Talk:Noah's ark

Where's the ark now?
If the story of the Flood is true, then people should be finding wood on Mount Ararat. But nobody's found any, so how do we know this account is accurate? There's got to be some evidence! Where is it? Scorpionman 11:42, 1 August 2006 (CDT)


 * It may be there, but not found yet. If I understand correctly, the mountain is not easy to climb, so every imnch hasn't been explored yet.  Also, the local government currently won't allow expeditions to the area.
 * Of course, it might also be possible that the ark has already decayed.
 * Another possibility is that it was dismantled to provide Noah and family with building materials. PrometheusX303 16:34, 1 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Yet another possibility is that people have found the Ark, but few believe them. ~ MD Otley (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

How did the animals get there?
As a non-expert on this matter, I have a few questions. How did all animals come to the Ark? I am thinking especially of penguins and sloths, who have a hard time traveling over land. Did all the animals (and their foods) fit into the ark? I doesn't look as if the ark is big enough. Third, what happened to the microbes and plants? Especially some microbes need specific hosts (e.g. humans) for their survival. Shouldn't these matters be discussed in the article? --nooijer


 * God was responsible for bringing the animals, male and female, clean and unclean to the Ark. Yes all the original kinds that represent the massive diversity of animals we see today fit onto the Ark including the food. As far as penguins and sloths, you may be making the mistake that the slow moving and geographical adaptation of such was there before the flood, they may have adapted after. Surivival wasn't permitted for some creatures such as microbes, fish, plants, etc.
 * Try looking at Flood of Noah or the "See Also" section of this article. --Tony Sommer 14:40, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Your questions are already answered in at least one of the references provided in the article .--Zephyr Axiom 17:05, 18 October 2007 (EDT)


 * nooijer -- if it doesn't "look big enough", make sure you know two things: 1, the number (and size) of animals to be brought on board, and 2, the actual size of the ark.  Then let's talk.  As to penguins and sloths, keep in mind that God apparently announced his intentions at least 100 years before the Flood, and probably 120 years.  Even if sloths were as slow then as they are now, that's plenty of time for a small group to work there way to the construction site from wherever they lived, (which might have even been next door).  Today, most penguins are cold-weather creatures, but not the Galapagos penguins!  This shows that the penguin kind clearly contained the genetic information necessary for survival at all latitudes.  The only obligate passengers were land-dwelling creatures who breathe through nostrils, so the microbes and plants that were on board were either brought as food or as "stowaways" (or do you think antibiotics were issued to all passengers?); many would have survived outside the Ark (remember the dove who found an olive branch). ~ MD Otley (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I did read the reference mentioned by Zephyr Axiom, but have to say that it did not convince me. There seem to be two classes of arguments that support a literal interpretation of the story of Noah's ark. In the first, microevolution of the 'kinds' is the mechanism to explain where all today's species come from. If the biblical 'kind' would have referred to the biological species, for sure a pair of each would not have fitted on the ark. The second class of arguments is about showing that there are methods by which animals could have reached the ark, did find their way back to e.g. Australia after the flood, that small animals could have survived on floating mats and that fresh water fish could have survived the salt conditions during the flood. To start with the second, it is not sufficient to show that those mechanisms exist: it must be made clear that those mechanisms are likely to be responsible for saving so many species of insects, birds, fish, etc from the flood. Or that all 'kinds' who have trouble migrating towards and from the Middle East are likely to have survived their harsh journey. Keep in mind that the cited research in the forementioned reference (e.g. fish migrating between salt and freshwater habitats), are exceptions found in nature, not rules. For the other group of arguments, I have not found convincing literature on how 'created kinds' work exactly. There is no scientific literature that justifies grouping species/ genera/ families in a fundamentally other way that is common in taxonomy nowadays. In biology, taxa are grouped either by genetic similarities or by morphological similarities. What evidence justifies a totally different type of cladistics? From a scientific-logical point of view, it looks strange to me to interpret the biblical 'kind' not as 'species' but as some higher order before having any solid biological reason to do so. --nooijer


 * Certainly some number of animals and plants would have gotten to their current locations on their own, but why is it so commonly ignored that we humans like to take things with us? Obviously, there are "native" humans in Australia, the Americas, the Pacific, ect.  Any animals with them wouldn't have had to resort to floating mats or little flotsam.  Though there would be more creatures traveling on their own over land, land migration would have been similar.  Man was, after all, declared ruler over all animals.  The animals would not have been "making their way back" either.  "The world that was perished."  The continental setup would have, if anything, been closer to Pangea than what is here today.


 * I may not be reading your paragraph correctly, but it seems to me that you're shooting yourself in the foot regarding taxonomy if you're an evolutionist. Mainstream science assumes that creatures of different species share a common ancestor.  The difference as I see it is that evolution has the genetic code AABB turning to AABC or AABBC for speciation, while the creation model has it going from ABCD to AABB or AABC.  Further down the line, ABCD might separate into AABB and CCDD.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong.  I think the taxonomic system actually makes more sense under a creationist world-view, since there is a limit to how far animals can change (within the A-B-C-D range) and there is a definite distinction at some level between kinds (between A-B-C-D and E-F-G-H) that have no relation.  Evolution, on the other hand, has no limit and envisions creatures as constantly changing, rendering a set system a tad bit awkward.  As for solid biological evidence, see hybrid and baraminology.  --Zephyr Axiom 15:02, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Hypotheses regarding man taking along species (I wonder about the population size of mankind in the centuries after the flood, though) or the continental configuration being more like Pangea are, to my knowledge, not supported by any data. In science, successful theories are able to put data in a sensible framework. Before arguing how species have come to the ark and spread out over the world again, there should be data justifying such a theory (or make such a hypothesis worth looking further into). Is there any fossil pattern suggesting world-wide migration of animals from the ark to the various continents? What data indicate that some species (and which) have migrated along with man? In addition, which measurements support your claim on a Pangea-like configuration only a couple of thousands of years ago? Please note that you have to come up with a serious amount of data supporting your theory when you want it to compete with others (e.g. plate tectonics). For our other dispute, it's the same. You may have misunderstood me, but I only wanted to know what data (genetic or morphological) supports a taxonomy that leads to a division into 'kinds'? I did not find any research doing this in the references you cited, nor in the scientific literature. --nooijer


 * I am not a great expert on the matter. Nonetheless, I fail to see how this is not a sensible framework.  History (i.e. written record) tells us that there was a world prior to the Flood that was thoroughly destroyed.  Geologists today state that the continental configuration suggests they were once all one, but catastrophic plate tectonics fits better with the scientific observations and the historical account than does the supposed slow movement of plain old plate tectonics.  Data from historical texts also tells us that, as Tony mentioned, there were a full hundred years for the animals to migrate to Noah.  Why is there no definite fossil evidence for such a migration?  Fossilization is a rare phenomena, occurring during rapid burial.  One of the requirements would be for the animal to die, which obviously did not happen if the creature arrived at its destination still alive.  In any case, there are a plethora of animal fossils that are our of their modern range, such as with camels in California.  These animals that were out of their present range (as well as within their range) would largely have been preserved during the Flood, so they likely represent relative dispersion prior to the catastrophe.


 * What about fossil evidence of migration from Mt. Ararat? You're still thinking in terms of evolutionary thought and not considering the creationist and scientific position.  Fossils are a result of catastrophes.  An animal that dies without such conditions will lie there and degrade rather than fossilize.  You can test this by going out and killing a deer.  Come back in a year or two and see if it's still there in pristine condition.  Not only would fossilization be rare, but the migrating populations would still be small compared to today.  A catastrophe capable of fossilizing the creatures may have been enough to make that group endangered or even extinct.


 * Human population. Perhaps you live in a modern industrialized city where there's Mom, Dad, Jimmy, and Mally.  That state of affairs is an abnormality when looking through history.  The norm has been large, large families.  A population boom in the decades after the Flood is to be expected, and the mortality rate from old age would have been at record lows compared to today.  People still lived in the hundreds of years back then.  But you might be thinking that animals would also be having a population boom, and so there would be a high likelihood of fossil evidence of migration from such a large group.  Well, you still need a catastrophe, and by this point the animals would be migrating under human care.  Now that I think about it, though, demanding that there be fossil evidence of migration is like demanding a cast footprint somewhere along the sidewalk after a trip between states.  Even traveling between countries on foot, what's the chance that I'm going to leave a mark in concrete anywhere along the trip?


 * What kind of data supports a taxonomy based on kinds? a) The historical data, where eyewitness accounts provide the information that it was kinds that were brought aboard the Ark, along with the detail that a kind was to reproduce with its own kind.  b) The current observed data concerning hybrids.  If hybridization isn't evidence that our current understanding of species is incorrect, I'm at a loss as to what sort of evidence would theoretically convince you.  How does the existence of the wolphin not amount to evidence for an interspecies kind?


 * By the way, what sort of literature are you looking through? --Zephyr Axiom 14:05, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Well, I never demanded particular fossil evidence: it was an example of evidence that would make some statements made by you true, or at least more likely to be true. It is normal practice in science to discuss hypotheses and theories in the light of data. Again: what data, what measurements point out that all species moved towards and from the Middle East within a short period, some mere thousands of years ago? If it is not recorded by fossils, how can we know? Coincidentally, my scientific expertise is (marine) fossils and you'd be amazed by the number of fossils found and what they can record about the Earth's history. Therefore I find it a surprise that the flood itself and the spreading of species around the globe are not recorded. It's a pity for your case.

You further claimed that written history can be regarded as proof for both (parts of) Noah's story and the existence of 'kinds'. I fail to see how such recordings can be seen as evidence: please convince me here, since it is very uncommon practice in biology and geology. Hybrids only prove that there is a certain degree of genetic overlap between some species: this is consistent with evolutionary theory and common descent in particular. The key point of my first question on this issue therefore remains: how can we see that the taxonomy as we know it, is fundamentally wrong and what (genetic or morphological) data justifies one based on 'kinds'?

Concerning your last question: I have looked through the pages you recommended and critical references therein. I normally use scientific literature databases as a source for biological and geological data: always willing to refer to articles if necessary. --nooijer


 * Don't assume, by the way, that the geography of the earth was not altered in any way. Walter Brown's hydroplate model suggests that the dry land was originally one land mass, and that the Americas split off when a fissure split the mass. That fissure persists today as the Great Mid-oceanic Ridge system.


 * You can't even assume that the topography was unchanged. If the Americas did split off as I described above, then the Rocky/Andean and Appalachian mountain systems might have been heaped up after the Americas came to rest.


 * You can't assume, more broadly, that any of the present mountain ranges--even the Himalayas--were as they are today before the Global Flood.--TemlakosTalk 12:08, 1 November 2007 (EDT)


 * I doubt I will convince you of much here, seeing as how you still seem to be refusing to step out of the box of uniformitarianism. You are still assuming that the fossils you are studying are not a result of the Flood, for example, but rather are a result of stretches of earth's "vast past."  Furthermore, you are mistaken, I believe, in your claim that recordings are not used as evidence in the fields of biology and geology.  Take a scenario where horse breeders are trying to trace two breeds of horse back to a common sire.  It will be very useful to check breeding records.  In geology, volcanic eruptions can be and are dated according to human records.  In fact, there is the example of Mt. St. Helens.  We know it erupted in 1986, but if we went according to radiometric dating, the "real data" tells us that the eruption was really .35 million years ago.  Of course, you don't use human records in your field, because you "know" that no one was around to leave documents that could shed light on your fossils.  You are free to look through those written records amongst your colleagues in biology and geology as much as you like, however.


 * I myself cannot convince any person unless that person's heart and mind are open to my conviction. --Zephyr Axiom 17:47, 1 November 2007 (EDT)


 * Agreed. Why, if we did not have the benefit of historical records, we would not be able to date the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in AD 79--that's AD, by the way, and not CE.--TemlakosTalk 23:11, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

Wow, what a lot of responses on something very simple. I would love to discuss hydroplate theory, but let's first finish some things we've started. One of my initial question was whether all species would fit into the ark: you have responded that there were not as many species on the ark as the number we know today, but rather, 'kinds' were taken aboard. Interesting, but where can I find evidence for the (former) existence of these kinds? So far, no serious data could be brought up: I still invite you to supply such. After we've settled this, I will respond to the recordings of Mt St Helen's eruption versus human records of the flood: human recordings as the type of argument that forms additional support for the flood, the number of species on the ark, etc. I am used to look at data and judge claims in the light of them: I am an open minded person and willing to be convinced by you if you can show me why your claims are likely to be true. By the way, I have not in any way claimed that 'my' fossils have refused the existence of the flood. The fact that I have an honest interest in the number of species being present on the ark shows that I take this biblical story very serious. I find it a shame that you do not seem to acknowledge this. --nooijer


 * We, at least I am not saying that the same amount of species today were present on the Ark. I am saying what was brought to the Ark are the original kinds of what we see today, but even those animals that went onto the Ark had original kinds when creation first took place. As far as the amount of kinds brought to the Ark when the flood happened was around 16,000 . --Tony Sommer 13:34, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

I have seen this number before. Where does it precisely come from and how can this be justified? --nooijer


 * Perhaps I prematurely jumped to conclusions regarding your attitude somewhere along the line. If I did, I apologize.  An article discussing and making a case for the snake kind can be found here.  An explanation on creationwiki dealing with the 16,000 number is in All kinds could fit (Talk.Origins).  --Zephyr Axiom 14:38, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

The first of your links is not available: I'll try that again later. For the other one: still most of the justification how all species could fit, is by claiming that at the time of the flood, only one of every 'kind' needed to board the ark. In none of the references listed in your second link, any solid data is presented. The assumption (usually presented as proof) is that whenever hybrids have been reported, the complete taxon to which the parents belong, can be regarded as a 'kind'. If this is the sole (or most important) justification for the claim that some four thousand years ago only 16.000 species existed, we may discard this hypothesis. The existence of hybrids is, again, perfectly compatible with mainstream neo-darwinism. Postulating something also obliges one to deliver data: where is the proof that this diversification started 4.000 years ago and not 5.000 or 3.000?

I have found another strange thing in this hypothesis. If hybrids have not been found, this does not necessarily mean that two species do not belong to the same 'kind': we simply may not have witnessed this (according to multiple sources in All kinds could fit (Talk.Origins)). Now, this may imply that even very distant species could produce offspring, right? We may simply not have seen it happening. Even a very rare but successful hybridization between members of two different phyla (either far away or long ago) should lead to the conclusion that only a few (theoretically even one) species were present 4.000 years ago. There is no information at which level hybridization stops. In my opinion, the 'hybridization hypothesis' does not lead in any way to the number of 16.000. Maybe there is another piece of evidence: please tell me if so. --nooijer


 * Sorry for the delay. The basic reasoning is as follows:
 * The historical record tells us that all land animals and birds with the breath of life in existence today are descended from the kinds taken aboard the Ark. Following chronologies such as that of James Ussher, this was around 2349 BC.
 * Species/breeds today are apparently subcategories of larger groups, such as with the cases of dogs, cats, bears, etc.
 * Calculations of the Ark's size allow for a number of around 20,000 sheep-sized animals (if I'm doing the calculations right). Most animals are much smaller than a sheep, however, and infants may have been brought aboard instead of adults.


 * So, hybridization is not the sole data indicating that general number. Instead, it goes together with the historical account to help us ascertain how many kinds there are.  --Zephyr Axiom 22:07, 6 November 2007 (EST)

This is the kind of response that makes discussion more easy. Appreciated. I see that your three points tied together make up a story that sounds logical and sound. I do however, have a problem with the foundation of it all. Your second point is in itself no proof of any of the claims surrounding Noah's story. I am sure you can present hybridization as fitting logically into your version of the recent history of the earth, but actually, it only proves a genetic similarity among species. Again, I don't see why it should support the existence of kinds more than it would support good old neo-Darwinism. Your first relies on truth lying in a literal interpretation of the bible (I guess that's what is your 'historical record'). This is hard to take from a scientific point of view. Why should we rely on the bible as a source of knowledge? It obviously contradicts current science in many ways, including the age of the earth, evolution and modern biology/ medical science in general. Why should the bible be more true than current scientific claims? Isn't it hard to compete for a single, often transcribed source full of obvious metaphors, with so much data as presented by scientific practice? The third step in your reasoning only makes sense if your first point is indisputably true. Therefore, it looks odd to me to try to alter taxonomy as we know it (i.e. baraminology), before having any morphological or genetic data to do so. --nooijer 01:00, 10 November (JST)


 * I believe this discussion is a waste of time. You obviously have not taken an in depth look into this site, or else you would not have used the supposed "age of the earth, evolution and modern biology/ medical science in general" as claims of evidence against the historical record (yes, it is commonly called the Bible).  The statement on medical science in particular is somewhat puzzling, since the "progress" most directly dependent upon evolutionary thinking includes such things as "vestigial organs" and "junk DNA".  Perhaps eugenics can fit in there as well.


 * Again, what sort of genetic data would you like for the kinds as opposed to whatever evolutionary explanation there is? What sort of data would convince you?  Why even do creationists have to answer to non-creationists when fixing the taxonomic system when it was a creationist who set it up in the first place upon a biblical basis?


 * The question of how the animals would have gotten to the ark has been answered. The question of how they would have gotten to their present locations has been answered.  It has been established that the animal kinds have supporting evidence.  The question of whether or not evolutionists can account for it within their models is besides the point.  If your currently remaining arguments are merely that evolutionists can also explain hybridization and that the Bible is incompatible with evolutionary thinking and therefore hard to swallow for you, then I think I'm done here.  --Zephyr Axiom 15:58, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Well, thanks for the effort anyway. What puzzles me most in our discussion is that you continue to make claims that are not supported by facts or data. You can say that all questions have been answered, but they will remain to be brought up until some evidence is presented. You know what would convince me? For example, genetic analysis showing that the bears have no genetic relationship with other mammals (or any other 'kind' with the taxon they are placed into). This sort of data would justify a fundamentally different taxonomy. You'd still have to deal with fossils indicating common decent at a higher taxonomic level, but you'd definitely make some progress in showing the likeliness of your claim regarding the creation of 'kinds'. Now I think of it, this proof is within reach: just scan the available genetic databases. If you do so, and you cannot find a trace of the 'kinds' in this data, you'd have to think of something else (and acknowledge that your hypothesis has become less likely to be true). If you're unfamiliar with those databases and statistical analyses common in genetics, I'd be happy to help you.

By biology/ medical science in general I meant sticks forming into snakes, people becoming over 900 years old, water turning into blood, etc.

Apparently, we have a different idea of how science works, or how it should work. It all comes down to what counts as evidence, I guess. In your (or any other creationists) opinion, why should a literal interpretation of the bible be a basis to build our biological and geological knowledge on? --nooijer 13:10, 10 November (JST)


 * nooijer, you still seem to be arguing from a false premise: that the past needs to conform to our present understanding of science. The study of things that occurred in the past is best handled with the tools of historical inquiry, not the scientific method.  This is particularly true when examining events of a miraculous nature. You won't find scientific descriptions of sticks turning instantaneously into snakes, or water turning instantaneously into blood, because those were never the normal order of things.  They were special interventions by a God powerful enough to create the entire Universe.  And human lifespans of 900+ years are no longer normal, so you won't find modern descriptions of that, either.  These are historical claims, and need to be evaluated under appropriate standards: those of history.  History basically has two resources:  artifacts and records.  Since there's no reasonable expectation of artifacts from any of those events, we are left with records.  Since, as far as I know, ancient historical records agree that our distant ancestors were typically superannuated, that fact is as strongly attested as one could expect.
 * As to species, kinds, genetic analysis, and survival outside the Ark, there are some good answers, and some good questions still outstanding. :-)
 * Species: Please define. At last count, there were over twenty competing for acceptance, so let us know which you are using so we can dialogue more productively.
 * Kinds:
 * Definition: Creatures are the same kind if their parents are/were the same kind; created beings are the same kind if God made them capable of reproducing amongst each other.
 * But that's not all we know. Plants, water creatures, flying creatures, livestock, creeping things, and wild animals are all separate categories of kinds. Also, Adam named the flying creatures, livestock, and "beasts of the field" (apparently a subset of wild animals); so each kind must have been visually distinct from each other and have enough similarity within the kind that individual members of the kind could be recognized as such. This ensures we don't head into the reductio ad absurdium territory you propose by potentially shrinking the number of kinds to one.
 * A project known as the Baraminology Study Group is working to refine our understanding of which creatures were part of distinct kinds, using tools including genetic analysis.
 * The 16,000-animal estimate comes from giving the skeptic the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that the number of land and air vertebrate kinds is approximately equal to the number of genera. If the number of kinds is more like the number of families, as increasingly appears to be the case, then that number would as low as 2,000.
 * No, you're wrong about the burden of proof. As the challenger, you have the burden of showing that fish, insects, and other creatures not required to be on the Ark could not have survived. The defenders of the Bible's account need only show that it is possible for them to survive.
 * The Bible is not a science textbook, but we are sure that it gives us reliable information about geology and biology b/c it gives us information about the origin of the earth and of living things. The assurance comes from knowing that the Bible is not merely a book of history, but that it is the book of His story; we trust it b/c we trust its Author. The science is in combining our own observations with reasonable inferences from the accounts of their origins. ~ MD Otley (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2007 (EST)
 * PS: Moses wrote a lo-o-o-o-ong time before Linnaeus -- what morphological or genetic data justifies departure from kinds to Kingdoms, phyla, classes, etc.?

First of all, having a historical record does not mean that it's a reliable one per se. In my field of science (paleoceanography) it is common practice to question the reliability of a given record, before extracting information from it. This brings me immediately to my second objection: studying the history of the earth is very well done with the scientific method. There is a lot known about glacial-interglacial variability in atmospheric carbondioxide levels, for example, all derived from measurements, obtaining different sorts of data, modelling, etc. I don't see why you so radically divide the scientific method and historical inquiry. Thanks to many of my scientific (!) colleagues, we know very much about the earth's history. Another interesting part of your response is on the burden of proof. As I said above, I do not see the reliability of biblical accounts when it comes to the history of our planet. Why should the bible be literally true? You said you know (!) it is not merely a book of history: why do you say so?

As for the other responses: the exact definition of species may not be relevant for our discussion, but anyway, I have always been a fan of a genetic-based species concept. Differences in definitions stem from working with the same concept (species) in different fields of science. On baraminology: you claim to know a lot, because the bible says so. See former response on questioning the value of such 'knowledge'.

Finally, I have a question for you too. When extracting knowledge from the bible, which translation of which source do you refer to? And what made you choose that one? Please clarify. --nooijer 13:30, 22 February 2008 (JST)


 * You're right that a historical record is not necessarily reliable. However, in the study of history (including the question at hand) an ancient witness is presumed to be accurate unless and until there is incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.  That has been standard practice since Aristotle, who taught that, "the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself."
 * You cannot study the history of the earth with the scientific method. Period.  You can study the evidence with the scientific method, but interpreting that evidence is highly dependent on your presuppositions.  For example, if you assume that every layer is one year, you interpret the evidence one way (e.g., tens of thousands of layers = tens of thousands of years).  If, instead, you trust the eyewitness account of the age of the earth, you interpret them differently (e.g., tens of thousands of layers made in only thousands of years may indicate more frequent layer generation, or more layers generated at the same time).  In short, there is a lot assumed about glacial-interglacial CO2, but there's no way to go back in time and check.
 * Your data I am unlikely to have problems with, but your interpretations will differ greatly from someone who trust's the Bible's history, and your models are heavily dependent on your starting point, which probably includes "deep time" from the start, and certainly discounts the possiblity of a year-long global flood.
 * You asked about kinds, and I gave you a definition, although I assume the question was intended as a "stump the dummy" trap. I pointed out to you that naturalistic scientists have just as much, or more, trouble with their concept of "species", even though they claim it to be more precise.  Your refusal to give a definition only highlights the fuzziness of the concept, and its practical uselessness in debate.
 * You disparage my use of biblical information to refine the concept of "kind". But since that's where we get the notion, I fail to see what's wrong with that.
 * Nothing that I hold strongly to from the Bible is dependent on the translation. There are plenty of things that are somewhat in doubt because we have an imperfect understanding of the original languages and their idioms, and various other issues, but nothing of significance.
 * ~ MD "Webster" Otley (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2008 (PDT)

I am not sure if you know how science works: but it's far from how you present it. Studying evidence with the scientific method? In my research institute we measure things, generate numbers, etc. With a decent amount of reliable measurements, data is presented and put in perspective (discussed) to compare possible implications with former publications and see if hypotheses/ theories hold or may need to be adjusted. Essentially, it's not that difficult. Timespans represented by layers is not something one can choose freely: it is itself subject to the scientific procedure just described. One more time: if those kinds really exist, why can they not be visualized by standard genetic comparisons? Is there really no evidence other than the biblical record (which indeed, I wouldn't rely on for accurate data, but it's an easy way for you to settle the dispute)? With all do respect, your definition of kinds contradicts what is said on kinds elsewhere. Correct me if I am wrong, but I understood that baraminology hypothesizes that e.g. all current species of bears sprout from one pair on board the ark a few thousand years ago (impressive rate of speciation, by the way) and therefore all bears are within one kind. Since Grizzly's and Polar bears do not produce offspring together (see your definition) they can therefore, not be of the same kind, right? Interestingly, some languages do not distinguish between 'kind' and 'species' and bibles in such a languages would never give any impression that biological kinds exist. --nooijer 22:00, 4 May 2008 (JST)
 * Sorry I took so long to get back to you -- this page somehow slipped off my radar screen for a while.
 * I'm not sure you know what the scientific method is. You have a hypothesis, you conduct an experiment (measure things), and analyze the results in light of the hypothesis -- which is pretty much exactly what you said.
 * "Timespans represented by layers is not something one can choose freely:" I'm not surprised. As I said earlier, the timespans are assumed, not demonstrated.
 * "if those kinds really exist, why can they not be visualized by standard genetic comparisons?" Who says they can't?  If they haven't been, then it's probably because those with access to the necessary data haven't bothered to ask the question.  Serendipitous discoveries do occur, but interpreting results in a way that conflicts with one's worldview is not usually considered.
 * Your reading of what I said earlier is incorrect. According to the second part of the definition I gave, only the originally creations need to be able to produce offspring.  All of their descendants are of the same kind based on the first part of the definition.  Also, grizzlies and polar bears do hybridize, so your example is spurious anyway. A more flexible and comprehensive definition might be this:
 * Any creature is of the same kind as all of its ancestors and descendants.
 * Any two creatures that could ever have produced viable offspring are of the same kind.
 * Any two creatures that are of the same kind with any third creature are of that same kind.
 * "some languages do not distinguish between 'kind' and 'species' ... ." So what? The same word can be used for multiple concepts in most languages, so the fact that some languages use the same word for the two concepts is, frankly, irrelevant.  What's your point?  The limitations of language or translator do not affect the underlying truths.
 * Don't discount the role of presuppositions. The range of possible interpretations of a set of data that a scientist considers is limited by the assumptions accepted.  For example, someone holding to uniformitarianism is unlikely to give serious consideration to the possibility that the vast majority of sedimentary layers were laid down in a global Flood, as that would require a highly non-uniform history. ~ MD "Webster" Otley (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Page layout
For everyone's information: We have a reason for placing the Table of Contents on the right-hand side of the page. That reason is: The illustration of Noah's Ark is a long one, much longer than it is high, and by moving the TOC to the right, we can make the best use of the space and eliminate the annoying "dead space" on the page. Please leave the "magic words" for the TOC, and the image, exactly as they are.--TemlakosTalk 01:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

forty years?
He spent the better part of a forty years gathering materials and constructing the Ark.

Where does this forty years come from user:Markusabernathy1998? Please provide references for any information added to articles. --Ashcraft - (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2014 (EDT)