6 plants not on Noah's Ark

[Arlan]

These 6 plants were not on Noah's Ark, why?: Solanum Tubero Sum Linnacus, Lycopersion Esculentum var. Esculentum, Capsium Annuum var. Annuum, Theobroma Cacao, Nicotiana Tabacum and Zea Mays. According to the Bible the Genesis Flood destroyed the earth with 150 days of ocean water. All 6 of these plants were discovered in the New World [the Americas] in about 1500 AD. Until then the rest of the world knew nothing about them. The POTATO, TOMATO, CHILI PEPPER, COCOA, TOBACCO and CORN. The question is How did Noah drop these 6 plants off in the new world before landing on Mt. Ararat and leaving none for the rest of the world?

[Minnesota]

Good point.

As a side note, when spelling taxonomic names, none below the rank of genus are capitalized, and all, including the genus name, are always italicized.

[CatholicSage]

As far as I know, Noah was not commanded to bring plants onto the ark.

[Minnesota]

As far as I know, Noah was not commanded to bring plants onto the ark.

Which makes the problem all the more difficult.

Gen 7:24 "Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out."

From the day it started to rain until the water had left the land amounted to about 300 days. I'm no botanist, but I doubt if any land plants could survive that many days submerged in water.

[ih8censorship]

well because of what Genesis 6:19-21 says, i dont think plants were really that important to bring on the ark. noah wasent directly commanded to bring 2 of each plant on board. so seeds from various plants could have survived the flood easyly i think, just because of the nature of seeds. and are you sure potatoes are a new world plant? dident they have them in england/ireland in the dark ages? one explaintion is that certain descendants of noah went to different parts of the earth (which was one land mass because it wasent divided untill later because of Genesis 10:25, in the days of Peleg) and different seeds washed to those parts, and then the earth split and thats why there are some plants in a lot of earth and some plants in hardly anywhere. because of the presumed climate change at the split, and various other factors.

[CatholicSage]

Which makes the problem all the more difficult.

Gen 7:24 "Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out."

From the day it started to rain until the water had left the land amounted to about 300 days. I'm no botanist, but I doubt if any land plants could survive that many days submerged in water.

I think the Bible makes it fairly clear that plants and certain animals aren't considered "living" in the normal sense, and so they could not "die" either.

ih8censorship: Potatoes are indeed a New World plant, that did not exist in Europe until they were brought from the New World. Your misunderstanding is understandable, since the potato is such a staple food in places like Ireland and Poland, but it's not the case.

[Minnesota]

I think the Bible makes it fairly clear that plants and certain animals aren't considered "living" in the normal sense, and so they could not "die" either.

I don't think so. In what manner could "certain animals" not die?

If dying means to stop continuing to replicating cells--to cease functioning--then I fail to see what you are saying.


And, what is to not live "in the normal sense"?





Gen 7:23 "Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out"

"living thing"

Strong #03351: y@quwm {yek-oom'}

living substance, that which stands or exists, existence, substance



Gen 8:1 "and every living thing "

Strong #02416: chay {khah'-ee}

1) living, alive

a) green (of vegetation)

b) flowing, fresh (of water)

c) lively, active (of man)

d) reviving (of the springtime0

[ih8censorship]

what bible are you reading? mines like "every living thing of flesh "

[Minnesota]

The New International Version.

[CatholicSage]

I don't think so. In what manner could "certain animals" not die?


It refers, I believe, to those animals that are invertebrates. The specific word that is used in Genesis for "animal" implies vertebrates, so it would not include things like insects, mollusks, crustaceans, etc.


If dying means to stop continuing to replicating cells--to cease functioning--then I fail to see what you are saying.


That is our modern definition. For the ancient Hebrews, though, death would only be of any real significance when applied to vertebrates. Plants don't fit into that category :smile:


And, what is to not live "in the normal sense"?


I should have said "in the Hebrew sense," I suppose.

[Minnesota]

It refers, I believe, to those animals that are invertebrates. The specific word that is used in Genesis for "animal" implies vertebrates, so it would not include things like insects, mollusks, crustaceans, etc.
What verse[s] are you referring to?
That is our modern definition. For the ancient Hebrews, though, death would only be of any real significance when applied to vertebrates. Plants don't fit into that category
You don't think a field of DEAD food crops would be of any significance? I sure do. You don't think DEAD range vegetation would be of any significance to raising cattle? I do. You don't think the DEATH of flax plants would be of significance to weavers? I do.

[CatholicSage]

What verse[s] are you referring to?


I suppose it would just be the Genesis creation account. I don't remember where I learned this from, but I think it had something to do with a question of the death of insects in Eden, or possibly the later food laws.


You don't think a field of DEAD food crops would be of any significance? I sure do. You don't think DEAD range vegetation would be of any significance to raising cattle? I do. You don't think the DEATH of flax plants would be of significance to weavers? I do.

Well, I mean individually. Theologically speaking, the impact of this divide is that it would not have mattered if Adam had stepped on and killed some ants in the Garden, or eaten some plants.

[Minnesota]

Well, I mean individually. Theologically speaking, the impact of this divide is that it would not have mattered if Adam had stepped on and killed some ants in the Garden, or eaten some plants.

Or any other single or few animals one would like to name

[Arlan]

As far as I know, Noah was not commanded to bring plants onto the ark. "If no plants were brought on the boat then what did the animals and people eat, C-rations????":lol:

[Arlan]

well because of what Genesis 6:19-21 says, i dont think plants were really that important to bring on the ark. noah wasent directly commanded to bring 2 of each plant on board. so seeds from various plants could have survived the flood easyly i think, just because of the nature of seeds. and are you sure potatoes are a new world plant? dident they have them in england/ireland in the dark ages? one explaintion is that certain descendants of noah went to different parts of the earth (which was one land mass because it wasent divided untill later because of Genesis 10:25, in the days of Peleg) and different seeds washed to those parts, and then the earth split and thats why there are some plants in a lot of earth and some plants in hardly anywhere. because of the presumed climate change at the split, and various other factors.
" As a gardener for over 50 years you find that any seeds left in a cantainer with water in it for even a week will have drowned and if you plant them in the ground they will not produce a plant, just rot in the ground. So your hypothese about seeds floating to different parts of the world will not float. [that is a pun] As for Peleg [which means divided] that could have been when the earth was divided by making more than one language. The land has been divided for many many thousands of years."

[CatholicSage]

"If no plants were brought on the boat then what did the animals and people eat, C-rations????":lol:

I said he was not commanded to bring plants on the ark, not that he didn't bring any.

[Arlan]

I said he was not commanded to bring plants on the ark, not that he didn't bring any. "Your statement implyed that he did not bring plants on board the Ark. It would have been nice to add a "," to your first statement and say that he mush have taken on some plant food to eat. I have not seen any statements that he took on water but I would have assumed he would have because the long trip involved."

[ih8censorship]

As a gardener for over 50 years you find that any seeds left in a cantainer with water in it for even a week will have drowned and if you plant them in the ground they will not produce a plant, just rot in the ground. So your hypothese about seeds floating to different parts of the world will not float. it depends. think about an apple- apples float, and the fruit would protect the seeds. some seeds float by themselves but many many seeds require the caseing/hull/fruit for floatation. theres even a famous story about a lotus seed floating i dont know if youve heard it or not.

[Minnesota]

The number of seeds in the world known to survive for more than a month on the water and still be viable is about 125. And I would suspect the number to significantly less if the period was 10 months.


Of all the 250,000 species of seed plants on earth, only about 250 species (0.1 percent) are commonly collected as drift disseminules on tropical beaches; and only about half of these are known to produce seeds that can float in seawater for more than a month and still be viable. This relatively small number of drift seed species does not include seed plants which are dispersed on vegetation rafts, drift garbage from ships, or true marine seagrasses which live totally submersed in seawater. Although the total number of drift seed species may be relatively small, they nonetheless form a floral flotilla comprising countless thousands of individuals riding the ocean currents of the world.

SOURCE (http://waynesword.palomar.edu/pldec398.htm)


Here's a test. Take an apple and drop it into a bucket of water. After 10 months see if its seeds will germinate.

[ih8censorship]

I have not seen any statements that he took on water but I would have assumed he would have because the long trip involved." hm that would have been a lot of water... is it possible that the water wasent salty before or during the flood, but after the flood the receeding waters pulled salts from the earth? i dont know just a thought.

[Arlan]

I said he was not commanded to bring plants on the ark, not that he didn't bring any."So far, nobody has tried to answer the main THREAD Question. If there was a Genesis flood covering the earth then why did the 6 plants listed above end up in the Americas thousands of years before they came to the old world by Columbis? If the Genesis story is not true then there is no problems here.
The Flood, while not crucial to the theological basis of Christianty, is crucial to the veracity of the scriptural documents. If science were to conclude that no flood occurred, then very serious doubt would be cast upon the authority of the Scripture and, thus, on the historicity of the earlier temporal events: Noah and the Ark, creation, Adam and Eve, and the Fall of mankind. arlan b.

[A Beautiful Truth]

" As a gardener for over 50 years you find that any seeds left in a cantainer with water in it for even a week will have drowned and if you plant them in the ground they will not produce a plant, just rot in the ground. So your hypothese about seeds floating to different parts of the world will not float. [that is a pun] As for Peleg [which means divided] that could have been when the earth was divided by making more than one language. The land has been divided for many many thousands of years."

What do global flood proponents say to this, I wonder?

[A Beautiful Truth]

"If the Genesis story is not true then there is no problems here.
The Flood, while not crucial to the theological basis of Christianty, is crucial to the veracity of the scriptural documents. If science were to conclude that no flood occurred, then very serious doubt would be cast upon the authority of the Scripture and, thus, on the historicity of the earlier temporal events: Noah and the Ark, creation, Adam and Eve, and the Fall of mankind. arlan b.

I don't see how the veracity of the scriptural documents depends on the historicity of those "earlier temporal events."

Do these events need to be literal in order to be true??

[CatholicSage]

"So far, nobody has tried to answer the main THREAD Question. If there was a Genesis flood covering the earth then why did the 6 plants listed above end up in the Americas thousands of years before they came to the old world by Columbis? If the Genesis story is not true then there is no problems here.
The Flood, while not crucial to the theological basis of Christianty, is crucial to the veracity of the scriptural documents. If science were to conclude that no flood occurred, then very serious doubt would be cast upon the authority of the Scripture and, thus, on the historicity of the earlier temporal events: Noah and the Ark, creation, Adam and Eve, and the Fall of mankind. arlan b.

I did answer the question. New World plants were not necessarily on the ark; perhaps they could have survived by resting on top of some large mat of wood or vegetation or building. If they were on the ark, they could have perhaps been carried to the New World by animals. This is all speculation on my part. I don't even have a definite position on the Flood, so I'm really just positing some hypotheticals.

[Arlan]

I did answer the question. New World plants were not necessarily on the ark; perhaps they could have survived by resting on top of some large mat of wood or vegetation or building. If they were on the ark, they could have perhaps been carried to the New World by animals. This is all speculation on my part. I don't even have a definite position on the Flood, so I'm really just positing some hypotheticals."I alway enjoy Hypothese, it is what makes us think and maybe come up with new ways to understand new subjects. There is one big problem with the idea that those seed floated in from somewhere else. Where is "somewhere else", These 6 seeds were indigennous to the Americas thousands of years before they were exported to the rest of the world in 1500 AD. This country was their origin and if anything they would have floated to the other parts of the world but they didn't which disproves your hypothese. As for the seeds being carried by animals to the new world how did they get across the Atlantic Ocean? If they had been on the ark why was there no more seeds left there to let loose seeds all over the Old World.
But there is even a bigger problem. You know the corn that you eat off the cob, well the only way that corn tree can start up is by having a very unusual sex relation with a human being. With out a human to plant the corn, seed corn will never reseed its self. Place a new corn cob on the ground and all it does is lay there and get moldy. Take the husk off and it still will get moldy. Take the corn off the cob and it can not germinate and grow but will get moldy. But if you dig a small hole and plant the seed about a inch deep in the ground, it will grow. Corn is the only plant that has a strange sex life with humans. No people around, no corn. Corn has been found in the Americas back 7000 years. Wouldn't the Genesis flood have wiped it out if it really happened 5000 years ago? Keep thinking. arlan b.

[ih8censorship]

So far, nobody has tried to answer the main THREAD Question. If there was a Genesis flood covering the earth then why did the 6 plants listed above end up in the Americas thousands of years before they came to the old world by Columbis? If the Genesis story is not true then there is no problems here.

i did... the world was 1 land mass untill quite some time after the flood. so the plants could have very well been in all the places that supported the plants growth, and/or when the different groups of people split after the languages were confused they took different seeds with them to plant in different parts of the world.

and by the way, even secular scientists agree with the flood. bill nye says there was a global flood, how else do you explain fossils of a whale that was buried on its tail?

[sylas]

i did... the world was 1 land mass untill quite some time after the flood. so the plants could have very well been in all the places that supported the plants growth, and/or when the different groups of people split after the languages were confused they took different seeds with them to plant in different parts of the world.

That does not really work as an explanation. The question is not so much how did these six plants get to the Americas; it is why they were only in the Americas, until brought back to the old world around 1500 AD?

If people took them to Americas as seeds before the world "split" then we would expect them to be widely distributed all over the world. They aren't.

and by the way, even secular scientists agree with the flood. bill nye says there was a global flood, how else do you explain fossils of a whale that was buried on its tail?

The whale in question is actually in line with the sedimentary layers. The whole set of strata was later lifted up to an angle of 40 to 50 degrees. (Not quite on its tail.) Hence the whale was quite obviously not "buried on its tail", but buried flat out just as one would expect. After burial and fossilization, the rock formation was tilted. This can't happen in a flood; in a flood the strata would still be flowing mud. It can only have happened much later, when the layers of sediment that buried the whale had lithified.

Ironically, the most detailed description confirming this is available from creationist sources. See The Whale Fossil in Diatomite, Lompoc, California (http://www.icr.org/research/as/drsnelling6.html) (by Andrew Snelling, in Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, vol 9, #2, pp. 244-258; linked to a copy at the ICR). The abstract:
An on-site investigation at Lompoc, California, has established that the fossilised baleen whale found there in diatomite was not buried while “standing on its tail”, but is tilted because the enclosing diatomite unit is tilted. However, current slow-and-gradual uniformitarian models for diatomite deposition and whale fossilisation cannot explain this Lompoc whale fossil in diatomite. Only a local catastrophe involving volcanic activity, a post-Flood event within the Biblical framework of earth history, is consistent with all the evidence that demonstrates the whale was catastrophically buried in the diatomite.

The first sentence refutes the usual errors made in invoking this example. It was plainly buried while flat out. This bit is correct.

The rest of the paragraph summarizes Dr Snelling's view of how the geological unit came to be tilted, which has nothing to do with the flood. Indeed, reading the paper indicates that Snelling believes the original death of the whale was post-flood! Snelling's perceptions of the need for catastrophic burial are thus not related to the flood; and can be considered independently of any flood geology. His conclusions are, to put it mildly, idiosyncratic. He considers that the diatoms burying the whale accumulated very rapidly, but he does not invoke the flood as way this might have occurred.

There is also a less detailed talkorigins FAQ on this subject (A Whale of a Tale (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html)) which explains the geological basis for thinking that the diatoms were deposited comparatively slowly; at least slowly by comparison with the staggering deposition rates needed to compress all of this geological development (hundreds of meters thick in total) to within a few thousand years after a global flood. In fact, Snelling's refutation of uniformitarian assumptions is refuting something of a strawman; because conventional geology does not simply apply modern rates of change to the past. I understand that sedimentation rates during deposition of the formation in question are thought to have been exceptionally high. However, I am exceeding my own familiarity with the subject at this point.

Where on earth did you get the idea that Bill Nye (The Science Guy) supports a global flood? A more unlikely candidate for support such a notion could hardly be imagined. Bill Nye is a science educator, passionate and excited about all that we can learn about the world through science; including its great age. He does not believe in a global flood.

Cheers -- Sylas

[Arlan]

"Your statement implyed that he did not bring plants on board the Ark. It would have been nice to add a "," to your first statement and say that he mush have taken on some plant food to eat. I have not seen any statements that he took on water but I would have assumed he would have because the long trip involved."" I would like to point out that God did tell Noah to take food on board the boat Gen 6:21. What about the plants you can't eat? How did he get a redwood tree on the ark? "

[NeilUnreal]

How did he get a redwood tree on the ark?

Bonsai.

[Arlan]

Bonsai."That's what the Japs use to yell as they made their death charge against our army in the 1940's. Is that your death charge?
For those die hard scripture people, you might want to go to this site on the web. It is the Smithsonian's Statement on the historicity of the Bible in general, and about the Genesis flood:
www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/9156/ssotb.htm (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/9156/ssotb.htm)
I learned something from it, like the name of Mt. Ararat only goes back a few hundred years, so no one really knows which mountain the ark could have landed on if there was an ark. I found it very enlightning."

[Arlan]

hm that would have been a lot of water... is it possible that the water wasent salty before or during the flood, but after the flood the receeding waters pulled salts from the earth? i dont know just a thought." This is an easy one to think through. There are more salt water animals in the salt water ocean than there are freash water animals on dry land. If the ocean was not salty before the so called Genesis flood, then God would have had to creat them all after the flood in a second creation which the Bible doesn't say happened."

[Arlan]

hm that would have been a lot of water... is it possible that the water wasent salty before or during the flood, but after the flood the receeding waters pulled salts from the earth? i dont know just a thought." This is an easy one to think through. There are more salt water animals in the salt water ocean than there are freash water animals on dry land. If the ocean was not salty before the so called Genesis flood, then God would have had to creat them all after the flood in a second creation which the Bible doesn't say happened."

[NeilUnreal]

Is that your death charge?

You're thinking of "banzai," which means "ten thousand years," as in: "May the emperor live ten thousand years!"

-Neil

[sylas]

You're thinking of "banzai," which means "ten thousand years," as in: "May the emperor live ten thousand years!"

-Neil

Isn't that what they used to shout before comitting sukiyaki?

[CatholicSage]

"I alway enjoy Hypothese, it is what makes us think and maybe come up with new ways to understand new subjects. There is one big problem with the idea that those seed floated in from somewhere else. Where is "somewhere else", These 6 seeds were indigennous to the Americas thousands of years before they were exported to the rest of the world in 1500 AD. This country was their origin and if anything they would have floated to the other parts of the world but they didn't which disproves your hypothese.


The "somewhere else" could be any part of the antediluvian world that contained those seeds.


As for the seeds being carried by animals to the new world how did they get across the Atlantic Ocean?


The Bering Strait, of course.


If they had been on the ark why was there no more seeds left there to let loose seeds all over the Old World.


There are any number of ways that the plants could have gone extinct in the Old World: climate, overconsumption, etc.


But there is even a bigger problem. You know the corn that you eat off the cob, well the only way that corn tree can start up is by having a very unusual sex relation with a human being. With out a human to plant the corn, seed corn will never reseed its self. Place a new corn cob on the ground and all it does is lay there and get moldy. Take the husk off and it still will get moldy. Take the corn off the cob and it can not germinate and grow but will get moldy. But if you dig a small hole and plant the seed about a inch deep in the ground, it will grow. Corn is the only plant that has a strange sex life with humans. No people around, no corn. Corn has been found in the Americas back 7000 years. Wouldn't the Genesis flood have wiped it out if it really happened 5000 years ago? Keep thinking. arlan b.

That seems to be quite a mystery. How, then, did corn survive before humans came along?

[Arlan]

The "somewhere else" could be any part of the antediluvian world that contained those seeds.



The Bering Strait, of course.



There are any number of ways that the plants could have gone extinct in the Old World: climate, overconsumption, etc.



That seems to be quite a mystery. How, then, did corn survive before humans came along?
"1]According to Genesis God destroyed the anteduluvan world with the flood. From archaeological digs back to 40,000 years there never has been one seed of any of these 6 plants found in any digs in the old world.

2]If the 6 plants were never in the old world before 1500ad how could they come across the Bering Straits from the old world in 10,000BC??

3]See answer #1

4] Who said corn survived before man was on the Americas, not I. YES, you are right, it is quite a mystery if the Genesis flood really happened. If the Genesis flood didn't happen then there is no mystery.

[A Beautiful Truth]

"That's what the Japs use to yell as they made their death charge against our army in the 1940's. Is that your death charge?
For those die hard scripture people, you might want to go to this site on the web. It is the Smithsonian's Statement on the historicity of the Bible in general, and about the Genesis flood:
www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/9156/ssotb.htm (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/9156/ssotb.htm)
I learned something from it, like the name of Mt. Ararat only goes back a few hundred years, so no one really knows which mountain the ark could have landed on if there was an ark. I found it very enlightning."

This is what I liked from it:

However, in the stories found in the Book of Genesis, Chapter 1-12, such as the flood story, the record is quite different: the time period under consideration is much more ancient. The factual bases of the stories are hidden from our view archaeologically. The stories remain a part of folk traditions and were included in the Bible to illustrate and explain theological ideas such as: Where did humans come from? If humans were created by God (who is perfect and good), how did evil among them come to be? If we are all related as children of God, why do we speak different languages? It must be remembered that the Bible is primarily a book of religion, a guide to faith. it was not a book of history, poetry, economics, or science. It contains all sorts of literary genre, which are used to teach about the relationship between God and mankind. Even biblical history is edited history: events were chosen to illustrate the central theme of the Bible. The Biblical writers did not pretend they were giving a complete history; instead they constantly refer us to other sources for full historical details, sources such as "The Annals of the Kings of Judah" (or Israel).

I used to feel threatened when I heard stuff like this, but not anymore. I think it makes sense.

But on a different note, the Bible says, Genesis 8:4 "...the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat." So even if it were literal, the text does not say the ark rested on the top of Mt. Ararat. The mountains of Ararat encompass a geographical region.

[CatholicSage]

"1]According to Genesis God destroyed the anteduluvan world with the flood. From archaeological digs back to 40,000 years there never has been one seed of any of these 6 plants found in any digs in the old world.


The destruction of the antediluvian world doesn't preclude the survival of of some remnants of it, such as insects or seeds resting on some sort of large mat like I mentioned before.


2]If the 6 plants were never in the old world before 1500ad how could they come across the Bering Straits from the old world in 10,000BC??


As I said, humans or animals could have carried them in some way, or they could have ended up there naturally as the flood receded.


4] Who said corn survived before man was on the Americas, not I. YES, you are right, it is quite a mystery if the Genesis flood really happened. If the Genesis flood didn't happen then there is no mystery.

Corn could not have simply appeared once man came to the Americas, so it must have survived before somehow.

[NeilUnreal]

Quite a lot is known about the natural and artificial evolution of corn (maize). A search for "+corn +evolution" or "+maize +evolution" will turn up an abundance of online literature.

-Neil

[Arlan]

The destruction of the antediluvian world doesn't preclude the survival of of some remnants of it, such as insects or seeds resting on some sort of large mat like I mentioned before.



As I said, humans or animals could have carried them in some way, or they could have ended up there naturally as the flood receded.



Corn could not have simply appeared once man came to the Americas, so it must have survived before somehow.
"1]First of all there is no evidence of a antediluvian world and no evidence of a Genesis flood in all of scientific-ologies, There is lots of evidvance for humans on earth for the last 40,000 years. Without those, your hypothese holds no water.
2] See answer in @ 1
3] Yes you are catching on, "somehow" but not with the story in Genesis. It doesn't fit in. Old Jericho which is over 11,000 years old has never had a flood of any type cover its clay foundations. If there was a Genesis flood about 4000 years ago why didn't it cover this town which is just a few miles from Jerusalem? Your Genesis flood story is just a copy of the Sumerian flood story that is 2000 years older than the Bible. Cheers arlan b.