be beneficial to understanding how it could be done.

of all the stories in the bible, i think noah has had the most research done on it..

this also assumes that there were no mountain peaks that animals could have taken refuge at,i would sooner believe that there was more than one peak poking out of the flooded lands..(animals are quicker than humans to get to higher ground..)

as far as where did all the water go..its still here..there are several theories that say the water level was lower in ancient times..

The problem with depending on multiple flood myths to support the hypothesis of a worldwide flood is that floods ordinarily happen all over the world, and thus become the stuff of myth. There are numerous very good reasons why a worldwide flood never happened. I find the most compelling one the fact that ocean cores would show a more or less uniform layer of flood sediments and debris, and this is absent.

 

[NMSquirrel]

But the world isn't currently flooded, so where did the excess go?

your questions are usually less 'duh' than this..

Spider
The problem with depending on multiple flood myths to support the hypothesis of a worldwide flood is that floods ordinarily happen all over the world, and thus become the stuff of myth. There are numerous very good reasons why a worldwide flood never happened.

i wasn't depending..just speculating..
i like the Earth Crust Displacement (ECD) hypothesis
..

Hapgood claimed that towards the end of the last ice age, around 12,000 years ago, the extensive mass of glacial ice covering the northern continents caused the lithosphere to ‘slip’ over the asthenosphere, moving Antarctica, during a period of at most several centuries, from a position in the middle latitudes to its current location, and at the same time rotating the other continents. Antarctica’s movement to the polar region precipitated the development of its ice cap. Similarly, by shifting the northern ice sheets out of the arctic zone, the end of the ice age was facilitated.

I find the most compelling one the fact that ocean cores would show a more or less uniform layer of flood sediments and debris, and this is absent.

and another excerpt from that article.

...sedimentary cores collected from the bottom of the Ross Sea by one of the Byrd Antarctic Expeditions provide conclusive evidence that ’great rivers, carrying down fine well grained sediments’ did flow in this part of Antarctica until perhaps as late as 4000 BC (Hancock, 1995, p. 477).

(i think this part is just evidenceing that the antartic was once in a temperate zone..)

 

[Lori_7]

ever watch the show "ancient aliens"? they've suggested that noah's ark could have been a dna storage facility.

 

[Anti-Flag]

your questions are usually less 'duh' than this..

I'll take that as a compliment. Seriously, you're correct that sea levels have risen(and fallen) several times throughout history, but I believe that heavily coincides with the amount of water retained as ice at the poles and vapour in the atmosphere - but that change takes a large amount of time to occur, and a substantial amount of additional water would be required to cover the entire planet(more than we currently retain at the poles).
Maybe I'm not remembering my science correctly but I think the overall amount of water on the planet is fairly consistent, it's just the form that changes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle

 

[NMSquirrel]

I'll take that as a compliment. Seriously, you're correct that sea levels have risen(and fallen) several times throughout history, but I believe that heavily coincides with the amount of water retained as ice at the poles and vapour in the atmosphere - but that change takes a large amount of time to occur, and a substantial amount of additional water would be required to cover the entire planet(more than we currently retain at the poles).
Maybe I'm not remembering my science correctly but I think the overall amount of water on the planet is fairly consistent, it's just the form that changes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle

i think it is a misinterpretation (pry from the authors perspective) that the earth was ENTIRELY covered by water..

so from a scientific perspective how much of the earth would be covered if all the ice melted (north and south)

 

[spidergoat]

It would be much more likely that a huge wave swept around the world, that at least would avoid the question of where all the water came from. Except doesn't the tale say that the waters eventually became calm?

 

[Anti-Flag]

i think it is a misinterpretation (pry from the authors perspective) that the earth was ENTIRELY covered by water..

so from a scientific perspective how much of the earth would be covered if all the ice melted (north and south)

Well if ALL the ice melted (which isn't actually possible, but we'll get to that), sea levels would rise by about 220 feet.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question473.htm

The ice in the arctic is floating, and hence displacing water in the process, so it could actually melt and change sea levels very little (although on an environmental note the freshwater mixing in with saltwater oceans wouldn't be good for the local ocean creatures).
This doesn't apply to the ice at Greenland or the Antarctic. Now for Antarctica to melt would really be something, as the temperature would have to rise enough to melt all the ice first.

Just out of interest here is a pic of the globe should sea levels rise approx 330feet (thats a third more than possible if the ice melted). The red indicates the flooded areas.

Significant yes, but still far from global.

 

[NMSquirrel]

how long would it take for the wheather to calm down in the event of an earth crust displacement
i understand the position of the weight of the ice would not cause this, how about any other cause ?(meteor,magnetics,magma flow..etc)

(BTW nice reply Anti-Flag)

 

[Anti-Flag]

how long would it take for the wheather to calm down in the event of an earth crust displacement
i understand the position of the weight of the ice would not cause this, how about any other cause ?(meteor,magnetics,magma flow..etc)

(BTW nice reply Anti-Flag)

Thanks.

As for earth crust dsplacement and the hapgood hypothesis: This is something that is far less easy to measure and predict, and is therefore full of speculation.
Just reading the first few lines of the article gives me concern that it is based on little actual evidence - a speculation that as maps don't accurately map something undiscovered, it must have previously been discovered, but at a different time, such that would allow the maps to actually be accurate after all - further speculating the shift of continents as one and in a short time frame to allow his "theory" to fit. :shrug:
It seems a good case of having the beliefs first, and so making something up to fit with the preconcieved views, rather than analysis of evidence to create views and beliefs on the basis of fact. It seems the conclusion of the article agrees that it's illogical progression.

 

[NMSquirrel]

As for earth crust dsplacement and the hapgood hypothesis: This is something that is far less easy to measure and predict, and is therefore full of speculation.

i would agree that it is speculation, but some good science became because of 'what if'.

speculation;

if an asteroid of the right size and hit on the right trajectory hit the crustal plates just right,would it move adjacent plates in the same direction?

i would not say so as the plates do not have a square meeting point..the subduction zones, where plates meet determine the directionality of the energy..i think it would look more like a puzzle on a soft bed that a tennis ball hitting it would case massive damage but it would not move as one..but then for this analogy to be more accurate the puzzle pieces would have to arranged for subduction zones..

what if..
the magma current just below the earths crust somehow lined up in the same direction?

How much of the earths crust can be influenced by a magnetic field?

i can also speculate that the current distribution and locations of land mass is caused by the spin of the earth and the moon..

it makes sense if the crust is floating on magma that it COULD shift..
it doesn't invalidate the supposition because we haven't found what WOULD cause it..

 

[Anti-Flag]

i would agree that it is speculation, but some good science became because of 'what if'.

There's 'what if' and then there's blind guessing and pulling things out of your ass.

speculation;

if an asteroid of the right size and hit on the right trajectory hit the crustal plates just right,would it move adjacent plates in the same direction?

i would not say so as the plates do not have a square meeting point..the subduction zones, where plates meet determine the directionality of the energy..i think it would look more like a puzzle on a soft bed that a tennis ball hitting it would case massive damage but it would not move as one..but then for this analogy to be more accurate the puzzle pieces would have to arranged for subduction zones..

I would agree that it would have minimal effect on plate movement, and is more likely to disrupt the axial movement of the earth, if it is of a significant size.

what if..
the magma current just below the earths crust somehow lined up in the same direction?

How much of the earths crust can be influenced by a magnetic field?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by lined up, surely magma behaves more like a liquid and hence must flow, and if it flowed in the same direction then perhaps all plates would move as one, but we know they don't.
As for magnetic field, I think that's fairly insignificant as the magnetic field of the earth is in flux and is known to reverse, and I haven't seen any evidence that this coincides with any tectonic movement.

i can also speculate that the current distribution and locations of land mass is caused by the spin of the earth and the moon..

it makes sense if the crust is floating on magma that it COULD shift..
it doesn't invalidate the supposition because we haven't found what WOULD cause it..

You could speculate a lot of things. Surely if it was due to the spin of the earth then this would cause them to all travel in the same direction?
But we have evidence against it, and you can't float a theory that contradicts evidence on the claim that it'll be proved right someday we just don't know it yet - this would lead to scientific chaos. :shrug:

 

[NMSquirrel]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by lined up, surely magma behaves more like a liquid and hence must flow, and if it flowed in the same direction then perhaps all plates would move as one, but we know they don't.

yes fluid and flow..(sorry i used wrong word)..right now what i can speculate on is those flows tend to be more like the pics we see of the suns currents, more chaotic, in various directions..i think it would be safe to claim that north of equator it circulates counter clockwise and south clockwise..this force tends to cancel out each other to not have so much of an effect on the crustal plates, is there data for the flow of magma under the crust?

As for magnetic field, I think that's fairly insignificant as the magnetic field of the earth is in flux and is known to reverse, and I haven't seen any evidence that this coincides with any tectonic movement.

i would sooner believe it influences but not causes such a thing.
speculation;a magnetics field can align the electrons in a given substance to magnetize such substance, if the magnetic field was reversed suddenly then the field would repulse that which it just magnetized, i am sure there would be little or no data to validate this as i would suspect a negligible effect would be discovered..

You could speculate a lot of things. Surely if it was due to the spin of the earth then this would cause them to all travel in the same direction?

centrifical force caused by the planets rotation would have an effect on the land masses, they would have a tendency to be denser at the equator..
of which current continent dispersal pretty much validates this..and the moon..(this is the part that confuses me)..tidal forces are caused by the moons gravity pushing at the ocean...yet in space gravity is what causes chunks of rocks to come together to build planets..(impact also)
Question; don't the highest mountains tend to be closer to the equator?

But we have evidence against it,

i think you missed what i was saying..

and you can't float a theory that contradicts evidence on the claim that it'll be proved right someday we just don't know it yet - this would lead to scientific chaos. :shrug:

are you saying there is evidence that the spin of the earth has no effect on tectonic movement?

 

[Anti-Flag]

yes fluid and flow..(sorry i used wrong word)..right now what i can speculate on is those flows tend to be more like the pics we see of the suns currents, more chaotic, in various directions..i think it would be safe to claim that north of equator it circulates counter clockwise and south clockwise..this force tends to cancel out each other to not have so much of an effect on the crustal plates, is there data for the flow of magma under the crust?

I'm not entirely sure on that, I've never been so interested in plate tectonics to do extensive research on it, but now I may have to.

i would sooner believe it influences but not causes such a thing.
speculation;a magnetics field can align the electrons in a given substance to magnetize such substance, if the magnetic field was reversed suddenly then the field would repulse that which it just magnetized, i am sure there would be little or no data to validate this as i would suspect a negligible effect would be discovered..

centrifical force caused by the planets rotation would have an effect on the land masses, they would have a tendency to be denser at the equator..
of which current continent dispersal pretty much validates this..and the moon..(this is the part that confuses me)..tidal forces are caused by the moons gravity pushing at the ocean...yet in space gravity is what causes chunks of rocks to come together to build planets..(impact also)
Question; don't the highest mountains tend to be closer to the equator?

Land masses have moved frequently throughout time (and continue to travel), they were far more centered around the equator before the breakup of Pangaea. Again, the masses move in various directions, so I find it hard to follow the logic of the rotation causing the movement as I feel this would move them the same direction - its effects are probably minimal.
The mountains are formed from colliding plates, which involves going in opposite directions. IIRC all mountains in the world over 8000 metres(above water) are in the same range (Himalayas), obviously the largest collision of plates forcing matter upwards.
I'm not sure in general that large mountains are particularly centred around the equator as such, and there are many more mountains and ranges under the oceans - these are all more obviously centred at the edges of plates, and as plates move the locations of these mountains will change over time.

i think you missed what i was saying..

are you saying there is evidence that the spin of the earth has no effect on tectonic movement?

I'm saying there is clear evidence of plates moving freely away from each other, so any theory involving claims to the contrary requires evidence.