Was the World Created in 6 Days...?

[edlib]

Indeed it could. However even if we were to resolve this one issue, it still would not match what modern cosmology tells us about the formation of the universe.

Not exactly... you'd have to be super-generous in looking for the parallels.

But it could be the super-condensed, ultra-simplified version for folks who really don't want or care about the science facts, and just want to know that it was done at all.

[Achilles]

But it could be the super-condensed, ultra-simplified version for folks who really don't want or care about the science facts, and just want to know that it was done at all.

And that's fine too, but accuracy should count. I'm all for making the answer as digestible as possible, but "goddunit and it twas magical" doesn't constitute an answer.

[edlib]

I agree... but there will always be those that just never want to hear it.

 

My theory is that if you can get someone to accept the fact that the words of Genesis and the scientific knowledge we have of the formation of the universe aren't completely in conflict... then you've gotten a door that was completely sealed-shut open perhaps a tiny bit.

[Achilles]

I agree... but there will always be those that just never want to hear it.

Okay. Then those individuals should a) politely excuse themselves from the conversation due to a self-professed lack of interest and b) stop insisting that the scientific community pander to them.

 

My theory is that if you can get someone to accept the fact that the words of Genesis and the scientific knowledge we have of the formation of the universe aren't completely in conflict... then you've gotten a door that was completely sealed-shut open perhaps a tiny bit.

And you might be correct. My thinking is that you don't foster an interest in math by letting kids believe that 2+2= whatever number they want it to equal until they are old enough (???) to decide on their own that they are okay with it being 4.

[Blix]

I think it's as possible as the prospect of a senior citizen rounding up one of every species of animal onto a boat

[Achilles]

I think it's as possible as the prospect of a senior citizen rounding up one of every species of animal onto a boat

I believe the exact term was "kind". Where "kind" fits in the taxonomy is unknown

 

Hint: is a chihuahua the same "kind" as a great dane or are they different? Great dane and a wolf? Wolf and a coyote?

[EnderWiggin]

^^But that doesn't really serve as a counterpoint to Blix's argument.

 

_EW_

[Achilles]

More of an aside/correction. "Species" is clearly defined. One can look it up and know what it means. "Kind" is a little (a lot) different.

[Blix]

I believe the exact term was "kind". Where "kind" fits in the taxonomy is unknown

 

Hint: is a chihuahua the same "kind" as a great dane or are they different? Great dane and a wolf? Wolf and a coyote?

 

Split hairs much (flashes of Quincy)

 

Also nobody answered my question...

[Achilles]

Split hairs much

It's not even close to "splitting hairs". There is no "kind" in our taxonomy. "Species" means something and tells us something specific. "Kind" does not.

 

If noah (allegedly) took two of every "species" onto the ark, then we know that he took two chihuahuas, two wolves, two great danes, two pekineses, two labradors, two golden retrievers, etc, etc, etc. That's just a smattering of "dogs". Let's do this for "cats", "horses", "cows", etc and compare it to how big we're told the ark is (vs how big it would have to be).

 

Aside: Wikipedia tells me that there are 34 species of deer. Memory tells me that there are more than 300,000 species of beetles.

 

If noah (allegedly) took two of every "class" onto the ark, then we know that he took two "dogs" (not very specific as we know that "dog" is a very vague reference to a very long list of possible species). He took two "cats" too? Great. Same problem as above. Does that mean he took two lions or does that mean he took two house cats (Felis catus)?

 

So, please, feel free to demonstrate how I am indeed "splitting hairs" by clarifying for me precisely what "kind" means. Thanks in advance.

 

Also nobody answered my question...

You have one previous post in this thread. It does not contain a question.

[Blix]

Well whatever races/species/kinds/genres or however you like it nitpick away to your own heart's content (on someone else's time mind you), I will use whatever terminology I am familiar and comfortable with thank you very much.

 

On-topic; I don't believe the world was actually created in 60 days (nor do I believe religion had a thing to do with the process). Now for my actual question since Achilles was kind enough to rectify for me, why and how could such a complex and wondrous world such as ours come to exist in only 6 days...to me it doesn't seem feasible.

 

Also to add onto before, I don't believe it was ever specified in the bible just how many different classifications of animals Noah brought aboard the Ark, all we know are 2 of every kind a male and a female. I'm not aware of how many different breeds/off-shoots of animals existed in that time frame, however I know if it were even 10,000 BC there would be a significant difference in the animals that popular culture assumes were all on the ark (2 chimps, two giraffes, two bears, two camels, etc.) Also how would Noah be able to travel all over the globe in enough time to gather such a bestiary before the flood happens? Pangea broke off into different countries a long time ago, so the selection of animals would be slim for the area he was in. Which brings me to ask, is he Santa Claus and does he have access to a super sled guided by eight reindeer?

[M@RS]

The real question is, why do these two stories (Gen 1 and Gen 2) differ? More, how is it possible for them to differ?

 

_EW_

 

Because the first story (Genesis 1) is describing the creation of Earth. Genesis 2 is describing the creation of the Garden of Eden...

 

Memory tells me that there are more than 300,000 species of beetles.

 

Noah didn't have to take beetles, they can breath underwater just fine because they "breath" through their skin.

[Achilles]

Well whatever races/species/kinds/genres or however you like it nitpick away to your own heart's content (on someone else's time mind you), I will use whatever terminology I am familiar and comfortable with thank you very much.

This is not an argument.

 

On-topic; I don't believe the world was actually created in 60 days (nor do I believe religion had a thing to do with the process). Now for my actual question since Achilles was kind enough to rectify for me, why and how could such a complex and wondrous world such as our come to life in simply 6 days...to me it doesn't seem feasible.

Good for you. The scientific evidence agrees.

 

Also to add onto before, I don't believe it was ever specified in the bible just how many different classifications of animals Noah brought aboard the Ark, all we know are 2 of every kind a male and a female.

Oh, so you do what to discuss this after all. Once more: please define "kind".

 

Here is a wikipedia link on biological classification (specifics on the taxonomy are shown in pretty colors on the right). Please point out which of these you suggest we equate with "kind".

 

I'm not aware of how many different breeds/off-shoots of animals existed in that time frame, however I know if it were even 10,000 BC there would be a significant difference in the animals that popular culture assumes were all on the ark (2 chimps, two giraffes, two bears, two camels, etc.)

"All" what? There are 2 species of chimpanzees. Which are you referring to? When you say "bear" do you mean "Panda bear", "black bear" (asian or n. american?), "brown bear"?

 

Also how would Noah be able to travel all over the globe in enough time to gather such a bestiary before the flood happens?

A good question. Another one is, how was he able to travel all over the globe to deposit specific species where we find them (i.e. marsupials in the Australia, etc) before the animals died?

 

Pangea broke off into different countries a long time ago, so the selection of animals would be slim for the area he was in.

An valid argument which makes the mistake of assuming that the noah's ark myth actually transpired as well as many other things. Pangea split about 250 million years ago. The events from the noah myth are said to have occurred <6000 years ago. There is no mention of continental drift in the bible so there is no reason to assume that the authors were aware of it. Even so, we have no reason to believe that there would have been fewer animals around then anyway.

 

Which brings me to ask is he Santa Claus and does he have access to a sled guided by eight reindeer?

9 if you accept the Rudolph mythos.

 

Noah didn't have to take beetles, they can breath underwater just fine because they "breath" through their skin.

Well there goes the argument for how noah managed to take care of all the animal waste.

 

Since you didn't like that example (either you missed the point or are purposely attempting to avoid it): were you aware that there are more than 350 species of squirrel? One boy, one girl means at least 700 squirrels were on the ark (assuming that "kind" = "species"). But squirrels are small and don't take up much room, right? I notice you didn't offer commentary on the deer. Those are pretty big last time I checked. Again, we know how big the ark was. How soon before we start running out of room?

[Blix]

This is not an argument.

 

I'm sorry?

 

"All" what? There are 2 species of chimpanzees. Which are you referring to? When you say "bear" do you mean "Panda bear", "black bear" (asian or n. american?), "brown bear"?

 

Again, splitting hairs. But I'm sure that since you hold Phd's in zoology and philosophy. Of course I am only assuming such doctrines transpired in the first place, but you knew that already...

 

A good question. Another one is, how was he able to travel all over the globe to deposit specific species where we find them (i.e. marsupials in the Australia, etc) before the animals died?

 

If we go by the classical myths we can assume there were limitless possibilities for Noah; he could have clicked his heels together three times, could have summoned a giant flying stingray to fly him from place to place, or he could have driven a sled.

 

An valid argument which makes the mistake of assuming that the noah's ark myth actually transpired as well as many other things. Pangea split about 250 million years ago. The events from the noah myth are said to have occurred <6000 years ago. There is no mention of continental drift in the bible so there is no reason to assume that the authors were aware of it. Even so, we have no reason to believe that there would have been fewer animals around then anyway.

 

In making an argument you are either going to assume that something either happened or it didn't, I suppose I should have phrased it; "hypothetically speaking since Pangea broke off into different countries years ago, etc, etc". Thank you for the lesson, no really. Anyway I will willfully eject myself from the "conversation" before a moderator decides to do it for me. Plus I would hate for anyone else to miss out on the opportunity for a decent altercation...erm debate.

[Achilles]

I'm sorry?

An argument is a series of logical premises leading to a conclusion.

 

In other words, "this portion of your response doesn't say anything".

 

Again, splitting hairs.

No, it's not "splitting hairs" as I have repeatedly pointed out. Your insistence that it is doesn't make it so (it's also not a counter-argument). If you insist on using the word "species", please do so correctly. If you insist on using the word "kind", please tell us what that means. I fail to understand what is so complicated about this.

 

But I'm sure that since you hold Phd's in zoology and philosophy.

Neither, but then again, I don't see why either would be necessary. One does not need to be an expert to speak intelligently about a subject.

 

Of course I am only assuming such doctrines transpired in the first place, but you knew that already...

Please help me understand what this means?

 

If we go by the classical myths we can assume there were limitless possibilities for Noah; he could have clicked his heels together three times, could have summoned a giant flying stingray to fly him from place to place, or he could have driven a sled.

I'm not sure where any of this is discussed in the book of genesis (i.e. the primary source of the "classical myth"). Are you arbitrarily redefining again, or was every bible I've ever read missing the "flying stingray" part?

 

In making an argument you are either going to assume that something either happened or it didn't, I suppose I should have phrased it; "hypothetically speaking since Pangea broke off into different countries years ago, etc, etc". Thank you for the lesson, no really.

Nothing you've said here addressed my point(s). You're conflating thing that did happen (per the evidence we have for them) with things that were said to have happened.

[Totenkopf]

The problem with your whole argument is that you're cherry picking. If the 6000 yr timeline were actually true, you can deus ex machina away all the other problems. If God is fact and not fiction, that explains everything. He willed it. Since you figure God/gods are unreal, it's largely irrelevant how it was done....b/c essentially it wasn't.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

To your point, why would it take an omnipotent being 6 million/billion years to create a universe? He/she/it is capable of kicking off the big bang with a thought, yet we need multiple generations of stars/novae in order to form heavy elements? What do we win by successfully shoe-horning actual science into a 2000 year (or more ala OT) old series of stories?

He is a fan of Rube Goldberg devices .

[Achilles]

He is a fan of Rube Goldberg devices .

That must be it.

 

I'm always amazed by the mental gymnastics that many people are willing to undergo in order to maintain an untenable position.

 

EDIT: *re-reads signature* Nevermind.

 

Better questions for this thread: Why did god need 6 days? Why did he need to rest on the 7th? Was he tired?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

After rethinking this thread some on a climbing trip, I've come to the new conclusion that the derailing into a scientific discussion was slightly uncalled for. I thought to myself, hey, if I made a thread asking how old the Earth and universe are according to science, and somebody popped up going "according to the Bible, for anyone out there willing to find real truth, it's 6000 years old", I'd be mildly annoyed .

 

Better questions for this thread: Why did god need 6 days? Why did he need to rest on the 7th? Was he tired?

While my open-minded, climbing-trip-in-idyllic-nature-induced peace of mind lasts ... if I was to create a whole universe, I'd spend a day sitting back admiring it, too. Then again, it does specifically say rest, and I don't know if his omnipotence was established yet by Genesis' time.

[M@RS]

Well there goes the argument for how noah managed to take care of all the animal waste.

 

Since you didn't like that example (either you missed the point or are purposely attempting to avoid it): were you aware that there are more than 350 species of squirrel? One boy, one girl means at least 700 squirrels were on the ark (assuming that "kind" = "species"). But squirrels are small and don't take up much room, right? I notice you didn't offer commentary on the deer. Those are pretty big last time I checked. Again, we know how big the ark was. How soon before we start running out of room?

 

Right. He took babies of every large animal (or probably every animal) they're smaller, they don't eat as much, and they don't leave as much waste (which might've been dumped in the sea, or put in a certain area until the ark was on dry land). So, if he took babies, he wouldn't run out of room.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

We're discussing Noah's Ark now? I must've missed that particular derail. Either way, as a Bible enthusiast, I find it a fascinating, if not deeply disturbing myth, but I don't believe it for a second, not only due to its many, many, many impossibilities, but also because it's obviously one of the many adaptations of the Babylonian epic of Gilgamesh. It has so many of the same features - a great flood, only a few humans surviving, those few humans living for a long time, and so on, that it's really hard to dismiss as a coincidence, especially seeing that the Israelites were slaves of the Babylonians for a time, and adopted Babylonian customs, ethics and laws during their stay. As an aside, the Babylonian ruler Hammurabi was also the source of the Jewish doctrine of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".

 

Other than its obvious source, though, the myth itself is simply impossible in so many ways, not only because of geological reasons but also due to the impossibility of caring for so many species, for so long. I'm a former animal shelter volunteer. We had a staff far larger than Noah's family, and cared for far less animals (mostly dogs and cats, but also some smaller specimen like rabbits and hedgehogs), and it was still tiring work. We had to feed the animals, care for them, take them for walks, give them medical care, etc. Our shelter, at any one time, had some young animals and some older ones. Trust me, reducing their age reduces somewhat the problem of space and habitat, but introduces several new ones. First and foremost, how are these young animals supposed to survive in the wild after having been raised by humans for their first month of existence? You try to raise a couple wolf pups for the first portion of their lives, for then to drop them off in a patch of woods utterly devastated by a massive, horrific doomsday flood, and see how they cope when they suddenly have to find their own food (what food? Don't ask me).

 

Look, M@RS, I realize you probably have a lot invested in the Bible, but there's just no way around the fact that the myth of Noah is fiction.

[Achilles]

He took babies of every large animal (or probably every animal)

Where does it say this? Chapter and verse please, otherwise I'll have no choice other than to assume that you're making this up.

 

So, if he took babies, he wouldn't run out of room.

Really? We haven't even established what "kind" means, so I cannot even begin to imagine how you came to this conclusion. What kind of babies? How many babies were there? How much space would they need? Do you even know how big the ark was?

 

Write back soon.

 

Also:

[M@RS]

Where does it say this? Chapter and verse please, otherwise I'll have no choice other than to assume that you're making this up.

 

I'd consider it more like speculation. Noah had to use common sense (and logic). If the adults are too big, then take the babies.

 

Really? We haven't even established what "kind" means, so I cannot even begin to imagine how you came to this conclusion. What kind of babies? How many babies were there? How much space would they need? Do you even know how big the ark was?

 

Write back soon.

 

Kind: a group united by common traits or interests

 

Species: a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name

 

Essentially the word "kind" and the word "species" are the same.

 

What kind of babies? Well, I'd say the "kind" where the adults were too big, or took up too much room. Who knows how many animals were there, but they all fit in the ark. I don't know how much space the babies would need, but they'd need less space than the adults. Yes I know how big the ark was, the Bible tells the dimensions.

 

Genesis 6:15 says that the Ark's dimensions were at least 135 meters long (300 cubits), 22.5 meters wide (50 cubits), and 13.5 meters high (30 cubits). That's about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. It could have been larger, because several larger-sized cubits were used. But the 45-centimeter (18-inch) cubit is long enough to show the size of the Ark.

[SkinWalker]

I'd consider it more like speculation. Noah had to use common sense (and logic). If the adults are too big, then take the babies.

 

Unless "Noah" was a myth, borrowed from an earlier civilization and greatly embellished for the Canaan/Israelite cults of the Bronze/Iron Age, for which there is far more evidence than such speculations.

 

Even if we were to entertain a speculation such as yours as a thought experiment, we would necessarily have to factor the growth rates of juvenile animals, the actual spaces they require (which are still not trivial), their feed, waste, and special needs (depending on their ages, some need special treatments to food that are provided by parents). Such a speculation quickly becomes illogical, unreasoned, and irrational. At this point, Occam's Razor takes over and the more parsimonious explanation of noachian myth takes over and we can dismiss literal interpretation of biblical stories as the poetry, stories, and propaganda of one culture emerging from another.

[Achilles]

Kind: a group united by common traits or interests

 

Species: a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name

 

Essentially the word "kind" and the word "species" are the same.

So you would like to put forth that "kind" should be interpreted as "species". I will accept that for the purpose of this conversation, however please remember that you cannot change your answer later.

 

Who knows how many animals were there, but they all fit in the ark.

How do you know?

 

Since you've opted to define "kind" as "species", you should know that there are more than a million species of animal. Since we "know" that there were two of each "kind" that means that we'd have more than 2 million animals (much closer to 2.5 million)...in a 450x75 foot area...with food...and waste. Even if we were to accept that some of these animals could swim or fly along side rather than take up space on-board, or that they were babies (even though your own source makes absolutely no mention of this whatsoever), were still talking about hundreds and hundreds of thousands of land animals (some of them quite large, even as babies) in an area smaller than a football field.