How did Noah fit all the Animals on the ark part II

[SerScot]

Rus,

Stopping the Earth's rotation would involve an awful lot of momentum lost. Think about what happens when your driving 35 MPH and have to slam on the breaks and multiply the effect exponentially about a dozen (if not more times). That's what suddenly stopping the Earth's rotation would feel like.

[babybottomfeeder]

I believe God could do this without any problems with gravit national forces. Why not?

I don't know technically how it will happen, I will research and get back to you.

[Vraith]

Rus,

Stopping the Earth's rotation would involve an awful lot of momentum lost. Think about what happens when your driving 35 MPH and have to slam on the breaks and multiply the effect exponentially about a dozen (if not more times). That's what suddenly stopping the Earth's rotation would feel like.

Actually, assuming the peeps ON the earth aren't included, at the equator they would be hurled into the nearest wall/vertical surface at 1000 mph...unless there wasn't such a surface close enough to them, in which case they would be hurled, at varying speeds and angles depending on latitude, orbit-wards, with various results, from splattering death to toe-stubbing. Exactly at a pole, they'd feel a twisty twitch.
But, more realistically [how on earth can that word be applicable in anything miraculous?]
If you instantly stop it without canceling inertia at the same time [just meeting force with opposite force] the earth would really just rip itself to shreds pretty much instantaneously [as far as anything living on it is concerned].

[rusmeister]

Rus,

Stopping the Earth's rotation would involve an awful lot of momentum lost. Think about what happens when your driving 35 MPH and have to slam on the breaks and multiply the effect exponentially about a dozen (if not more times). That's what suddenly stopping the Earth's rotation would feel like.

That's true. It would take God to figure out how to perform a miracle of prolonging the day and not disrupt all of Creation. I accept that something miraculous happened. I don't pretend to know the mechanics of how it happened; I'm only saying that the Biblical descriptions of miracles and fantastic things are in terms the authors understood, and it does not necessarily follow that their descriptions are scientifically accurate (as we understand science today).

BTW, have a blessed Lent!
Forgive me!

[Fist and Faith]

If we're talking about God, it's not even a minor problem to do it all. He could, indeed, be stopping the earth dead in it's tracks every second, freezing our perceptions, and starting it up again.

[Cambo]

If that's the case, God must have a lot of shits and giggles at our expense. "Hee Hee! If they only knew!"

[SerScot]

Rus,

Happy Lent to you as well.

[TheFallen]

Re stopping the Earth, God needn't be involved at all.

I vaguely remember that in one of the early Christopher Reeve Superman movies, ole Supe not only stopped the world's rotation by flying round it in ever faster circles, he actually got it temporarily rotating in the other direction - this happened nice and smoothly as well, so no issues with Vraith's concerns about momentum-induced body splattering.

However, where my belief in the Man of Steel starts to waver is that this counter-rotation of the Earth caused time to reverse, allowing Supey to save Lois from a death that had already occurred. He then rather kindly got the Earth rotating back in its correct direction - if you think about it, it wouldn't have been very nobly superheroic to leave Earthly time running backwards. Actually, really don't think about that too much, especially in the context of restrooms...

(It does make you wonder how any kids ever get even a vaguely accurate understanding of the laws of physics, if they're exposed to such nonsense during their formative years...)

[Fist and Faith]

Lois didn't come back to life when the earth spun backwards. The earth didn't spin backwards. Superman was moving backward in time. He returned to a point in time before she died. The reverse spin of the earth is merely how our senses perceived what happened. If something was in one spot at moment A, and slightly right of there in moment B, seeing it backwards in time means we see it in moment B first, and slightly left of there in moment A.

[SerScot]

F&F,

Interesting. I'd never thought of that moment in "Superman" in those terms. Superman was flying FTL in an orbit around the Earth (He needed to stay close or the time reversal would do him no good) allowing him to save Lois. Hmmmm...

[TheFallen]

Lois didn't come back to life when the earth spun backwards. The earth didn't spin backwards. Superman was moving backward in time. He returned to a point in time before she died. The reverse spin of the earth is merely how our senses perceived what happened. If something was in one spot at moment A, and slightly right of there in moment B, seeing it backwards in time means we see it in moment B first, and slightly left of there in moment A.

Your unshakeable faith in Superman warms me, Fist. I'm seriously impressed with the way that you can happily come up with perceptive and rational explanations for the apparent scientific and logical anomalies inherent in the chronologies of the Man of Steel.

In tackling and dealing with such thorny issues head on, you're clearly far more than just a DC Comics version of a fundamentalist Christian...

[Fist and Faith]

Far more, indeed!!!

[Loredoctor]

I thought most Christians didn't take the Ark story as truth, and instead accepted it as a parable of some kind.

Please tell me how the hell the monotremes, which are largely isolated in Australia, travelled all the way from the ark's landing point without settling down. Further, what did they eat along the way given that the flood would have wiped the lands clean? You wouldn't argue that the carnivores had animals to eat (and they wouldn't eat the carcasses of those the flood had drowned), given that there were only two of each animal as prey. Finally, are we supposed to take seriously that two of each species walked off together to the animals' respective continents/islands?

Sorry, but the whole flood story doesn't add up.

[rusmeister]

I thought most Christians didn't take the Ark story as truth, and instead accepted it as a parable of some kind.

Please tell me how the hell the monotremes, which are largely isolated in Australia, travelled all the way from the ark's landing point without settling down. Further, what did they eat along the way given that the flood would have wiped the lands clean? You wouldn't argue that the carnivores had animals to eat (and they wouldn't eat the carcasses of those the flood had drowned), given that there were only two of each animal as prey. Finally, are we supposed to take seriously that two of each species walked off together to the animals' respective continents/islands?

Sorry, but the whole flood story doesn't add up.

Hi LM,
I think a problem arises primarily when you (generic 'you', includes fundamentalist outlooks) insist that everything described in the Bible is the literal truth, with no room for leeway for an author describing what he saw in terms he understood. Sure, some also claim parable on anything that's inconvenient. I myself can accept it as a story that happened locally and literally, with some hyperbole but some basic fact of a genuine deluge, and with most, if not all of the local fauna being saved. But the parable, even if a literal flood is given, is even more important. The Old Testament is very Jewish, and a good way of putting it is as God's story about us rather than our story about God. So the details aren't as important as the patterns.

If the miraculous can be accepted at all, then there is nothing surprising about animals being gathered and putting up peacefully with a voyage, possibly in various pens. Personally, I find the idea of a 'Big Bang' out of nothing so miraculous that I find it far more logical to accept an omnipotent Creator than to accept something I know to be untrue in the natural world - that something comes out of nothing, let alone the assertion that everything came out of nothing (by itself, or 'spontaneously', to use a word that magically makes it sound more possible). If there IS such a Creator, then there is nothing illogical about the Red Sea parting, or animals docilely putting up with temporary captivity. What my Tradition sees in the story as most important is that on our own, we are doomed - we will die, or be destroyed. The Ark is a type of the Church. It's full of animals and stinks to high heaven - but it saves you. The details about whether x is literally true, or how y was accomplished are a lot less important.

[Fist and Faith]

I think a problem arises primarily when you (generic 'you', includes fundamentalist outlooks) insist that everything described in the Bible is the literal truth, with no room for leeway for an author describing what he saw in terms he understood.

Loremaster may be speaking to those who believe the Ark story is the literal truth, and that the entire world was flooded, etc. The thread seems to have been started by one who believes that.


But let's get back to debating, eh?

Personally, I find the idea of a 'Big Bang' out of nothing so miraculous that I find it far more logical to accept an omnipotent Creator than to accept something I know to be untrue in the natural world - that something comes out of nothing, let alone the assertion that everything came out of nothing

As I've said often, I find it easier to accept that something that nobody can deny exists came from nothing than that something for which there is no evidence came from nothing. Either the first thing in the Cause & Effect is the universe, or it is a creator. I know the universe exists; I don't know a creator exists.

(by itself, or 'spontaneously', to use a word that magically makes it sound more possible).

Much like the term "special revelation", which you say means teachings of a religious nature. Just say, "I was taught this by the teacher of the class/priest/whatever." Calling it "special revelation" is only an attempt to make the method of learning sound more objectively undeniable.

[rusmeister]

The difference I see is that one openly admits that it is miraculous; the other pretends to exclude the miraculous. Sure, I know the universe exists; I also know that in general things really do NOT come from nothing - that is one of the physical laws we're pretty certain of; exceptions being both exceptional and rare in our experience of the natural universe. I'm really just trying to show how one can be rational and accept such stories as part of our canon.

But no, not going to debate you now, Fist. I'm on this week because I've been home with my daughter, who, btw is on her way to full recovery now. Today is the first (mostly) normal day; she's still going to be under observation for the next week; they'll do a blood test on Tuesday (a home visit - something difficult to obtain in the US).

[Fist and Faith]

Nobody's pretending to exclude the miraculous. We both believe something came from nothing. We both believe that thing is the first step in this reality. You believe that thing is God. I have no reason to believe it is not this reality. Neither of us claims to know how this first thing can have, seemingly in violation of the laws of the universe, come from nothing. I don't care if we define this as a miracle.

[rusmeister]

Nobody's pretending to exclude the miraculous. We both believe something came from nothing. We both believe that thing is the first step in this reality. You believe that thing is God. I have no reason to believe it is not this reality. Neither of us claims to know how this first thing can have, seemingly in violation of the laws of the universe, come from nothing. I don't care if we define this as a miracle.

The comment wasn't aimed at you, Fist. I was speaking to the general attitude of people who look to modern science for ultimate truth and form teleology and build philosophy (or more commonly fail to build philosophy) on things like a theoretical (at best) "Big Bang" that is self-caused or without a cause.

And like I said, I'm not up to debate now, anyway.

[Fist and Faith]

I've never heard anyone claim to know of any property that explains why the BB could have been self-caused or without cause. Maybe it's kind of like evolution. How life changes doesn't suggest how it came about in the first place. What the BB was and what it lead to doesn't suggest how it came about. And I chuckle and shake my head at anyone claiming to know how it came about the same way I do at you for the various things you claim to know. Heh.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Do people try to build a philosophy out of the Big Bang? I can't imagine how to begin doing that. That has nothing to do with how to deal with my relationships with my family and friends, what career I should pursue, how I should treat others, etcetera.