Talk:Noah's Ark

"asswaged"?

Yes. Asswaged is the proper Biblical spelling of the modern assuaged, as it is in the original authorized English translation of the Holy Scriptures. Many modern "King James" Bibles actually alter the text, which can lead to confusion and errant exegesis (see "King James Glossary" & "Believers Beware of Counterfeit King James Bibles" for other spelling alterations).

Um, how can changing the spelling in a translation result in exegetic problems? JoshuaZ 14:57, 7 March 2007 (EST)

King James-onlyism is not an official position of Conservapedia last I checked. MountainDew 15:01, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Oh my, was that the logic behind the user's comment. *checks link*. Yep, wow. I don't know what to say to that. JoshuaZ 15:08, 7 March 2007 (EST)

In fact, looking at that website in detail it argues for among other things the old-style British spelling of "Savior" as "Saviour" so per Conservapedias rules about British and American English if anything Conservapedia is anti-KJV onlyism. JoshuaZ 15:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)

By that reasoning, any edition claiming to be the King James Version that omits the Apocrypha is counterfeit. What do they have to say about the Apocrypha? Is it OK to omit them? Dpbsmith 16:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)

(Sigh) Why do I even ask? Yes, they have a pat answer. Dpbsmith 16:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Well at least they are aware that the apocrpha was in the original KJV. Many KJVist don't even know that. I can spot at least 4 factual errors in that piece though (ignoring things that aren't factual errors per se but just very odd language choice like the "Jewish Church"). What fun. JoshuaZ 16:17, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia is obviously not King-James-only, since the article on the Ark of the Covenant says it was made of "acacia" wood. :-) Dpbsmith 13:37, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Dates

Excuse me but where the heck are the Roman calendar dates coming from? There is no way that that was the calendrical system in use. Most likely the system refferred to is a lunar calendar or lunar-solar calendar like that that Jews currently use. JoshuaZ 14:59, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Post-Diluvian Content

I am unsure that the explanation of the dispersal of animals from after they exited the Ark is within the scope of this article as it isn't really about the Ark itself. I think instead a separate article on the Post-Diluvian Diasporas should be created and linked to from here. Dr. Richard Paley 08:34, 10 March 2007 (EST)

I agree. Started article Post-Diluvian Diasporas--AustinM 11:23, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Polar Bears?

Were polar species such as Polar Bears and Penguins to be found on the ark? I'm guessing they would not be friendly with their cell-mates for 40 days: Feeding regiments must have been tricky, but above all the middle-eastern climate must have been damaging to their well-being.

If God can flood the Earth, he can keep penguins alive. MountainDew 01:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

If God can keep penguins alive, he could've just let all chosen animals and humans survive miraculously without the need for an ark. ;) --Sid 3050 09:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I included a comment about dinosaurs, which conceivably could have had difficulty coexisting on the Ark with other animals, as another controversial issue about the Ark. However, I'm not sure why it was removed. Fairandbalanced 22:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Not being the one who removed it, I couldn't say for sure, but it was a fairly vague criticism (what "difficulty"?), and not worthy of an encyclopedia article as it stood. However, I don't think locking the article was justified; apart from your (presumably well-intentioned) edit there was only one attempt at vandalism. Philip J. Rayment 22:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. It seems like a fair amount of content on Conservapedia is locked from editing. In addition, it may be worth pointing out that as one possibility, the reason why dinosaurs are extinct is because they were not allowed on the Ark. Fairandbalanced 10:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I was premature in the above comment, as according to this: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/AnswersBook/dinosaurs19.asp, dinosaurs were definitely on the ark. Fairandbalanced 14:03, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

You are aware that this is a hotly debated topic, yes? --Hojimachong^talk 14:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

It is important to consider that, pace Carl Everett, that dinosaurs and their fossilized 'remains' might well be red herrings of a sort, designed by Satan to trap or confuse the believer. DunsScotus 14:16, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm, I'll just point you to Theistic Evolution and Old Earth Creationism, both classes consider themselves Christian. --Hojimachong^talk 14:18, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Fairandbalanced: Yes, the Bible says that two (or more) of every kind of land-dwelling, air-breathing creature were on the ark. This leaves two possibilities: (a) Dinosaurs were on the ark, or (b) dinosaurs were extinct before the flood. However, the second option is ruled out because there are fossils of them in flood-laid deposits, indicating that they were around at the time of the flood.

Hojimachong, I'm not sure what you are getting at there. What is hotly debated? That dinosaurs were on the ark? Although there is a debate over whether the ark existed (as described in Genesis at least), I'm not aware of any real debate on, if the story is true, whether dinosaurs were on it.

DunsScotus: No informed creationist claims that dinosaurs were designed by Satan to trap or confuse believers.

Philip J. Rayment 21:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Pic added

And other improvements will follow. Karajou 21:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Disambig Great Flood

Great Flood should be a separate article, and the title should not have to redirect here. Noah's ark should be about the ark, it's description, and a history of searches for it. Karajou 12:17, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree, and I've actually started drafting (off-line) an article for the flood itself. Philip J. Rayment 21:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Objections

This isn't a troll, though it may seem like one at times such is my contempt for the biblical creationist point of view. Bear with me, I'm genuinely interested in the answers to my objections. From my observations, it seems to me that creationists prefer answers to objections that don't break any known law of physics over the ultimate fallback, "god made it so with magic" wherever possible. For example, when it is pointed out that naval engineering even thousands of years later was not up to producing such a large vessel, fundamentalists seem to prefer to postulate that Noah used space frame construction rather than, say, god used magic to bring about a localised increase in the molecular binding force. Of course, none of the so-called "creationist scientists" would actually break out mathematica and attempt to prove such construction is possible, because I suspect in their hearts they know it is not. So, given this, I wonder how the following objections are reconciled with the real world:

The Ark was supposed to be what amounts to a closed system for a year. In a year, animals will eat several times their body weight in food, especially grazers such as rabbits or cattle which derive very little nutrition from that food they eat. It follows that most of the Ark must have been given over to the storage of fresh water and food supplies, thus drastically reducing the space available for animals. Fresh water is always a problem in such situations, humans can drink spirits such as rum, which keep far longer than water does. However, most animals can not. By the second month, the fresh water supplies would be brackish and undrinkable, disease would quickly spread. Similarly, food would rot. It is not possible to preserve fodder for animals for an entire year. How is this reconciled with the rosy picture the bible paints?

As already noted, most of the Ark must have been devoted to stores. It is accepted even by creationists that the Ark could not have contained even one pair of every species, instead they fall back on that ultimate moveable feast, Baramin. Personally, "kinds" simply sounds to me like a pre-scientific word for species, but lets accept the creationist definition for now. Given that we see from the debate topic that creationists do not believe in evolution to the point of a wolf becoming a domestic dog, how is this notion reconciled with the current diversity of species? Even if we accept evolution, how is it possible to reconcile the idea that all existing species descend from the occupants of the Ark, with the idea that all this happened only 5000 years ago? Observably too little time to account for the present diversity.

The flood waters covered the entire world, yet once they had receded the occupants of the Ark were able to exit and continue with their lives much as they had done previously. Considering all vegetation must have been wiped out, how is this possible? As you can observe at any local beach, it takes a pretty hardy type of plant to thrive in a saltwater environment, these plants would be the first to return. Very little else would grow in the immediate aftermath of a global flood. It would take hundreds of years for vegetation to return to anything like what it was pre-flood. In the mean time, how did the animals survive? How did humans manage cultivation in an environment saturated with salt?

--Abrown 13:15, 28 March 2007 (EDT)