Sunday, 29 July 2012

Humans On The Ark Must Have Had STDs

Noah, or at least one member of his family, must have had one or more venereal diseases and must have had extramarital sexual relationships.

We can be sure of this because humans, like many other species, are hosts to a number of obligate, species-specific, parasitic pathogens, i.e. parasites which are obliged to live in or on their host in order to survive.

For example:

Chlamydia trachomatis

Chlamydia trachomatis is an obligate intracellular pathogen (i.e. the bacterium lives within human cells) and can cause numerous disease states in both men and women. Both sexes can display urethritis, proctitis (rectal disease and bleeding), trachoma, and infertility. The bacterium can cause prostatitis and epididymitis in men. In women, cervicitis, pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), ectopic pregnancy, and acute or chronic pelvic pain are frequent complications. C. trachomatis is also an important neonatal pathogen, where it can lead to infections of the eye (trachoma) and pulmonary complications. C. trachomatis is the single most important infectious agent associated with blindness; approximately 600 million worldwide suffer C. trachomatis eye infections and 20 million are blinded as a result of the infection.


Syphilis is a sexually transmitted infection caused by the spirochete bacterium Treponema pallidum pallidum.T. pallidum pallidum is a spiral-shaped, Gram-negative, highly mobile bacterium (see electron micrograph - left). Three other human diseases are caused by related T. pallidum subspecies, including yaws (T. p. pertenue), pinta (T. p. carateum) and bejel (T p. endemicum). Unlike T. p. pallidum, they do not cause neurological disease. Humans are the only known natural reservoir for T. p. pallidum. It is unable to survive without a host for more than a few days. This is due to its small genome (1.14 MDa) and thus its inability to make most of its macronutrients. It has a slow doubling time of greater than 30 hours.


Gonorrhoea is a common human sexually transmitted infection caused by the bacterium Neisseria gonorrhoeae. It is unique to humans.

The infection is transmitted from one person to another through vaginal, oral, or anal sex. Men have a 20% risk of getting the infection from a single act of vaginal intercourse with an infected woman. The risk for men who have sex with men is higher. Women have a 60–80% risk of getting the infection from a single act of vaginal intercourse with an infected man. A mother may transmit gonorrhea to her newborn during childbirth; when affecting the infant's eyes, it is referred to as ophthalmia neonatorum. It cannot be spread by toilets or bathrooms.

So, each of these sexually transmitted diseases is entirely dependent on humans both for their existence and for their transmission and, if you believe the account given in Genesis of Noah's flood, you believe every living substance outside of the Ark was destroyed by God and everything alive today is descended from those few who were on the Ark.

And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

If this were true, if would mean that members of Noah's family were carries of these venereal and sexually transmitted diseases.

Would any creationist like to speculate on who they might have been?

And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

So that's four men and four women. Did just one of them carry all three sexually transmitted diseases or were they spread around? We can be fairly sure that their partners would have been infected too so at least two and maybe as many as six of the humans on the Ark had sexually transmitted diseases normally, though not always, the result of having several sexual partners. One thing we know is that you can't catch them from virgins unless they had a congenitally acquired form acquired from their mother, so we can be fairly certain that one or more of the people on the Ark had had extramarital sexual relations of some sort.

So, is this yet another example of an unintelligent god who hasn't thought things through? In a fit of pique it decides to destroy everyone and everything because they are sinners, then realises it needs to save sinners too in order to save the diseases it's also created, so negating the entire purpose of the whole multi-ethnic, multi-species genocide, but it does it anyway.

Or is it just a nonsense tale made up by people who were in complete ignorance of bacteriology and microbial causation of disease?

submit to reddit

Income from ads will be donated to charities such as moderate centre-left groups, humanist, humanitarian and wildlife protection and welfare organisations.


  1. I just love the way you think, and your knowledge is impressive. Thanks!

    May I ask why you used 'fit of peak' instead of 'fit of pique'? Am I missing a pun (again)?

  2. LOL. This was a great blog entry. But it does make sense that a cruel, murderous god would infect people with STD's - he wants his "perfect creations" to suffer over and over again.

  3. Fantastic post! We can add VD to laundry lists of dead give-aways the Noah's Ark story is bull.

  4. You are setting yourself up as God. But you are not God. The complexity of the universe did not happen by chance. It was brought about by OUR CREATOR. You can spend hours on Twitter day in day out trying to convince yourself but you will never have peace of mind until you ACCEPT God. I bet you would be afraid to enter a Catholic church. Why not enter a Catholic Church and kneel in front of the tabernacle. Jesus is present in the tabernacle.
    The problem with us humans is that we assume that we know all. We don't. Only God knows all.

    1. analyser

      I'm sorry you had to resort to assertion without evidence as well as condescending and sanctimonious abuse.

      You would have thought, for a 4000 year old notion, a scrap of evidence would have been found by now, but of course it means we can safely dismiss your assertion with the same ease with which you made it.

      The fact that you have had to bear false witness tells the world that you know your 'faith' is a lie, of course, so people will now be wondering what you are using it as an excuse for.

      Do you have enough honesty to tell us? The world has already seen that you couldn't deal with the issues raised in this blog. Can you raise your game out of the moral gutter at all?

      Also, lovely to see you providing such a wonderful illustration of the truth of my latest blog, 'The God Of Low Standards'.

      Thanks for your help.

    2. Who said everything happened by chance? You're using a strawman. You assert that there is a god. Where's the proof and, if there is one, how do you know it's not Vishnu?

    3. analyser

      By the way, I seriously suggest you speak to a psychiatrist specialising in acute anxiety disorders about your very evident morbidly paranoid theophobia before it induces you to do something you may later regret.

  5. I can assure you I am perfectly sane. I just cannot understand why atheists spend so much time on the net trying to prove that God does not exist. Only a Super Being could have created the universe. Prudence would dictate that we humans take no risks and that we work on the assumption that there is a God. When we die we will face judgement. If we die in mortal sin we end up in Hell. Its prudent to take no chances. it will be too late when we die.
    This is what British poet Sally Read said:
    "Until two years ago, I was a really committed atheist and I really hated the Catholic Church,” said poet Sally Read, as she explained how all that dramatically changed during nine months in 2010.

    “The whole process took from March to December, and I was received into the Catholic Church at the Vatican in December, so it was a bit of a lightning flash,” she told CNA on July 24."
    ( )

    1. Your best evidence is that a clearly biased source repeated a dubious quote from somoene who is neither an expert nor authority in any way? Is this the best you can do?
      This argument has so little weight that if I could tie it to a string, I could hold on and float right out of my chair.

    2. analyser

      > I just cannot understand why atheists spend so much time on the net trying to prove that God does not exist.

      We don't. We spend a lot of time pointing out that you can't provide any evidence that it does, let alone proof, and that your claim to secret knowledge, moral authority and the right to make laws mandatory on the rest of us is bogus.

      You could, of course, end all that today by providing some evidence which proves your god and no other, and which can have no possible natural explanation.

      Why don't you do that? Unkind people might assume it's because you don't have any and that you also know your claim is bogus, which is why you need to spend so much time on line lying about it and posting abuse at those who ask you for some.

    3. >poet Sally Read<

      Did you notice how she couldn't provide any evidence either and so has had to adopt the God of Low Standard?

      Nice piece of hypocrisy on your part the way you quote her now she agrees with you but never when she was an Atheist. Thank you for providing it without solicitation.

      Have you heard of the Clergy Project? Over 300 Atheist priests have recently joined it in preparation for coming out of the closet.

      The God of Low Standards of course requires its followers to use threats and discrimination against those who disagree with them because they can't use evidence, logic or reason. This is why so may Atheists are in the closet, afraid of the violence of the followers of the God of Low Standards and the social stigma being honest carries in a society dominated by its followers where ignorance, hypocrisy, dishonesty and sanctimonious bigotry are considered virtues.

  6. Unless you can provide empirical ,or at the least strong anecdotal evidence that these diseases existed pre-Ark, this argument can't be considered logical.

    I fact in the case of syphilis, the bacterium that causes syphilis is from the same genetic family that causes many other infections, including an old sailors disease called 'yaws'. There evidence that the original populations hosting this bacterium may have carried it around for a long period of time before it actually evolved into syphilis as we know it.There has been no sustainable evidence revealed that syphilis existed in Pre-Columbian time.

    This would repudiate your assertion that any number of people on the Ark (valid occurrence or just Biblical story telling) had it, since this evidence existed far after any conceivable date for the Ark's supposed actual journey. This would mean we would have little chance of our modern world existing as the benchmark for Pre-Columbian is widely accepted as the first Spanish incursions into S. America and the Caribbean areas around the late 1400's (some use 1492 with Columbus).

    So if this is true for syphilis, it is not illogical to assume that gonorrhea and chlamydia are also recent evolutionary constructs and did not exist in their current genetic state pre-Ark.

    Of course I could be going ape-Sh!t crazy form the Noah-dian syphilitic spirochetes.

    1. Was there something about the phrases 'obligate, species-specific' and 'unable to survive without a host for more than a few days' which you didn't understand, or are you implying that diseases have evolved out of nothing, all in the last 4000 years or so? If so, what evidence can you present for that extraordinary hypothesis, please?

      You could be on the verge of a Nobel Prize if you present your evidence to the world.

    2. Diseases like HIV could be the result of mutations and genetic evolutions of viruses that may have been relatively confined to another species (See SIV in monkeys). Swine flu, a harmless virus in pigs when crossed with a version of the human flu becomes deadly. HN51 same profile, species jumping mutating virus. Did these exist prior to Noah and the Ark? Obviously Noah and or one or more of his people had those diseases because according to your argument that is the only way those diseases could be present today.

      Your treatise was not the exclusivity to the human race or a specific host, nor was it about the survivability and robustness of the organisms. It was about the timeline. Your timeline says it has to have been pre-Ark and if the eight peoples on the Ark were the only surviving members of humanity after the cataclysm then they were the only possible vector for the reemergence and distribution of the viruses. At no time did I challenge the actual biology of the diseases, only the evidence you presented as Noah ad his family having STD's, which as I asserted could only be true if the diseases were prevalent prior to their being the only surviving members of our species.

      And yes, it is quite frequently on the evolutionary events chart that a previously harmless or even helpful bacteria or virus mutates into a harmful version. We see it everyday with the over use of anti-biotics in modern society. WE now have had a progression from, for example, a insignificant strep strain ha mutated into Necrotizing Faciitis.

      Again my argument is that you cannot substantiate that the viruses existed in the current state prior to the Ark. If you can't then your assertion that the only possible vector for reintroduction into the societies founded by the survivors was the people on the Ark is unprovable and merely conjecture at best, and at worst a thinly veiled attack on the voracity of the beliefs contained in the book itself.

    3. Is there something about the term 'species specific' which is still puzzling you, or is it your argument that all human diseases have evolved, or sprung fully-formed into being, in the last 4000 years?

    4. Doesn't have to be all. And even if the current viral profile is 'species specific' that does not mean it's origins are. HIV is species specific (it's what the 'H' stands for) but it's origins were in other species.

      And yes many diseases have evolved, mutated and "sprung up" in the last 4000 or less years.

      Or is it your point that ALL diseases currently know have existed since the creation/dawn/first step of man? If your an evolutionist (assumed by your atheistic self description) then all of these diseases had to originate in monkeys which goes against you 'species-specific' (unless you are claiming great apes = humans) statement. If your not an atheist and a biblical believer then GOD obviously inflicted man with the entire catalog of diseases, which would support your argument (but if the first is true you wouldn't use that as an argument to prove the second), or you have some heretofore unknown theory of how we got fro point A to point B in the development of humans, which as you tried unsuccessfully to foist on me would put YOU up for the latest Nobel if in fact it was provable/believable.

      So which is it? All diseases currently afflicting man existed throughout it's history? Some diseases existed? Did they evolve independently or were they created by an omniscient being? Can diseases evolve? Can evolution or mutations change organisms from harmless to deadly? Or were we granted all of these things in a package deal at the first definition of our humanity?

      You can't have it both ways evolution means diseases can and will arise from time to time, or creationism where we got everything we have today was there at the epochal moment of our existence?

      Pick one please.

    5. >If your not an atheist and a biblical believer then GOD obviously inflicted man with the entire catalog of diseases,<

      Thank you for showing my argument was correct - to be a Bible literalist you need to believe that Noah's family had STDs and were therefore 'sinners'.

  7. Let's see AiG take this one on in one of their "studies"!

  8. The story of Noah and the big flood is not only a made up story in the Bible, it's also plagiarized. It's identical to the story of Manu.

    Manu, in Hinduism, is the first man. (The word man comes from Manu.)

  9. Always great to read Rosa but especially when somebody #anonymous tries to prove you wrong by proving the point you made was correct!

  10. Check this out:

    As for the flood be9ng real isn't it odd that hundreds of cultures around the world have a story very similar to Noah's flood that would be really weird and almost impossible to happen by chance maybe it's because a flood really happened O! It couldn't be that simple! As for syphilis it come from sheep slaughtering or sexually who knows HIV come from recently from chimpanzees chlamydia eye infections can be transferred from many different mammals with only slight a temptation by bacteria same as syphilis syphilis is actually the same species still that's in sheep. And gonorrhea as well read article ATS pretty accepted fact that it come from cattle and all of this likely within the last 500 years so don't publish mine because I'm not kissing your ass or just leave it because it has a cool article link. Ty

    1. What's odd is how people just regurgitate the lie that there are hundreds of cultures with the same flood myth as the Hebrews, either without checking or because they want to mislead people. I note that you provide not one single checkable reference for that claim.

      In fact, although SOME cultures, almost all of which were based on the flood plains of major rivers where the first settled human societies formed, have some sort of account of a local flood, these floods do not correspond in time or extent with the Bible myth.

      What's even odder, if they were all relating a flood just a few thousand years ago from which there were only 8 survivors, is just how completely they forgot the details or Noah's name, even though he is supposedly our common ancestor, and how they forgot all about the god who caused it and invented their own gods and religions. And at the same time, we are expected to believe the Hebrews remembered the entire thing, accurate in every detail.

      Then, of course, there is the small problem of the Ark survivors surviving on a sterile planet when all living substance outside the Ark had been destroyed. No plants, not food for the carnivores and insectivores, safe the few from the Ark!

      It's also odd how, for example, the Chinese and Egyptians have continuous histories going way back before this supposed flood with no break or discontinuity and even speaking the same language and using the same forms of writing.

      As for your novel account of how obligate, species-specific parasites could have survived this flood, it's just that - a novel. It is quite ludicrous to pretend that human STDs were only acquired within the last 500 years. You are presupposing a mutation and evolution rate far in excess of what biologist accept.

      Even ectoparasites like lice are species-specific. The lice we carry are unique species, although they are related to those carried by chimpanzees and gorillas. The same goes for the STDs in the article.

      Unless you intend to push the notorious lies of the creationist industry, please provide links to peer-reviewed articles that support your assertions.

      There are only two possible conclusions to draw from your comment - either you have been fooled or you are trying to fool my readers. I thought Christians were forbidden from bearing false witness.


Obscene, threatening or obnoxious messages, preaching, abuse and spam will be removed, as will anything by known Internet trolls and stalkers, by known sock-puppet accounts and anything not connected with the post,

A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Remember: your opinion is not an established fact unless corroborated.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Web Analytics