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

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?

The people in the story may well never have existed.

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.

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.

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.)

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. 

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

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.

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."

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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?

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.

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

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.

"Almost" means there is a chance.

I suspect Sandy means it in this sense:

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!

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

The statement stands.

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

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!

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.  

the last 25 plus years of my profession

What profession is that?   Would help clarify your post.

Good catch. (a) profession of faith.

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.)

Seems unlikely...

weather

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[deleted]

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.

[Deleted]

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.

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

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!

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

[[No Value]]

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.

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.

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

en.wikipedia

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.

maritimequest

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.

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.

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).

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.

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. 

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

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).

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.

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.

   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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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. 

Makes things subjective to say the least.

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

Imagine when it encountered a storm.

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.

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.

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.

[Deleted]

[deleted]

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.

Noah’s Ark Topics

https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark

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.

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

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

[Deleted]

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.

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. 

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!

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.  

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.

Sorry Gordy, I had to.  Haha

Sorry Gordy, I had to.  Haha

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

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.

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

It’s the historical record on the issue.  

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.

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.  

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.

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.

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.

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

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. 

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

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.

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.

Unfortunately so.

Yes it does.

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

Religion has historically been a means of social control.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Religion has historically been a means of social control.

As one of the Marx Brothers said:

Religion is the opiate of the masses.

Zeppo

Zeppo

Gesundheit!

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.

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

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?

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 

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.

And they never will. 

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.

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

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?"

video.tudou

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

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.

"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?)

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.

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.  

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.

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

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.

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

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

It's all good.

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 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.

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

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?

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,

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."

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.

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?

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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

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

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.

1. RESOURCES
2. ANSWERS TO BASIC QUESTIONS

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.

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.  

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.

then you must think that Answers In Genesis is a science & technology university. 

I wouldn't be surprised.

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!

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. 

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.

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

Metaphors do not equate to actual reality.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.'

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.

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.

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.

Okay. I won't belabor the point.

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I won't belabor the point.

Again, what point?

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.)

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

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. . . .

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thank you for making your points (at another person's expense). Good on you!

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?

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.

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.

Is the world we inhabit a logic only zone, in your opinion?

That's a vague question.

What would make it clearer for you?

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?

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. 

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?

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?

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?

 

  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?

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.

Oblique and missing the direct point, eh?

I don't think this was called for.

I am asking questions that factor in both or all sides of this specific discussion. Proper conversation looks at all sides of an issue.

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.

Thanks for your time spent on this. Finish.

  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).

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.

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.

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:

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?

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?"

Dude!!! I forgot all about this.  Perfect explanation of the "Great Flood" and Noah.

Can't beat British comedy.

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.

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.

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.