╌>

The Fallacy of Biblical Stories, Part 1: The Great Flood & Noah's Ark

  
By:  Gordy327  •  4 years ago  •  457 comments


The Fallacy of Biblical Stories, Part 1: The Great Flood & Noah's Ark
People cited violation of the First Amendment when a New Jersey schoolteacher asserted that evolution and the Big Bang are not scientific and that Noah's ark carried dinosaurs. This case is not about the need to separate church and state; it's about the need to separate ignorant, scientifically illiterate people from the ranks of teachers. ---Neil deGrasse Tyson

Leave a comment to auto-join group Religious and not News Chat

Religious and not News Chat

This article is the first in a series of articles I plan to write (depending on my available time and interest) objectively examining popular biblical stories to establish their veracity or likelihood of having actually occurred. While many people might view the stories as fables and allegories, some do view them as actual, literal events that have occurred (Looking at you Ken Hamm, lol). These stories have significantly influenced people and societies throughout the centuries. So I will analyze the empirical evidence which either supports or refutes the stories as portrayed. For this Part 1, I will examine the biblical Great Flood and Noah's Ark mythos.

In a nutshell, the Great Flood/Noah's Ark goes like this: God was ticked off at humanity's shenanigans and decided the best way to deal with the situation was genocide via mass drowning (save for Noah & few of his followers, along with certain animals). So God instructed Noah to gather two of every animal and build a great ark to house them during the 40-day/night deluge that would flood the world and kill virtually every living thing on the planet. Afterwards, he would release the animals and themselves to repopulate their respective species. 

This story has so many problems with it, it's difficult to know where to begin. To simplify, I will not be focusing on other cultures earlier flood myths, which probably influenced the creation of the biblical flood myth. Neither will I be focusing on God's own imperfection (or incompetence), as his Creation had some major design flaws forcing him to essentially reboot Creation over again. I also won't delve into the implausibility of rapid repopulation over a short time after the flood either. So here are some problems with the Flood story:

1. The sheer number of animals that had to be aboard the Ark : For this, I'm going to assume that the animals on the ark were all land animals. According to the California Academy of Sciences, there are approximately 6.5 million species of land animals. I'll be conservative and round down to 6 million, give or take a million. Since we have two of every animal, the ark must be capable of holding and supporting 12 MILLION animals for an extended duration, without additional support. That alone makes the Flood story quite implausible (even more so if one includes dinosaurs as passengers). Anyone who has been in a pet store will know housing many animals takes up quite a lot of space and resources. To put that into perspective, a single adult elephant (the largest land mammal in the world) can weigh upwards of 14,000 pounds, grow up to 35 feet long, and eat 200-600 pounds of food and drink 50 gallons of water PER DAY! And Noah had 12 million animals to feed and water daily, which is an impossible task for the relatively few people aboard the ark (never mind cleaning up after the animals too). In addition, it is supposed to believed that many of those animals traveled thousands of miles, some over the ocean, and from remote places like Antarctica, outside of their natural environments and ecosystems, in time to board the ark before the flood. Really?

2. The lack of paleontological evidence : Once the flood occurs, that means EVERY SINGLE ANIMAL not on the ark dies (and PETA takes issue with people wearing furs? They should have quite the issue with God's cruelty to animals here). Not only land animals left behind, but this also includes all land based plant life, insects that feed off of plants, amphibians and avians that feed of the insects, ect.. Essentially, the Flood would destroy entire ecosystems, collapse the food chain, and cause a sudden mass extinction event. This would also include sea based plants and animals, as the sudden influx of freshwater rain would dilute the salinity of the oceans, thereby disrupting the environmental conditions ocean based life requires to survive. If such an extinction event occurred, we would expect to see LOTS of fossils or remnants of the deceased lifeforms all at the same geological strata evenly distributed all over the earth. But we clearly do not observe that being the case. To be fair though, fossilization would require a burial in sediment layers thick enough to preserve them. But we're not seeing that in any sediment layers going back approximately 4000+ years (the time of Noah). Another thing to consider is, when the flood receded and the Ark landed, we should see a large collection of fossils or remains of all the animals that lived and died within a region around the ark. In other words, we should expect to find (for example) penguin remains mixed in along with kangaroo remains in the same general area. Needless to say, we do not see that.

3. The lack of geological evidence : So if a worldwide flood did indeed happen, there would be geological evidence of the event. However, geologists have not discovered any evidence to support the flood story. Just the opposite actually, current geological evidence directly contradicts the idea of a world wide flood covering landmasses. If there were such a Flood event, we would see mountains and other rock formations have a relatively uniform smoothing or massive erosion from the receding Flood water equally around the world. Of course, that is not the case. We would also see erosion and sedimentation occurring simultaneously, which we do not. Not only would we find even sedimentation layers around the world if there were a flood, certain sedimentation layers we see today could not exist. 

4. The amount of water needed to flood the earth does not exist on earth : The volume of water on Earth is fairly constant: it evaporates form oceans, lakes, rivers, ect., condenses in the atmosphere into clouds, and falls back to Earth as rain, where the cycle repeats. So 40 days & nights of rain would have to drop enough water to cover ALL of Earth's landmasses, up and including Mt. Everest, at 29,028 feet above sea level (God wouldn't want to have a little animal stay safe on the peak of Everest while he's trying to smite every living thing, right?). The problem with that is there is not enough water on Earth to actually flood it to the level described in the bible. According to certain estimates , it would take 813,875,076 CUBIC MILES of water to sufficiently cover the entirety of Earth. That's a lot of water. By comparison, all of Earth's oceans, which cover 70% of the planet, equals approximately 321,000,000 cubic miles. I would expect that volume of water to fall in 40 days would be less like being constantly under rain, and more like constantly under a waterfall. Then there's the problem of where all that extra water went after the flood (I know, some people might invoke God's magic and all that).

5. The Ark itself is implausible : Now we get to the centerpiece of the Flood Story, Noah's Great Ark itself. By now, many people are probably familiar with Ken Hamm's Ark Encounter park in Kentucky, where Mr. Hamm built a supposedly accurate, full-size replica of Noah's Ark. For the purposes of this discussion, I will use Mr. Hamm's Ark as a "functional" duplicate of Noah's Ark. So the Ark itself is 510 feet long, 85 feet wide, and 51 feet high, smaller than the Titanic (and yet 12 millions animals were housed on board? Really?). I don't think the bible states Noah was a master carpenter or ship builder with the skill to construct a vessel of this magnitude or for the conditions it would face. Presumably, Noah only had wood and the simple tools of his time to construct the Ark. The problem here is, wood is not the ideal material to construct large seagoing vessels. The largest wooden vessels built by master shipbuilders of the recent era was the 6 mast schooner Wyoming, which had an overall length of 450 feet. The problem with such large wooden vessels is that sea travel would cause the wooden hull to twist and warp, resulting in leaks or even structural failure. So the Ark, built by unskilled individuals with primitive tools, meant to remain stable on water rather than actually sail over it, somehow, even with all it's gross tonnage of material, animals, and any cargo, was able to withstand stormy weather and oceans without breaking apart or becoming water logged enough to cause sinking? That seems highly unlikely to me. as does the Great Flood story itself.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1  author  Gordy327    4 years ago

So what do you think? Could the Great Flood and Noah's Ark actually have occurred? I don't think so.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @1    4 years ago

We, meaning modern history may never know. This was a very old Earth ago. And the people doing the 'listing' are very, very, long gone. Does any one have a Rabbi's perspective on Noah's Ark?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
1.1.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @1.1    4 years ago

The people in the story may well never have existed.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @1.1    4 years ago
We, meaning modern history may never know. This was a very old Earth ago.

Yes it was (for a YEC perspective). That's why we have to look at the geologic and paleontological evidence, which keeps a natural "record" of events from log ago. Both fields of science not only does not support the notion of a biblical global flood, but seems to directly contradict or discredit it. 

Does any one have a Rabbi's perspective on Noah's Ark?

I found this

The Flood commenced on the seventeenth day of the second month. The gates of heaven broke loose, and the depths of the earth opened to send forth streams of raging, boiling water, swallowing everything in its path. Rain fell for forty days and forty nights and the water which covered the earth rose higher and higher. It covered the peaks of the highest mountains. Every living thing died, and all growing things were destroyed. Amid this terrible scene of ruins and devastation the Ark, guided by G‑d, floated securely. But the ship was fiercely tossed about and shaken at the heights of the stormy flood, so that it seemed to Noah that it was about to break apart.

Geez, can God overkill or what? Not only does he drown every living thing, but He boils them alive first. jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.3  CB  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.1    4 years ago

True. It is a very, very, very, (well you get it) time ago. Mostly people at that time may have not shared or could demand of each other the level of meticulousness to details (in writing) which we do today. Although, people did seem to have systems which build upon themselves.

"The people in the story may well never have existed."

That is possible. You hedged your statement. I understand why it is necessary to do so.

In modern times, there is no shortage for 'amazing' tales, stories, and myths-making.  All the while, we are more careful and critical in our beliefs, ideas, and opinions. Still, just imagine some of the many things which we will leave confusing to future generations about "today."

There are places in the New Testament of the Bible which are still being discovered, for example, the Pool of Bethesda. Once thought (by some modern people) to be a myth: discovered.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.4  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.2    4 years ago

Well that is a rendering alright! The writers, all, keep describing an event in time. What exactly it could be is a matter of faith, now. In my opinion. I say this is a matter of faith, because Jewish people teach on Noah; Jesus commented on Noah's life (as a Jewish 'leader' in his day), and Jesus was closer in time to Noah than any group of moderns. (I add this just as a means to broaden discussion - my Christian faith does not hinge on the times or flood of Noah's day.)

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.5  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @1.1.4    4 years ago
What exactly it could be is a matter of faith, now.

Then that doesn't lend any credibility to the story as actually occurring.

I say this is a matter of faith, because Jewish people teach on Noah; Jesus commented on Noah's life (as a Jewish 'leader' in his day), and Jesus was closer in time to Noah than any group of moderns. (I add this just as a means to broaden discussion - my Christian faith does not hinge on the times or flood of Noah's day.)

That's fine. But the point of the article is to focus on the Flood story itself and establish its veracity. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.6  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.5    4 years ago

How do you intend to establish its veracity or status as a tale without any new information? Curious.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.7  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @1.1.6    4 years ago
How do you intend to establish its veracity or status as a tale without any new information? Curious.

Read the article. I took all the available information into account and analyzed it. It's doubtful there's going to be anymore forthcoming to significantly alter the conclusion. But if you have something, then by all means let's hear it.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.8  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.7    4 years ago

I read the article. It is impressive for its purposes. And as you are certainly aware, the Bible goes beyond nature as we know it in many ways.

The "available" information can only get you so far. As Sandy stated @1.1.1, "may" is the operative word, though it leaves the door open for a 'flood' of new information, pun intended.  The Pool of Bethesda (where Jesus healed a paralyzed man) was though to not exist until it was discovered in Jerusalem. Incidentally, you hedged just now when you wrote, "It's doubtful. . . ."

Discoveries happen (from in the ground) when the ground is dug up just so. But, what do I know about ancient lands I have never been privileged to visit or study? It is just more 'background' in the frame of faith (for people like me).

I have no ideas about Noah; I only know what is taken as an article of faith about him written down in "the Book."

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.9  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @1.1.8    4 years ago
The "available" inforrmation can only get you so far.

That's all we have to go on. So there's no reason to assume the Flood event occurred, especially since the available evidence, which is compelling in its own right, suggests otherwise.

Incidentally, you hedged just now when you wrote, "It's doubtful. . . ."

Not at all. I even said in the article the Flood was highly unlikely. 

Discoveries happen (from in the ground) when the ground is dug up just so.

Like I said, when new evidence is found, then we can reevaluate.

I read the article. It is impressive for its purposes.

Thank you.

And as you are certainly aware, the Bible goes beyond nature as we know it in many ways.

I take it more as a storybook rather than a literal account of events.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.10  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.9    4 years ago

Then we are in agreement, that we should stick a pin here? And shall we wait?  Or, do we carry on blindly supposing that the ancient world has yielded more than enough of its secrets regarding Noah?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.11  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @1.1.10    4 years ago

We can carry on until new evidence, if any, emerges. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.12  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.11    4 years ago

But would it be discipline or indulgence at work? There are plenty people of the faith persuasion who 'beat' the scriptures mercilessly, I often pray they could display more control of their subject matter.

For example, we have to discuss God, when we discuss Noah and the Flood. The reason is, we only are told about Noah because God delivered him a task to perform.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
1.1.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @1.1.12    4 years ago
The reason is, we only are told about Noah because God delivered him a task to perform.

Or we are told a story that was made up about a god and a man, both of whom were likely made up.  Much like many myths.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.14  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @1.1.12    4 years ago
For example, we have to discuss God, when we discuss Noah and the Flood. The reason is, we only are told about Noah because God delivered him a task to perform.

God commanding Noah and flooding the world is all we really need about god. God is just a side character in the Flood. It's the details of the Flood itself that is under scrutiny.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.15  CB  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.13    4 years ago
"The people in the story may well never have existed."

You wrote (above). Like you, I can not confirm or deny. For us, these things are strictly matters of faith, then.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.16  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.14    4 years ago

Okay, then what does the book say about where Noah gets the directions (instructions) for the proportions of his ark (that would save him from a world where others would be condemned)? And what value is righteousness to a man who places no stock in it?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
1.1.17  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @1.1.15    4 years ago

Ok, I'll even go so far as to say that the Biblical Noah, who lived for hundreds of years and built a ship big enough to hold 2 of every species (or 2 of every unclean and seven of every clean animal), made from wood, and capable of supporting its passengers and livestock for a year, almost certainly did not exist.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.18  CB  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.17    4 years ago

"Almost" means there is a chance. But, I digress.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.19  TᵢG  replied to  CB @1.1.15    4 years ago
For us, these things are strictly matters of faith, then.

And faith adds no veracity to the idea.   That is what flies in the face of those who need to be persuaded that something is true.   There is no taking something on faith because that practice does not get one any closer to the truth.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  CB @1.1.18    4 years ago
"Almost" means there is a chance.

I suspect Sandy means it in this sense:

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.21  CB  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.20    4 years ago

I seen this one on various articles.  It fact it is what was going through my mind when I commented.  But we all know a 'crack' can grow into.a garage you can park a 747 inside! Discoveries!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.22  CB  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.19    4 years ago

I think you are missing a vital element: The Spirit. It is the "born again" experience. That is something we 'know' occurred in some of us you know it has not occurred for some of you here. Unfortunately, we have been front-row to seeing how some believers mishandle spiritual gifts in the modern era. Yet, some others manage their gifting quite admirably.

I detect this discussion is not about faith or these other matters, nevertheless. It is about Noah and the Ark (he built).

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
1.1.23  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @1.1.22    4 years ago
The Spirit. It is the "born again" experience. That is something we 'know' occurred in some of us you know it has not occurred for some of you here.

Evidence, Cal.  This is entirely subjective.  We aren't missing it.  You can't show it's there to be missed.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.24  CB  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.23    4 years ago

The statement stands. It is attested to by many throughout recorded (New Testament) history and the life testimonies of millions upon millions, and not a mere handful. I can't give you (nor need I try) anything more than this. You are free to qualify this stated experience when you write of it as something we say about ourselves.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.25  TᵢG  replied to  CB @1.1.24    4 years ago

While I realize you have nothing more to give, note that a preponderance of belief does not make something true (or even more likely true).  Remember the world used to think the sun and other stars orbited our planet.

But in a contemporary sense, note the beliefs of the billions of Muslims in the world.   The fact that billions hold beliefs such as that Jesus was an ordinary man, a prophet, but was not divine in any way does not make their beliefs true.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.26  CB  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.25    4 years ago

Well, the spiritual realm, the born again experience, are not lending themselves to scientific observation, research, and critique—sadly. However, it is how I, and millions upon millions, profess to live so we would be liars and dishonest to NOT tell others about this aspect of our lives.  That would be unsatisfactory.

Moreover, having repeat discussions about the improbability of Noah existing and building an ark, when researchers are still not absolutely sure he did not exist or build strains credulity (too). Albeit, an exercise. One serving what purposes?

Today, we have an example of the Coronavirus (COVID 19) which is savaging people all over the world. We know little about the virus definitively until the facts reveal themselves—if they do.

In the case of Noah and this flood (and those who reported on it), we may never know the truth of it, because all the relevant parties who shared and explained the narrative are long gone.

That makes it a take it or leave it set of propositions.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
1.1.27  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @1.1.24    4 years ago
The statement stands.

On extremely wobbly legs.  It's just an unsupported assertion, and can be dismissed as such.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.28  CB  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.27    4 years ago

That's your opinion. You are welcome to hold it. However, I will thank you to not try and tell me that the last 25 plus years of my profession is 'wobbly.' I've lived it. Some six or seven years of the last years counting backwards of it on social media engaging you and many others. But, I digress. You can not remark properly on my experiences (I know) you can only take my word for it. Dismissing it? Not even a question.

Now let's move back to the topic. This is not about any one Christian's  spiritual journey back and forth/up and down!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
1.1.29  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @1.1.28    4 years ago
However, I will thank you to not try and tell me that the last 25 plus years of my profession is 'wobbly.' I've lived it.

Sigh.

It's still subjective, Cal.  There's just no getting around that.  You tell us we're missing that which you can't provide evidence exists.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.30  TᵢG  replied to  CB @1.1.28    4 years ago
the last 25 plus years of my profession

What profession is that?   Would help clarify your post.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.31  CB  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.30    4 years ago

Good catch. (a) profession of faith.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.32  CB  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.29    4 years ago

See @1.1.26 "Well, the spiritual realm, the born again experience, are not lending themselves to scientific observation, research, and critique—sadly. However, it is how I, and millions upon millions, profess to live so we would be liars and dishonest to NOT tell others about this aspect of our lives.  That would be unsatisfactory."

Therefore, it is what it is. (We don't control this.)

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
1.2  MrFrost  replied to  Gordy327 @1    3 years ago

Seems unlikely...

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2  Ender    4 years ago

There are stories of epic floods well before the bible. One of them is Gilgamesh, I believe.

I think it comes down to there being actual floods yet people only knew of their own area at the time.

And of course all stories get exaggerated over the years.

In the Mesopotamia flood story, they build a round boat.

There is a Aztec flood story, a Greek flood story, a Hindu flood story, A Buddhist, Chinese, A Norse story but they were flooded with blood, the Aborigines, Native Americans.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  Ender @2    4 years ago
There are stories of epic floods well before the bible. One of them is Gilgamesh, I believe.

It is thought the Great Flood was directly borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh, Or at least was inspired by it. But many cultures of the period and region have some kind of flood myth. So it's no stretch that such stories were borrowed, passed around and probably altered or embellished. 

I think it comes down to there being actual floods yet people only knew of their own area at the time.

A regional flood is the most likely scenario. But in people's limited world view of the time, to them, it may have seemed like the whole world was flooded. Certain religions just ran with it.

And of course all stories get exaggerated over the years.

Indeed. First a riverbank flooding suddenly becomes entire cities being submerged becomes whole regions submerged becomes the whole world flooded. It's the Bronze Age version of Telephone.

In the Mesopotamia flood story, they build a round boat.

Round works for rafts. Not sure how well an actual boat would fare.

There is a Aztec flood story, a Greek flood story, a Hindu flood story, A Buddhist, Chinese, A Norse story but they were flooded with blood, the Aborigines, Native Americans.

Basically, any civilization that grew around a river probably has a flood story, and for good reason.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1    4 years ago

I was going to say the same thing as Ender. We know that the region in question was at one time also much wetter than it was today. We have proof with the sphinx, since the erosion we see at the bottom is now known to have happened by water. I think that as the last major ice age ended a lot of places flooded and there were huge fluctuations in weather. And as the Supertramp song goes:

There are times when all the world's asleep
The questions run too deep
For such a simple man
Won't you please, please tell me what we've learned
I know it sounds absurd
Please tell me who I am

As for the ark, I am sure that there were people who gathered supplies and try to wait it out on a boat. This might have become legendary, so to speak.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.1.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.1    4 years ago
I think that as the last major ice age ended a lot of places flooded

At best, the biblical flood was really just a regional flood. But certainly not like the one depicted in the bible.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
2.1.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.2    4 years ago

I would have to agree that it was regional, but given the time, it could have been going on worldwide, but not to the extent, that it covered all the land.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
2.1.4  author  Gordy327  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.3    4 years ago
but given the time, it could have been going on worldwide

I don't think that's very likely. There's no evidence to suggest that might have been the case.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Junior Guide
2.2  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Ender @2    4 years ago

Like the game "telephone." Stories exaggerated, modified, or completely changed from the original.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3  XXJefferson51    4 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3    4 years ago

Did you even bother reading the article? Spare me the self pity and meta and try to discuss the points made in a rational and civil manner. Can you do that? Any further meta will be deleted.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1    4 years ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.1.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.1.1    4 years ago

Again, skip the meta and address the article and points made! If you had done so, you would see that no one nor religion is being attacked. Rather, its claims are being objectively analyzed. Whatever someone believes or why they do is also not the issue here nor the topic of discussion.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1.3  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.2    4 years ago

Objective according to who and by what standards? [[Taunting]]

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.1.4  author  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.1.3    4 years ago
Objective according to who and by what standards?

Scientific standards and analysis. Not personal feeling, belief, or wishful thinking. See the difference?

 Everything you have said comes from a bias and you try to cloak your anti theism in a veneer of so called objectivity.  

Still with the personal attacks, eh? Either discuss the points made (like most everyone else here is capable of doing) in a civil manner or leave!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3    4 years ago

Your first comment is pure meta.  Address the content of the article.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.2.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @3.2    4 years ago

[[No Value]]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4  TᵢG    4 years ago
The sheer number of animals that had to be aboard the Ark

The common explanations offered for this are that the ark only contains two of each 'kind'.   A 'kind' is an undefined term, but it seems to be used to define creatures at a high phylogenetic  level ... major clades that are at the taxonomic level of genus or family.   So the ark, per this way of thinking, would have had a pair of apes who, in theory, would serve as the progenitors for all variations of apes we see today.   (Well, except for humans.)   And the explanation goes on to argue that the larger animals were taken young.   So the lions (or, really, the 'kind' from which lions emerge) would not be full grown but simply cubs.   By inserting all this presupposition into the story, apologists can winnow the number of physical animals down.  Of course the Bible is unclear as to whether one pair or seven pairs of a 'kind' was on the ark because it does not clearly identify the clean from the unclean animals.   So that seven pair factor would bump up the numbers yet again.

They have no answers for how these animals are kept from eating each other, how they are fed (where did the food come from), how waste is disposed of, etc.   The task, as you point out, for managing all these animals with such a tiny crew of caretakers is insurmountable.   The fable, as told, is ridiculous.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @4    4 years ago
So the ark, per this way of thinking, would have had a pair of apes who, in theory, would serve as the progenitors for all variations of apes we see today. 

That means biblical literalists just supported evolution, albeit on a very accelerated scale. Progenitors branch off into different variations, which is what we see with evolution. I wonder how they reconcile that with the belief that god created everything just as is?

And the explanation goes on to argue that the larger animals were taken young.   So the lions (or, really, the 'kind' from which lions emerge) would not be full grown but simply cubs. 

That leaves the problem of how the young could survive on their own after the ark landed.

By inserting all this presupposition into the story, apologists can winnow the number of physical animals down. 

Even then, I doubt it would be enough to justify the number of animals can actually fit onto the ark.

So that seven pair factor would bump up the numbers yet again.

True. But for the sake of argument and within the context of the article, I'll just assume it's meant as an actual pair-2 animals per species.

They have no answers for how these animals are kept from eating each other,

Building enclosures for them would only take up more space. 

how they are fed (where did the food come from),

Or the water.

how waste is disposed of, etc. 

That's why Noah kept is followers around, Lol

  The task, as you point out, for managing all these animals with such a tiny crew of caretakers is insurmountable.   The fable, as told, is ridiculous.

Agreed. Any honest review of the story would lead one to that conclusion.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
4.2  Split Personality  replied to  TᵢG @4    4 years ago

The SS Armeneia was torpedoed in 1915 while transporting 1422 mules for the French Army.

She was 512 feet long, 60 feet wide and about 35 feet high. The trans Atlantic voyage was expected to take 3 to 4 weeks.

The normal crew was increased to 175 in order to care for the mules properly.

Can you imagine how many people would have to have been on Noah's Ark to feed and maintain thousands of different kinds of animals with different diets?

No, neither can I.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  Split Personality @4.2    4 years ago
Can you imagine how many people would have to have been on Noah's Ark to feed and maintain thousands of different kinds of animals with different diets?

Which is one reason why the whole Noah story is rather implausible.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.2  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.1    4 years ago

I doubt that any religious person I know outside of a forum actually believes the Noah's ark story is fact.   Typically it (as with much of the Bible) is considered to be simply an allegory.

That is why it is fascinating to find people on forums who literally believe the story.   Likewise it is fascinating and unfortunate that there are groups like Answers In Genesis working daily to indoctrinate young minds into these literal beliefs (and trying to twist science to do so).

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.3  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.2    4 years ago
Typically it (as with much of the Bible) is considered to be simply an allegory.

Which is how it should be taken. But when taken literally, as some apparently do, then the story shows lots of problems and inconsistencies.

That is why it is fascinating to find people on forums who literally believe the story. 

Indeed. It's no different than believing Mother Goose or Grimm's fairy tales are literal stories.

  Likewise it is fascinating and unfortunate that there are groups like Answers In Genesis working daily to indoctrinate young minds into these literal beliefs (and trying to twist science to do so).

Not to mention make science or those "pro-science" seen as something bad or to be avoided.

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
4.2.4  katrix  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.3    4 years ago

Not to mention .. there would have been no food once the waters receded, with all the animals killed and the plants dying from such long submersion, and all the freshwater would have become saline. And the genetic bottleneck would be obvious. 

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
5  lady in black    4 years ago

Using critical thinking and not knee jerk emotional thinking, no, the flood and the ark did not happen. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6  TᵢG    4 years ago

The lack of paleontological evidence :

Yeah this is where the apologists have an extremely hard time.   Somehow clusters of animals such as the marsupials in Australia and the penguins in Antartica just magically poofed over to their distant homes leaving no trail whatsoever.    If they had migrated, there would have been a trail of fossils.   Nada.

Some apologists hypothesize that a land bridge existed between Europe and Australia (for example) but that this land bridge has since disappeared (entirely by the way ... as if it were never there).

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
6.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @6    4 years ago
Somehow clusters of animals such as the marsupials in Australia and the penguins in Antartica just magically poofed over to their distant homes leaving no trail whatsoever.   

I've heard "explanations" like there were land bridges. Of course, those bridges no longer exist and amazingly, there is not a single trace of them nor any evidence discovered to that effect, even with all our modern imaging, oceanography, diving, ect.. Quite the mystery, eh?

If they had migrated, there would have been a trail of fossils.   Nada.

There also would have been fossils leading away from the ark landing site. Many animals can migrate. But not the distances that would have been involved.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7  TᵢG    4 years ago

The lack of geological evidence

This is another tough one for apologists.   Amazingly we see apologists claiming that the Grand Canyon was not formed by runoff via the Colorado river but was actually formed by the Great Flood.   They seem to ignore the fact that the layers of fossils correlate with older species at the bottom and younger at the top rather than a mix of species in existence at the time of the flood that would have resulted if made all at once by a flood.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
7.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @7    4 years ago
   They seem to ignore the fact that the layers of fossils correlate with older species at the bottom and younger at the top rather than a mix of species in existence at the time of the flood that would have resulted if made all at once by a flood.

They also ignore the sediment layers distributed throughout the canyon, indicating a long period of time, sedimentation, and layering. Basically, if the Flood formed the Grand Canyon, there would be very few, if any sedimentation layers at all.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8  TᵢG    4 years ago

The amount of water needed to flood the earth does not exist on earth

Well this one is simply passed off as a miracle.   God poofed in the water and then poofed it away.  

Odd thing is that if one is inclined to accept this level of magic (miracle) then really they could buy that God miniaturized all the animals and put them into hibernation for the almost year time the ark was afloat.   That solves all the logistic problems right there.   Of course, if one is willing to impose such presuppositions then why the ark in the first place?   Why would God go totally iron age manual with the construction of an ark via a skeleton crew when He was going to just make it all logistically possible via a grand miracle?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @8    4 years ago
Well this one is simply passed off as a miracle.   God poofed in the water and then poofed it away. 

How convenient. You would think if god can "poof" something in or out of existence, it would have been easier for him to simply poof all evil and "sinners" out of existence rather than trying to flood them out. But no, he apparently had a rather elaborate plan in mind, in which he still botched the results.

Why would God go totally iron age manual with the construction of an ark via a skeleton crew when He was going to just make it all logistically possible via a grand miracle?

Because...reasons. See previous statement.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9  TᵢG    4 years ago

The Ark itself is implausible

Yes, the best wooden ship builders in history have never built any sea-worthy wooden ship the size of the ark.   But Noah did, and it was seaworthy for almost a year.

Again, all one can do is claim miracle because the laws of physics do not support the claim of the grand wooden ark.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
9.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @9    4 years ago
But Noah did, and it was seaworthy for almost a year.

Even more amazing given he was probably unskilled and had more primitive tools and resources. Even the ark of the Ark encounter was only built because of modern building techniques. 

Again, all one can do is claim miracle

And that's what some probably will claim and leave it at that.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
9.2  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @9    4 years ago

I saw a show about that a little while back. The Ham ark was built with modern tools and crews of people. They said there was simply no way a small group of people with simple tools could have built something that size.

The logistics, hoisting things in place, the beams needed, the timber that would have been needed.

I know some grand things have been built in ancient times but they were all thinking this was not plausible.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
9.2.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  Ender @9.2    4 years ago
I know some grand things have been built in ancient times but they were all thinking this was not plausible.

They're not the only ones who think it's implausible. Bear in mind, great projects of ancient times like the pyramids or the Great Wall utilized tens or even hundreds of thousands of manpower for construction over a period of many years. And they were known accomplished engineers too. The idea that Noah and a small, unskilled group could build something like the ark and actually have it capable of floating for a long period of time is quite implausible indeed.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.2.2  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @9.2    4 years ago

Ham's ark is actually just a facade.   There is a concrete structure (a building) behind the ark.   It is a building made to look like an ark.   As built, it is not even remotely sea-worthy.    And, as you note, even then it was a major construction effort and involved modern day engineering (even though they brought in wood crafts-persons for many of the details).

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
9.2.3  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @9.2.2    4 years ago
There is a concrete structure (a building) behind the ark.   It is a building made to look like an ark.   As built, it is not even remotely sea-worthy. 

I tend to think Noah's Ark would also sink like concrete.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.2.4  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @9.2.3    4 years ago

It might, hard to say without the specific engineering specs.   I am sure Noah had them tucked away somewhere.

What is likely is that the ark (without any animals on it) would last a few days at sea before taking on so much water due to stress leaks that it sunk.   With all the animals it was charged to carry and all the supplies required for almost a year survival at sea, I doubt that it would be sufficiently buoyant to last a minute.   But, then again, the Bible is horribly vague about what animals would actually be loaded on the ark.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
9.2.5  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @9.2.4    4 years ago

Vagueness is what's needed to twist biblical stories to suit ones narrative. It essentially allows one to make things up as they go along. 

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Junior Guide
9.2.6  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Gordy327 @9.2.5    4 years ago

Makes things subjective to say the least.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
9.2.7  author  Gordy327  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @9.2.6    4 years ago

Indeed it does. It also reduces the veracity of those stories.

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
9.2.8  katrix  replied to  TᵢG @9.2.4    4 years ago

Imagine when it encountered a storm.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.2.9  TᵢG  replied to  katrix @9.2.8    4 years ago

Thing is, just normal ebb and flow of the waters would stress a wooden ship of those dimensions and expose leaks that would sink it.   Remember Bill Nye's argument on that and the fact that nobody in history (that includes the finest wooden ship builders that ever existed) has ever built a wooden ship of those dimensions that proved seaworthy.

 
 
 
Freefaller
Professor Quiet
10  Freefaller    4 years ago

Of course a literal interpretation of the Noah story is completely impossible (without magic).

However a couple things were missed in your well written article, an argument could be made that the ship would also had to carry fish as well.  This is due to the waters of the becoming brackish with all the flooding and most fish evolving to being able to only survive in either fresh or saltwater.  The other thing is how did we and all the animals avoid the genetic roadblock that would have followed an extinction event of this magnitude.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  Freefaller @10    4 years ago
Of course a literal interpretation of the Noah story is completely impossible (without magic).

Magic, miracles, divine intervention, whatever you want to call it, is the theistic deus ex machina.

However a couple things were missed in your well written article, an argument could be made that the ship would also had to carry fish as well.

I did say I was focusing on land animals. However, if marine life, or avian, amphibian, insect, ect. were to be included, then the number of animals can rise significantly, posing an even greater implausibility to the ark.

This is due to the waters of the becoming brackish with all the flooding and most fish evolving to being able to only survive in either fresh or saltwater. 

I alluded to that in the second point pertaining to paleontological evidence.

The other thing is how did we and all the animals avoid the genetic roadblock that would have followed an extinction event of this magnitude.

That is a separate matter with its own implausibilities and logical inconsistencies. That's why I said I wasn't going to look at the aftermath of the flood event.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
11  XXJefferson51    4 years ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
11.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  XXJefferson51 @11    4 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
11.1.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  XXJefferson51 @11.1    4 years ago

Noah’s Ark was a massive ship, built at God’s command, that saved Noah, his family, and two of every kind of land animal from the global Flood that took place 4,350 years ago. It was 510 feet long, 85 feet wide, and 51 feet high and easily housed the several thousand animal kinds God brought to Noah.

What Did Noah’s Ark Look Like?

Scripture does not elaborate about the shape of Noah’s Ark beyond those superb, overall proportions—length, breadth, and depth. Since the Bible gives proportions consistent with those of a true cargo ship, it makes sense that it should look and act like a ship, too.

How Many People Built the Ark?

The Bible tells us how many people were on board the Ark, but it does not tell us how many people were involved in building it. While we would not be dogmatic on this point, it is consistent with God’s Word to believe that more than eight people were involved in the Ark’s construction. A possibility is that Noah hired people to help him build the Ark.

How Many Animals Were On Noah's Ark?

Even without bacteria, fungi, plants, and sea creatures on the Ark, lots of species remain to be accounted for. The key is to understand the word used in Scripture, kind(Hebrew min). The Bible does not say God brought every individual or every species to Noah.

Could Noah’s Family Care for All the Animals?

It is not necessary—or required by Scripture—to appeal to miracles for the provision and daily care of the animals on the Ark. Many solutions to seemingly insurmountable problems are rather straightforward.

Noah’s Ark Topics

noahs-ark-found.jpg

noahs-ark.jpg
noahs-ark.jpg
how-could-all-animals-fit-ark.jpg
seaworthy-ark.jpg

did-noah-bring-seven-or-fourteen-clean-animals-onto-ark.jpg

what-did-ark-look-like.jpg
noah-care-animals.jpg
noah-build-ark.jpg
noahs-ark-ararat.jpg
ark-animals.jpg
how-did-infectious-disease-get-on-the-ark.jpg
ark-encounter-with-ramp.jpgbible-culture-quick-takes.jpg
bringing-account-to-life.jpg
insects.jpg

https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
11.1.2  XXJefferson51  replied to  XXJefferson51 @11.1.1    4 years ago

The Flood of Noah’s day (2348 BC) was a year-long global catastrophe that destroyed the pre-Flood world, reshaped the continents, buried billions of creatures, and laid down the rock layers. It was God’s judgment on man’s wickedness and only eight righteous people, and representatives of every kind of land animal, were spared aboard the Ark.

Was Noah’s Flood Global?

Did Noah experience a local flood which left only a few sediment layers, as floods do today? God’s record is clear: the water covered the entire globe and killed all the animals on earth. Such unique conditions are the only way to explain worldwide fossil-bearing layers thousands of feet deep.

Local Floods Help Us Understand Noah’s Flood Geology

Geologists repeatedly discover the catastrophic effects of local flooding on the earth’s surface, resulting in the same conclusion each time: that substantial amounts of water can have the same geological effect in a short period of time (even laying down rock layers) that hypothesized millions of years of slow water flow would have.

Noah Did More than Build an Ark

Like people today, almost certainly the people of Noah’s day were busy enjoying the pleasures of life and did not believe or care that judgment was coming. In 2 Peter 2:5, Noah is described as a “preacher of righteousness.”

Psalm 104 and the Flood

Psalm 104:6–9 sheds important additional light on the geological effects of the Flood. “The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place which You established for them” (vs. 8).

  • https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
11.1.3  author  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @11.1.1    4 years ago

Do you have a point to make? I covered aspects of the ark itself in the article.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
11.1.4  XXJefferson51  replied to  XXJefferson51 @11.1.2    4 years ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
11.1.5  author  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @11.1.2    4 years ago

None of that really addresses, much less refutes the points made in the article. You're just regurgitating a religious source without actually analyzing or discussing it.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
11.1.6  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @11.1.5    4 years ago

This is a religious topics group being seeded from and every argument I make on this issue is going to come from the Bible or Christian apologetics. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
11.1.7  author  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @11.1.4    4 years ago
Only to a secularist would an article about why God brought about the very real historically accurate flood be deemed off topic to one denying that the flood ever happened and this calling God a liar and in a group about religion no less.  

More meta and taunting and still not discussing the points of the article, much less supporting your assertions with any evidence or facts. Simply declaring the flood as "very real historically accurate" is meaningless and unconvincing without evidence to back the claim up. It certainly doesn't refute the evidence suggesting there was no such flood. Try again!

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
11.1.8  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @11.1.5    4 years ago

The flood is real.  It happened as God told us in Genesis and it happened because of the extreme wickedness oh mankind at the time.  It is also an antitype example of a future event but not by water as the sign of the Rainbow proclaims.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
11.1.9  author  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @11.1.8    4 years ago
The flood is real. It happened as God told us in Genesis and it happened because of the extreme wickedness oh mankind at the time. 

That's nice. Prove it! Because the evidence provided suggests otherwise.

 It is also an antitype example of a future event but not by water as the sign of the Rainbow proclaims.  

Meaningless biblical tripe.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
11.1.10  Ender  replied to  XXJefferson51 @11.1.2    4 years ago

Sorry Gordy, I had to.  Haha

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
11.1.12  author  Gordy327  replied to  Ender @11.1.10    4 years ago
Sorry Gordy, I had to.  Haha

No worries. I loved that bit. Robot Chicken is awesome. jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.13  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @11.1.1    4 years ago

What point are you making?   Seriously, some of the content in your copy & paste correlates with what I have actually written here.   So are you trying to argue that the ark story could be true?   If so, make that argument.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @11.1.2    4 years ago

Again, surely you have a point to make.   What is it?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
11.2  XXJefferson51  replied to  XXJefferson51 @11    4 years ago

It’s the historical record on the issue.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
11.2.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @11.2    4 years ago
It’s the historical record on the issue.  

No, it's the biblical account and still an unconvincing claim. The bible is hardly a history book. The geological and paleontological record clearly disputes the idea of a flood. So start by refuting those records with something objective and empirical.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
11.2.2  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @11.2.1    4 years ago

I’ll discuss the issue of the very real ark and the historical global flood that you brought up as a topic as I see fit when where and how I see fit to do so and on my terms, not yours.  Creation by God in a literal calendar week is real and fact.  So to is the accounts of mankind before the flood. The Genesis account of the flood and where it happened is factual despite the holes the anti believers try to use their so called understanding to put in that reality.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
11.2.3  author  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @11.2.2    4 years ago
I’ll discuss the issue of the very real ark and the historical global flood that you brought up as a topic as I see fit when where and how I see fit to do so and on my terms, not yours.

Then you're commenting in the wrong article! 

Creation by God in a literal calendar week is real and fact.  So to is the accounts of mankind before the flood. The Genesis account of the flood and where it happened is factual despite the holes the anti believers try to use their so called understanding to put in that reality.  

Still waiting for you to prove it! Until you do, it's nothing more than an unsubstantiated religious claim with no credibility.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
11.2.4  Gsquared  replied to  Gordy327 @11.2.3    4 years ago

The only real support for his beliefs is that he believes.  He has faith, which, under his creed, prevails over reason.  He cites things as "facts" because he believes they are facts. He believes the Bible is the literal truth, that the universe was created in 7 days, that the entire planet was flooded because humans were evil, that a child was born to a virgin, that a man died and was then resurrected, because he has faith that those things, however absurd they may be, are true.  There is really nothing more to it. That is the essence of Christian philosophy.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
11.2.5  author  Gordy327  replied to  Gsquared @11.2.4    4 years ago
The only real support for his beliefs is that he believes. 

Indeed. But as I often say, belief does not equal fact.

He has faith, which, under his creed, prevails over reason.

Or logic. Or science. Or facts.

There is really nothing more to it. That is the essence of Christian philosophy.

Sounds more like a disconnect from reality.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
11.2.6  Gsquared  replied to  Gordy327 @11.2.5    4 years ago

You and I may not understand or agree with how or why he thinks the way he does, but apparently, that is his reality.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
11.2.7  author  Gordy327  replied to  Gsquared @11.2.6    4 years ago
You and I may not understand or agree with how or why he thinks the way he does, but apparently, that is his reality.

Then it's a self delusion, plain and simple. It goes against established facts and reality, which is just irrational. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
11.2.8  Gsquared  replied to  Gordy327 @11.2.7    4 years ago

And yet, think of the millions of people throughout history who have been of the same mind-set as him.  It's interesting.   

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
11.2.9  author  Gordy327  replied to  Gsquared @11.2.8    4 years ago
And yet, think of the millions of people throughout history who have been of the same mind-set as him. And yet, think of the millions of people throughout history who have been of the same mind-set as him. It's interesting. 

Mass delusion. It's also sad. It's that kind of mentality that led to such strife throughout history (and even today) and to the stagnation of scientific progress and discovery at various points over the centuries. But that is the predatory nature of devout religious belief-mental entrapment.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.10  TᵢG  replied to  Gsquared @11.2.8    4 years ago

Just shows how susceptible our minds are to a sales pitch.   Especially well-honed pitches that have evolved over many centuries to hit the hot spots.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
11.2.11  Gsquared  replied to  Gordy327 @11.2.9    4 years ago

Unfortunately so.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
11.2.12  Gsquared  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.10    4 years ago

Yes it does.

Humans are desperate for answers, or some kind of hope.

Religion has historically been a means of social control.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
11.2.13  author  Gordy327  replied to  Gsquared @11.2.12    4 years ago
Humans are desperate for answers, or some kind of hope.

Humans do tend to be an overly emotional, irrational species.

Unfortunately so.

What's equally sad and mind boggling is that, in this day and age, it still continues to various degrees despite all the available information, resources, and knowledge at our disposal.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
11.2.14  Gsquared  replied to  Gordy327 @11.2.13    4 years ago

We have to understand and accept that many, many people are of that mindset.  It is usually based on how they were raised by their parents and families, of course.  Some will change, some will not.  You can try to argue with them.  You can try to explain with the best reasoned and logical explanation you can make.  Sometimes that will change minds, and sometimes it won't. It may be frustrating, but that's the way it is.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
11.2.15  author  Gordy327  replied to  Gsquared @11.2.14    4 years ago
We have to understand and accept that many, many people are of that mindset.  It is usually based on how they were raised by their parents and families, of course. 

Which is a problem.

Some will change, some will not.

I have had theists (who are aware of my lack of religious belief or affiliation) ask me if I am open to believing in God [yes, show me the evidence]. I respond by asking if they are they are open to the possibly that their beliefs might be false? I am usually met with silence.

You can try to explain with the best reasoned and logical explanation you can make. 

That's the way I try to do it.

Sometimes that will change minds, and sometimes it won't. It may be frustrating, but that's the way it is.

I tend to think it's more often not than is. That just shows me how emotionally attached one is to their beliefs or how closed-minded they are because of their beliefs.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
11.2.16  Gsquared  replied to  Gordy327 @11.2.15    4 years ago

My wife is devout in her religion.  It makes her happy.  I have no problem with that.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
11.2.17  author  Gordy327  replied to  Gsquared @11.2.16    4 years ago
My wife is devout in her religion.  It makes her happy.  I have no problem with that.

Nor do I. I doubt anyone would. Religion does bring emotional comfort to some. Nothing wrong with that. The problem arises when one tries to pass off religious belief as fact or "truth." I addressed that too in my previous article . At that point, one is inviting challenge.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
11.2.18  Krishna  replied to  Gsquared @11.2.12    4 years ago
Religion has historically been a means of social control.

As one of the Marx Brothers said:

Religion is the opiate of the masses.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
11.2.19  Gsquared  replied to  Krishna @11.2.18    4 years ago

Zeppo

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
11.2.20  Krishna  replied to  Gsquared @11.2.19    4 years ago
Zeppo

Gesundheit!

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
12  author  Gordy327    4 years ago
Only to a secularist would an article about why God brought about the very real historically accurate flood be deemed off topic to one denying that the flood ever happened and this calling God a liar and in a group about religion no less.  

More meta and taunting and still not discussing the points of the article, much less supporting your assertions with any evidence or facts. Simply declaring the flood as "very real historically accurate" is meaningless and unconvincing without evidence to back the claim up. It certainly doesn't refute the evidence suggesting there was no such flood. Try again!

This is a religious topics group being seeded from and every argument I make on this issue is going to come from the Bible or Christian apologetics. 

If all you're going to do is cut and paste from religious sites and proselytize, then every argument you make will be deleted for being off topic or proselytizing. If you want to engage in an actual discussion, then feel free to address the points made and support your position with something rational, analytical, and of relevance or value. Simply regurgitating something from a religious site and thinking that is sufficient or meaningful is a waste of time.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
12.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @12    4 years ago

Just quit proselytizing your pro science anti religion propaganda all over the place.  You will never convince us.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
12.1.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @12.1    4 years ago
Just quit proselytizing your pro science anti religion propaganda all over the place.  You will never convince us.

You just can't help yourself with the meta, can you? Guess what? It isn't about you. So get off your pedestal. But I am curious: why is "pro-science" a bad thing?

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
13  charger 383    4 years ago

Why would God make a perfect place like the Garden of Eden and put a trap that (God being all knowing) his top level creation would get in to?  

I tried to believe what they said in Sunday School and church when I was little but it did not make sense (even then) and when I asked the questions I had people got mad at me 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
13.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  charger 383 @13    4 years ago
I tried to believe what they said in Sunday School and church when I was little but it did not make sense (even then) and when I asked the questions I had people got mad at me 

I remember hearing the same stories when I was a kid and even then I thought they were BS! Of course, trying to ask questions or pointing out logical inconsistencies with those stories didn't sit too well with some. I suppose some things don't change.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
13.1.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @13.1    4 years ago

And they never will. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
13.1.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @13.1.1    4 years ago
And they never will.

Of course not. Some people are too intellectually dishonest or stubborn to rationally question their own beliefs or the logically implausible biblical stories.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Quiet
14  MonsterMash    4 years ago

Earth . The Hebrew for "earth" used in Gen. 6-8 (and in Gen. 2:5-6) is  Eretz  ( ërets ) or adamah, both of which terms literally mean "earth, ground, land, dirt, soil, or country"   In no way can "earth" be taken to mean the planet Earth, as  in Noah's time and place, people (including the Genesis writer ) had no concept of Earth as a planet and thus had no word for it. Their world mainly (but not entirely)  encompassed the land of Mesopotamia flat  alluvial plain enclosed by the mountains and high ground of  Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Saudi Arabia ( the lands drained by the four rivers of Eden (Gen. 2:10-14). The biblical account must be interpreted within the  narrow limit of what was known about the world in  that time, not what is known about the world today

Biblical context also makes it clear that "earth" does not necessarily mean the whole Earth. For example, the face of the ground , as used in Gen. 7:23 and Gen. 8:8 in place of "e arth", does not imply the planet Earth. "Land" is a better translation than "earth" for the Hebrew eretz because it extends to the "face of the ground", we can see around us; that is, what is within our horizon. It also can refer to a specific stretch of land in a local geographic or political sense. For example, when Zech. 5:6 says " all the earth" it is literally talking about Palestine- - a tract of land or country, not the whole planet Earth. Similarly, in Mesopotamia, the concept of "the land" ( kalam in Sumerian) seems to have included the entire alluvial  plain, this is most likely the correct interpretation of the term "the earth" which is used over and over again in Gen. 6-8: the entire alluvial plain of Mesopotamia was inundated with water. The clincher to the word "earth" meaning ground or land (and not the planet Earth) In Gen.1:10: God called the dry land earth ( eretz ) . If God defined "earth" as "dry land" then so should we.

All, Every, Under Heaven. While these terms also seem to impart a universality to the Flood event, all three are used elsewhere in the Bible for local events, and so like the term " earth" do not necessarily have an all-inclusive or universal meaning.

https://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Carol%201.pdf

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
14.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  MonsterMash @14    4 years ago

Some people take the biblical account to mean the entire planet. But the fact that there are multiple interpretations and beliefs concerning the Flood event shows there is a lot of ambiguity where the Flood is concerned. This only serves to diminish any credibility or veracity to any claims made about the Flood event, including that Noah had 2 of every animal and the flood covered the planet.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Quiet
14.1.1  MonsterMash  replied to  Gordy327 @14.1    4 years ago
Some people take the biblical account to mean the entire planet

Obviously you do, I don't. It wasn't my purpose to argue with you, was trying to expand your train of thought by showing you're more than likely wrong about the Biblical Flood covering the entire globe. Choosing to remain closed minded shouldn't be one of your options, too bad you took that path.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
14.1.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  MonsterMash @14.1.1    4 years ago
Obviously you do, I don't. It wasn't my purpose to argue with you

I wasn't arguing. I was saying that some people in general (including certain individual/s here on NT) do take the biblical flood as literal and the the whole earth was literally covered by water. I do not subscribe to that point of view. Others might view it differently, perhaps in a more "toned-down" way such as it referencing a more localized or regional flood. Others pass it off as an embellishment or rewrite of other flood myths. My (point was that all the differing viewpoints makes the actual events of the flood (or its inspiration) rather vague.

was trying to expand your train of thought by showing you're more than likely wrong about the Biblical Flood covering the entire globe. Choosing to remain closed minded shouldn't be one of your options, too bad you took that path.

Again, I do not believe the Flood covered the globe. I explained in the article why such an occurrence is highly improbable.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Quiet
14.1.3  MonsterMash  replied to  Gordy327 @14.1.2    4 years ago
I was saying that some people in general (including certain individual/s here on NT) do take the biblical flood as literal and the the whole earth was literally covered by water. I do not subscribe to that point of view.

Nor do I, but I do think it isn't out of the realm off possibility there was a Great Flood as described in the Bible. Not saying there was or wasn't but I sure don't dismiss it as a fairy tail.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
14.1.4  author  Gordy327  replied to  MonsterMash @14.1.3    4 years ago

I have to look at the evidence and there is no evidence to support the assertion of a biblical flood. Current evidence suggests such an event was highly improbable, if not outright impossible. However, it is more likely that there was a regional flood which may have been catastrophic in its own right. That could account for the flood myths, with the biblical flood being an exaggeration of the actual account.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
14.2  XXJefferson51  replied to  MonsterMash @14    4 years ago

Well I guess either when we get to Heaven or at the judgement we can get a clarification from on high the final answers to all these questions

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
14.2.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @14.2    4 years ago
Well I guess either when we get to Heaven or at the judgement we can get a clarification from on high the final answers to all these questions

Sounds like a version of a Pascal's Wager. Or more likely we get nothing at all.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
14.3  TᵢG  replied to  MonsterMash @14    4 years ago
Earth . The Hebrew for "earth" used in Gen. 6-8 (and in Gen. 2:5-6) is  Eretz  ( ërets ) or adamah, both of which terms literally mean "earth, ground, land, dirt, soil, or country"   In no way can "earth" be taken to mean the planet Earth, as  in Noah's time and place, people (including the Genesis writer ) had no concept of Earth as a planet and thus had no word for it. Their world mainly (but not entirely)  encompassed the land of Mesopotamia flat  alluvial plain enclosed by the mountains and high ground of  Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Saudi Arabia ( the lands drained by the four rivers of Eden (Gen. 2:10-14). The biblical account must be interpreted within the  narrow limit of what was known about the world in  that time, not what is known about the world today

That is perfectly reasonable, especially given the perspective of the ancients.   They would not know that they are on a planet.   They just knew what they could see, smell, feel and hear locally.

So what do you say to the many (and I am talking about the majority of Christian religions, Islam (disputes on this) and Judaism) that hold the Noah's flood story to be a worldwide flood?

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Quiet
14.3.1  MonsterMash  replied to  TᵢG @14.3    4 years ago
So what do you say to the many (and I am talking about the majority of Christian religions, Islam (disputes on this) and Judaism) that hold the Noah's flood story to be a worldwide flood?

My view is they're wrong, but whatever floats their boat (pun intended) is OK with me jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
14.3.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  MonsterMash @14.3.1    4 years ago

I take the same view, especially considering the evidence. But there are those among theistic ranks who hold the flood happened and completely covered all land masses.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Quiet
14.3.3  MonsterMash  replied to  Gordy327 @14.3.2    4 years ago

My grandmother (born in 1892) was the original church lady, whatever the Bible said was literally true word for word in the way she interrupted it, If someone had a different interruption they were going to hell.

My older brother was a smoker, when he was 17 our grandmother (a notorious bad cook) told him if God wanted him to smoke he would have put a chimney on his head. He asked her that was in the Bible, she said "No" but God told her that.. My brother than asked if God told her if he wanted her to cook he would have put two burners on her chest instead of tits lol. Poor Grandma, I thought was going have a stroke  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
14.3.4  author  Gordy327  replied to  MonsterMash @14.3.3    4 years ago

Ok, that's a good one, LOL

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
14.3.5  TᵢG  replied to  MonsterMash @14.3.1    4 years ago

That is my position as well.   So when someone declares truth based on the inerrant divinity of the Bible, I challenge the declaration.   For example, given your reference, when someone deems homosexuality an abomination per God and thus deems all male homosexuals who follow their nature to be engaging in acts that God at one time assigned the death penalty, I challenge that way of thinking.   I will also typically point out the problem with people simply accepting as truth what other human beings tell them rather than engage in critical thinking based on extant evidence and our faculties for reason.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
14.4  Drakkonis  replied to  MonsterMash @14    4 years ago

Interesting information. Not sure I've heard this before but makes sense.

There's another area that hasn't been mentioned concerning the flood story, though. One consideration that no one has mentioned, I think. Everyone who claims the flood couldn't have happened gives natural reasons as to why. However, if God exists and He created the universe, then He would certainly be able to manage something like this. One could not claim He could not violate the laws of physics any more than one could claim a programmer couldn't modify his program. And, if your information provided here means the flood doesn't necessarily have to cover the entire planet, as most seem to think, there's less evidence against it. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
14.4.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  Drakkonis @14.4    4 years ago
However, if God exists and He created the universe, then He would certainly be able to manage something like this.

That sounds like a lot of extra steps and trouble for god to take in order to accomplish his task. But that is also an assumption that there is a god to begin with and that god uses magic, which is also a convenient excuse for just about anything one can imagine.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
14.4.2  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @14.4    4 years ago
However, if God exists and He created the universe, then He would certainly be able to manage something like this.

I agree.   God, as defined in the Bible, could do anything that is logically possible to do.   So instead of building an ark, gathering animals, flooding the planet (or a portion), surviving afloat for almost a year, etc. etc. only to repopulate from the spared pairs, God could have simply vaporized every human being he found to be undesirable.

Instant fix with no mess and all those innocent animals (and all the plants, trees, etc.) would still be around.

In part, it is the nonsensical scenarios that the biblical authors invented as behavior for an omniscient, omnipotent, perfect sentient entity that most reveal that the Bible is merely the invention of ancient men with pens.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
14.4.3  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @14.4.2    4 years ago
it is the nonsensical scenarios that the biblical authors invented as behavior for an omniscient, omnipotent, perfect sentient entity that most reveal that the Bible is merely the invention of ancient men with pens.

But note all of the justifications, explanations, and rationalizations adherents to those stories give. It's a complete disconnect from reality.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
14.4.4  Drakkonis  replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.1    4 years ago
That sounds like a lot of extra steps and trouble for god to take in order to accomplish his task. But that is also an assumption that there is a god to begin with and that god uses magic, which is also a convenient excuse for just about anything one can imagine.

Well, first, define what "a lot of extra steps and trouble for [God] to take in order to accomplish [His] task"  for a being with infinite power would entail? 

Second, since the story is about the action God took, one has to assume God on some level in order to even discuss the issue, don't you think? So, in order to fully be able to debunk the story in the first place, the question would be, could the God described in the Bible pull off such a flood? If you don't do that, then you can't really debunk it. All the objections you list in your article go right out the window if it is plausible that God could indeed pull it off. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
14.4.5  author  Gordy327  replied to  Drakkonis @14.4.4    4 years ago
Well, first, define what "a lot of extra steps and trouble for [God] to take in order to accomplish [His] task"  for a being with infinite power would entail? 

Well, rather than command and wait for Noah to build the ark, gather all the animals He wanted, actually cause the flood, then remove all the water, and make a pretty rainbow at the end, ALL for the purpose of killing everything (that's just evil, btw), an infinitely powerful god could simply snap his fingers and remove anything that offended him. Quick, clean, and simple.

Second, since the story is about the action God took, one has to assume God on some level in order to even discuss the issue, don't you think?

Nope. Not necessary. The focus is on the plausibility of the event itself. Not what god could actually do.

So, in order to fully be able to debunk the story in the first place, the question would be, could the God described in the Bible pull off such a flood?

If one is taking the story literally, as some seem to do, then god does pull it off. If you will not, the analysis is on the literal claim of the story.

All the objections you list in your article go right out the window if it is plausible that God could indeed pull it off. 

Not al all. All god supposedly did was flood the world. There's nothing about him cleaning up after himself or removing all traces of the event. Doing that would have been even more extra steps and trouble for god.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
14.4.6  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.5    4 years ago
Well, rather than command and wait for Noah to build the ark, gather all the animals He wanted, actually cause the flood, then remove all the water, and make a pretty rainbow at the end, ALL for the purpose of killing everything (that's just evil, btw), an infinitely powerful god could simply snap his fingers and remove anything that offended him. Quick, clean, and simple.

"Snapping fingers" is an "operational maneuver" for God? Or, "BEWITCHED"? Sorry, Gordy! I could not resist.

An infinite God is not in any sort of human "hurry" to accomplish anything necessarily.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
14.4.7  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @14.4.6    4 years ago
"Snapping fingers" is an "operational maneuver" for God? Or, "BEWITCHED"? Sorry, Gordy! I could not resist.

It's all good. besides, finger snapping is more of a thing for Q of Star Trek:TNG.

An infinite God is not an any sort of human "hurry" to accomplish anythingnecessarily.

I don't know about god, but I'll bet his human worshipers were. After all, if an omnipotent deity told me to build an ark because he was going to flood the world, I'd try to get it done asap. Not to mention Noah wasn't a young man himself at that point. Unlike god, his clock was ticking along.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
14.4.8  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.7    4 years ago

Any idea how long Noah was stated to have lived? And if he lived sustained by God; he could live how much longer? Seeing that nothing dies in the 'company' of God. The reasoning goes God was (being God) showing compassion by giving mankind time to consider its way and revert to walking in agreement with its creator.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
14.4.9  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.5    4 years ago
The focus is on the plausibility of the event itself. Not what god could actually do.

This type of 'transaction' is not do-able without the unique agency of God. Noah had no Spirit power to command anything to come aboard the ark. Or, hold and keep its peace in the company of strange beasts once it did! The emanating animal and human scents along would have unnerving and off-putting to some of the animals. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
14.4.10  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @14.4.8    4 years ago
Any idea how long Noah was stated to have lived?

If I recall correctly, he supposedly lived to the age of 950. I think he was around 600-650 years old when he built the arc, according to myth.

And if he lived sustained by God; he could live how much longer? Seeing that nothing dies in the 'company' of God.

That is just an assumption that god actually did that. Even so, I doubt Noah wanted to keep god waiting and wanted to finish the ark asap. But I think we're starting to get a little off topic here.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
14.4.11  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.10    4 years ago

Actually God (and God's conduct throughout) is as much a part of this as Noah; if we are discussing the perception of a myth. And, not only denying the possibility of Noah's existence.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
14.4.12  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @14.4.11    4 years ago
Actually God (and God's conduct throughout) is as much a part of this as Noah; if we are discussing the perception of a myth. And, not only denying the possibility of Noah's existence.

I'm discussing the aspects of the myth itself, not on Noah specifically or the events after the flood. But I did point out the implausibility of Noah, being unskilled, of actually building a functional, sea worthy ark.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
14.4.13  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.5    4 years ago
There's nothing about him cleaning up after himself or removing all traces of the event. Doing that would have been even more extra steps and trouble for god.

An absence of evidence is not evidence of not happening. After all, who in the modern era is doing the looking and under what set of parameters? I mean, I can not verify something as old as Noah's Ark in the modern age any more than I can guarantee biblical inerrancy. God has not ordered me to "write anything down in a book for the ages" - or the masses for God's sake.  NOTE: The writer of Genesis is clear he is writing about a time long before his own period too. Thus, he was not vouching for the content evidentially.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
14.4.14  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @14.4.9    4 years ago
This type of 'transaction' is not do-able without the unique agency of God. 

The article is not about what god could do. It analyzes what is claimed to have actually happened.

An absence of evidence is not evidence of not happening.

Without evidence, there is no reason to assume, much less claim with certainty that the Flood event occurred. But current evidence, as I pointed out in the article, explains why the Flood event likely did not occur. That's the only evidence there is to go on. If new evidence were to come to light, then the conclusion can be reevaluated.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
14.4.15  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.12    4 years ago

Of course, Noah would demand new information. Granted he lived long enough to acquire many more skills, if he lived 600 years during which he took his time building this vessel, perhaps? God would supply the information. (Noah expressed no complaint against the people. They had not sinned against him. Ark building and designing was a god-ordered activity).

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
14.4.16  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @14.4.15    4 years ago
Granted he lived long enough to acquire many more skills, if he lived 600 years during which he took his time building this vessel, perhaps?

Noah was already 600+ (which I do not accept btw) when he was told to build the ark and there's nothing to suggest he had the expertise at that point to actually build it.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
14.4.17  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.16    4 years ago

Here resides the Immovable object confronting the Irresistible force. Jesus does come along and tries to break this stalemate, by speaking of "the days of Noah" ( Matthew 24:37):

Mat thew 24:37 37 As it was in the days of Noah , so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man .

But Jesus suffers as Noah from an affliction of uncertainty about his existence. (Though Jesus' existence has been official established, which I will not care to venture into at this time.) Back to Noah and his ark.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
14.4.18  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.4.13    4 years ago
An absence of evidence is not evidence of not happening.

You are correct CB, but the absence of evidence for a claim so grand as God flooding the Earth, etc. for such a long time actually makes a decent argument that this never happened.  Not proof of course, but a decent argument.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
14.4.19  CB  replied to  TᵢG @14.4.18    4 years ago

Not proof of course. Artifacts remain hidden which can expose a great many things positively or negatively.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Junior Guide
14.4.20  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Drakkonis @14.4.4    4 years ago

To assume makes an ass out of u and me.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Junior Guide
14.4.21  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.5    4 years ago
an infinitely powerful god could simply snap his fingers and remove anything that offended him

Like in "Infinity War"? jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
14.4.22  author  Gordy327  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @14.4.21    4 years ago

Exactly. Look how simple and easy it was for Thanos to do. And God doesn't even need infinity stones. God was just creating more work for himself.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Junior Guide
14.4.23  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.22    4 years ago

Right. Seems like a lot of waste.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
14.4.24  author  Gordy327  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @14.4.23    4 years ago
Right. Seems like a lot of waste.

Indeed. Apparently God wasn't concerned about whom got caught in his retributive blast radius. Other people, animals, plants, ect., who cares, right? But the story also exposes god as not infallible, which seems to be a trait theists ascribe to him. Here we have a "perfect" being who creates and imperfect creation. And the design flaws of creation become so glaring that God Has to do liquid demolition and essentially start over. And He still screwed it up. WTF? I would expect a higher level of competence from a supreme deity.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Junior Guide
14.4.25  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.24    4 years ago

Kind of like saying that I'm an expert builder, but only on Minecraft. jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
14.4.26  author  Gordy327  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @14.4.25    4 years ago

I suppose that means sinful humans are the Creepers on minecraft, Lol

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Junior Guide
14.4.27  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.26    4 years ago

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

24

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
14.4.28  author  Gordy327  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @14.4.27    4 years ago

jrSmiley_4_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
14.4.29  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.24    4 years ago

Excuse my indulgence. If God created only perfection (that is, beings with nothing to strive for or achieve) how is that helpful? We would be 'little perfections' knowing nothing of anything else on the spectrum of knowing. How is that being an aid to God?

This screams of 'spoiled brats' everywhere! After all, just look at us now with all our hurts, damages, and physical limitations and outrages! Now beings who have had to face some 'notable hard times indeed,' been pruned, and hewed down-now we're getting to the good stuff!!!

By the way, somebody should define what  possibly a "waste of time" could be for an Infinite Being.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
14.4.30  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @14.4.29    4 years ago
If God created only perfection (that is, being with nothing to strive for or achieve) how is that helpful?

Do you not see the logical inconsistency of a supposedly perfect being creating something imperfect? Even more so when his "imperfect" creations surprise or upset him, like He didn't know it was going to happen?

How is that being an aid to God?

Why would an omnipotent god need aid for anything?

Us. Little perfections knowing nothing of anything else on the spectrum of knowing.

If we were "perfect," it's safe to assume we'd have perfect knowledge too.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
14.4.31  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.30    4 years ago

You have to define perfection as it is meant in scripture. God is not perfect, because God has no need of anything. That is taking perfection to the extremes. Scripture tells us in a larger sense that perfection is what a Supreme Being calls it to be. That is, God is not man's idea of extraordinarily flawless . That would truly be inconsistent! More later.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
14.4.32  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.4.31    4 years ago

I am not following this.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
14.4.33  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @14.4.31    4 years ago
More later.

No thanks. This is getting way off topic now. The discussion is not about god. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
14.4.34  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.33    4 years ago

Yes. You are attempting to take Noah apart from the narrative and hold him up with his family, the animals, the ark, of course-the flood and hold a critical discussion about how any of it is possible (scientifically). In doing this, you strip God out and away. But. . .

22 Noah did everything just as God commanded him.

When you read the story God is off-topic. When a Christian reads the account God weighs in "heavy." Indeed, apart from God the story loses any distinction. (Noah could never pull this 'off' by himself!)

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
14.4.35  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @14.4.34    4 years ago
Yes. You are attempting to take Noah apart from the narrative and hold him up with his family, the animals, the ark, of course-the flood and hold a critical discussion about how any of it is possible (scientifically). In doing this, you strip God out and away.

I am examining the story itself as it's commonly presented. Using god to fill in every gap and detail merely turns god into plot armor for the story.

(Noah could never pull this 'off' by himself!)

Now you're getting it!

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Junior Guide
14.4.36  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  CB @14.4.29    4 years ago

I didn't say anything about waste of time. I simply stated waste. I mean, was [as the story goes] the arc challenge a game God was playing? Seriously, why task a man with such things when it's really unnecessary if God exists, is infallible [which to me is obviously not true if we [the human race] sucked so bad in the first place that God had to "clean slate it all"], omnipresent, and omniscient? What is the point if God can wipe his own slate clean of those He believes were a wasted effort? To me, that suggests humans are his puppets to play His games if He is as Christians [et.al.] say is infallible, omnipresent, and omniscient. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
14.4.37  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.35    4 years ago

I am not planning on bickering over it, G'. You can rip the story into anything you desire. As for as I am concerned, the only reason a Christian is interested in Noah is because Jesus referenced (pointed to) him in the New Testament and God commanded him in the Old Testament.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Junior Guide
14.4.38  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  CB @14.4.37    4 years ago

Not trying to bicker. We've had plenty of discussions in recent days. I'm simply asking questions based on religious texts that make people like me ponder. jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif And yes, I realize you were addressing Gordy, but I had questions regarding text from the OT.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
14.4.39  CB  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @14.4.36    4 years ago

MsAubrey, this is the funny thing about "perfection" isn't it?

  1. God is "I Am What I Am" perfection (God defines what perfection is.)
  2. God is set apart (God can not be polluted.)
  3. God creates lesser beings (lesser beings are not wholly set apart).
  4. Lesser beings make better or worse choices in their own individual (and collective) conduct, behaviors, and activities.

I can not answer why God's methods are God's methods. Beats me. We're all here. We're all queer. And all plugging away at these larger mysteries.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
14.4.40  CB  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @14.4.38    4 years ago

I love the interactions. It's how we relate, grow, and work through the thought processes. I say go for it!

One of the things that disturbs me, if when some push the text to say what it does not say or who are selective of what they will engage in the text. The text is a unified 'body' of work now in its distinct Old Testament and (separately) New Testament. That is, being a confessing Christian reading Jewish religious texts, does not make me Jewish or vice versa.  The distinctions to the works must hold.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
14.4.41  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @14.4.37    4 years ago

I'm not bickering. I said from the beginning that I would be objectively analyzing the story as its presented and why it's unlikely from a literal standpoint. If someone wants to defend the story and explain why it is likely, I would hope they can do better than merely citing something along the lines if "because god."

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
14.4.42  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.41    4 years ago

The story of Noah is about what God has done. As the story goes. God did this and that culminating in all of it. Therefore, to selectively talk about what a powerless man like Noah could not do belies the meaning and purposes of the story. Sorry G', I don't mind the "Jefferson bible" approach, but when you explain to me this is not about God I will inform you that God is all over this (if it occurred at all). Again, concede something for the sake of this discussion.  Apart from extra-natural involvements, this could not have been pulled off (if it was accomplished). From the perspective of humans pulling it off - we can safely assume it ain't happening without a deep analysis of the natural 'behaviors' of all people and things involved.

Noah had no effectual power to do any of the things in these significant things in this account. Without God's power the story falls apart! As you are doing with it today.

With God all of it is possible! Without God, Noah has no hope of opening the waters under the Earth or calling sufficient rain down from the 'heavens.'

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
14.4.43  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @14.4.42    4 years ago
The story of Noah is about what God has done.

I am analyzing the story as it plays out, regardless of what go does

I don't mind the "Jeffersonbible" approach, but when you explain to me this is not about God I will inform you that God is all over this (if it occurred at all).

And I will tell you that god is largely immaterial to it.

Apart fromextra-natural involvements, this could not have been pulled off (if it was accomplished).

The problem is, supernatural involvement is the only way the story could occur. However, there is no evidence of the supernatural or god doing anything outside of someone basically saying so. Actual empirical evidence directly contradicts the occurrence of the Flood itself.

Without God's power the story falls apart!

Exactly! Your entire argument rests on the idea that "god did it." Not only is that only a belief and lacking any empirical support, but there is nothing to suggest anything in the story actually occurred, which only shows there was no divine involvement. So yes, the entire story falls apart from the literal context. It's more reasonable to look at the story for what it actually is, a story. And one probably borrowed from other cultures or sources. But the actual literal Flood as biblically depicted is not empirically supported.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
14.4.44  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.43    4 years ago
Exactly! Your entire argument rests on the idea that "god did it." Not only is that only a belief and lacking any empirical support, but there is nothing to suggest anything in the story actually occurred, which only shows there was no divine involvement. So yes, the entire story falls apart from the literal context. It's more reasonable to look at the story for what it actually is, a story. And one probably borrowed from other cultures or sources. But the actual literal Flood as biblically depicted is not empirically supported.

Nice try, G'! However, that won't do it. My argument is "God did it" and that because it happened once (if it happened. Similar to other myths it would have some basis in fact) you will have no means to reproduce this flood s cientifically . Much like the one of its kind singularity which birthed our universe, this Noah account can not be reproduced for research and study.  It is provided "as is" to be taken or left alone.

What one can not do is prove it to be a bald-face lie. Or, use it's 'steps' to assert that Noah did not exist!

As for the allegorical nature of the Bible, Noah is used in allegory manner by Jesus:

Matthew 24: 37 As it was in the days of Noah , so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

Jesus could have stated: "As it was in the story of Noah,. . . ." He did not. Leaving us to wonder if the "days of Noah" were actual literal days. This will not be made any clearer until someone finds records of Noah's birth and death or his artifacts! 

If the story falls apart without God (which it does) then what is the point of bringing it up? The story has meaning for the Jewish people and Christians who point to Noah as a foreshadower of Jesus who is to come.' (Compare Jesus' forty days and nights in the wilderness without food and water)

One last thing:

Genesis 8: 1 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountain s of Ararat . The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.

If a ship comes to its "rest" on the top of a, any, mountain, such activity makes it explicitly clear that this was some great 'movement' of water. At least for the purposes of the account!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
14.4.45  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.4.44    4 years ago
My argument is "God did it" ...

Then you could logically argue anything.   The presuppositions that God exists and that God has done whatever implausible thing is under debate ends all discussion.    In general, if someone is willing to stipulate:  'it was magic' in response to a challenge of 'how was this accomplished?' then there is no further intelligent discussion ... end of discourse.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
14.4.46  CB  replied to  TᵢG @14.4.45    4 years ago

Certainly.

What I am saying is the Noah account is about what God did . There is no getting around the Bible's direct mention of the 'fingerprints' of God all over this event. For example: (From the article)

5. The Ark itself is implausible : Now we get to the centerpiece of the Flood Story, Noah's Great Ark itself. By now, many people are probably familiar with Ken Hamm's Ark Encounter park in Kentucky, where Mr. Hamm built a supposedly accurate, full-size replica of Noah's Ark. For the purposes of this discussion, I will use Mr. Hamm's Ark as a "functional" duplicate of Noah's Ark. So the Ark itself is 510 feet long, 85 feet wide, and 51 feet high, smaller than the Titanic (and yet 12 millions animals were housed on board? Really?). I don't think the bible states Noah was a master carpenter or ship builder with the skill to construct a vessel of this magnitude or for the conditions it would face.

See below:

Exodus 31
The Skilled Craftsmen
1 Now the L ord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “See, I have called by name Bezalel, the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah. 3 I have filled him with the Spirit of God in wisdom, in understanding, in knowledge, and in all kinds of craftsmanship , 4 to make artistic designs for work in gold, in silver, and in bronze, 5 and in the cutting of stones for settings, and in the carving of wood, that he may work in all kinds of craftsmanship. 6 And behold, I Myself have appointed with him Oholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan; and in the hearts of all who are skillful I have put skill, that they may make all that I have commanded you: 7 the tent of meeting, and the ark of testimony, and the mercy seat upon it, and all the furniture of the tent, 8 the table also and its utensils, and the pure gold lampstand with all its utensils, and the altar of incense, 9 the altar of burnt offering also with all its utensils, and the laver and its stand, 10 the woven garments as well, and the holy garments for Aaron the priest, and the garments of his sons, with which to carry on their priesthood; 11 the anointing oil also, and the fragrant incense for the holy place, they are to make them according to all that I have commanded you.”

Continuing:

Presumably, Noah only had wood and the simple tools of his time to construct the Ark. The problem here is, wood is not the ideal material to construct large seagoing vessels. The largest wooden vessels built by master shipbuilders of the recent era was the 6 mast schooner Wyoming, which had an overall length of 450 feet. The problem with such large wooden vessels is that sea travel would cause the wooden hull to twist and warp, resulting in leaks or even structural failure . So the Ark, built by unskilled individuals with primitive tools, meant to remain stable on water rather than actually sail over it, somehow, even with all it's gross tonnage of material, animals, and any cargo, was able to withstand stormy weather and oceans without breaking apart or becoming water logged enough to cause sinking? That seems highly unlikely to me. as does the Great Flood story itself.

And the narrative recounts:

Genesis 7: 13 On the very same day Noah and Shem and Ham and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons with them, entered the ark, 14  they and every beast after its kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth after its kind, and every bird after its kind, all sorts of birds. 15 So they went into the ark to Noah, by twos of all flesh in which was the breath of life. 16 Those that entered, male and female of all flesh, entered as God had commanded him; and the LORD closed it behind him .

"And the Lord closed it behind them." Is a clear reference to God placing God's seal on the project as God's handiwork. This sealing, approved by God, is another foreshadowing. Noah saves the world. As Jesus would do later in saving all mankind as Messiah.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
14.4.47  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.4.46    4 years ago

You know that I am going to reply by noting that the fact that the Bible makes a claim does not mean the claim is true.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
14.4.48  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @14.4.47    4 years ago

Everything the Bible says is true either literally or in the form of a parable or prophecy.  Without exception.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
14.4.49  CB  replied to  TᵢG @14.4.47    4 years ago

As stated above: This is a very old and unique account (Noah and the ark). It can be taken "as is" or interpreted for its (timeless) spiritual relationships and values. It is highly probable this account can not be is scientifically recreated.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
14.4.50  XXJefferson51  replied to  CB @14.4.46    4 years ago

Who said anything about unskilled?  The people then were smarter and more intelligent until the present time people or more so.  The human race was still young then and less impacted by imperfections and longer living than even us.  Besides the instructions for the ship were from the creator Himself so we will assume God knew how to build a ship and instruct humans as to how to do so assuming they didn’t already know.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
14.4.51  CB  replied to  XXJefferson51 @14.4.50    4 years ago
Who said anything about unskilled?

This article's #5.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
14.4.52  TᵢG  replied to  CB @14.4.49    4 years ago

Did you notice what HA just wrote @14.4.48?   Do you agree with him?

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
14.4.53  Krishna  replied to  Gordy327 @14.4.5    4 years ago
Doing that would have been even more extra steps and trouble for god.

Ah-- I can see you are an "unbeliever"!

(Not that there's' anything wrong with that).

But remember, God is omnipotent ("All Powerful".). So he can do anything he wants-- even many many tasks-- in a microsecond!

So you may be projecting your magical powers (actually the lack thereof) onto the situation. If you were a God...but you're not.

For people like you and me (who are not only mere mortals but vile "unbelievers" to boot!)...those extra steps would be annoying..challenging..and yes, very troublesome. 

But for an Omnipotent being such as the "Higher Power" ...its would be mere child's play-- if that!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
14.4.54  CB  replied to  TᵢG @14.4.52    4 years ago

I am not a Bible literalist, per se. And it is too late in the evening for me to consider this question. I am just not in that frame of mind right now. Incidentally, as I write this , I am listening on Biologos.org in my headphones: A Christian Response To Coronavirus: A Virtual Event with N.T. Wright and Francis Collins jrSmiley_34_smiley_image.gif

Thank you for a timely link exchange!

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Junior Guide
14.4.55  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Krishna @14.4.53    4 years ago

"Shun the nonbeliever..." jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
14.4.56  author  Gordy327  replied to  Krishna @14.4.53    4 years ago

"Unbeliever?" Uh oh, it looks like my secret is out. Lol

Even if the extra steps are nothing to an all powerful god, it is still an extra effort to achieve the same thing god wants. So if nothing else, the method chosen is less efficient, and therefore less than perfect.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
14.4.57  author  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @14.4.48    4 years ago

That's nice. Prove it! Of course, that would also require adequately explaining away the logical inconsistencies. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
14.4.58  author  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @14.4.50    4 years ago

All you're doing is making assumptions, which have no empirical backing. You're essentially using the "god did it" cop out.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
14.4.59  author  Gordy327  replied to  Drakkonis @14.4    4 years ago
Everyone who claims the flood couldn't have happened gives natural reasons as to why.

Those natural reasons are observable and can be analyzed scientifically. So they do carry credibility against a flood event. I didn't even mention evolution in the article, which also argues against the flood.

However, if God exists and He created the universe, then He would certainly be able to manage something like this.

That's a big "if." However, there is no evidence of god causing the flood (as evidence contradicts the events of the flood as biblically depicted) much less there being a god to begin with. 

And, if your information provided here means the flood doesn't necessarily have to cover the entire planet, as most seem to think, there's less evidence against it. 

God's intention was to kill everything. Covering the planet was the sure fire way to accomplish that. If land surface was still exposed, it's possible something might have clinged to it and survived.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
14.5  TᵢG  replied to  MonsterMash @14    4 years ago
Biblical context also makes it clear that "earth" does not necessarily mean the whole Earth.

Okay let's make the assumption that the story is talking about a local flood (a local flood is likely the seed of this tale anyway).   That would then mean that God, per the story, was displeased with all the human beings in a local area and decided to drown them all (sparing Noah, et.al.).   He also, inexplicably, decided to drown all the animals (sparing the various pairs) and kill all plant life in this local area.

So the only animals on the ark would be those indigenous to the flooded area and did not exist elsewhere.   That would considerably help with logistics.   And one can suppose God carved out a 'swimming pool' of sorts that held this water while localizing the rain for 40 days and nights and keeping the flood water intact for almost one year.

In result, a spot on the Earth was eradicated (all plants and animals) while the rest of the planet was just fine.   The flooded spot is free of the evil human beings, all innocent plants and animals too.   The rest of the planet, however, apparently did not rise to the level of evil to warrant this treatment.  

Sure, makes sense.   God, of the Bible, is usually quite dramatic so He engages in this grand violation of the laws of physics instead of just vaporizing the offending human beings in this local area and moving on.

Somehow this does not ring very true.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
14.6  Thomas  replied to  MonsterMash @14    3 years ago

Here is a scientific bulletin put out by the United States Geological Survey entitled The World’s Largest Floods, Past and Present: Their Causes and Magnitudes 

We know what sedimentation looks like from these events, and it does not look like what the YEC people say happened. The idea that everything just popped out in a short period of time basically ignores two centuries of stratigraphy and and paleontological research. Different fossils appear in different times and different types of rock, and are totally inconsistent with the idea of mass sedimentation. 

I am not Picking on you, Monster Mash, it just seemed like a good place to make this insertion because you lent credence to a local flood and not a world wide event.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
15  author  Gordy327    4 years ago

Just wait until I dive into the Adam & Eve mythos! Perhaps for Part 2? jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Quiet
15.1  MonsterMash  replied to  Gordy327 @15    4 years ago
Just wait until I dive into the Adam & Eve mythos! Perhaps for Part 2?
Are you going suggest it was really Adam & Steve or Eve & Ethel?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
15.1.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  MonsterMash @15.1    4 years ago

That might make for an interesting twist. But no. Like this article, I'll examine the evidence to determine the probability of the biblical Adam & Eve.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
16  Buzz of the Orient    4 years ago

A view from a movie watcher:

Of course, many of the stories in the bible are allegorical at best, which could well be primitive descriptions of events that were not so catastrophic. But they also serve as sources for great speculative science fiction movies, such as the movie "2012", which used the Mayan prediction for 2012 as its impetus, but the world-wide flooding and the building of massive "arks" to save humanity (and animals) does borrow from the biblical story.  My question about that movie, which I never thought of until I read this article and comments here would be: "Where the hell did all that water come from?"

Looking forward to the next article, the "Adam and Eve" one - I've got a great Sci-Fi theory for that one. 

 
 
 
bccrane
Freshman Silent
16.1  bccrane  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @16    4 years ago

The water in the movie 2012 came from the destabilizing of the Earth's crust causing continents to sink and other areas to rise.

As for the Noah's ark story, this is my perception of it, Gilgamesh and Noah are different versions of the same event adapted to reflect the different societies using it as their history.  It was a tsunami on the Black Sea which was more expansive during the glacial melt and a mountain on the western side collapsed from water infiltration of its base into the sea.  What I take from the story is Noah, or whoever, knew ahead of time that he needed to prepare for a flood and felt so strongly about it that he took steps, no matter how much he was ridiculed, to insure some survived it.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
16.2  Krishna  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @16    4 years ago
"Where the hell did all that water come from?"

But didn't it rain "for forty days and forty nights"? 

(Or am I confusing that with another movie?)

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
16.2.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Krishna @16.2    4 years ago

I think that's happening in China these days - maybe God is teaching China a lesson for it's not letting Christians proselytize and Uyghurs commit terrorism.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
17  Jeremy Retired in NC    4 years ago

The story of the great flood fails all kind of common sense checks.  Many have been mentioned all through the comments here. 

There is one aspect that I find revolting in the whole fable.  If this is to be believed, only one family was spared death by drowning, Noah's.  We have Noah, his wife, his children and their wives  That would make the entire population of earth the result of incest.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
17.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @17    4 years ago
That would make the entire population of earth the result of incest.  

Just like with the Adam & Eve story. Then I think there was Lot & his daughters too. It seems biblical authors had certain fetishes.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
17.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Gordy327 @17.1    4 years ago

I was going to mention those but your article focus on Noah and the flood.  Didn't want to stray.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
17.1.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @17.1.1    4 years ago
I was going to mention those but your article focus on Noah and the flood.  Didn't want to stray.

I appreciate that. But I am always open to suggestions. I am currently working on the Adam & Eve story. I plan to post it soon.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
17.1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Gordy327 @17.1.2    4 years ago

I'll wait.  Don't want to be "that guy".

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
17.1.4  author  Gordy327  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @17.1.3    4 years ago
I'll wait.  Don't want to be "that guy".

It's all good.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
20  Thrawn 31    4 years ago

I am skipping the comments and just assuming that no one is actually dumb enough to defend the ark (here come Trump's handjob expert or whatever the name is).

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
20.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  Thrawn 31 @20    4 years ago
I am skipping the comments and just assuming that no one is actually dumb enough to defend the ark (here come Trump's handjob expert or whatever the name is).

I see you skipped over a few posts then. jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
22  author  Gordy327    4 years ago

Hey everyone, the Fallacy of Biblical Stories, Part 2: Adam & Eve is now posted. Check it out. Thanks.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
23  CB    4 years ago

1. The sheer number of animals that had to be aboard the Ark . This is the ancient world how many species might there have been in this ancient world, region, or area?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
23.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @23    4 years ago
This is the ancient world how many species might there have been in this ancient world, region, or area?

About the same number of species there are now, about 6 million. The Flood was supposed to have occurred approximately 4000 years ago,

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
23.1.1  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @23.1    4 years ago

Well you got me with that one. I am not a young earther Christian. There are many Christians who do not even know of the phrasing, "young earth Christians."

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
23.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @23    3 years ago
This is the ancient world how many species might there have been in this ancient world, region, or area?

Over a period of mere several thousand years, the total number of species probably did not fluctuate much, as there were no significant environmental or climatological events to cause a mass extinction. If anything, there were probably more species back then, as humans did not have significant numbers or industry to cause significant changes to an ecosystem.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
23.2.1  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @23.2    3 years ago

I have no idea. It clearly won't be "remedied" here and now with limited information about the period.

Curious, if  a lack of "significant industry" was an issue for ecosystem change, then the further we go back before Noah period we probably find even more swelling number of species, yes?

So, in your opinion or factual knowledge is this planet inhabitants evolving or devolving?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
23.2.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @23.2.1    3 years ago
Curious, if  a lack of "significant industry" was an issue for ecosystem change, then the further we go back before Noah period we probably find even more swelling number of species, yes?

Not necessarily. Before modern industry or large human populations, the environment was probably not significantly altered. So the number of species was probably stable. Of course, you can go back millions of years to a mass extinction event and that will be a different story. But when humans industrialized and the population grew, that infringes on ecosystems, potentially causing a decline in other species numbers, up to and including extinction.

So, in your opinion or factual knowledge is this planet inhabitants evolving or devolving?

Perhaps a little bit of both? Evolution is merely an organisms response to a change in the environment. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
23.2.3  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @23.2.2    3 years ago

Well, we are told the story of Noah across five (short) chapters without any more information to draw from or much more to sustain it. Clearly, if there are details to be had-they are not present in the account. Subsequently, I would look for its spiritual meaning to deliver more "umph" than its wording. Remember, Noah is a foreshadowing of the work and times of Jesus Christ.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
23.2.4  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @23.2.3    3 years ago
Well, we are told the story of Noah across five (short) chapters without any more information to draw from or much more to sustain it. Clearly, if there are details to be had-they are not present in the account.

What we do know of the story is pretty much contradicted by science. So anything else within the story probably has no greater veracity to it.

Subsequently, I would look for its spiritual meaning to deliver more "umph" than its wording. Remember, Noah is a foreshadowing of the work and times of Jesus Christ.

That's no different than looking to Aesop's fables or Mother Goose stories for a lesson or underlying meaning. But many people do not treat the Flood myth as just a story. They see it as a literal event that actually happened.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
23.2.5  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @23.2.4    3 years ago

I don't know what you wish to emphasize here. People live by faith in something.

After-all, we are looking to science to save us from this terrible virus/pandemic. The vaccine likely will do so. However, the injection itself (which I have seen physically carried out is an "act of faith" that it is being administered full, properly, and proportionally. (In several prominent cases, whole vials and jabs have been inadequately management and improperly administered. Yet, we do not give up hope, but continue onward to correct the deficiency. It is the same with our understanding with these biblical narratives.) Through its shortcomings and failures, we continue to hold up faith (yes) in science to do better.

As to fables, or "Mother Goose" tales - I would hope that an intelligent person has enough of what it takes to comprehend higher writings from children stories. As to what "many people" do - well, let's just say, there is much growth and development needed until maturity can be reached.

The link to Jesus Christ and the Noah account is through its mention as a metaphor,

"As in the days of Noah. . . ." and John 5:38,39; "You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life."

So today's believer need not establish the physicality of the ancient world to draw spiritual meaning from it. Accordingly, there will be much we can not explain or 'deliver on' in today's world. Even as science awaits its convincing truths on many matters.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
23.2.6  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @23.2.5    3 years ago
People live by faith in something.

Not everyone does.

However, the injection itself (which I have seen physically carried out is an "act of faith" that it is being administeredfull, properly, and proportionally.

No, it's administered according to pharmaceutical and medical guidelines by trained personnel. No faith required or necessary.

(In several prominent cases, whole vials and jabs have been inadequately management and improperly administered.

Sounds more like a logistics and management issue. 

I would hope that an intelligent person has enough of what it takes to comprehend higher writings from children stories.

Many children stories have "morality" lessons or some other type of lesson (or fable) to impart. It's not much different than biblical stories.

So today's believer need not establish the physicality of the ancient world to draw spiritual meaning from it.

But some believers actually believe in the physical ark and the flood event as factually true. That's the difference.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
23.2.7  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @23.2.6    3 years ago
Some believers actually believe in the physical ark and the flood event as factually true. That's the difference.

And all believers alive today believe in an invisible God they have never physically seen or touched as spiritually real. So where do we go from this point?

the injection itself (which I have seen physically carried out is an "act of faith" that it is being administered full, properly, and proportionally. (In several prominent cases, whole vials and jabs have been inadequately management and improperly administered)

The recipients receive the jabs in good faith that the medicine will do what it is prescribed to do. However, in some cases, problems have arisen with the delivery of the vaccine medicine possibly questionable cases resulting in death.

We take this medicine (this jab) in faith, we have no 100% science of the vaccine which is given under emergency protocols due to it being a novel coronavirus.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
23.2.8  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @23.2.7    3 years ago
And all believers alive today believe in an invisible God they have never physically seen or touched as spiritually real. So where do we go from this point?

Yes, and? Belief does not equal fact.

The recipients receive the jabs in good faith that the medicine will do what it is prescribed to do.

Maybe those who don't understand the vaccine or how it's tested do. Some of us know the vaccine, along with other medications, are tested before they are approved for use.

However, in some cases, problems have arisen with the delivery of the vaccine medicine possibly questionable cases resulting in death.

The vaccine is to be administered via intramuscular injection. Sounds like a possible allergic reaction then. Such reactions is possible for any medication taken. There could have also been other underlying issues which contributed to death, and not specifically due to the vaccine.

We take this medicine (this jab) in faith,we have no 100% science of the vaccinewhich is given under emergency protocols due to it being a novel coronavirus.

Nothing is 100% safe and no one has suggested otherwise. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
23.2.9  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @23.2.8    3 years ago

The recipients (as you and I will eventually do?), are taking the vaccine shots based on partial science and part faith in the process. It's already been established our knowledge of this novel virus leaves much more to be 'desired.'  No one knows how their individual body will react to this medicine. Data is still incoming.

No one is taking it with the expressed intention to die, nevertheless. So yes, some faith is involved.

And yes, Gordy, I can assure you I am clear on how the scientific method works and manifests itself: I approve of it, in and of itself wholeheartedly. Yes, I highly value the science involved in this enterprise.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
23.2.10  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @23.2.9    3 years ago
The recipients (as you and I will eventually do?), are taking the vaccine shots based on partial science and part faith in the process.

Maybe you and others do. I assure you I go by strictly the science.

No one is taking it with the expressed intention to die, nevertheless.

It's meant to prevent a possible death by viral infection. And the science shows the vaccine to be generally effective.

So yes, some faith is involved.

That depends on the individual.

No one knows how their individual body will react to this medicine. 

No one knows how their body will react to any medication until they take it. Sometimes there are side effects of varying degrees of severity. Other times, nothing seemingly happens. That includes vaccines too.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
23.2.11  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @23.2.10    3 years ago

I won't belabor the point, Gordy.  (Smile.)

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
24  XXJefferson51    4 years ago

How many animals did the Ark actually carry, and how did Noah get all those animals on the Ark? How could eight people possibly care for so many thousands of animals, and how could such a small crew deal with tons of manure on a daily basis? How could the koala, which only eats fresh Eucalyptus leaves, be maintained on the Ark for an entire year? Add a thousand and one other similar questions to these. For centuries, skeptics have argued against the veracity of the account of Noah's Ark and the global Flood, gloating over its supposed impossibility. In recent years, such arguments have come thick and fast from modern anti-creationists who have largely parroted the earlier critics of the Ark.

Compromising evangelicals have uncritically accepted many of these anti-Biblical assertions ("after all, so many scientists can't be wrong") and sought to "save" the Flood account by trivializing it into a glorified river flood of the Tigris-Euphrates. More orthodox Bible-believers, willing to accept all the teachings of Scripture (including its unmistakable claim of a global Flood) have also been needlessly intimidated by these intellectual-sounding anti-Ark arguments. As a result of this, many sincere believers have felt that the only solution to this vast array of "impossible" difficulties with the Ark was to posit miraculous solutions to them.

Yet when we look at all these anti-Ark arguments, we note a conspicuous lack of scholarly response to most of them, at least in any kind of concerted manner. Indeed, there never before has been a modern systematic evaluation of the alleged difficulties surrounding Noah's Ark. My recent book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, has just been published and is the fruit of seven years of painstaking research, including the reading of hundreds of books and articles on animal care. The work carries a foreword by Dr. Henry M. Morris, the President Emeritus of ICR, and is dedicated to the observance of the 25th anniversary of the founding of the Institute for Creation Research.

The book itself contains a bibliography of approximately 1,200 references. In it, all of the arguments against the Ark are systematically examined, and all are found wanting. In fact, the vast majority of the anti-Ark arguments, at first superficially plausible, turn out to be easily invalidated.

To start out, I reviewed what Scripture actually teaches about what kinds of creatures were taken on the Ark in order to dispel the oft-repeated charge that the Ark needed to carry perhaps 50 million species of creatures. I then figured out how many animals were on the Ark, arriving at approximately 16,000. Since animals vary so much in size, a numerical figure itself is not too informative. Therefore, the 16,000 animals were assigned into body-weight categories. As a result, there were eight logarithmic categories spanning the hummingbird (a few grams each) and the largest dinosaur (nearly 100 tons when adult). Since most of the animals were small, the median animal on the Ark was about the size of a rat. Only 15% of the animals were sheep-sized or larger (neglecting the taking of juveniles on the Ark), but it was the larger animals which accounted for most of the food intake and production of excreta.

To calculate the housing space needed by the animals, I employed laboratory-animal housing standards for reference animals of comparable mass. Also, by using the body-weight categories, and actual measurements of animal-food intake, I was able to determine how much food and water the animals would need for their 371-day Ark stay. Special emphasis was placed on the large mammalian herbivores and their ostensible requirement for vast quantities of bulky hay. It turns out that the Ark was more than ample to accommodate the animals along with their water and provender, with considerable room to spare.

What about the animal excreta? I found that approximately 12 metric tons of excreta would have been produced daily by all the Ark animals. By studying agricultural literature and the various means of dealing with large volumes of animal waste, I was able to show that it was easily possible for eight people to deal with this much excreta. Moreover, I evaluated the possible use of several different methods of waste management of which involved the daily removal of animal waste, and some which allow the steady accumulation of animal waste on the Ark without its removal. Both types of methods were found to be workable and practical, as demonstrated by their modern counterparts in the management of agricultural wastes.

Because there have been so many arguments which allege the impossibility of eight people caring for so many animals, I delved into actual manpower studies on the time required to care for a given number of animals under various conditions. It turns out that simple labor-saving techniques could have enabled eight people to care for 16,000 animals assuming the availability of only rustic tools, along with a 10-hour day, 6-day week, with time to spare.

One of the most difficult aspects of maintaining wild animals in captivity is the meeting of their respective food requirements. Not surprisingly, there is a large constellation of arguments against the Ark centered on the supposed impossibility of Noah meeting these dietary requirements. These animals include carnivores, as well as an assortment of animals with specialized diets today that are comprised of live and/or perishable foods.

I first considered large carnivores (e.g., lions), demonstrating that a large quantity of fodder animals were unnecessary to supply meat for them. I then considered the animals that eat only live foods, such as the insectivorous bats and soft-billed birds, showing that they could have been maintained without extensive culturing of live insects on the Ark. Next were considered animals with the most highly specialized diets, proving that Noah did not need to grow Eucalyptus on the Ark for the koalas, nor bamboo for the pandas aboard. I also showed how the dietary needs of vampire bats, king cobras, certain highly-folivorous primates, and three-toed sloths could have been met on the Ark.

The hibernation of animals on the Ark was also considered. This factor is difficult to evaluate since different animals hibernate under varying conditions, and there is no comprehensive database which tabulates these conditions. It was conservatively assumed that the animals did not undergo any form of dormancy at all. I did indeed substantiate the fact that many of the animals could have gone into dormancy under the conditions inside the Ark; however, prolonged dormancy of the animals was actually unnecessary.

Many other aspects of animal care were considered, including arguments revolving around the need to ventilate the Ark, behavioral problems in dealing with wild animals on a large-scale basis, consequences of crowding and the need for exercise, the provision of bathing facilities, the survival of animals which do poorly in captivity, and many other alleged problems. In each case, reasonable and usually simple solutions were found to be sufficient to solve the problems.

There are also hoary arguments, repeated to this day by anti-creationists, against the successful stocking of the Ark, owing to different climatic requirements of animals. We are still fed visions of polar animals suffocating from the heat on their way to the Ark, or else having nowhere to live in a warm pre-Flood world. By studying the actual climatic tolerances of animals, I have shown how polar temperature and tropical animals (and plants, for that matter) could easily have coexisted in a warm, pre-Flood world.

Although this work is on Noah's Ark and its cargo, I also considered the fate of organisms not on it. For instance, it was shown how both salt-intolerant and salt-requiring fish, as well as amphibians, could have survived the Flood, even if there were no stable layers of fresh and salt water in the shoreless ocean.

Attacks on the credibility of the Ark are not limited to the Flood period itself, but also to the immediate post-Flood period. For instance, critics make many baseless allegations, such as the idea of animals coming off the Ark devouring each other for want of anything else to eat. The absurdity of such arguments is shown, along with recognizing the availability of many unconventional sources of food in the ostensibly barren post-Flood world. Several examples are also given of modern animals switching to unconventional food sources whenever their usual food is unavailable.

There also are botanical chapters in the book, demonstrating the spuriousness of anti-creationist claims about plants being unable to survive the Flood. We are told that the soils must have been too salty for any seeds to germinate, or that seeds must have prematurely germinated in the floodwater. After refuting these claims, I focus on seed germination and review the many studies which demonstrate the ability of seeds to survive soaking, as well as several ways that plants could have survived the Flood apart from seed.

Critics of the global Flood also insist that single pairs of animals released off the Ark could not have founded lasting populations, and even if they did, would have possessed insufficient genetic diversity to survive and to differentiate into the many varieties observed today. In actuality, recent studies in conservation biology show that small numbers of founders do have most of the genetic potential of the parent population. Furthermore, the inbreeding inherent in the initially small populations need not have posed any problem.

Several examples of lasting populations founded by only a few individual animals are cited, showing how small populations have differentiated and even given rise to new species in astonishingly short periods of time. Indeed, creationists have previously noted that not every species of land animal need have been on the Ark, as many new species could easily have arisen after the Flood. Anti-creationists have denied that species could arise in only 5,000 years and have accused creationists of being even more evolutionistic than the evolutionists in suggesting that this could happen! After dismissing the canard that speciation itself gives support to theories of organic evolution, I have given examples in which new species have arisen in a matter of only centuries, or even decades.

The human immune system (the MHC complex) contains many genetic variants, and anti-creationists have seized upon this as proof that the eight human founders could not possibly have carried sufficient diversity to account for the variation observed in the human race today. I was able to demonstrate the fact that the variants are compatible with a recent population founding only thousands of years ago. A study on mitochondrial DNA (which has given rise to the "African Eve" hypothesis) showed how the "molecular clock" it provides can be greatly accelerated, thus making it compatible with the Biblical time frame.

Overall, I trust that the new book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, will answer many questions which both scientists and laymen have about the function of Noah's Ark. It shows that the Scriptural teachings on the global Flood and the Ark are completely reasonable. The believer can hold full confidence in the integrity of the word of God.

* Mr. Woodmorappe holds M.S. degrees in biology and geology and maintains active research in these fields. https://www.icr.org/article/resource-for-answering-critics-noahs-ark

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
24.1  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @24    4 years ago

Mr. Woodmorappe makes vague claims.   He identifies problems with the story and then promises us that he has determined this is actually not a problem.   Yet his supporting facts are not presented.   Anyone can make vague claims.

I suspect Mr. Woodmorappe had as his goal to prove the ark story was possible and used every trick he could think of to try to achieve that goal.

I would ask the the copy & paste agent to back up the claims in the quoted comment but I am confident he has nothing to add to what he pasted here so I will not bother.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
25  XXJefferson51    4 years ago
logo-white.png

Genesis Flood

  1. RESOURCES
  2. ANSWERS TO BASIC QUESTIONS

1. Where did the water come from for the flood, and where did it go?

The oceans contain more than enough water to flood the Earth. If Earth's surface were perfectly smooth, with no mountains or ocean basins, it would be covered by a layer of water 3 km deep. [1] Before the flood, some water was probably in the seas, some in the atmosphere, and an unknown amount of water may have been underground. Most of the surface water is now in the ocean basins, but there may be even more water in the mantle. [2] It is possible that more water was added during the flood by collisions of one or more comets, which appear to be made largely of water. [3]

2. How could the waters of the flood cover Mt. Everest?

The topography of the land today is not the same as it was before the Genesis Flood. It is likely the entire crust of the earth was reorganized during the Flood, as the original surface was eroded away and the sediments deposited in basins. Many organisms were also transported into these basins and subsequently buried, thus forming fossils. During the flood, the area that is now Mt. Everest was a basin in which sediments were accumulating. This is shown by the presence of marine fossils on Mt. Everest. [4] After the deposition of the fossil-bearing strata, tectonic activity raised the sediments high above their previous position, forming the Himalaya Mountains. Most or all of our present mountains may have been formed similarly by tectonic activity during the Flood or shortly thereafter.

3. How could the Earth be destroyed by 40 days and 40 nights of rain?

That is not all that happened during the flood. The flood waters apparently did not begin to drain for some 150 days (Genesis 7:24). Another 150 days seems to have passed before the ark landed (Genesis 8:3,4). Ten months of continuous flooding would probably produce major geologic changes in Earth's surface. In regions away from where the ark landed, the flood might have lasted considerably longer than one year. Rain was an important factor, but there was much more than rain involved in the global catastrophe known as the Flood. Strong oceanic currents would be formed when the former land surface was submerged. Large masses of rocks and sediments were transported and re-deposited at a distance by turbidity currents and submarine landslides. The rock layers show many folds and faults, indicating large movements of portions of the crust, associated with plate tectonic activity. In addition, the rock layers contain more than 150 craters formed from impacts of extraterrestrial objects such as asteroids, meteorites and comets. [5] Volcanic activity is another factor that disrupted the earth’s crust. Enormous lava flows, called flood basalts, are found in several places in the earth’s crust. Volcanic eruptions and lava flows would have released gases, ash and magma that covered large areas of the earth’s surface. These processes would have multiplied the effects of the water, and the Earth's crust may have undergone a major rearrangement during the flood. [6]

4. Was the flood truly worldwide?

The wording of the biblical text consistently points to a global flood. [7] Jesus used the Flood as an example of universal judgment (Matthew 24:37-38). Peter confirms that only eight people were saved (2 Peter 2:5). In the Genesis text, the language is as universal as it is possible to be: "... all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered" (Genesis 7:19, RSV). If water covered the high mountains it would also cover the lower regions. Since it was God's purpose to destroy all humans (Genesis 6:7), the flood must necessarily have extended at least to all regions inhabited by humans. Furthermore, God promised there would never be another flood like that one (Genesis 9:11, Isaiah 54:9), as symbolized by the rainbow (Genesis 9:13-17). There have been many highly destructive local floods that wiped out many people. The rainbow is seen worldwide, indicating the promise applies worldwide. The Genesis flood had to involve a different level of activity than anything seen since that time.

5. What about proposals that the biblical Flood story refers to a local flood somewhere in the Middle East?

None of the proposed local floods fits the biblical description. If the flood were local, the biblical flood story wouldn't make sense. There would have been no need for an ark to save Noah or his animals. Noah could have migrated with his animals to another region to avoid a local flood. Some have pointed to a layer of clay in some parts of the Mesopotamian Valley as the source of the biblical flood story. [8] However, this clay layer is found in only some of the cities in the area. Undoubtedly, the region has been flooded on occasion, but this has nothing to do with the Genesis flood of Noah. Another proposal is that the biblical flood story is based on the re-flooding of the Persian Gulf due to rising sea levels as the glaciers melted at the end of the Ice Age. [9] Another great flood in the Black Sea has been claimed as the source of the biblical flood. [10] These reports may refer to actual floods, but they do not fit the biblical story, in part because these “floods” have not ended, in contradistinction to the biblical story. Several other major prehistoric floods have occurred that appear to have exceeded anything in recorded history. The Channeled Scablands Flood in the State of Washington is one such example [11] but several other examples have been described. [12] None of these fits the biblical description of the flood as a global event that destroyed all humans except the eight in the ark.

6. What unsolved questions about the Flood are of greatest interest?

How did the flood produce the fossil sequence? How did the plants and animals reach their present locations after the flood?


[1] Dubach HW, Taber RW. 1968. Questions About the Oceans. Publication G13. Washington DC: U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office, p 35.

[2] The mantle is capable of storing more water than now exists on the surface: Murakami, M. et al. Water in Earth’s lower mantle. Science 295(2002):1885-1887.

[3] See Hartogh, P et al. Ocean-like water in the Jupiter-family comet 103P/Hartley2. Nature 478(2011):218-220.

[4] Odell NE. 1967. The highest fossils in the world. Geological Magazine 104(1):73-74.

[5] To date, 184 confirmed impact craters have been identified; see , accessed 1 October 2013.

[6] A theory proposing this is described in Austin, SA, Baumgardner, JR, Snelling, AA, Vardiman, L and Wise, KP, Catastrophic plate tectonics: A global flood model of Earth history, in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, RE Walsh (ed), 609-621.

[7] Hasel GF. 1975. The biblical view of the extent of the flood. Origins 2:77-95; Hasel GF. 1978. Some issues regarding the nature and universality of the Genesis flood narrative. Origins 5:83-98; Davidson RM. 1995. Biblical evidence for the universality of the Genesis Flood. Origins 22:58-73.

[8] E.g., see Woolley, L. Stories of the creation and the flood, in (A Dundes, ed.) The Flood Myth. Berkeley: University of California Press (1988): 88-99

[9] Rose, JR. New light on human prehistory in the Arabo-Persian Gulf oasis. Current Anthropology 51(2010):849-883.

[10] Ryan, W and W Pitman. Noah’s Flood. New York, NY: Touchstone, 2000.

[11] See Allen JE, Burns M, Sargent SC. 1986. Cataclysms on the Columbia. Portland OR: Timber Press.

[12] A great Siberian flood is described in: Baker VR, Benito G, Rudoy AN. 1993. Paleohydrology of Late Pleistocene superflooding, Altay Mountains, Siberia. Science 259:348-350. Hsu KJ. 1983. The Mediterranean Was a Desert. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; Gupta, S et al. Catastrophic flooding origin of shelf valley systems in the English Channel. Nature448(2007):342-345. https://www.grisda.org/genesis-flood

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
25.1  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @25    4 years ago
If Earth's surface were perfectly smooth ...

But it is not perfectly smooth.   I could just as easily say:  if the Earth were ½ its size, the water on our full-sized Earth would be sufficient to flood it.   But that would be silly.  As silly as this non-scientific, religious apologetics you just delivered.

You delivered apologetics from the Young Earth Creationist apologetics organization known as the 'Geoscience Research Institute'.    Might as well just go to the Answers In Genesis website for scientific findings.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
25.1.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @25.1    4 years ago

Actually I used real science produced by real scientists working for a real research organization.  It wasn’t like a group of pastors got together and did all the research and write it.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
25.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @25.1.1    4 years ago

Then you need to research your source.   If you think Geoscience Research Institute is a real research organization with real scientists then you must think that Answers In Genesis is a science & technology university.   GRI is an apologetics organization dedicated to promoting Young Earth Creationism.  Buy a vowel man.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
25.1.3  author  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @25.1.2    4 years ago
then you must think that Answers In Genesis is a science & technology university. 

I wouldn't be surprised.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
25.1.4  author  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @25.1.1    4 years ago
Actually I used real science produced by real scientists working for a real research organization.

No, you didn't! You used a religious biased source nd from organizations with a religious agenda. They are credible or recognized scientific institutions within the science community.

 It wasn’t like a group of pastors got together and did all the research and write it.  

It might as well have been. 

Before the flood, some water was probably in the seas, some in the atmosphere, and an unknown amount of water may have been underground.

Not in the volume that would have been necessary, which I addressed in the article. And all that water would not suddenly evaporate, quickly condense into clouds, and cause continuous rainfall. 

Most of the surface water is now in the ocean basins, but there may be even more water in the mantle.

The Earth's continental crust is between 20-30 miles thick and covers the mantle. And the mantle is MOLTEN ROCK, composed of mostly silicates, along with various other minerals. Now, while water can be trapped inside the minerals within the mantle, what do you think would happen if the volume of water necessary to flood the earth (let's assume there was enough contained within the mantle) was suddenly released into the atmosphere (after it magically managed to break through the crust)?

The topography of the land today is not the same as it was before the Genesis Flood.

No, it pretty much was. Significant natural alterations to geological formations generally takes tens of thousands to even millions of years.

It is likely the entire crust of the earth was reorganized during the Flood, as the original surface was eroded away and the sediments deposited in basins. 

I addressed that too in the article: If there was erosion, we would see uniform and even erosion over rock formations like mountains all over the world. But we do not. Not only is erosion unequal, but there are plenty of mountains that look rather pointy rather than smoothed over.

Many organisms were also transported into these basins and subsequently buried, thus forming fossils.

Also addressed in the article. Did you even bother to read the article? Or you're own, already discredited source?

the flood might have lasted considerably longer than one year. Rain was an important factor, but there was much more than rain involved in the global catastrophe known as the Flood. Strong oceanic currents would be formed when the former land surface was submerged.

Then the ark itself, due to is supposed size and construction, would have sunk. Also addressed in the article.

Peter confirms that only eight people were saved

Which would result in population bottlenecking, and eventual extinction.

None of the proposed local floods fits the biblical description.

Probably because the biblical description is likely an exaggeration of regional tales.

the biblical flood story wouldn't make sense.

It doesn't now!

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
25.2  MrFrost  replied to  XXJefferson51 @25    3 years ago
The oceans contain more than enough water to flood the Earth.

Um... All the water that was on the Earth now was on the Earth then... In fact it's all been here for millions of years. So...again...fail. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
25.2.1  CB  replied to  MrFrost @25.2    3 years ago

Friend 'Frost, there is something else mentioned about these waters which 'arrived':

Genesis 8:2 2 Now the springs of the deep and t he floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky.

Now we know this is metaphor. However, it is signifying a message about utter calamity.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
25.2.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @25.2.1    3 years ago
Now we know this is metaphor. However, it is signifying a message about utter calamity.

Metaphors do not equate to actual reality.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
25.2.3  author  Gordy327  replied to  MrFrost @25.2    3 years ago
The oceans contain more than enough water to flood the Earth.
Um... All the water that was on the Earth now was on the Earth then.

Indeed. If the oceans did contain enough water to flood the Earth, the Earth would be an ocean planet, right?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
25.2.4  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @25.2.2    3 years ago

I know this. Obviously. However, metaphors have meaning to someone or what's the point of them as communication medium?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
25.2.5  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @25.2.4    3 years ago
However, metaphors have meaning to someone or what's the point of them as communication medium?

I'm not sure what the point is of metaphors beyond them being just figures of speech.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
25.2.6  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @25.2.5    3 years ago

Noah was a type or forerunner of Jesus Christ. Just as Christ was sealed in the tomb after his crucifixion and death, so was Noah shut in the ark .

As Noah became the hope for humanity after the flood, so Christ became the hope for humanity after his resurrection. *

* Note: I am only 'borrowing' the above concise statement from a web stub of the site given below. I have not read further on the site.

https://www.learnreligions.com/noahs-ark-and-the-flood-700212#:~:text=Noah%20was%20a%20type%20or%20forerunner%20of%20Jesus,became%20the%20hope%20for%20humanity%20after%20his%20resurrection.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
25.2.7  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @25.2.6    3 years ago

They're both just stories. Written in a book by ancient men with pens. As stories, they're fine. But when one tries to present them as fact, then it becomes an issue and invites challenge.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
25.2.8  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @25.2.7    3 years ago

That is your assertion, for which you should have to prove. It is not within the scope of this discussion, nevertheless.

Ancient narratives or not, they are continuous across thousands of years and more significantly people live their daily lives by them. The shame is in ancient societies, they did not write these inspiring narratives with any knowledge of science or critical thinking to come! As the saying goes, "It is what it is."

That said, the biggest issue the whole world has with its religions, is those who abuse themselves and others with the 'product.'

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
25.2.9  TᵢG  replied to  CB @25.2.8    3 years ago
That is your assertion, for which you should have to prove.

CB, everyone agrees that the Bible was written by ancient men.   That is not something that needs to be proven or explicitly evidenced.   Nobody contests that.

It is when one goes beyond the obvious and accepted truth do we have a burden of proof.   The claim that the Bible is divine truth bears the burden of proof (or at least evidence).

Biblical divinity is a belief.   But it is not supported by any evidence.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
25.2.10  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @25.2.8    3 years ago
That is your assertion, for which you should have to prove.

Are you suggesting biblical stories as presented (such as the Flood myth) actually happened as described in the bible? Religion and some religious followers make such assertions. They're the ones who have to prove it. I simply challenge them. Not surprisingly, they never meet the challenge. The point of my series of articles is to examine biblical stories (or assertions made) and best determine the veracity of those stories.

 It is not within the scope of this discussion, nevertheless.

I'll decide what is within the scope of discussion, thank you.

Ancient narratives or not, they are continuous across thousands of years and more significantly people live their daily lives by them.

So? That still doesn't lend credibility to the claims made as being factually true.

The shame is in ancient societies, they did not write these inspiring narratives with any knowledge of science or critical thinking to come! As the saying goes, "It is what it is."

Nowadays, some people reject or do not use critical thinking when reading about these stories.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
25.2.11  CB  replied to  TᵢG @25.2.9    3 years ago

My only point is are they "just stories" that is, to be 'just' dismissed. And could men and others who were not 'gifted' scientists be endowed with say other 'giftings' or talents, or whatever?

That is what I mean by prove it, before denigration and dismissiveness. Again, it is outside of the scope of this discussion - which is about Noah , Ark, and related matters.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
25.2.12  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @25.2.10    3 years ago

Okay. I won't belabor the point.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
25.2.13  TᵢG  replied to  CB @25.2.11    3 years ago

They are indeed more than stories per your point.   The authors did have an intended message.   For example, they often sought to teach good lessons to people.

I am sure that Gordy's use of 'just stories' is to note that these are simply the words of men rather than the divine word of a creator or absolute truth.   Some people in this forum (well, at least one), for example, actually believe that the entire planet was flooded 4,500 years ago and that all species of life were preserved on a wooden ark that was floating for almost a year and that after landing the animals departed, procreated and populated the planet with all forms of life we see today.

It is that kind of 'thinking' that gains the rebuttal 'just stories'.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
25.2.14  CB  replied to  TᵢG @25.2.13    3 years ago
they often sought to teach good lessons to people.

The lessons, as it turns out, have a larger spiritual component and footprint. For example. Noah's Ark is a story about the promised Son of God to come:

John 5:39  You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life . These are the very Scriptures that testify about me . - Jesus, that is.
Just as Christ was sealed in the tomb after his crucifixion and death, so was Noah shut in the ark . As Noah became the hope for humanity after the flood, so Christ became the hope for humanity after his resurrection.

Noah's Ark 'stars':

  1. God as Designer .
  2. Mankind's own efforts as Builder .
  3. 120 years of preaching of a coming End.
  4. 'How to' build/ blueprint to life.
  5. How to seal up (place pitch inside; place pitch outside)
  6. Enter and seal shut up
  7. Preservation of souls (inside the ark)

Finally, mankind had to 'do the design' or suffer consequences for failing to "execute" its deliverance once the advent of the End arrived. That is, the first and continuing rain.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
25.2.15  Thomas  replied to  TᵢG @25.2.9    3 years ago

I would contend that the Bible stories are mythical. As myth, they occupy a certain niche in humanities long trip toward darkness or light that does not depend on truth as defined by science, but truth as a concept apart from or separated from the knowable facts of the universe. As such, myth gives one the freedom to explore certain relationships between man and man, man and nature. It gives the listener and the teller a greater connection to the things that remain unknowable while at the same time giving them grounding in the world of their experience. 

Myth is not supposed to be interpreted with factual and logical rigor. Myth is a story, meant to be experienced.

There is far more that we humans do not know about the earth, the galaxy, the universe and those who reside in it than we ever have the possibility of knowing, yet myths remind us that we need to explore ourselves as well as our external factors to find the answers to at least some of the questions.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
25.2.16  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @25.2.12    3 years ago
Okay. I won't belabor the point.

What point?

The lessons, as it turns out, have a larger spiritual component and footprint. For example. Noah's Ark is a story about thepromisedSon of God to come

The issue isn't about what "lesson" can be found in the Flood story. It's about whether the event happened as depicted, as some seem to truly believe.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
25.2.17  author  Gordy327  replied to  Thomas @25.2.15    3 years ago
I would contend that the Bible stories are mythical.

As my series of biblical story fallacies demonstrate, bible stories pretty much do seem to be mythical. Or at least greatly exaggerated.

Myth is not supposed to be interpreted with factual and logical rigor. Myth is a story, meant to be experienced.

As we have seen, some people do not seem to know where the line is between myth and reality.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
25.2.18  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @25.2.16    3 years ago

I won't belabor the point.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
25.2.19  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @25.2.18    3 years ago

Again, what point?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
25.2.20  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @25.2.19    3 years ago

I'm sorry, don't I get to respond the way I like? Is this a "free country" where I can speak my mind? Do you understand what the words "I won't belabor the point" signifies? (Smile.)

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
25.2.21  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @25.2.20    3 years ago

Why bother engaging in a discussion if you're not going to discuss?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
25.2.22  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @25.2.21    3 years ago

We have discussed it. Until the point where we can not. I have faith (in many things in life) you don't. It is not essential that my faith be yours or anybody else. Just that I give you peace in your mind, body, and spi—nevermind that last one.

There is a dimension of the Bible that you apparently display no interest in. So, I say let's keep it short. We shared together. It is what grown people do to the best of their abilities. (Peace.)

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
25.2.23  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @25.2.22    3 years ago
I have faith (in many things in life) you don't.

That was never the issue. It's about what is factual and what is claimed to be fact. Faith or belief does not equal fact.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
25.2.24  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @25.2.23    3 years ago

Well, that is your agenda, I guess. (You are in-charge of this article, so you get to set it.) I can not address the science of the narrative of Noah and lucky for me I don't have to prove it. I can just read it and absorb what is there based on a different standard of valuation.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
25.2.25  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @25.2.24    3 years ago

I stated the purpose of the article in the article itself. I examined the narrative and explained it's implausibility using science, along with a bit of common sense. Did you expect something different? The only ones who have to prove the Flood story are those who claimed the flood events were factually true. Not surprisingly, they failed to prove their assertions and did not address or meet challenges made.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
25.2.26  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @25.2.25    3 years ago

Well, I did read the article information sharing above months ago (saw no need to reread it) recently. It's a conversational exchange, Gordy. There is no need to be caustic in tone when replying. The narrative is ancient. There are many things about the 'far' ancient world that can never be tested so either take it on faith or a simple reading. There is really nothing additional I have to add on this one.

On a somewhat related point (but not exactly): Is the world we inhabit a logic only zone, in your opinion? And if not so, are there many spectrums existing with us in your opinion?

Mind you, this is an exchange of ideas. When dealing with my religion, I come from a real place in my heart of love and gentleness. I am not 'robotic' in my comments—nor can I be.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
25.2.27  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @25.2.26    3 years ago
It's a conversational exchange, Gordy. There is no need to be caustic in tone when replying.

Not being caustic. Just reminding you of the purpose of the article.

The narrative is ancient.

Yes it is. As such, it should be taken with a grain of salt. But some people take it as a literal event.

There are many things about the 'far' ancient world that can never be tested so either take it on faith or a simple reading.

The thing is, we can determine if events of the ancient world did indeed happen happen as described. That's the point of the biblical fallacy series. Events as described, including the Great Flood, can be examined by how the event is depicted with what we actually know. That's why I broke the Flood myth down into various aspects depicted and compared them with what actual evidence and reality shows.

On a somewhat related point (but not exactly): Is the world we inhabit a logic only zone, in your opinion?  And if not so, are there many spectrums existing with us in your opinion?

I use logic when I can. Especially when it comes to establishing fact or probability, especially within the context of reality.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
25.2.28  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @25.2.27    3 years ago
On a somewhat related point (but not exactly): Is the world we inhabit a logic only zone, in your opinion?  And if not so, are there many spectrums existing with us in your opinion?
I use logic when I can. Especially when it comes to establishing fact or probability, especially within the context of reality.

Not sure if you attempted to answer the question or not. . . .

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
25.2.29  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @25.2.27    3 years ago
The narrative is ancient.
Yes it is. As such, it should be taken with a grain of salt. But some people take it as a literal event.

The Bible is not a science book. Indeed, the "collection" is many accounts and narratives bundled together and subsequently set apart (sacred texts). Thus, the writers each in his or her turn fell silent long before the scientific method or the Enlightenment periods.

For that you can hold antiquity writers' 'feet to the fire' for lack of better positioning in time and space. There is absolutely nothing anyone of them can do to fix that "problem."

Did Noah exist in reality? The story goes Noah existed and because he existed he later in life interacted majorly with a Higher Being with a design change to the order of the planet. Can it be proven scientifically from the text that these things took place in antiquity? The answer is "no" or "not yet.

As it turns out in the coming of Jesus, we, the Believers, discover that Noah was something more than a simply 'ark-builder' - he was a foreshadow of a man to come.

The Bible is not a science book. It is not a book of reason. It is a collection of text deemed sacred.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
25.2.30  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @25.2.29    3 years ago
we, the Believers, discover that Noah was something more than a simply 'ark-builder

No, you believe he was.

It is a collection of text deemedsacred.

By some.  That does not validate it.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
25.2.31  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @25.2.28    3 years ago
Not sure if you attempted to answer the question or not. . . .

I did. 

The Bible is not a science book. Indeed, the "collection" is many accounts and narratives bundled together and subsequently set apart (sacred texts). Thus, the writers each in his or her turn fell silent long before the scientific method or the Enlightenment periods.

That much is certain. That is also why the stories of the bible should not be taken literally.

For that you can hold antiquity writers' 'feet to the fire' for lack of better positioning in time and space. There is absolutely nothing anyone of them can do to fix that "problem."

It's not a problem as long as the stories are viewed as just that, stories. The problem arises when those view the stories as literal truth and attempt to pass them off as fact.

Did Noah exist in reality?

There may have been a Noah. If there was, it's not likely that individual existed as depicted. Perhaps an exaggeration of an individual, much like Jesus.

Can it be proven scientifically from the text that these things took place in antiquity? The answer is "no" or "not yet.

Then the story cannot and should not be passes or accepted as literal truth or fact, as some do.

we, the Believers, discover that Noah was something more than a simply 'ark-builder' - he was a foreshadow of a man to come.

That is just what believers believe, as he is depicted in story.

The Bible is not a science book. It is not a book of reason.

See second statement.

It is a collection of text deemed sacred.

So? That doesn't lend any credibility or veracity to the stories depicted. What's sacred to some is meaningless to others and vice versa. But that just plays into emotion and is not a basis on which a logical analysis can be performed. Nor is it a valid position on which to accept or declare something factual or true.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
25.2.32  CB  replied to  sandy-2021492 @25.2.30    3 years ago

Well, it's good to see that nothing gets pass the 'sensors.' /s

Why all this nay-saying? The view you're making has been well-established by Gordy. No one who agrees with Gordy will 'escape' (and nor is it my goal to help them). However, not all believers are against science and technology. That is, not all believers are evangelical conservative.

Give us some space to exist on the 'playing field.' There is room for a mixture of worldviews in this 'land of plenty' and more to the point on this site, and even on this article.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
25.2.33  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @25.2.31    3 years ago

Thank you for making your points (at another person's expense). Good on you!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
25.2.34  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @25.2.31    3 years ago
Not sure if you attempted to answer the question or not. . . .
I did.

I am still not sure you are dealing with the questions:

Is the world we inhabit a logic only zone, in your opinion?

 And if not so, are there many spectrums existing with us in your opinion?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
25.2.35  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @25.2.32    3 years ago
Why all this nay-saying?

Because you're making positive declarations without substantiating them on a public forum.  You know how this goes.

Give us some space to exist on the 'playing field.'

Nobody is denying you space on the "playing field".  They're just not letting you cross home plate unopposed.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
25.2.36  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @25.2.34    3 years ago
Is the world we inhabit a logic only zone, in your opinion?

That's a vague question.

Thank you for making your points(at another person's expense).

Who's expense?

Why all this nay-saying?

Because there's no evidence to substantiate claims made. If anything, actual empirical evidence points to the opposite.

No one who agrees with Gordy will 'escape'

What is that supposed to mean?

However, not all believers are against science and technology. That is, not all believers are evangelical conservative.

No one claimed they were. However, some believers certainly do fit that description. Evangelicals in particular seem to be against science when it contradicts their beliefs.

Give us some space to exist on the 'playing field.' There is room for a mixture of worldviews in this 'land of plenty' and more to the point on this site, and even on this article.

This has not been about individual world views. This has been about what can be established as factual or not. But one's "views" are not automatically free from scrutiny.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
25.2.37  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @25.2.36    3 years ago
Is the world we inhabit a logic only zone, in your opinion?
That's a vague question.

What would make it clearer for you?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
25.2.38  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @25.2.36    3 years ago
Thank you for making your points(at another person's expense).
Who's expense?

My time. In some cases, I write more than you select to comment on substantively. Why is that?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
25.2.39  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @25.2.37    3 years ago
What would make it clearer for you?

I'm not sure. Try clarifying or rephrasing.

My time.

You choose to be here and comment. I'm not forcing you.

In some cases, I write more than you select to comment on substantively. Why is that?

I wasn't aware there was a requirement for comment length or amount. I respond to various statements or points as I see fit. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
25.2.40  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @25.2.36    3 years ago
No one who agrees with Gordy will 'escape'  What is that supposed to mean?

Here is the full thought:

[Sandy] The view you're making has been well-established by Gordy. No one who agrees with Gordy will 'escape' (and nor is it my goal to help them).

It means critical thinking sustains itself in pointing out obvious flaws in Old Testament writings (lack of comprehensive details and where to go look for proofs - if any). Which begs the question:

  1. Why do some critical thinking professionals currently have faith in God and the Bible narratives?
  2. Why did God (if any) not inject critical thinking into the antiquities period;
  3. Why did God not wait until the Enlightenment period to present mankind with such narratives?
 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
25.2.41  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @25.2.39    3 years ago

Oblique and missing the direct point, eh? Are you being sincere, or just having fun at my expense? Why should I "clarify and rephrase" when you can efficiently speak to me about any confusion or what is unclear?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
25.2.42  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @25.2.39    3 years ago
_v=63f541610384416 23   CB     8 months ago

1. The sheer number of animals that had to be aboard the Ark . This is the ancient world how many species might there have been in this ancient world, region, or area?

 
_v=63f541508942340   23.1   author   Gordy327   replied to  CB @ 23     8 months ago
This is the ancient world how many species might there have been in this ancient world, region, or area?

About the same number of species there are now, about 6 million. The Flood was supposed to have occurred approximately 4000 years ago, . . . .

Gordy, the article is over 8 months old. You addressed me on it a matter of days ago. Am I wrong for being courteous enough to engage it? Or, am I right to take for granted that after the passage of time, there could be something mutually positive and of value to be gained by its resurrection? It is with such expectation that I arrived here to 'meet' you. No, you are not forcing me to be here. Better question I can offer is this:

Now that I am here, what do you want with me?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
25.2.43  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @25.2.40    3 years ago
Why do some critical thinking professionals currently have faith in God and the Bible narratives?

Compartmentalization and indoctrination.

Why did God (if any) not injectcritical thinking into the antiquities period;

If you can't establish the existence of a god, why bother asking questions about what he did or didn't do?

Why did God not wait until the Enlightenment period to present mankind with such narratives?

See answer to question #2.

You're asking questions based on assumptions - assumptions to which your debate partners do not acquiesce.  This is unlikely to lead to a productive discussion.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
25.2.44  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @25.2.41    3 years ago
Oblique and missing the direct point, eh?

I don't think this was called for.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
25.2.45  CB  replied to  sandy-2021492 @25.2.43    3 years ago

I am asking questions that factor in both or all sides of this specific discussion. Proper conversation looks at all sides of an issue.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
25.2.46  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @25.2.42    3 years ago
Am I wrong for being courteous enough to engage it?

Your (and everyone else's) engagement is always welcome. But I'm not asking nor requiring anyone to do so.

Or, am I right to take for granted that after the passage of time, there could be something mutually positive and of value to be gained by its resurrection?

That depends on the contributions to the discussion. My articles are always open for revisiting anytime, no matter how old they are.

Now that I am here, what do you want with me?

Not a thing. You commented and I replied, & vice versa. That's how these discussions go down.

Oblique and missing the direct point, eh? Are you being sincere, or just having fun at my expense? Why should I "clarify and rephrase" when you canefficientlyspeak to me about any confusion or what is unclear?

You asked how you can make it clearer. I told you. I am not sure what you expect or are looking for with your initial question.

It means critical thinking sustains itself in pointing outobviousflaws in Old Testament writings (lack of comprehensive details and where to go look for proofs - if any).

Critical thinking is good. But despite the flaws or logical inconsistencies in the bible (Old or New Testaments), some will forgo critical thinking and accept what is written or said as literal truth, no thinking or questions asked, i.e. "the bible says it, I believe it, that's it."

Why dosomecritical thinking professionals currently have faith in Godandthe Bible narratives?

Ask them. It is possible to have faith, but not suspend critical thinking. Look at Dr. Francis Collins for example.

Why did God (if any) notinjectcritical thinking into the antiquities period;

That presumes there's a god to begin with to do so.

Why did God not wait until the Enlightenment period to present mankind with such narratives?

See previous statement.

I am asking questions that factor inboth or all sidesof this specific discussion. Proper conversation looks at all sides of an issue.

The discussion is supposed to be about the fallacy of biblical stories, specifically the Great Flood myth for the purposes of this discussion. There are only two possible sides here: The Flood happened as depicted in the bible or the flood did not happen as depicted. People can go on and on about their personal beliefs on the matter. But establishing the veracity or refuting the story requires an examination of the evidence.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
25.2.47  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @25.2.46    3 years ago

Thanks for your time spent on this. Finish.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
25.2.48  author  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @25.2.43    3 years ago
  This is unlikely to lead to a productive discussion.

Indeed. Bailing out in a discussion doesn't make for a productive discussion either. Especially when one cannot or will not address questions or posts made. (Not referring to you specifically).

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
25.2.49  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @25.2.48    3 years ago

Who is 'bailing' on the discussion? Insinuation is not helpful to anybody assembled here. Speak plainly. You have established the parameter for this discussion and it appears to me to be strict and tight.

So, for me, there is nothing significant, new, or interesting to offer.

And watching a tortured discussion that denigrates people of antiquity for what they knew not (science and critical thinking) about is easily indulgent. 

I'm not bailing on the discussion. Just essentially 'mute' until such time as appropriate to add something more.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
25.2.50  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @25.2.49    3 years ago
Who is 'bailing' on the discussion?

I assumed you were finished. My mistake then.

You have established the parameter for this discussion and it appears to me to be strict and tight.

Helps keep the discussion on topic.

And watching a tortured discussion that denigrates people of antiquity for what they knew not (science and critical thinking) about is easily indulgent. 

Once again, you seem to miss the point of the discussion then.

Just essentially 'mute' until such time as appropriate to add something more

Seem like there's plenty more to add. You never did clarify your question to me. Nor did you really address anything in post 25.2.46.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
25.2.51  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @25.2.50    3 years ago

1. I will obviously respond to questions or comment as it benefits me or the room. (Smile)

You never did clarify your question to me.
Nor did you really address anything in post 25.2.46.

Humor me (or not) with your ideas that will help advance the questions forward.

What would make it clearer for you?
I'm not sure. Try clarifying or rephrasing .

2. I have no intention of re-clarifying or rephrasing ad nauseam. If you know something to mutually build on, this is a golden opportunity to share it with me!

Critical thinking is good. But despite the flaws or logical inconsistencies in the bible (Old or New Testaments), some will forgo critical thinking and accept what is written or said as literal truth, no thinking or questions asked, i.e. "the bible says it, I believe it, that's it."

This would lead to the proper 'other' of the aforementioned "both sides" your set parameters strictly excises from any consideration on your part .

3. Now directly attempt to/answer this:

_v=63f541610384416
25.2.26 CB replied to  Gordy327 @ 25.2.25   yesterday

 Is the world we inhabit a logic only zone, in your opinion? And if not so, are there many spectrums existing with us in your opinion?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
25.2.52  author  Gordy327  replied to  CB @25.2.51    3 years ago
I will obviously respond to questions or comment as it benefits me or the room. (Smile)

That doesn't promote discussion. It only limits it or makes it more one sided.

Humor me (or not) with your ideas that will help advance the questions forward

Address the points made in the post. Your follow up reply to it was dismissive. Or deflective.

I have no intention of re-clarifying or rephrasing ad nauseam. If you know something to mutually build on, this is a golden opportunity to share it with me!

If you can't clarify or rephrase, then I am unable to offer anything more to "build on." 

This would lead to the proper 'other' of the aforementioned "both sides" your set parameters strictly excises from any consideration on your part

The "other side" has expressed their responses in other posts. The problem is, they fail to substantiate their position, much less refute mine. Their response basically boils down to mere belief. 

Now directly attempt to/answer this:

As I said, until you clarify the question, I am unable. Specify by what you mean with "logic zones" and "many spectrums?"

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
26  Jeremy Retired in NC    4 years ago

Dude!!! I forgot all about this.  Perfect explanation of the "Great Flood" and Noah.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
26.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @26    4 years ago

106698272_3101647049921992_8631329848331881522_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_sid=8024bb&_nc_ohc=t3u_dc2lJFcAX-Idwgf&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=aaf282eb1fa767a8ceb4d7bd3da33cbd&oe=5F348A35

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
26.1.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @26.1    4 years ago

jrSmiley_4_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
26.2  author  Gordy327  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @26    4 years ago

Can't beat British comedy. jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
27  Hal A. Lujah    3 years ago

And people wonder how anyone could be dumb enough to fall for QAnon conspiracies.  Well, gee ... maybe if parents would stop priming their kids to grow up and be dumb as hell by indoctrinating them with idiotic Bible stories before they even know how to think critically, then they wouldn’t be so prone to believing anything they’re told.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
27.1  author  Gordy327  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @27    3 years ago
maybe if parents would stop priming their kids to grow up and be dumb as hell by indoctrinating them with idiotic Bible stories before they even know how to think critically,

To be fair, even grown adults can "learn" how to unthink critically through religion.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
28  Paula Bartholomew    3 years ago

Noah's ark carried dinosaurs

As dinosaurs and people did not exist together ever, how did this whack a do teacher ever obtain a teaching certificate.

 
 

Who is online

Drinker of the Wry


90 visitors