Happy Atheist Forum

I read somewhere (maybe McQ can confirm it) that if it had rained for 40 days and 40 nights the subsequent baric air pressure would have been totally incompatible with any airbreathing life.

Bummer.

Sorry to go ontopic again.

Don't apologize for ending our derailment.
I'm actually intrigued...is that true?

Just having that much moisture in the atmosphere would have pressure cooked everything on the surface of the earth.  Although many proponents of the "canopy theory" ignore this little tidbit.

Quote from: "Huxley"I read somewhere (maybe McQ can confirm it) that if it had rained for 40 days and 40 nights the subsequent baric air pressure would have been totally incompatible with any airbreathing life.

Bummer.

Sorry to go ontopic again.

Oops. Somehow I missed this post, Hux! Squid is right on with his response.

Quote from: "Huxley"I read somewhere (maybe McQ can confirm it) that if it had rained for 40 days and 40 nights the subsequent baric air pressure would have been totally incompatible with any airbreathing life.

Bummer.

Sorry to go ontopic again.

Actually, the cyclogenesis involved in a 40 day worldwide storm is pretty simple to figure out; that is, it couldn't happen.  Ever.

Average sea level pressure is 1012 millibars.  In order for it to rain, generally, the pressure needs to be lower than that (Low pressure/cyclone).  However, if one place has relatively low pressure, another must have relatively high pressure (the air has to go somewhere, right?).  Therefore, it's impossible to assume that it could ever rain everywhere at the same time.

Well, you learn something new every day. Thanks, Aullios.

Quote from: "Aullios"

Quote from: "Huxley"I read somewhere (maybe McQ can confirm it) that if it had rained for 40 days and 40 nights the subsequent baric air pressure would have been totally incompatible with any airbreathing life.

Bummer.

Sorry to go ontopic again.

Actually, the cyclogenesis involved in a 40 day worldwide storm is pretty simple to figure out; that is, it couldn't happen.  Ever.

Average sea level pressure is 1012 millibars.  In order for it to rain, generally, the pressure needs to be lower than that (Low pressure/cyclone).  However, if one place has relatively low pressure, another must have relatively high pressure (the air has to go somewhere, right?).  Therefore, it's impossible to assume that it could ever rain everywhere at the same time.

Unless God says so! LOL! (just thinking about what a fundie response to this would sound like) :-)

Quote from: "McQ"Unless God says so! LOL! (just thinking about what a fundie response to this would sound like) :-)

Yeah... if I hadn't just thought of it off of the top of my head, I may have used it before

McQ, I totally thought the exact same thing. "With god, anything's possible!" I would have said that back in my bible-thumping days.

Coming back to the Noah myth, for those of you who are not aware of this site, you might enjoy checking out the following:

http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/sillyflood.htm (http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/sillyflood.htm)

When I found this topic I thought ... Yeh !! that sound like an interesting topic...  It started of well with a good question then for the next couple of pages it got sidetracked (How? i'm not sure  :hmm:  Noahs Ark or even commissioned a task force for an operation we will call, lets say "Operation Noahs Ark (sounds good actually :hail:  can you help me out with the youtube video link please?[/b]

I have my own ideas :pop:   ...

   cheers

---
edit: when copying links from you tube, make sure to grab the link where it provides the link.  It's under that space where they usually describe the video.  You had extra characters in your link that don't work with the way I have the BBcode set up.

Btw, I also went through and cleaned up this thread by splitting all the other stuff to a new thread.
-laetus

In the Bibles version of the Great Flood I think there was only one word for land or earth in the original Hebrew context. So many Christians will argue that the flood was only for a certain area of the world.

Quote from: "Sophus"In the Bibles version of the Great Flood I think there was only one word for land or earth in the original Hebrew context. So many Christians will argue that the flood was only for a certain area of the world.

In the past I have read some information that lead me to believe that there could have been a regional flood that occurred during that approximate time period.  It would actually make sense if they only had one word for land/earth because back then they didn't really know there was much more than what they could travel to.

Still, the exaggerations are problem for fundamentalists who want to take everything literally.  I tend to think the whole story was based on some guy in a fishing boat who loaded up animals during a big flood and it was blown into a tall tale like many other works of mythology.  

Of course, if it was just a local flood that kinda hurts the message of the story.  God would have not been getting rid of all sinful humans, just all sinful humans in that area.  God also has repeatedly caused more floods of that scale and therefore broke his promise.  So, it either needs to be taken literally for the message to hold up (in which case it fails scientific scrutiny) or as allegory and it no longer makes any sense as a teaching (other than that God gets pissed off at people, throws a temper tantrum, then regrets it.

Quote from: "laetus"---
edit: when copying links from you tube, make sure to grab the link where it provides the link.  It's under that space where they usually describe the video.  You had extra characters in your link that don't work with the way I have the BBcode set up.

Btw, I also went through and cleaned up this thread by splitting all the other stuff to a new thread.
-laetus

Thank You Very Much

[youtube:3dr57fdx]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aLLBD3S6yg[/youtube:3dr57fdx]

Quote from: "Sophus"In the Bibles version of the Great Flood I think there was only one word for land or earth in the original Hebrew context. So many Christians will argue that the flood was only for a certain area of the world.

Was there another version of "The Great Flood"

Quote from: "G.ENIGMA"Was there another version of "The Great Flood"

Yes, but they don't all date back to the same time period:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html)

Quote from: "laetusatheos"

Quote from: "G.ENIGMA"Was there another version of "The Great Flood" :)

Obviously this one struck a cord

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#German (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#German)

"A louse and a flea were brewing beer :crazy:  makes me realise that my own theories are not so far fetched.

The Epic of Gilgamesh is the first know telling of the great flood, it was found on 12 tablets and the bible version so closely mimics it that I think of it as plagerism:)  Christians will usualy argue that the "first" is not always the truth, and that the fact that there are other stories of the flood proves that it really happened.  Hmmm.  Makes me wonder how their God was so inept that all of these survivors were left to tell the tale.

Quote from: "VanReal"The Epic of Gilgamesh is the first know telling of the great flood, it was found on 12 tablets and the bible version so closely mimics it that I think of it as plagerism:)  Christians will usualy argue that the "first" is not always the truth, and that the fact that there are other stories of the flood proves that it really happened.  Hmmm.  Makes me wonder how their God was so inept that all of these survivors were left to tell the tale.

I can understand what they mean, this segment and verse from tablet no:10 looks nothing like the story about Noahs Ark, nothing at all :shock:  

^ You are right, that is nothing like Noah.  Hey why did they stop sacraficing animals?

Quote from: "Huxley"I read somewhere (maybe McQ can confirm it) that if it had rained for 40 days and 40 nights the subsequent baric air pressure would have been totally incompatible with any airbreathing life.

It's much worse than that ... the amount of water required to cover the mountains to more than 5 cubits is not only many times more water than Earth has but would require a rainfall rate by comparison to which the most violent thunderstorm ever recorded would seem like a gentle April shower by comparison. Then just consider the boat itself ... no wooden ship (even braced with steel) of that length has even been able to set sail (by which I mean as intended) ... the biggest (dwarfed by the the mythical ark) was observed to "snake" (ripple I presume?) in calm water.

Seems to me that these idiot's who believe it could have happened should build a full size replica of the ship, without bracing or any modern technology in use (fine in manufacture), at least to show the bloody thing was possible. Then we can get on to dealing with how it would survive such a storm ... best answer I've had yet was, "god can do anything and he protected it", I mean why not ditch logic and reason altogether?

Kyu
.

Right then lets "get down to brass tacks" and "sort out some of the nitty gritty"  ( Sorry for the colloquialism, I couldn't help myself :brick: )

We have to move every kind of creature ( never mind the plant life ) to safety until the water recedes and the earth becomes habitable once again.

Now we know that The Ark/Ship written about in the bible "no matter how grand the design" seems, could in no way have held all the earths (even a much smaller earth) creatures 2X2 so lets discount that (unless of course "someone" can come up with a convincing answer as to how it could have? )

The first thing we are going to need is a new ship design, something much much bigger than normal ships

Something like this maybe:

[attachment=0:2wnx3q89]Rays%20Ship.jpg[/attachment:2wnx3q89]

Quote from: "G.ENIGMA"The earth is going to flood and it is then going to be uninhabitable for a long time afterwards (salt water does a lot of damge you know

To be fair to the wingnuts there is no specification that it has to be salt water (except of course by process of mixing with existing sea water so a 1 in 4 dilution by "rain").

Kyu

I'll be honest and admit that I've never really looked into the specifics of the argument against Noah's Ark because I feel like plain ol' common sense does more than a good enough job eliminating any chance of a story like this being true.  I mean, a giant ark that has two of each species and they are housed for a long time while the entire earth is flood because of god being pissed off at sinners?  That makes a ton of sense...  

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "G.ENIGMA"The earth is going to flood and it is then going to be uninhabitable for a long time afterwards (salt water does a lot of damge you know

To be fair to the wingnuts there is no specification that it has to be salt water (except of course by process of mixing with existing sea water so a 1 in 4 dilution by "rain").

Kyu

That's the problem though ... Though the story has an attempt at being specific by giving somewhat disingenuous Ark dimensions and specifications, the problem is in the size and structure ... For a story that is one of the mainstays of the Bible "lets face it" it is pretty badly concieved.

As for the salt .... I may be wrong here :pop:

I joke with friends that Noah was the world's first atheist because you can imagine the look he gave God when gathering up cobras and scorpions and lions.

Quote from: "liveyoungdiefast"I joke with friends that Noah was the world's first atheist because you can imagine the look he gave God when gathering up cobras and scorpions and lions.

Not to mention those troubling little bunnies

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joe-ks.com%2Farchives_feb2001%2FNoahRabbit.jpg&hash=32ba43f4490807f32d552930a3dd0bb0604b6e5d)

 

Personally I wouldn't argue with Christians against the Flood story based on scientific or physical impossibilities.  Clearly, they're claiming it was a supernatural event.  God ordered the building of the ark, God caused the rain, God shut the door on the ark.  The logical continuation of that belief is that God allowed all the animals to fit on it, God provided them with food, God saw the boat safely through the ordeal.  If he's an omnipotent God he can do that.

I would ask them about the implications of such an event.  An all-knowing, all-powerful God suddenly realizes that he screwed up royally with the human race and decides to start over.  He could have just snapped his fingers and every guilty adult human would have dropped dead.  He could have magically transported all the rotting corpses to Antarctica or the moon or Australia or somewhere out of the way.  Presto, Noah and his family and a whole bunch of innocent kids would have wide empty world to live in.  Instead, no, he decides to nuke-by-water the whole thing.  Men, women, children, horses, puppies, kittens, all of it.  And yet he singularly failed to address ANY of the problems with basic human nature, so surprise! once the Earth is repopulated it goes right back to the same old sin and rebellion.

Did God think that one through at all?

Mind you, this is the same God who, after the fall of Adam and Eve, decided to punish all snakes for the devil's actions.  Sucks to be a snake.  "Why the hell do I have to crawl on my belly from now on?!  I didn't do anything!"

Quote from: "Enoch Root"Instead, no, he decides to nuke-by-water the whole thing.  Men, women, children, horses, puppies, kittens, all of it.  And yet he singularly failed to address ANY of the problems with basic human nature, so surprise! once the Earth is repopulated it goes right back to the same old sin and rebellion.

Did God think that one through at all?

Sounds almost like human stupidity, which I suppose if the christians are right just proves to them that we were made in his own image

Quote from: "Enoch Root"Personally I wouldn't argue with Christians against the Flood story based on scientific or physical impossibilities.  Clearly, they're claiming it was a supernatural event.  God ordered the building of the ark, God caused the rain, God shut the door on the ark.  The logical continuation of that belief is that God allowed all the animals to fit on it, God provided them with food, God saw the boat safely through the ordeal.  If he's an omnipotent God he can do that.

I would ask them about the implications of such an event.  An all-knowing, all-powerful God suddenly realizes that he screwed up royally with the human race and decides to start over.  He could have just snapped his fingers and every guilty adult human would have dropped dead.  He could have magically transported all the rotting corpses to Antarctica or the moon or Australia or somewhere out of the way.  Presto, Noah and his family and a whole bunch of innocent kids would have wide empty world to live in.  Instead, no, he decides to nuke-by-water the whole thing.  Men, women, children, horses, puppies, kittens, all of it.  And yet he singularly failed to address ANY of the problems with basic human nature, so surprise! once the Earth is repopulated it goes right back to the same old sin and rebellion.

Did God think that one through at all?

Mind you, this is the same God who, after the fall of Adam and Eve, decided to punish all snakes for the devil's actions.  Sucks to be a snake.  "Why the hell do I have to crawl on my belly from now on?!  I didn't do anything!"

As a kid when I believed in God, it's because of this I got the impression God was saying he wasn't omnipotent.  Just a supernatural power and we're just his toy ants.

I honestly don't think you need math to prove that story is ridiculous.  At best the bible can be taken in a methaphoric sense.

Quote from: "maestroanth"I honestly don't think you need math to prove that story is ridiculous.  At best the bible can be taken in a methaphoric sense.

You'd think you wouldn't need to go to great lenghts to show that an obviously alegorical story didn't happen in real life.  However, places like "answers in genesis" exist which lead people to think there is evidence for the flood and all sorts of other biblical nonsense.  Basically, the use of math is for those who have been convinced through white (and some black) lies that the flood story was a real event.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "maestroanth"I honestly don't think you need math to prove that story is ridiculous.  At best the bible can be taken in a methaphoric sense.

You'd think you wouldn't need to go to great lenghts to show that an obviously alegorical story didn't happen in real life.  However, places like "answers in genesis" exist which lead people to think there is evidence for the flood and all sorts of other biblical nonsense.  Basically, the use of math is for those who have been convinced through white (and some black) lies that the flood story was a real event.

What is true obviously though is that great floods happen ... and if it was not for real history and science creating a way of letting the majority "eat from the so called tree of knowledge" (news) we would have had people claiming the 2004 Tsunami ( I can't believe nearly 5 years has past ) was the new great flood caused by god (and in some quarters where news is kept from the people I an sure they did).

Just read through this thread, as somebody stated it was most likely a localised flood as the people in the Northern Africa region hadn't explorered the world fully (even Americans don't know there's more to the world than them).

If they only had explored the North African region; rather than designing a story to suit the 1.7 million species of animals on earth, they would have only had to design a story which had a boat to hold more like the thousands of species around Egypt/Israel.  Therefore the boat story is proof that it wasn't a world flood, as the boat described would fit only the known about animals in Africa at the time.

And also on the salinity point, I'm not scientist but it's probable if there were enough water to flood the world and water in the ocean quadrupled, I'd imagine the salt content would also increase substantially.

The whole story just reeks of a fairy tale.

Quote from: "Struzball"If they only had explored the North African region; rather than designing a story to suit the 1.7 million species of animals on earth, they would have only had to design a story which had a boat to hold more like the thousands of species around Egypt/Israel.  Therefore the boat story is proof that it wasn't a world flood, as the boat described would fit only the known about animals in Africa at the time.

http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/sillyflood.htm (http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/sillyflood.htm) quite a good read

The entire Earth is a kind of Noah`s Ark.

Quote from: "cyberateos"The entire Earth is a kind of Noah`s Ark.

Earth is exactly like Noah's Ark, only completely different.

Not made by man.
Not made of wood.
More than 2 (or 7) of each species.
Not floating on water.

The only commonality I see is...um...animals?

Quote from: "Enoch Root"Personally I wouldn't argue with Christians against the Flood story based on scientific or physical impossibilities.  Clearly, they're claiming it was a supernatural event.  God ordered the building of the ark, God caused the rain, God shut the door on the ark.  The logical continuation of that belief is that God allowed all the animals to fit on it, God provided them with food, God saw the boat safely through the ordeal.  If he's an omnipotent God he can do that.

I would ask them about the implications of such an event.  An all-knowing, all-powerful God suddenly realizes that he screwed up royally with the human race and decides to start over.  He could have just snapped his fingers and every guilty adult human would have dropped dead.  He could have magically transported all the rotting corpses to Antarctica or the moon or Australia or somewhere out of the way.  Presto, Noah and his family and a whole bunch of innocent kids would have wide empty world to live in.  Instead, no, he decides to nuke-by-water the whole thing.  Men, women, children, horses, puppies, kittens, all of it.  And yet he singularly failed to address ANY of the problems with basic human nature, so surprise! once the Earth is repopulated it goes right back to the same old sin and rebellion.

Did God think that one through at all?

Mind you, this is the same God who, after the fall of Adam and Eve, decided to punish all snakes for the devil's actions.  Sucks to be a snake.  "Why the hell do I have to crawl on my belly from now on?!  I didn't do anything!"

I feel like I can offer an alternate view on your analysis.  I do believe that the story of Noah's Ark is possible.  God is beyond limits and restrictions and all-powerful.  He can do anything.  Obviously, you don't have to believe there is a God, but, like you said, there's no sense in arguing with a Christian on Christian terms because you will lose that discussion for the mere reason that God is omnipotent.

As for your second argument, you raise a valid point.  I first want to say I don't assume to know how God does things, this is just my opinion.  I believe that one of the primary purposes of the Old Testament was to show how truly "broken" people actually are.  God went through struggle after struggle but was always disappointed in the end because, as you said, people resorted back to sin and rebellion.  This has been true of people since Adam & Eve ate of the Tree of Knowledge till this very day.  Now, yes, He could have just erased every soul from the Earth and started over with Noah's family, but they too have the capability and potential of the same sin and rebellion.  So, I think where your argument goes astray is that God was not trying to erase sin and rebellion.  If He wanted to do that, He would have done it after the fall of Adam & Eve.  

He was teaching us something!  Laying down lessons and foundations!  If He would have just started over with Noah's family, what would they have learned?  Where goes the story and teachings of Noah's Ark and his immense trust and faith in God?  They are not there; they are non-existent.  Thus, God planned it all out.  He knew exactly what He was doing when He was doing it.  

Now, like I said, you can deny the whole story in place of a fallacy because you do not believe in a God that could possibly orchestrate such a perfectly schemed story, but you cannot diminish the effectiveness of the story and the great teachings Christians gather from it.  Also, do not take my views on the matter to be the facts; they are merely my opinions on the matter because God does not unambiguously answer the "hows" and "whys" in the Bible.  Not to mention that those questions don't seem so important when you really trust that God loves you.

I hope I was effective in shedding some light on the matter from a Christian point of view.  

Quote from: "Ben-AG"He was teaching us something!  Laying down lessons and foundations!  If He would have just started over with Noah's family, what would they have learned?  Where goes the story and teachings of Noah's Ark and his immense trust and faith in God?  They are not there; they are non-existent.  Thus, God planned it all out.  He knew exactly what He was doing when He was doing it.  

Oh, I get it now. Even though I have the ability to teach children things by just telling them through word of mouth or practical experimentation, I need to kill most of them first, just to drill it home.  

What I find astounding is intelligent, articulate people can spend the majority of their lives living as normal rational humans and all-of-a-sudden do an intelligence and reason reversal and start to defend fairy tales as 'fact'. You even said you don't care about the specifics because you feel the love of god! Wtf is that even supposed to mean?

I care about FACTS. If god did fit the hundreds of millions of species of animal this planet has to offer on one boat, I'd like to know how he managed to get so much mass to occupy the same space at the same time. I'd ask what sort of 4th dimensional device he was using to accomplish this or whether he was using parallel universes to store the animals. Maybe it was just their DNA he stored but didn't write that into the bible because primitive worshippers probably wouldn't understand what DNA was.

Quote from: "Ben-AG"I hope I was effective in shedding some light on the matter from a Christian point of view.

You were effective in revealing how nefarious brainwashing techniques can twist the minds of normal intelligent people.

Quote from: "Ben-AG"I feel like I can offer an alternate view on your analysis.  I do believe that the story of Noah's Ark is possible.  God is beyond limits and restrictions and all-powerful.  He can do anything.  Obviously, you don't have to believe there is a God, but, like you said, there's no sense in arguing with a Christian on Christian terms because you will lose that discussion for the mere reason that God is omnipotent.

Huh.  I think I would fail to convince the Christian to change his mind.  I don't think I would lose the discussion, as I'm not the one inventing invisible sky wizards to explain away the impossibilities of my story.

Quote from: "Ben-AG"So, I think where your argument goes astray is that God was not trying to erase sin and rebellion.  If He wanted to do that, He would have done it after the fall of Adam & Eve.  

He was teaching us something!  Laying down lessons and foundations!  If He would have just started over with Noah's family, what would they have learned?  Where goes the story and teachings of Noah's Ark and his immense trust and faith in God?  They are not there; they are non-existent.  Thus, God planned it all out.  He knew exactly what He was doing when He was doing it.

And I reject the idea of a god that would destroy every living thing, including innocent children, in order to "teach us something".

Quote from: "Ben-AG"Now, like I said, you can deny the whole story in place of a fallacy because you do not believe in a God that could possibly orchestrate such a perfectly schemed story, but you cannot diminish the effectiveness of the story and the great teachings Christians gather from it.

You have some odd criteria in declaring a story "perfectly schemed".  But no, I can't change what other people "gather" from this story any more than I can change what people get out of Mother Goose tales.  All I can do is point out the absurdity of it.

Quote from: "Ben-AG"Also, do not take my views on the matter to be the facts; they are merely my opinions on the matter because God does not unambiguously answer the "hows" and "whys" in the Bible.  Not to mention that those questions don't seem so important when you really trust that God loves you.

I hope I was effective in shedding some light on the matter from a Christian point of view.  

I'm not trying to be rude, but the fact is I've heard and preached your explanation before, for 15 years in fact.  And at the end of the day I have to reject it for being just ridiculously illogical.  And while it used to work in the past, I can no longer sweep God's injustice and cruelty under the "He loves me" carpet.  That house of cards fell quite thoroughly for me.

Quote from: "Enoch Root"Huh.  I think I would fail to convince the Christian to change his mind.  I don't think I would lose the discussion, as I'm not the one inventing invisible sky wizards to explain away the impossibilities of my story.

Sorry, if it makes you feel better, I'll retract the word "lose" in place of fail.

Quote from: "Enoch Root"And I reject the idea of a god that would destroy every living thing, including innocent children, in order to "teach us something".

If you preached this for 15 years you would know that He did not destroy every living thing.  He commands Noah: "And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female" -Genesis 6:19.  You are also wrong regarding the "innocent."  He says, "The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence" - Genesis 6:11.  He also says, "Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" Genesis 6:5.   Wherein do you get the notion there was innocent people left?  Obviously not from scripture.

Now, if you don't believe that God does these things to teach us, by all means, don't.  But, that is the basis of your arguments, just disbelief.  

Quote from: "Enoch Root"You have some odd criteria in declaring a story "perfectly schemed".  But no, I can't change what other people "gather" from this story any more than I can change what people get out of Mother Goose tales.  All I can do is point out the absurdity of it.

Absurdity is subjective.

Quote from: "Enoch Root"I'm not trying to be rude, but the fact is I've heard and preached your explanation before, for 15 years in fact.  And at the end of the day I have to reject it for being just ridiculously illogical.  And while it used to work in the past, I can no longer sweep God's injustice and cruelty under the "He loves me" carpet.  That house of cards fell quite thoroughly for me.

If your looking for a religion that has all the answers, good luck.  God never intended for us to understand everything.  He doesn't want us to be robots that He constantly controls.  He gave us free-will so that we may have a choice.  A choice whether or not to put our faith in Him.  Fact is, faith means belief that does not rest on logical proof or physical evidence.  And, if someone's faith is like a house of cards, I'm not sure how faithful that faith can be.  

Quote from: "Ben-AG"If your looking for a religion that has all the answers, good luck.  God never intended for us to understand everything.  He doesn't want us to be robots that He constantly controls.  He gave us free-will so that we may have a choice.  A choice whether or not to put our faith in Him.  Fact is, faith means belief that does not rest on logical proof or physical evidence.  And, if someone's faith is like a house of cards, I'm not sure how faithful that faith can be.  

Yet he could have made us robots with the freedom to make our own choices without imposing a unbelievable punishment for making the "wrong" choice. Clearly God wants some of us to suffer otherwise being omniscient he wouldn't have made such a consequence.

Quote from: "BadPoison"

Quote from: "Ben-AG"If your looking for a religion that has all the answers, good luck.  God never intended for us to understand everything.  He doesn't want us to be robots that He constantly controls.  He gave us free-will so that we may have a choice.  A choice whether or not to put our faith in Him.  Fact is, faith means belief that does not rest on logical proof or physical evidence.  And, if someone's faith is like a house of cards, I'm not sure how faithful that faith can be.  

Yet he could have made us robots with the freedom to make our own choices without imposing a unbelievable punishment for making the "wrong" choice. Clearly God wants some of us to suffer otherwise being omniscient he wouldn't have made such a consequence.

With the gift of free-will comes the choice of good or evil.  Of course, evil has its consequences, how else would we know we made the wrong choice?  

This is another debate altogether.  I am going to try and stick to discussing Noah's Ark, not that I do not want to discuss it but merely because I do not want to flood this thread with another topic.

Quote from: "Ben-AG"If your looking for a religion that has all the answers, good luck.  God never intended for us to understand everything.  He doesn't want us to be robots that He constantly controls.  He gave us free-will so that we may have a choice.  A choice whether or not to put our faith in Him.  Fact is, faith means belief that does not rest on logical proof or physical evidence.  And, if someone's faith is like a house of cards, I'm not sure how faithful that faith can be.  

Addressing your next post would be off-topic, so I'll stick to this one.

Are you claiming knowledge removes choice?  See, because then you're arguing that we should make some very important decisions from a position of ignorance.  That doesn't feel like a love-check to me.  A choice of whether to put faith in God definitely remains despite knowledge of his existence.  You don't know whether you can rely on God for anything in this world, just look at all the prayers that go unanswered (or answered "no", if you prefer).  I thought that was the foremost article of faith, trusting in something you know to exist.  At some point, faith came to mean "hoping something exists without evidence", which I think is a perversion, but these are my interpretations and the dictionary likely does not back me up.  Knowledge does not strip choice, it's always up to you how you deal with the knowledge.  Two people given the same knowledge may do different things with it.  You're banking on knowledge of God forcing us to love him, or have faith, but neither is true.  It only makes God easier to love if he is obviously real, it doesn't force people to not despise him or just plain ol' know he exists.  And like I said, this is an extremely important thing to leave to the sovereignty of ignorance, the lack of knowledge is almost malicious.  I have trouble calling it faith, it's almost hope.

That still came out off-topic, but it's an untenable position, this "God has to keep secret and make his book look bronze age, giving us no special knowledge except that he exists, and with nothing to solidly back that up, it's for our own good."

F

Eh?  Clarify what you mean for me.  I don't know anyone here who isn't an agnostic (does not claim knowledge), and what gods do you believe in?  Unless I'm mistaken, you're an atheist, too, just a really soft one.  Or maybe you're a really soft theist.   Do I understand you're saying we can't be happy and that we are just thoughtlessly discarding all religion?  Are you also saying we could not do it without the internet and meditation?  I just want to make sure I understand before responding.

Quote from: "maestroanth"Quoting the bible is not good for athiests btw.

I wasn't raised anything. I like philosophy.  I'm personally agnostic.  B/c I'm the real free-thinker. Religion sucks, but I can't "
fake happiness" which you all pretend to believe just cuz you renounce a religion w/o thinking freeley for yourselves w/o the net w/o years to meditate.

All best, (Feel free to ban me again; I just like to mess)

P.S. But take my words as a grain of salt.

I'm sorry, but happiness for me is gained from the people and places I've chosen as my surroundings. The only exception to this rule is my family, whom I had no choice being born into but am damn well happy it worked out that way. I don't think it is possible for me to be more loved by that particular group of people.
So, for me, happiness doesn't come from my atheist tendencies but rather, the lack of religion in my life is one of a plethora of reasons I can safely say 'I am happy with my life'. I definitely wouldn't describe that as fake and I challenge you to prove me wrong.

Whether you come here and generalise just to annoy, or whether it is because there are a whole heap of things you still need to learn about life, doesn't really bother me. It is a rather defeatist position to take either way. It won't gain you kudos points but I doubt that is your prerogative either. To be honest, I'm not really sure what your agenda is. Most of the things you say rarely make sense. I'm not trying to provoke anything by saying that, it is merely an observation.
Be warned though, people generally take issue with wilful misconception and generalisations, especially if it is due to the lack of will or inability to re-evaluate information given to you.

Quote from: "maestroanth"All best, (Feel free to ban me again; I just like to mess)

P.S. But take my words as a grain of salt.

If you have to tell us that, don't post.  This is the last time I'll warn you about your combative posting style (Were you posting drunk again?  If so, read this... http://www.atheistthinktank.net/atheist_alcoholic.html (http://www.atheistthinktank.net/atheist_alcoholic.html) )

And yes...you will be banned permanently if you do this again.  I've given up on trying to feel sorry for you.

Oh, c'mon is that so hard to believe?  He just used the "how do you fit 4 elephants in a Volkswagen" rule...2 in the front-2 in the back.    Duh!

I spent nearly 6 hours debunking Ron Wyatt's garbage video (3 of them actually) on my blog before I came across this genius video:

Part 1

[youtube:1pyahw3l]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY[/youtube:1pyahw3l]

Part 2

[youtube:1pyahw3l]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfSvktyxVYA[/youtube:1pyahw3l]

Quote from: "karadan"

Quote from: "Ben-AG"I care about FACTS. If god did fit the hundreds of millions of species of animal this planet has to offer on one boat, I'd like to know how he managed to get so much mass to occupy the same space at the same time. I'd ask what sort of 4th dimensional device he was using to accomplish this or whether he was using parallel universes to store the animals. Maybe it was just their DNA he stored but didn't write that into the bible because primitive worshippers probably wouldn't understand what DNA was.

Even though these are obviously not "facts" I can see how answers to these questions would start to make more sense  :)

I'm more interested in the mythology of Noah's ark, rather than any literal interpretation of a real 40-day flood. Big events like this impress themselves in our collective consciousness, resonating within our minds till the day we die. And I wonder why that is? They mythology of the flood goes back to the cradle of humanity; Mesopotamia. Given that the majority of humans were in this area at the time, it certainly would explain the similiarity of myths in various regions.

Putting that aside for a moment, if we take the myth as a dream, we ask ourselves what associations we connect to floods. There is a connection there between flood and water, water and life, flood and death. A flood, assosiatively, gives connotations of both life and death: Death, through drowning, and life, through the symbol of water, also associated with motherhood. It conjures up an image of mother earth killing her newborn children.

Is it not the case that primitive humans would see a massive flood as an ironic instance of dying by the very thing that sustains them? It is a betrayal, then from mother earth, and all the successive gods man has hoisted above. Every god in every religion has destroyed the world through water. But I'm tempted to think that the first god to do so, was the goddess of mother nature herself.

Interestingly enough, there are connections with the ark of noah and the garden of eden. In both cases man is punished by god for man's wickedness. It may be just enough of a reasonable assumption to think that primitive man may not have been able to distinguish between separate events of punishment. The flood as punishment is punishment always, just as being cast from the garden of eden was eternal as well. In the mind of primitive man, the punishments are for the same immortal thing.

In a sense, religion could be a result of a certain psychological mythology of wicked punishment and curing redemption. It is impressed on our collective consciousness that there is always something bad, something wicked, about the world. The world is always in a state of decay in all religions, just as all religions point the way to redemption, even as, in the universe, there really is nothing to redeem. It could be that religion is the result of the psychological reactions child-like humans had to the very first bad parent of all time: Mother nature herself.

Fascinating.  :rant:

The biblical account, told in the Book of Genesis 6-9, tells how God sends a great flood to destroy the earth because of man's wickedness and because the earth is corrupt. God tells Noah, a righteous man in his generation, to build a large vessel to save his family and a representation of the world's animals. God gives detailed instructions for the Ark, and after its completion, sends the animals to Noah. God then sends the Flood which rises until all the mountains are covered and every living thing died. Then "God remembered Noah," the waters abate, and dry land reappears. Noah, his family, and the animals leave the Ark, and God enter a covenant to never again send a flood to destroy the Earth.

God observes that the earth is corrupted with violence and decides to destroy all life. But Noah "was a righteous man, blameless in his generation, [and] Noah walked with God," and God gives him instructions for the construction of an ark, into which he is told to bring "two of every sort [of animal] ... male and female," and their food.

What always bothered me about the story is, that God could find only one man who was righteous. Even in those days there must have been thousands of other men and women, who were righteous and followed God. So, why pick out a single man and murder all the rest?  Not to mention of course all the innocent children that he murdered and all animals and plants. From a moral point of view, the story of Noah stinks heavily.

hmm I'm not sure that most of the animals would take up an entire square foot. Remember that most species are tiny little insects, and only a few are close to our size.

Quote from: "Reginus"hmm I'm not sure that most of the animals would take up an entire square foot. Remember that most species are tiny little insects, and only a few are close to our size.

They probably would once their habitat needs were taken into consideration; to do the calculations properly we'd basically need to have a list of all known species and how many square feet they need to stand there (and if just standing there would drive them insane or not, necessitating more space).  However, we are supposed to assume this was God's work...so he could have put the animals in stasis.  He also could have shrunk them down in size and made them all fit in a teacup or wiped away any evidence of the flood.  

Quoteto do the calculations properly we'd basically need to have a list of all known species and how many square feet they need to stand there (and if just standing there would drive them insane or not, necessitating more space).

Don't forget, you could stack them on top of each other saving "footprint" on the wooden boat. Even still, just the beetles would take up gobs of space in 3 dimensions.

Hismikeness

The bible is a great repository of mythological seasonings. There is a lot there that represents early man's psychological development. It's too bad it can't be studied in that way, as that would send all the religious nuts into a world-wide frenzy.

I'm especially curious of the koran. The Koran was dictated inside mohammad's head. He heard voiced. Can you imagine the psychological knowledge that could be gained through it's stories? ARGH!

Unless you buy into the Micro Evolution part of this crap here is an easy way to figure out if its possible.

http://www.currentresults.com/Environment-Facts/Plants-Animals/number-species.php

1,263,186 non plant species we currently have found on the earth.  Multiply that by 2 (if you believe in one account) or 7 (if you believe in another account) and come up with  either
2,526,372 animals or 8,842,302 animals on the ship respectively.  How big was the ship a few hundred feet long?  Each species would have to occupy a space a fraction of an inch long.  Easily impossible.  I guess magic need to be added or some way to discount some animals to make the story more believable.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Unless you buy into the Micro Evolution part of this crap here is an easy way to figure out if its possible.

http://www.currentresults.com/Environment-Facts/Plants-Animals/number-species.php

1,263,186 non plant species we currently have found on the earth.  Multiply that by 2 (if you believe in one account) or 7 (if you believe in another account) and come up with  either
2,526,372 animals or 8,842,302 animals on the ship respectively.  How big was the ship a few hundred feet long?  Each species would have to occupy a space a fraction of an inch long.  Easily impossible.  I guess magic need to be added or some way to discount some animals to make the story more believable.

Lone, you got me on a math-capade to interrupt a slow work day. Check it out.

Using your numbers of species and estimating that the boat was 1/2 mile long (2640 feet, 880 yards, about 800 meters) by 1/8 of a mile wide (660 feet, 220 yards, about 200 meters), that gives 1,742,400 square feet, or oddly enough, 40 acres almost exactly (40.0000000621 acres). Now, that is a very generous estimate considering the current largest boat/ship is the Emma Maersk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_M%C3%A6rsk) and it is only 1300 x 180 feet.

Breaking it all down, that leaves a little over 99 square inches per animal. That is about 70% of a square foot. A square foot is about the size of an unfolded paper napkin. So there are lots of smaller animals that could definitely fit on a paper napkin, but there are also many that can't.

And that also assumes that Noah was able to build a boat that has 7.4 times the surface area out of wood as the current largest using today's technology.

Seems unlikely at best.

Hismikeness

The bible says the size of the ark...the issue is converting cubits into modern measurements since cubits weren't exactly accurate:

"Noah's Ark was taller than a 3-story building and had a deck area the size of 36 lawn tennis courts. Its length was 300 cubits (450 feet, or 135 meters); its width was 50 cubits (75 feet, or 22.5 meters); it had three stories and its height was 30 cubits (45 feet, or 13.5 meters)."

7 of each, if I remember correctly, only applies to birds and sacrificially clean animals.

I thought the ship was significantly smaller.  Oh well whether they have an inch to stand still or 70% of a square foot it makes little difference.  No room to move, no suitable habitats and animals had to eat grain.  Interesting trivia with the largest ship today.  I don't remember what I was reading (it could have been in here) that you can only build a ship so large out of wood before it will literally fall apart, that is why steel is used.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"I thought the ship was significantly smaller.  Oh well whether they have an inch to stand still or 70% of a square foot it makes little difference.  No room to move, no suitable habitats and animals had to eat grain.  Interesting trivia with the largest ship today.  I don't remember what I was reading (it could have been in here) that you can only build a ship so large out of wood before it will literally fall apart, that is why steel is used.

Actually, I saw a documentary where a ship builder, eager to prove the bible wrong, calculated the dimensions of the Ark and using the materials and dimensions listed in the bible, constructed a design of the ark and was sadly surprised that not only was there enough room for the numbers of animals he could think of, but it had much room to spare. Sorry.  

Quote from: "Carico"

Quote from: "LoneMateria"I thought the ship was significantly smaller.  Oh well whether they have an inch to stand still or 70% of a square foot it makes little difference.  No room to move, no suitable habitats and animals had to eat grain.  Interesting trivia with the largest ship today.  I don't remember what I was reading (it could have been in here) that you can only build a ship so large out of wood before it will literally fall apart, that is why steel is used.

Actually, I saw a documentary where a ship builder, eager to prove the bible wrong, calculated the dimensions of the Ark and using the materials and dimensions listed in the bible, constructed a design of the ark and was sadly surprised that not only was there enough room for the numbers of animals he could think of, but it had much room to spare. Sorry.  

Well, since you've made this claim, I'd love to see it. Let's see the source material then. Show us the documentary. Show us the guy building the ark. Show proof of this claim.

Quote from: "Carico"

Quote from: "LoneMateria"I thought the ship was significantly smaller.  Oh well whether they have an inch to stand still or 70% of a square foot it makes little difference.  No room to move, no suitable habitats and animals had to eat grain.  Interesting trivia with the largest ship today.  I don't remember what I was reading (it could have been in here) that you can only build a ship so large out of wood before it will literally fall apart, that is why steel is used.

Actually, I saw a documentary where a ship builder, eager to prove the bible wrong, calculated the dimensions of the Ark and using the materials and dimensions listed in the bible, constructed a design of the ark and was sadly surprised that not only was there enough room for the numbers of animals he could think of, but it had much room to spare. Sorry.  

In addition to backing up this claim for what it is....don't you think "as many animals he could think of" is a really inaccurate means of running an experiment?

Quote from: "Carico"

Quote from: "LoneMateria"I thought the ship was significantly smaller.  Oh well whether they have an inch to stand still or 70% of a square foot it makes little difference.  No room to move, no suitable habitats and animals had to eat grain.  Interesting trivia with the largest ship today.  I don't remember what I was reading (it could have been in here) that you can only build a ship so large out of wood before it will literally fall apart, that is why steel is used.

Actually, I saw a documentary where a ship builder, eager to prove the bible wrong, calculated the dimensions of the Ark and using the materials and dimensions listed in the bible, constructed a design of the ark and was sadly surprised that not only was there enough room for the numbers of animals he could think of, but it had much room to spare. Sorry.  

Hmm, what documentary was that please? I'd love to see it.

Here's the list of animals that he could think of:

1. Dog.
2. Cat.
3. Horse.

Is that enough?

Quote from: "LoneMateria"1,263,186 non plant species we currently have found on the earth.

I think before the flood, there have been no extinct species as god is unfailable. so all that extinction business happened after the flood and because of the flood and all the changes in the environment.

Wikipedia (sorry, it's German: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aussterben) tells me, Scientists think, about 500 Mio. animal-species are vanished or, in other words, 99,9 % of all animals ever lived on earth are extinct now. How would the calculations about space requirement and so on look like in that light? (No need to actually calculate it, the results would be ridiculous.)

(Hope that question isn't already deeply discussed in earlier posts, but I think it's an important comment anyway.)

Did anyone mention the amount of food that would have been needed as well? If you doubt you could fit all the animals on board, you would also need 40 days worth of supplies for all the critters. I imagine that alone would fill a boat smaller than the Titanic.

Lol:  "Where are the Algerian Wild Ass's?"
        "The lions ate him..."
        "The lions ate him? Hmmmm..."
Sorry I just had a Conan moment.

I think it's funny how Christians take all of the parables in the Torah seriously. Even to most Jewish people today, those are what they are: old myths. Passing off Noah's Ark as anything more than a parable is like trying to pass off the creation of man as having been done by Prometheus.  

*EDIT
said Talmud, meant Torah. >_>

Karl Pilkington tells the story as it should be told;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHKSBFR9 ... re=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHKSBFR9ONg&feature=related)

Many is laughing about the flood and the ark of Noah , and the disaster :
It is much easier to believe that  Noah carried  animals in his ark more than believing that there is no creator of heavens and earth .

if the story of Noah is true  not a myth  : are you going to believe in God ?

Quote from: "some light plz"Many is laughing about the flood and the ark of Noah , and the disaster :
It is much easier to believe that  Noah carried  animals in his ark more than believing that there is no creator of heavens and earth .

if the story of Noah is true  not a myth  : are you going to believe in God ?

It is a myth so it doesn't matter (answer is no I wouldn't)...preaching is against HAF rules.  Please read the rules and stop preaching.

I believe I saw the documentary that the other person was talking about.  The ship builder though was only interested in proving whether such a ship could actually float and be safe.  He was not interested in whether the ship could carry all the animals.  His findings were that such a ship if built would be capable of floating and surviving ruff water.  It's depth in the water and buoyancy would be similar to any modern ship design.

  But his study was done only in regards to the viability of the ships design not to determine if the ship was capable of carrying the numbers of animals that the unholy bible claims it carried.  C/P from my book.

  Genesis 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
  Genesis 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

 Why the differences in the number of animals to be taken.  At first it is two sets of every species, then it’s broken down by clean and unclean animals and 7 sets of clean and 2 sets of unclean.
 

Quote from: "Mark L Holland"I believe I saw the documentary that the other person was talking about.  The ship builder though was only interested in proving whether such a ship could actually float and be safe.  He was not interested in whether the ship could carry all the animals.  His findings were that such a ship if built would be capable of floating and surviving ruff water.  It's depth in the water and buoyancy would be similar to any modern ship design.

I may have seen that show.  Even if it were big enough to carry the animals there would still be the big problem that there is no reason to think a global flood ever occurred.

If there is any truth to the Noah story it is that some guy threw some livestock into a makeshift raft during a large thunderstorm that caused major localized flooding.  Tall tales grow quickly.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "some light plz"Many is laughing about the flood and the ark of Noah , and the disaster :
It is much easier to believe that  Noah carried  animals in his ark more than believing that there is no creator of heavens and earth .

if the story of Noah is true  not a myth  : are you going to believe in God ?

It is a myth so it doesn't matter (answer is no I wouldn't)...preaching is against HAF rules.  Please read the rules and stop preaching.

thanks ,  

Quote from: "some light plz"It is much easier to believe that  Noah carried  animals in his ark more than believing that there is no creator of heavens and earth

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages47.fotki.com%2Fv1497%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6145789%2Fshipment_of_fail-vi.jpg&hash=b85833f0362e74429dc0a3a752c8f062c62fcf0a)

To Whitney

  Forgive me on the details from what I understand the Noah story is a copy of a Sanskrit story predating Noah by several thousand years.  I believe it had something to do with Gilgamesh or something like that.  But from the documentaries I have seen they were of the opinion that the great flood was simply a remake of the Sanskrit story.  And you are right there is no evidence of a global flood.  

 

Discovery offered the best argument i have ever heard yet. i think a big (maybe not global) flood is possible but i dont buy the arc story. and no if it was proven the whole earth flooded i wouldnt believe in noahs story. just in case that question pops up...

discovery article:
Why, then, don’t we know about it? Masse contends that we do. Almost every culture has a legend about a great flood, andâ€"with a little reading between the linesâ€"many of them mention something like a comet on a collision course with Earth just before the disaster. The Bible describes a deluge for 40 days and 40 nights that created a flood so great that Noah was stuck in his ark for two weeks until the water subsided. In the Gilgamesh Epic, the hero of Mesopotamia saw a pillar of black smoke on the horizon before the sky went dark for a week. Afterward, a cyclone pummeled the Fertile Crescent and caused a massive flood. Myths recounted in indigenous South American cultures also tell of a great flood.
“These stories are all exactly what you would expect from the survivors of a celestial impact,” Masse says, leafing through 2,000-year-old drawings by Chinese astronomers that show comets of all shapes and sizes. “When a comet rounds the sun, oftentimes its tail is still being blown forward by the solar winds so that it actually precedes it. That is why so many descriptions of comets in mythology mention that they are wearing horns.” In India, he notes, a celestial fish described as “bright as a moonbeam,” with a horn on its head, warned of an epic flood that brought on a new age of man.
“When Abbott began searching satellite images on Earth, she saw dozens of chevrons along shorelines and inland in Africa and Asia. The shape and size of these chevrons suggest that they might have been formed by waves emanating from the impact of a comet slamming into the deep ocean off Madagascar. “The chevrons in Madagascar associated with the crater were filled with melted microfossils from the bottom of the ocean. There is no explanation for their presence other than a cosmic impact,” she says. “People are going to have to start taking this theory a lot more seriously.” The next step is to perform carbon-14 dating on the fossils to see if they are indeed 5,000 years old.”

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/nov/di ... :int=1&-C= (http://discovermagazine.com/2007/nov/did-a-comet-cause-the-great-flood/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=) <-- the rest of the article

Preaching and [ winning and losing ]
Many of you know the meaning of winning and losing :
1-   when we lost 1000 $ it is loss .
2-   when we lost 100000 $ it is bigger loss .
3-   when we lost 1000000 $ it is the biggest loss .
but when our life ends in hell , I am sure the word [loss, big loss , biggest loss ] is not going to be the exact meaning . and there is no word can describe this situation .the pleasures and delights  which were in life will became mirage .

yes , you are the admin have the right to apply forum's rules on me even if I have my excuse .
also there is the God who is going to apply his rules on you and you can not find one excuse to defend  yourself .

so if you welcome me , this will be generosity from you and from members .
if not , thanks for your hospitality .

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffailblog.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F12%2Fepic-fail-bulletin-board-fail.jpg&hash=38bec68b282146a33c114e3cdd8d5e0d90bb844c)

Quote from: "some light plz"Preaching and [ winning and losing ]
Many of you know the meaning of winning and losing :
1-   when we lost 1000 $ it is loss .
2-   when we lost 100000 $ it is bigger loss .
3-   when we lost 1000000 $ it is the biggest loss .
but when our life ends in hell , I am sure the word [loss, big loss , biggest loss ] is not going to be the exact meaning . and there is no word can describe this situation .the pleasures and delights  which were in life will became mirage .

yes , you are the admin have the right to apply forum's rules on me even if I have my excuse .
also there is the God who is going to apply his rules on you and you can not find one excuse to defend  yourself .

so if you welcome me , this will be generosity from you and from members .
if not , thanks for your hospitality .

  Some Light Plz

  Your God does not exist, while some Gods may exist yours is not one of them.  There is nothing for an Atheist to fear in rejecting your God or any God for that matter.  I am only accountable to the God that I believe in and the God I believe in is not your God.  The threats of damnation from your God mean as much to me as the threat of a light wind blowing my hair around and since I shave my head that means your God is no threat to me.  If you wish to speak the infallible truth of your God and with the infallible authority of your God, you could ask him to be considerate enough to actually give you the power and authority to prove such a thing.  But that only works if your God is real which of course he is not.
 

QuoteSome Light Plz

  Your God does not exist, while some Gods may exist yours is not one of them.  There is nothing for an Atheist to fear in rejecting your God or any God for that matter.  I am only accountable to the God that I believe in and the God I believe in is not your God.  The threats of damnation from your God mean as much to me as the threat of a light wind blowing my hair around and since I shave my head that means your God is no threat to me.  If you wish to speak the infallible truth of your God and with the infallible authority of your God, you could ask him to be considerate enough to actually give you the power and authority to prove such a thing.  But that only works if your God is real which of course he is not.
 

I am waiting for the permission from admin to prove it .
Then I will Rock your body with things you do not know .
with  my full respect to you

Quote from: "some light plz"Then I will Rock your body with things you do not know .

[youtube:2lwiztrc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYHDd9FIaqc[/youtube:2lwiztrc]

What a welcome [strike:2tykz0wa]release[/strike:2tykz0wa] relief.

Quote from: "some light plz"I am waiting for the permission from admin to prove it .

The rules are no preaching; which at HAF means if you make an argumentative claim you must back it up with either evidence or reason.  

Rule:

QuoteNO PREACHING: While everyone is welcome to discuss their views in a civil manner, this forum is not a podium for those that only wish to preach. This rule applies to atheists and theists alike.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1522 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1522)

So, if you are prepared to prove god using logic or evidence...go ahead.  I can tell you right now that you will not be able to prove god as philosophers and various religious groups have been trying to do so for centuries...however, it is possible to provide a reasoned argument (not that we will necessarily agree with your reasoning process).

Before you proceed...it may be a good idea for you to do a quick search of the forum:

Search link:  search.php (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/search.php)

Doing so will save us all a lot of time as we have probably discussed almost every common argument for and against god.  Keep in mind that most of us are already familiar with the beliefs of Christianity, have been involved in a church at some point in our lives (some of us very involved), and quite a few of us have read the Bible.

Quote from: "some light plz"Preaching and [ winning and losing ]
Many of you know the meaning of winning and losing :
1-   when we lost 1000 $ it is loss .
2-   when we lost 100000 $ it is bigger loss .
3-   when we lost 1000000 $ it is the biggest loss .
but when our life ends in hell , I am sure the word [loss, big loss , biggest loss ] is not going to be the exact meaning . and there is no word can describe this situation .the pleasures and delights  which were in life will became mirage .

Oh and stuff like this (Pascal's Wager) has definitely been discussed on the forum.  Reasonable Christians don't even use it because they know it is flawed.

Quoteyes , you are the admin have the right to apply forum's rules on me even if I have my excuse .

There is no excuse for not following the rules on a private forum...you either follow them or you don't post at all.

Quotealso there is the God who is going to apply his rules on you and you can not find one excuse to defend  yourself .

^FYI, this is preaching. If you don't understand the difference between preaching and discussion please ask questions so that we can be on the same page.

Unlike "god" I have established communication directly with you so that my (well, our, the rules were created via discussion) rules are known rather than assumed by people who were told by some guy that I said a long time ago to follow these rules.

Oh, and where are you from?  I don't think English is your first language and it is often helpful to establish that fact so people understand when trying to figure out what you are saying.  It helps people to know to ask for clarification rather than laughing at what sounds like a sexual comment (ie "Then I will Rock your body with things you do not know")

thnaks Whitney

Thanks .
I appreciate your response  .. also I will try my best to respect and follow AHF Rules …  sometimes will feel that  my answers or comments are preaching but please accept them as answers .. because we are different in thoughts .


I am a Muslim , from Saudi Arabia .. Arabic is the mother language , so sometimes you will face problem to get the idea right … but I will die while learner .

Mark L Holland
I am very sorry for saying that ,
And thank you friends for revealing this to me .
My apology and respect to you Mark

Quote from: "some light plz". Arabic is the mother language , so sometimes you will face problem to get the idea right … but I will die while learner .

Ah, I assumed wrong and thought you were Christian based on what you had already stated on the forum; my bad.  Not many of us have much of a background in studying Islam but I think a few do.  We don't get many Muslims posting here, probably because there aren't that many English speaking Muslims in comparison to English speaking Christians (or maybe evangelism isn't as strongly encouraged in Islam as it is in fundamentalist Christianity?)  In my experience with Muslim friends they are happy to tell you about their belief if asked but otherwise try not to impose; that could also be because my Muslim friends have all been Americans so they are use to being around a lot of people who have differing religious views.

To some light plz

  My apologese as well, I to thought you were an evangelical or fundamentalist christian while I consider Islam, Judaism and Christianity all to be flawed beliefs, Christianity is my bread and butter.  So long as Islam and Judaism leave me alone, I am more then willing to leave them alone.  Sorry that you have your radical extremists like we have our fundamentalists and evangelicals.

  Allah Akbar, just do not argue Allah with me.
 

Do you understand the practical application of law in Saudi Arabia some light plz? This is something that really interests me. I'm not trying to trap you on this. I really want first hand information about Saudi Arabia. If you can answer questions about that without preaching, I suspect a number of people would be very interested.

To some light pls

  Like AIP I would not mind knowing some more about Islam, But like AIP no preaching please.  I find that Islam, Judaism and Christianity all have seeds of truth contained in their holy books, but that those seeds of truth are far outweighed by the vile and destructive garbage that they contain.  So I would at least like to talk about the basics of the Islamic belief but do it for information not for conversion.
 

Islam is a five pillars :

1- Shahadah is a statement professing monotheism and accepting Muhammad as God's messenger and his servant . The shahadah is a set statement normally recited in Arabic, translated as: "[I profess that] There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his Prophet."

2- Salah : prayer the requirement to pray five times a day at fixed times during the day . at a known and specific times .

3- Zakat or alms-giving is the practice of charitable giving by Muslims based on accumulated wealth for an specific people .

4-Fasting the9th  month [ month of Ramadan] . each year on every  adult capable sensible Muslim

5- Performing Hajj at the holy Mosque in Makkah , one in life , for a Muslim who able to do it .

thanks for asking , without preaching

To some light pls

  Thank you.

 

[youtube:2om26u1u]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I225Vcs3X0g[/youtube:2om26u1u]

Allah knows that will come people to say : Noah is a myth and the ark is a myth . therefore he put for them a proof  :
the mount of al-judi .

http://55a.net/firas/en1/index.php?opti ... &Itemid=90 (http://55a.net/firas/en1/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=106:noah-ark-at-gudi-mt&catid=61:historical&Itemid=90)

http://www.arksearch.com/najudi.htm (http://www.arksearch.com/najudi.htm)

who did tell  prophet Mohammad about its place ?

to Mark : proud to know persons like you..

Hello Whitney ,

(Pascal's Wager) comes at the holy Quran as a certain truth . a conversation between a believer and an atheist
In Surah 37 :
50. Then they will turn to one another and question one another.
51. One of them will start the talk and say: "I had an intimate companion (on the earth),
52. "Who used to say, 'what! art thou amongst those who bear witness to the Truth (of the Message)?
53. "'When we die and become dust and bones, shall we indeed receive rewards and punishments?'"
54. (A voice) said: "Would ye like to look down?"
55. He looked down and saw him in the midst of the Fire.
56. He said: "By Allah. thou wast little short of bringing me to perdition!
57. "Had it not been for the Grace of my Lord, I should certainly have been among those brought (there)!
58. "Is it (the case) that we shall not die,
59. "Except our first death, and that we shall not be punished?"
60. Verily this is the supreme achievement!
61. For the like of this let all strive, who wish to strive.
-------------------------------------
Dear :
This is not the only conversation at the holy Quran ,
If you ensure with proofs there is no resurrection after death  ... I will become an atheist .

Quote from: "some light plz"If you ensure with proofs there is no resurrection after death  ... I will become an atheist .

The onus of proof is on those proposing an argument against a null.  Therefore it must be shown empirically that resurrection after death does occur.  Stories from ancient manuscripts and codexes are not adequate evidence as the events cannot be verified.  Frankly, it is not our intention to change your alignment with religion but rather to spur some analytical thinking rather than operation from supernatural, unsubstantiated presuppositions without question.

Quote from: "some light plz"Hello Whitney ,

(Pascal's Wager) comes at the holy Quran as a certain truth . a conversation between a believer and an atheist

Quote from: "some light plz"If you ensure with proofs there is no resurrection after death  ... I will become an atheist .

So...um...are you follower of Islam or are you a Christian.  I thought Muslims didn't believe in the resurrection.

Anyway, pascal's wager fails on multiple levels; you can search the forum for threads on that topic.

Btw, pls don't refer to me as 'dear'

Quote from: "Squid"

Quote from: "some light plz"If you ensure with proofs there is no resurrection after death  ... I will become an atheist .

The onus of proof is on those proposing an argument against a null.  Therefore it must be shown empirically that resurrection after death does occur.  Stories from ancient manuscripts and codexes are not adequate evidence as the events cannot be verified.  Frankly, it is not our intention to change your alignment with religion but rather to spur some analytical thinking rather than operation from supernatural, unsubstantiated presuppositions without question.

Simple: I proved the Ark of prophet Noah is truth and not a myth . also I will present the proof for resurrection  . of course by scientific and logical ways and the holy Quran .

Then the matter will be  , with a full freedom and an absolute  choice by you : to believe or not to believe . the end leads you to the previous verses .

For now : please read the cogent simple logic " my signature "

Quote from: "some light plz"

Quote from: "Squid"

Quote from: "some light plz"If you ensure with proofs there is no resurrection after death  ... I will become an atheist .

The onus of proof is on those proposing an argument against a null.  Therefore it must be shown empirically that resurrection after death does occur.  Stories from ancient manuscripts and codexes are not adequate evidence as the events cannot be verified.  Frankly, it is not our intention to change your alignment with religion but rather to spur some analytical thinking rather than operation from supernatural, unsubstantiated presuppositions without question.

Simple: I proved the Ark of prophet Noah is truth and not a myth . also I will present the proof for resurrection  . of course by scientific and logical ways and the holy Quran .

Then the matter will be  , with a full freedom and an absolute  choice by you : to believe or not to believe . the end leads you to the previous verses .

For now : please read the cogent simple logic " my signature "

I don't see where you proved Noah's Ark as a truth in any way.  Am I missing something?  There is absolutely no scientific proof of there ever being a global flood - it's completely and entirely impossible.

to Whitney

Ok , from now on : you are my enemy .

Just joking : a friend even if we disagreed in thoughts .

We believe that resurrection will be by spirits and bodies

Quote from: "some light plz"

Quote from: "Squid"

Quote from: "some light plz"If you ensure with proofs there is no resurrection after death  ... I will become an atheist .

The onus of proof is on those proposing an argument against a null.  Therefore it must be shown empirically that resurrection after death does occur.  Stories from ancient manuscripts and codexes are not adequate evidence as the events cannot be verified.  Frankly, it is not our intention to change your alignment with religion but rather to spur some analytical thinking rather than operation from supernatural, unsubstantiated presuppositions without question.

Simple: I proved the Ark of prophet Noah is truth and not a myth . also I will present the proof for resurrection  . of course by scientific and logical ways and the holy Quran .

Then the matter will be  , with a full freedom and an absolute  choice by you : to believe or not to believe . the end leads you to the previous verses .

For now : please read the cogent simple logic " my signature "

Umm, no, you posted scripture and links to personal websites.  Their proof is to string together vague and ambiguous material - very similar to the behavior of conspiracy theorists.  There has been no empirical substantiation by anything approaching scientific rigor.  Not to mention referencing the Quran is not proof of anything - the compulsive writings of an TL epileptic do not fit the label of scientific either.

I remember one time in early morning seminary class, Our teacher took us out side to the parking lot and we measured how big Noah's Ark was. Although ridiculously big, no way it could fit 10 million species. I really don't see how anyone could take that story literally.

Especially when one takes into account that the Gilgamesh story predates the Noah story by centuries.  They have also recently found a sanscrit tablet discribing the Ark to have been circular in design.
 

I'd like to see that sanscrit tablet!!

My question about Noah's ark has always been, after landing on Mt. Ararat how did any of the animals get to Australia? And why aren't there kangaroos in Turkey?  Did all of the kangaroos and koalas and platypus's book passage to Australia immediately after landing on Mt Ararat?

Quote from: "Zyva"how did any of the animals get to Australia? And why aren't there kangaroos in Turkey?  Did all of the kangaroos and koalas and platypus's book passage to Australia immediately after landing on Mt Ararat?

I think the best explanation I ever got was "magic"   Which makes me wonder why a god would want to bother will all that flood nonsense he he could just make anything he wanted happen magically.....it makes no sense even when you try to force it to make sense due to some inner need to want it to make sense.

To Zyva

This is the link talking about the tablet

http://www.sphere.com/article/noahs-ark ... 2F19309746 (http://www.sphere.com/article/noahs-ark-was-a-circular-raft-ancient-tablet-reveals/19309746?icid=main%7Ccompaq-laptop%7Cdl1%7Clink3%7Chttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.sphere.com%2Farticle%2Fnoahs-ark-was-a-circular-raft-ancient-tablet-reveals%2F19309746)

 

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Zyva"how did any of the animals get to Australia? And why aren't there kangaroos in Turkey?  Did all of the kangaroos and koalas and platypus's book passage to Australia immediately after landing on Mt Ararat?

I think the best explanation I ever got was "magic"   Which makes me wonder why a god would want to bother will all that flood nonsense he he could just make anything he wanted happen magically.....it makes no sense even when you try to force it to make sense due to some inner need to want it to make sense.

The video I linked to on the previous page was a good refuting of Noah's arc and it left God looking like a cheap magician who broke down and cried because even his angel realized how fucking stupid the flood was if everything that was done had to be magically done.

Quote from: "Whitney"I think the best explanation I ever got was "magic"   Which makes me wonder why a god would want to bother will all that flood nonsense he he could just make anything he wanted happen magically.....it makes no sense even when you try to force it to make sense due to some inner need to want it to make sense.

Yeah, magic, that must have been it.  The best explanation I ever got was that the flood happened during the ice age and the animals walked to Australia on ice bridges.   The imagination is a terrible thing to waste.

Quote from: "Mark L Holland"To Zyva

This is the link talking about the tablet

http://www.sphere.com/article/noahs-ark ... 2F19309746 (http://www.sphere.com/article/noahs-ark-was-a-circular-raft-ancient-tablet-reveals/19309746?icid=main%7Ccompaq-laptop%7Cdl1%7Clink3%7Chttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.sphere.com%2Farticle%2Fnoahs-ark-was-a-circular-raft-ancient-tablet-reveals%2F19309746)

 

Thank you Mark!!! I've read all of Samuel Kramer's books, fascinating stuff. I'm happy to know that someone is continuing to translate the tablets that have been found. I'll have to go find out more about it!!!

Quote from: "Huxley"I read somewhere (maybe McQ can confirm it) that if it had rained for 40 days and 40 nights the subsequent baric air pressure would have been totally incompatible with any airbreathing life.

Bummer.

Sorry to go ontopic again.

I live in Washington State, and yes it does get hard to breath when it's been raining for forty days and nights!

Quote from: "leonswan2000"

Quote from: "Huxley"I read somewhere (maybe McQ can confirm it) that if it had rained for 40 days and 40 nights the subsequent baric air pressure would have been totally incompatible with any airbreathing life.

Bummer.

Sorry to go ontopic again.

I live in Washington State, and yes it does get hard to breath when it's been raining for forty days and nights!

I live in Washington as well.  I can still remember a few years back where we had more consecutive days of rain than Noah had to contend with in his flood story.  

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Zyva"how did any of the animals get to Australia? And why aren't there kangaroos in Turkey?  Did all of the kangaroos and koalas and platypus's book passage to Australia immediately after landing on Mt Ararat?

I think the best explanation I ever got was "magic"   Which makes me wonder why a god would want to bother will all that flood nonsense he he could just make anything he wanted happen magically.....it makes no sense even when you try to force it to make sense due to some inner need to want it to make sense.

My favorite is they were trown all over the world by an exploding volcano therory, I know I've see it before but I can't seem to find it. Regardless Awsome power of self-delusion on that one.

When anyone gives the impression that they are scientifically considering stories like the Ark thing, you know you are opening the door for Theist's. All inconsistencies can be attributed to God's mysterious ways. Its fun to play with the story but I think it is a waste of time to actually argue the point. If your sure the moon is made of Green cheese why argue. Its like trying to convince a 5 year old Santa isn't real. Unfortunatley most people don't seem to outgrow religious fairy tales. But most of us are brain washed as children and when we look around and see everyone else seems to believe it makes it O.K.. I wonder for real how many religious people question there beliefs but just go with the flow.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "leonswan2000"

Quote from: "Huxley"I read somewhere (maybe McQ can confirm it) that if it had rained for 40 days and 40 nights the subsequent baric air pressure would have been totally incompatible with any airbreathing life.

Bummer.

Sorry to go ontopic again.

I live in Washington State, and yes it does get hard to breath when it's been raining for forty days and nights!

I live in Washington as well.  I can still remember a few years back where we had more consecutive days of rain than Noah had to contend with in his flood story.  

Hey have you ever been to the procession of the species parade in Olympia. It's hilarious. They dress up as species that evolve comically and its quite elaborate. Any Atheist who can visit the parade it's worth it. The next one is in April I think and its the 16th or 17th one. I wont go off topic again sorry.
http://www.procession.org/index.php (http://www.procession.org/index.php)

Quote from: "leonswan2000"Hey have you ever been to the procession of the species parade in Olympia. It's hilarious. They dress up as species that evolve comically and its quite elaborate. Any Atheist who can visit the parade it's worth it. The next one is in April I think and its the 16th or 17th one. I wont go off topic again sorry.
http://www.procession.org/index.php (http://www.procession.org/index.php)

That's so awesome, thanks so much for the link!  I had no idea this happened and Oly is only like 30 mins away.  Thank you!

QuoteMy question about Noah's ark has always been, after landing on Mt. Ararat how did any of the animals get to Australia? And why aren't there kangaroos in Turkey? Did all of the kangaroos and koalas and platypus's book passage to Australia immediately after landing on Mt Ararat?

You see there were 3 arks. One had all the mammals, they landed on mt. ararat.
The second had all the dinosaurs, and that one sank….
The third had all the marsupials and weird poisons bugs and snakes. That one landed in what we now call australia.
 

I'd like to show you two videos I saw a while ago. (Sorry if any of them has been posted in this thread, but I couldn't really read it all)

This one's alright. Has some maths and facts.
[youtube:1gt6y1oh]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I225Vcs3X0g[/youtube:1gt6y1oh]
(the voice is very annoying, I know)

Then there's this one where they claim to have discovered noah's ark.
[youtube:1gt6y1oh]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_830WxtZQgQ[/youtube:1gt6y1oh]
The description's great:

QuoteThis is a documentary about one of the most important discoveries in history. This should be more widely known and talked about.

Yuck! on the second vid Nahuel, I watched as far as the crowd clapping while some man cut the throat of a goat (although they called it a lamb) in some kind of religious ceremony, very disturbing.
Ron Wyatt was either suffering from some mental illness or he was a fraud. Have you looked at any of his other "discoveries"?


To G-roll, best explanation I've heard by far!!

I think it would also require that waters rise at the rate of about 625 feet a day in order for the entire world to be covered in water (over Mt. Everest) in 40 days/nights.  Assuming it was all rain, then at that rate of downpour no wooden structure, including boats, would remain intact.

Almost all sea life would die because of the miles of fresh water added to the mix.

I have always found it....convient how the ark came to rest on the tallest mountain in the world....to an untraveled, unlearned, bronze age, sheep hearder. By the time Mt. Arafat was uncovered HUGE amounts of land mass would already have been uncovered. Much of it for weeks by the time that particular mountain was uncovered.

Quote from: "Tanker"I have always found it....convient how the ark came to rest on the tallest mountain in the world....to an untraveled, unlearned, bronze age, sheep hearder. By the time Mt. Arafat was uncovered HUGE amounts of land mass would already have been uncovered. Much of it for weeks by the time that particular mountain was uncovered.

Thus the convenience of faith.  With faith, all things are possible and if you bring up valid arguments, you A - don't get it.  B - are being purposefully rude. or C - the devil blah blah blah.  In fact, I would say stories like Noah's Ark probably give people of faith a bit of a righteous thrill.  Everything about the story is impossible, so by believing in it, they prove the strength of their own faith.  What I don't understand is why anyone who is religious is trying to prove the scientific validity of Noah's Ark at all?  Doesn't that remove all power of the faith from the story, basically making it a really old news article?

Quote from: "PeytonFarquhar"I think it would also require that waters rise at the rate of about 625 feet a day in order for the entire world to be covered in water (over Mt. Everest) in 40 days/nights.  Assuming it was all rain, then at that rate of downpour no wooden structure, including boats, would remain intact.

Almost all sea life would die because of the miles of fresh water added to the mix.

Although you didn't exactly just say it....I had never thought about the affect the added water pressure would have on the sea life.  

As a side note in case I never said it before:  It's is one thing for believers to claim that the flood happened and yet another for them to claim there is scientific proof of it.  If they want to claim it was all magic, so be it....it just doesn't make much sense as a magical story either since in that case God  could have just thought the bad guys out of existence!

Like many of his followers, god has a flair for the dramatic. lol

The Noah's ark myth was plagiarized from an earlier Sumerian flood myth.

http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/SumerianMyth.htm

and

http://history-world.org/sumerian_floor_story.htm

This myth appears in several different cultures. Scientists confirmed there was an actual flood that covered a fair amount of land in Greece, of course that's a longshot from being the entire earth. It probably felt as though the entire earth was flooded to these pagans. I don't know about their language, but in the Biblical version wasn't there only one word for earth/land in the Hebrew language? Is it possible they only meant a certain area of land or does the Bible specify it was all of the earth?

Here's a video of Richard Dawkins debunking Noah's Ark from an evolutionary standpoint. (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/dawkins-delivers-the-sermon-they-came-to-hear-20100314-q63g.html?autostart=1)

I'm sorry this post is kind of long but it might help:

The Council of Nicaea had the colossal task of turning the Hebrew bible into everybody’s sacred book. That was not going to be an easy job. They knew they could not change the people’s mind to accept other people’s origins as theirs immediately. What they could change was the bible! They just had to modify some key words to make the Jewish tradition everyone’s origin.
   
       One of those key terms was Israel. In Hebrew, the word Israel and the word earth are homonyms. So, where the original writers of the bible wrote Israel, the members of the Nicaea Council translated “earth”, to give the words in the scriptures a universal sense. But they overdid it! It could not always be done. In some instances, changing the word Israel to earth does not even make sense.

Let us see an example:

       Do you remember the conversation between god and Cain short after Cain killed Abel? I’ll cite it for you again.
Genesis

4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

       God drove him from the face of the earth? Where was Cain going? Was he going to the moon, to Mars, to Saturn? No. He headed to the land of Nod, east of Eden. That was still on the face of the earth! It was just a few miles from his homeland. He was not traveling into outer space. Now let us change the word earth in that excerpt for Israel.

Genesis

4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of  Israel;

It makes perfect sense now.

The second word earth in the same paragraph makes sense. He will be a vagabond on the earth.

The bible is full of these “mistakes”. Here are other examples.

Genesis

6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

       God will destroy all living things, including people, but will he also destroy the earth? No. After the flood, the earth was still here. Let us make the same change we made before.

6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with Israel.

       There. Now god will destroy all living things and people, and Israel, and the earth will be left alone.

Genesis

7:10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

Conceding that there was a flood of such magnitude, if we change the word earth to Israel, it makes more sense:

7:10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon Israel.

Extracted from. . .    http://www.godmakers.info (http://www.godmakers.info)

Poke some serious holes in the Noah myth with a bit of math. The good book says that the whole damned earth was covered with water. That means the water was pretty deep in the lowlands. It rained forty days and forty nights. That is 960 hours. Lets be generous and say that Everest, K2 and other big mountains were only about 20,000 feet high at the time.  Divide twenty thousand by 960 hours and you get 20.8 feet of rain per hour. That was a bitchin rainstorm!  In fact that rate of precipitation would easily sink our largest  aircraft carriers, container ships, tankers, and all the rest. Noah had to be a Naval architect of other wordly intelligence. Fundies refuse to hear simple math style rebuttals so let them live in peace and languish in ignorance.

Quote from: "Icarus"Poke some serious holes in the Noah myth with a bit of math. The good book says that the whole damned earth was covered with water. That means the water was pretty deep in the lowlands. It rained forty days and forty nights. That is 960 hours. Lets be generous and say that Everest, K2 and other big mountains were only about 20,000 feet high at the time.  Divide twenty thousand by 960 hours and you get 20.8 feet of rain per hour. That was a bitchin rainstorm!  In fact that rate of precipitation would easily sink our largest  aircraft carriers, container ships, tankers, and all the rest. Noah had to be a Naval architect of other wordly intelligence. Fundies refuse to hear simple math style rebuttals so let them live in peace and languish in ignorance.

You can't really poke holes in what is already holy.

Quote from: "Icarus"Noah had to be a Naval architect of other wordly intelligence.

....or using the plans of such an architect, which is their premise, iirc.

Not that earthly intelligence isn't more than sufficient for seeing this fairy tale for what it is.

Written by Marty Leipzig:
First - the global flood supposedly (Scripturally) covered the planet and Mount Everest is 8,848 meters tall. The diameter of the Earth at the equator, on the other hand, is 12,756.8 km. All we have to do is calculate the volume of water to fill a sphere with a radius of the Earth plus Mount Everest; then we subtract the volume of a sphere with a radius of the Earth. Now, I know this won't yield a perfect result, because the Earth isn't a perfect sphere, but it will serve to give a general idea about the amounts involved.

So, here are the calculations:

First, Everest:

V = 4/3×pi×r3
= 4/3×pi×6387.248 km3
= 1.09151×1012 km3

Now, the Earth at sea level:

V = 4/3×pi×r3
= 4/3×pi×6378.4 km3
= 1.08698×1012 km3

The difference between these two figures is the amount of water needed to just cover the Earth: 4.525×109 Or, to put into a more sensible number, 4,525,000,000,000 cubic kilometres. This is one helluva lot of water.
For those who think it might come from the polar ice caps, please don't forget that water is more dense than ice, and thus that the volume of ice present in those ice caps would have to be more than the volume of water necessary. Some interesting physical effects of all that water, too. How much weight do you
think that is? Well, water at STP weighs in at 1 gram/cubic centimetre (by definition), so:

4.525×109 km3 of water,
×109 (cubic meters in a cubic kilometer),
×106 (cubic centimetres in a cubic meter),
×1 g/cm3 (denisty of water),
×10-3 (kilograms),
(turn the crank)
equals 4.525×1021 kg

Ever wonder what the effects of that much weight would be? Well, many times in the near past (i.e., the Pleistocene), continental ice sheets covered many of the northern states and most all of Canada. For the sake of argument, let's say the area covered by the Wisconsinian advance (the latest and greatest) was
10,000,000,000 (ten million) km2, by an average thickness of 1 km of ice (a good estimate... it was thicker in some areas [the zones of accumulation] and much thinner elsewhere [at the ablating edges]).

Now, 1.00×107 km2 times 1 km thickness equals 1.00×107 km3 of ice.

Now, remember earlier that we noted that it would take 4.525×109 km3 of water for the Flood? Well, looking at the Wisconsinian glaciation, all that ice (which is frozen water, remember?) would be precisely 0.222% [...do the math] (that's zero decimal two hundred twenty two thousandths) percent of the water
needed for the flood.

Well, the Wisconsinian glacial stade ended about 25,000 YBP (years before present), as compared for the approximately supposedly 4,000 YBP flood event.

Due to these late Pleistocene glaciations (some 21,000 years preceding the supposed flood), the mass of the ice has actually depressed the crust of the Earth. That crust, now that the ice is gone, is slowly rising (called glacial rebound); an this rebound can be measured, in places (like northern Wisconsin), in centimetres- per-year. Sea level was also lowered some tens of meters due to the very finite amount of water in the Earth's hydrosphere being locked up in glacial ice sheets (geologists call this glacioeustacy).

Now, glacial rebound can only be measured, obviously, in glaciated terranes, i.e., the Sahara is not rebounding as it was not glaciated during the Pleistocene. This lack of rebound is noted by laser ranged interferometery and satellite geodesy [so there], as well as by geomorphology. Glacial striae on bedrock, eskers, tills, moraines, rouche moutenees, drumlins, kame and kettle topography, fjords, deranged
fluvial drainage and erratic blocks all betray a glacier's passage. Needless to say, these geomorphological expressions are not found everywhere on Earth (for instance, like the Sahara). Therefore, although extensive, the glaciers were a local (not global) is scale. Yet, at only 0.222% the size of the supposed flood, they have had a PROFOUND and EASILY recognisable and measurable effects on the lands.

Yet, the supposed flood of Noah, supposedly global in extent, supposedly much more recent, and supposedly orders of magnitude larger in scale; has exactly zero measurable effects and zero evidence for it's occurrence.

Golly, Wally. I wonder why that may be...?

Further, Mount Everest extends through 2/3 of the Earth's atmosphere. Since two
forms of matter can't occupy the same space, we have an additional problem with the
atmosphere. Its current boundary marks the point at which gasses of the atmosphere
can escape the Earth's gravitational field. Even allowing for partial dissolving of
the atmosphere into our huge ocean, we'd lose the vast majority of our atmosphere
as it is raised some 5.155 km higher by the rising flood waters; and it boils off
into space.

Yet, we still have a quite thick and nicely breathable atmosphere. In fact, ice
cores from Antarctica (as well as deep-sea sediment cores) which can be
geochemically tested for paleoatmospheric constituents and relative gas ratios; and
these records extend well back into the Pleistocene, far more than the supposed
4,000 YBP flood event. Strange that this major loss of atmosphere, atmospheric
fractionation (lighter gasses - oxygen, nitrogen, fluorine, neon, etc. - would
have boiled off first in the flood-water rising scenario, enriching what remained
with heavier gasses - argon, krypton, xenon, radon, etc.), and massive
extinctions from such global upheavals are totally unevidenced in these cores.

Even further, let us take a realistic and dispassionate look at the other claims
relating to global flooding and other such biblical nonsense.

Particularly, in order to flood the Earth to the Genesis requisite depth of 10
cubits (~15' or 5 m.) above the summit of Mt. Ararat (16,900' or 5,151 m AMSL), it
would obviously require a water depth of 16,915' (5,155.7 m), or over three miles
above mean sea level. In order to accomplish this little task, it would require
the previously noted additional 4.525×109 km3 of water to flood the Earth to this
depth. The Earth's present hydrosphere (the sum total of all waters in, on and
above the Earth) totals only 1.37×109 km3. Where would this additional
4.525×109 km3 of water come from? It cannot come from water vapour (i.e., clouds)
because the atmospheric pressure would be 840 times greater than standard pressure
of the atmosphere today. Further, the latent heat released when the vapour
condenses into liquid water would be enough to raise the temperature of the
Earth's atmosphere to approximately 3,570 C (6,460 F).

Someone, who shall properly remain anonymous, suggested that all the water needed
to flood the Earth existed as liquid water surrounding the globe (i.e., a "vapour
canopy"). This, of course, is staggeringly stupid. What is keeping that much water
from falling to the Earth? There is a little property called gravity that would
cause it to fall.

Let's look into that from a physical standpoint. To flood the Earth, we have
already seen that it would require 4.525×109 km3 of water with a mass of
4.525×1021 kg. When this amount of water is floating about the Earth's
surface, it stored an enormous amount of potential energy, which is converted to
kinetic energy when it falls, which, in turn, is converted to heat upon impact
with the Earth. The amount of heat released is immense:

Potential energy: E=MgH, where
M = mass of water,
g = gravitational constant and,
H = height of water above surface.

Now, going with the Genesis version of the Noachian Deluge as lasting 40 days and
nights, the amount of mass falling to Earth each day is 4.525×1021 kg/40 24-hr.
periods. This equals 1.10675×1020 kilograms daily. Using H as 10 miles (16,000
meters), the energy released each day is 1.73584×1025 joules. The amount of energy
the Earth would have to radiate per m2/sec is energy divided by surface area of the
Earth times number of seconds in one day. That is:

e = 1.735384×1025/(4×3.14159×((63862)×86,400))
e = 391,935.0958 j/m2/s

Currently, the Earth radiates energy at the rate of approximately 215 joules/m2/sec
and the average temperature is 280 K. Using the Stefan-Boltzman 4th-Power Law to
calculate the increase in temperature:

E (increase)/E (normal) = T (increase)/T4 (normal)

E (normal) = 215
E (increase) = 391,935.0958
T (normal) = 280.

Turn the crank, and T (increase) equals 1,800 K.

The temperature would thusly rise 1,800 K, or 1,526.84 C (that's 2,780.33 F...
lead melts at 880 F...). It would be highly unlikely that anything short of fused
quartz would survive such an onslaught. Also, the water level would have to rise
at an average rate of 5.5 inches/min; and in 13 minutes would be in excess of six
feet deep.

Finally, at 1800 K water would not exist as liquid.

It is quite clear that a Biblical Flood is and was quite impossible.

I recommend spamming this on Yahoo Answers

Ah a reply to on old post, I apologize if I repeat anything mentioned beforehand.  Reading 10 pages of information would be akin to tackling a new book.

Anyway, viewing the Ark from a structural point of view, the shear size of it would be a serious detriment.  When water has more surface to work with it becomes even more deadly. Water with same force across a small surface displaces less than than across a larger surface.

Look at floods on TV.  Items with little surface area at their face tend to remain while items with larger surface areas are swept away.  Things like stop signs and traffic lights can withstand flooding waters better than cars or sides of a building.  I grant that stop signs and traffic lights are anchored, but many structures are anchored too.

So with a boat that size, a small displacement such as a crest from a wave would have split it into pieces because water has more to work with on applying force to a greater surface area.

There are other serious holes in the myth, Noah did not have access to metals such as iron or bronze.  So his boat would have not been nailed together.  His boat would have been made from pitch, twine, and fastened with mortises and tenons.

We have trouble building commercial building within a month with modern equipment. This does not include labor that occurs prior to the construction such as  felling the wood, debarking, and cutting.  Do we accept that a family of maybe ten, include women and children, could construct such a structure without cranes, forklifts, saws, within a few few weeks?

There is also the issue of hogging, which is where the ship flexes in the middle -- the ends sagging -- as it crests a wave.  

On wooden ships, this phenomenon limits size to around 300', which introduces another engineering obstacle to the story, especially on a ship as overloaded as the Ark muct have been.  Adam Lee at Daylight Atheism has an excellent deconstruction of the myth on his site, too.

I personally don't believe the ark was a real, physical object. And the flood may have been more of a myth/story for entertainment. However I wonder if the ark is supposed to be representative of the human body as the ark/carrier of the soul/spirit.

OK, here's an interesting thought. With the salinity of the oceans changing so drastically, and they would have, even after the so called flood, wouldn't they have necessitated the mid-Atlantic current changing? Forcing it to alter the weather patterns across the globe and likely causing an ice-age all over again? Sure, it would have taken a couple of hundred years, but the effect would likely be felt today.

Thoughts?

Quote from: "Prea"I personally don't believe the ark was a real, physical object. And the flood may have been more of a myth/story for entertainment. However I wonder if the ark is supposed to be representative of the human body as the ark/carrier of the soul/spirit.

Prea. While you're world view is just that, yours, forgive me if it sounds so woolly as to be next to useless in actually describe a world in which we can function. As anything is possibly, nearly nothing is probably, so shouldn't we treasure those things we have found probable and not just spout rubbish 'could be's' in the vague hope they might just explain what's going on?

But Tank....back in the old days people thought in different terms....allegorically, metaphorically, emblematically, figuratively, parabolically, symbolizing, confusing, mysteriously, obscure, perplexing, puzzling, vague ... you know... not representative.

Can you even imagine what the recipe for matzo balls would have read like???

Quote from: "Gawen"But Tank....back in the old days people thought in different terms....allegorically, metaphorically, emblematically, figuratively, parabolically, symbolizing, confusing, mysteriously, obscure, perplexing, puzzling, vague ... you know... not representative.

Can you even imagine what the recipe for matzo balls would have read like???

Noooooo!!!! And I don't want to either  

Know what I find interesting, the Old Testament is the book of the Jews, and even THEY know that it's NOT an historical book.  It's all allegory and as Lewis Black says, and I paraphrase, it's mostly full of sh*t.

The "MYTH" of the flood is just that, and it makes no sense to think of it as a historical event.  First off, there is simply NO WAY that the story can be true in that there is simply no way to get two of every species from all corners of the world to the middle east.  Secondly, come on, IF and a really big IF, god exists, why would he need to flood the earth to punish man, why kill everything to punish just one species?  Secondly, why not just zap all evil men with a heart attack, seems a lot more efficient, and surely god would understand heart attacks, even back then, being that he has all knowledge.  Well, you get the idea.

So, the argument for or against the Flood, is pretty much over.  I don't know any educated theologians who believe the flood is an actual event, except for the evangelical faith-heads.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Gawen"But Tank....back in the old days people thought in different terms....allegorically, metaphorically, emblematically, figuratively, parabolically, symbolizing, confusing, mysteriously, obscure, perplexing, puzzling, vague ... you know... not representative.

Can you even imagine what the recipe for matzo balls would have read like???

Noooooo!!!! And I don't want to either  :mad:   It's bad enough there are a million different versions of the recipe

Quote from: "KDbeads"

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Gawen"But Tank....back in the old days people thought in different terms....allegorically, metaphorically, emblematically, figuratively, parabolically, symbolizing, confusing, mysteriously, obscure, perplexing, puzzling, vague ... you know... not representative.

Can you even imagine what the recipe for matzo balls would have read like???

Noooooo!!!! And I don't want to either  :mad:   It's bad enough there are a million different versions of the recipe

*laffin*

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "KDbeads"NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!  Don't screw with my matzo balls :hissyfit:

*laffin*

I bet you are, I actually tried to think about how someone could describe just one version of the recipe in those different terms.....  Woke me up in the middle of the night with a headache.

Quote from: "KDbeads"

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Gawen"But Tank....back in the old days people thought in different terms....allegorically, metaphorically, emblematically, figuratively, parabolically, symbolizing, confusing, mysteriously, obscure, perplexing, puzzling, vague ... you know... not representative.

Can you even imagine what the recipe for matzo balls would have read like???

Noooooo!!!! And I don't want to either  :mad:   It's bad enough there are a million different versions of the recipe :hmm:  never had it...

Quote from: "deekayfry"

Quote from: "KDbeads"

Quote from: "Tank"Noooooo!!!! And I don't want to either  :mad:   It's bad enough there are a million different versions of the recipe :hmm:  never had it...

In that case no matzo ball soup for you on Sunday  :drool

Genesis 7:19 "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered."

Genesis 8:21 "And the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. "

Genesis 9:11 "Neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth."

Genesis 9:15 "And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh."

How much more clear can you get that this flood story pertains to wiping out ALL of mankind across the WHOLE earth? God said "every thing living" and "destroy the earth" and "every living creature". He is not quoted as saying every living thing just in a certain small area. Christians who try and claim that the flood only pertained to a small area are delusional and are rationalizing to try and make sense of obvious problems with this story. Christians HAVE to get good at rationalizing. It's the only way they can survive in a world slowly but surely coming to their senses and getting away from the supernatural and superstitious myths.

According to the Old Testament, god clearly promised no more floods like the one in Noah's time. However, local floods have ravaged the earth down through the ages, killing millions. So, if the flood of Noah was local, it would contradict God's promise. If the flood was worldwide, it would not contradict his promise. The whole point of the myth pertains to god being unhappy with ALL of his people and he is going to start over wiping them ALL away except for the animals and eight chosen people.

Of course the idea of an ark that would contain all these animals is both ludicrous and impossible. Anyone with any sort of intelligence should be able to figure that out. So, it's not logical to even bother with trying to figure out dimensions and show how impossible it would be for an ark to hold that many animals. Christians claiming that they don't know how god did it but he did are completely delusional. Anytime a Christian takes the flood story as literal get them to answer why the Egyptian records at this time go completely uninterrupted and why the great pyramids in Giza are there.

This great flood, according to the bible, supposedly occurred around the year 2348-2345 BCE. The Bible provides the approximate year of the flood. The New Testament contains a genealogy for Jesus that stretches all the way from Jesus to Adam. The Bible lists ages for all the people involved, and when they were born. Therefore, you can track back to the date of Noah's flood to about 2348-2345 BCE. This time falls smack in the middle of the period in history known as the BRONZE AGE. (3000-1200 BCE) This was a significant period in history. The technology to forge bronze increased trade routes, necessitated the domestication of draft horses, the invention of bellows, ox carts, potters wheels, as well as the invention of the plow for cultivating the soil. These were great advances. If there had been a global flood, it would have set civilization back to the Stone Age and it would have taken centuries to recover what was lost.

The Great Pyramid of Cheops was built about 2566 BCE. The Djoser Step Pyramid was built about 2630 BCE. No pyramids in Egypt show any signs of having been under water.  Likewise for many other ancient structures.  But even more importantly, the Egyptians have continuous historical records for hundreds of years before and after the time of the flood that make no mention of a great flood.  This shows that they were not only not aware of a global flood, they certainly were not greatly affected by one. Did anyone fail to tell the Egyptians that they were being wiped off the face of the earth by a great flood created by the Hebrew god? No, that's because it didn't happen.

One cannot deny the existence of archeological evidence that many great civilizations existed in various parts of the world at the time of the Flood and continued through it. If Noah's flood had been universal, all civilizations would have been destroyed along with their inventions, language, art and whatever other advancement each unique civilization would have made. History does not reveal gaps or a large void in any of these cultures which would be the natural result of a catastrophic event such as a global flood.

Christians who actually believe this story would have to totally ignore historically evidence of many large civilizations across the world that were in existence at this time and continued to exist after 2400 BCE, not just the Egyptians. The Minoan civilization on the island of Crete entered a period of cultural advancement around 2500 BCE. They had already produced works of art, established cities, created an alphabet, and made use of bronze prior to the date of the supposed flood. It continued to develop and was established as a center of trade until is was destroyed by a volcano in 1470 BCE. Phoenicia was a thriving trade center which existed before, during and after the flood. Civilizations such as the Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians, Indus Valley, Yao Dynasty in China, Japanese, American Indians, African tribes, etc. All of these civilizations were in existence before the Noah story's date and continued to exist after. That's because this event did not happen. There is no evidence that any of these millions of people suddenly disappeared from history and then suddenly re-appeared all over the world carrying the same culture, art, language, writing and architectural designs -- unique to each civilization.

The Noah flood story is just a Hebrew version of the older Gilgamesh flood story that had been circulating for many, many years before from the Sumerians. This story had versions by the Sumerians, Akkadians, and later the Babylonians. It's a story only.

Tehilim [de-Judaized to “Psalms”] often corroborates that the logical universe reflects its Perfect Creator.“ It is also possible to prove the existence of an Orderly Creator â€" using formal logic based on scientific premises and that Torah contains His Instructions. (http://bloganders.blogspot.com/2009/08/proof-of-existence-of-intelligent-and.html) [Click on this link.]

“The popular concept of miracle as contradicting the natural / physical laws is a logical impossibility, since they the product of ha-Sheim, the physical laws must be perfect. Therefore, a contradiction would render ha-Sheim imperfect; and it follows that such contradictions cannot exist in the Jewish Bible.”    [li]

“Immutability: Malakhi 3.6â€""Because I am ha-Sheim, I do not change." The unchanging Order and Logic of the Omniscient Creator-Singularity of the universe is reflected in His unchanging laws (formal logic; mathematics, physics and hard sciences) that govern it. The clearer you're able to see and understand His Reflection, the clearer you will perceive and understand Himâ€"and His Ways.”
The above paragraphs implies that neither did the event describe about Noakh contradict The Orderly Creators’ Orderly laws of nature.

Here is a quote refering to findings that has found this local event of a flood that took place:
"Logic, historical documentation, archeology and science are not threats to Tor•âh′. To the contrary, they illuminate Tor•âh′. Logic and science threaten only modern interpreters who mindlessly regurgitate Medieval interpretations. To immunize your children against secularism, as well as against Christianity, you must apply yourselves to learning how logic and science reconcile with Tor•âh′; and be prepared to discard interpretations that conflict with the Creator of logic and science in our universeâ€"in other words, interpretations of Tor•âh′ that actually conflict with Tor•âh′.  (..)

In No′akh, we find that hâ-Arettz was drowned in the Mabul [flood]. Our children learn in science that no flood could have covered the entire world with water; it's scientifically impossible. So, they begin to doubt Torah′ because the rabbis flunk physics, because they tell our children that their Medieval perspectives are identical to Tor•âh′. That is our fault, not Torâh′'s fault.

Today, we know the world is globular. But, in the time that the account of No′akh was first related, hâ-Aretz referred to "the civilized world"â€"of a family: âdâm, then No′akh. The account in Torâh′ relates No′akh's perspective, not our modern perspective.

Not surprisingly to me, scientists have found the area where the Mabul′ occurred. We know this area as the Black Sea. Scientists know that it was once landlocked, with far less water. The natural land bridge to the west formed a dam against the Mediterranean. It fragmented over time, due to tectonic shifting. Finally, during a torrential rain, the natural land dam, between what is now the Black Sea and the Mediterranean burst; and the Mediterranean flooded the Black Sea. Corroborating this, the ark came to rest on the nearby Ararat Mountains in Turkey. Even if we find this phenomenon wrong one day; nevertheless, it is this type of logical and scientific explanation that has the potential to prove correct one day. No less importantly, it is also this type of explanation that your child can rely on, and relate to, their intelligent and educated peers when they encounter questions in and after high school." (Above quotes from: {url=www.netzarim.co.il]Netzarim[/url])

Noakh was commanded to bring with him the animals. This does not imply that he had to go all around the world to bring in animals. ×"ארץ (the word used) referred to where he lived and the world he knew about.

Anders Branderud

Love this forum more and more every day, never have I learned so many raw facts online as the first page of this thread

Andersbranderud,

Another person who believes in the Noah's ark story.  :(

Quote from: "lundberg500"

QuoteToday, we know the world is globular. But, in the time that the account of No′akh was first related, hâ-Aretz referred to "the civilized world"â€"of a family: âdâm, then No′akh. The account in Torâh′ relates No′akh's perspective, not our modern perspective.

The account in the Torah relates Noah's perspective because it was written by ancient Hebrews who lacked the modern knowledge that we have today. This shows that the bible was not a divinely inspired writing. It was written by man with the very limited knowledge he had at that time. Did the Hebrew god also lack this knowdlege that we have today? Shouldn't this god have known everything pertaining to the world in which in he created?

QuoteLogic and science threaten only modern interpreters who mindlessly regurgitate Medieval interpretations. To immunize your children against secularism, as well as against Christianity, you must apply yourselves to learning how logic and science reconcile with Tor•âh

This is just sad, really sad ....   :|

But then, the next scientific verse tell us:
20 " 'All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you.
21  There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground.
22 Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper.
23 But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest.

Notice the back pedaling as well.
20) ALL
21) Wait, there are a few
22) here's the few

And of course, the biblical definition of pi is 3, not 3.14.

The biblical god is an idiot. Even in 'Noah's day'.

What's sad is that my mom believes that the Noah's Ark story is a literal historical event, and that remnants of it are being hidden on a mountain in Afghanistan or something. Maybe, just maybe, I can convince her otherwise with some of the facts used in this thread, though I honestly doubt it.

We will just simply ignore the fact that there isn't actually enough water on Earth to actually makes noah's Ark story even possible :pop:

LegendarySandwich,

I don't think your mother comprehends the sheer volume of water that is required to do that would exceed the limits of the sheer volume of water that actually exists on this planet by more than 3 times, or even perhaps 4 or more. It's entirely nonsensical. :cool:

QuoteAmazing isn't it?

Of course, the Torah and science mesh perfectly, even when the following was written:
Lev. 13-19: " 'These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture,
14 the red kite, any kind of black kite,
15 any kind of raven,
16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk,
17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl,
18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey,
19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat..

Everyone knows the bat is a bird of prey... :hail:

Quote from: "TheJackel"We will just simply ignore the fact that there isn't actually enough water on Earth to actually makes noah's Ark story even possible :pop:

LegendarySandwich,

I don't think your mother comprehends the sheer volume of water that is required to do that would exceed the limits of the sheer volume of water that actually exists on this planet by more than 3 times, or even perhaps 4 or more. It's entirely nonsensical. :cool:

Given the fact that water vapor releases latent heat when it recondenses, I wonder how Noah's family avoid dying of heat-sickness as well.

Another good question to ask the believers.. How could a man from bronze age Palestine transport animals from all over the world ?? which means of transportation did he use to go to the North Pole to get polar bears, or to Australia to get the kangaroos, or to China to get the pandas, or to South America to get the llamas????

Quote from: "Ba'al"Another good question to ask the believers.. How could a man from bronze age Palestine transport animals from all over the world ?? which means of transportation did he use to go to the North Pole to get polar bears, or to Australia to get the kangaroos, or to China to get the pandas, or to South America to get the llamas????

Also, how did he put them all back when his boat was stuck on a mountain?

Where did he keep the saltwater fish?

How did the food chain work on the boat What did the lions, tigers, and Bears OH MY! Eat? :O. Technically that food chain would self collapse :_

Myth or fact, whatever it is you choose to believe the story is fascinating. Everything has been saved from a wreck. Noah's Ark carrying all the freight of the world's life also carried the weight of its sin. The ship sank but God is rescuing everything; man and beast and all other created things. The world is full of such analogies, if only we had eyes to see and ears to hear, hands to feel and nostrils to scent and tongues to taste. Our problem is not that we perceive and thus desire too much, but rather that we envision and thus proclaim too little. We are pathetically blinkered, selfishly purblind. Our finite and fallen imaginations cannot behold the surplus of light that pervades the entirety of created being. If things deceive us, it is by being more than they seem. Only human beings can know this splendid and blessed truth, and thus is a great burden and a great privilege uniquely ours.

Quote from: "Achronos"Myth or fact, whatever it is you choose to believe the story is fascinating.Everything has been saved from a wreck. Noah's Ark carrying all the freight of the world's life also carried the weight of its sin. The ship sank but God is rescuing everything; man and beast and all other created things. The world is full of such analogies, if only we had eyes to see and ears to hear, hands to feel and nostrils to scent and tongues to taste. Our problem is not that we perceive and thus desire too much, but rather that we envision and thus proclaim too little. We are pathetically blinkered, selfishly purblind. Our finite and fallen imaginations cannot behold the surplus of light that pervades the entirety of created being. If things deceive us, it is by being more than they seem. Only human beings can know this splendid and blessed truth, and thus is a great burden and a great privilege uniquely ours.

I just edited out my initial reply to this because it would undoubtedly have got me banned for being uncivil. Words are not enough to describe my contempt for the drivel you have just written here.

That's what makes it great; all salvation lies in an if, but it's not an if that depends simply on us. God provides the grace by which we avoid the one thing that is forbidden. Everything is ours for the having, but only with the reminder that they are not ours but God's. We have been given them to enjoy, not to worship. When we make idols of life's good things, they are inevitably taken from us. The cosmos itself thus hangs like a crystal that God could drop, so that everything would go to smash, if indeed we ignore the doctrine of conditional joy. Robinson Crusoe is the truest of stories because it reminds us that human existence hangs on the way in which God has enabled us to pass the test: all things have had this hair-breadth escape, everything saved from a wreck.

The real question must be why the narrative of this universal flood was included into the Bible. To relate regeneration? To underline the undeniable fact that life comes from water? To remind humanity that the result of sin is death? To teach that God's promises are true and that His wrath is destructive? I also wonder if the other narratives talk of the covenant before God and His chosen servant and make associations between offerings and the general notion of sacrifice.

Might be of interest to some, like those wondering about penguins (universal climate before the Flood)

Noah and the Ark Part1:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php ... 8506567313 (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=446719099080&oid=358506567313)

Part2:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php ... 8506567313 (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=446783894080&oid=358506567313)

Part 3:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php ... 8506567313 (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=446794494080&oid=358506567313)

Part 4:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php ... 8506567313 (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=446828499080&oid=358506567313)


After the Flood Part1:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php ... 8506567313 (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=446869249080&oid=358506567313)

Part 2:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php ... 8506567313 (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=446915414080&oid=358506567313)

Part 3:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php ... 8506567313 (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=447111124080&oid=358506567313)

Part 4:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php ... 8506567313 (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=447137209080&oid=358506567313)

Quote from: "Achronos"I also wonder if the other narratives talk of the covenant before God and His chosen servant and make associations between offerings and the general notion of sacrifice.

Yes, like that one where he asks Abraham to sacrifice his son instead of the traditional lamb offering.

Btw, what is offensive about belief in the flood story is not for most the intended lesson of the story (though an all knowing god brutally drowning almost all life on earth then feeling sorry about it not only brings into question the extent of god's knowledge of the future but also his capacity for empathy).  The main problem is that continued belief in a global flood despite evidence to the contrary (like other civilizations doing just fine during the same time period being a big one) promotes the mass ignorance that makes society retarded as a whole...as someone who values truth, real truth, I find it immoral to claim something is real just because it sounds like a nice story.  Not only is it immoral but we depend on accurate science in order to develop cures for various horrible diseases and to make our lives better in general...we can't practice good science when we can't teach it in school because some dumbass parent has their panties in a wad because their religion thinks they earth is young and evolution is fake.

So yeas, it does matter is someone takes the flood story as being litterally true or simply allegorical...once I was old enough to understand the flood story and understand the history of our earth I began to see it as allegorical and was still a christian at the time; I could have even stayed a christian taking most of the bible as allegory if it weren't for other major flaws in the faith and belief in itself.

Quote from: "Achronos"Might be of interest to some, like those wondering about penguins (universal climate before the Flood)

Noah and the Ark Part1:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php ... 8506567313 (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=446719099080&oid=358506567313)

Part2:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php ... 8506567313 (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=446783894080&oid=358506567313)

Part 3:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php ... 8506567313 (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=446794494080&oid=358506567313)

Part 4:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php ... 8506567313 (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=446828499080&oid=358506567313)


After the Flood Part1:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php ... 8506567313 (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=446869249080&oid=358506567313)

Part 2:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php ... 8506567313 (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=446915414080&oid=358506567313)

Part 3:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php ... 8506567313 (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=447111124080&oid=358506567313)

Part 4:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php ... 8506567313 (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=447137209080&oid=358506567313)

Are you serious? Isn't that the guy who thought by opening a jar of peanut butter he disproved evolution?

Achronos, your videos made me chuckle.

Thanks for making my day.

Hey I said it would be of interest to some, glad to see they were enjoyed.

Also the event of the flood had a great allegorical importance for the Apostles and the Church Fathers, since Peter himself indicates the Ark as a type for Christ and the Church, and the flood as a type for baptism.

Quote from: "Achronos"Also the event of the flood had a great allegorical importance for the Apostles and the Church Fathers, since Peter himself indicates the Ark as a type for Christ and the Church, and the flood as a type for baptism.

That's some expensive symbolism.

The story of the world's creation is an image. It might have happened that explicit way, or probably a different way that we understand better now. But it was an image of what happened. God made the world in different steps, if not in the explicit way we would read it.

By the way, some skeptics and non-Christians have a big problem with Christianity for this reason. They demand a literal reading of the OT and don't realize the image-in-ary approach of the prophecies. The Fathers also saw the visible creation itself as an image, a symbol, of heavenly realities...therefore it should not be taken "literally" either.

That is why it's in miraculous terms that Jesus "opened their understanding" about the scriptures for the apostles on the Road to Emmaus. Because the explicit-only approach leads to confusion.

The problem with that apology is that this symbolism still advocates a morality of killing one's mistakes, a justice which asserts that the flaw is the responsibility of the flawed, and this results in the profoundly anti-human stance of Christianity.  Whether it actually happened or not is irrelevant.

Quote from: "Achronos"The story of the world's creation is an image. It might have happened that explicit way, or probably a different way that we understand better now. But it was an image of what happened. God made the world in different steps, if not in the explicit way we would read it.

By the way, some skeptics and non-Christians have a big problem with Christianity for this reason.

I know I do.  Genesis is probably more responsible for ending my belief in God than any other single factor.

Quote from: "Achronos"They demand a literal reading of the OT and don't realize the image-in-ary approach of the prophecies.

The literal approach was the only one I was taught.  It is the only acceptable approach from the point of view of many conservative evangelical Christians.  They argue that once the Creation story is permitted a non-literal interpretation then the same leniency can be granted any part of the Bible.  Where does one stop?  Was Christ's birth really miraculous or do we allow that his conception was a normal one between a man and a woman?  Did he really rise from the dead or are we to understand the Resurrection as a metaphor of how we can all experience a rebirth during our lives?  This is the concern, and though I am an atheist I can certainly appreciate this reasoned objection to making allowances.  

Quote from: "Achronos"The Fathers also saw the visible creation itself as an image, a symbol, of heavenly realities...therefore it should not be taken "literally" either.

I don't know what your source is for getting at the mind set of those who created the biblical myths, but I think it safe to say they were borrowed, inherited might be closer to the truth, from older traditions. This argument that the ancients didn't really believe in the literal truth of their myths, it seems to me, is really an argument imagined by those who want the myths to hold some deep truth.  One might as well look to the diverse native American myths and search for some deep well of truth in them.  It's a feel-good measure, but not very rational.

Quote from: "Achronos"That is why it's in miraculous terms that Jesus "opened their understanding" about the scriptures for the apostles on the Road to Emmaus. Because the explicit-only approach leads to confusion.

The confusion arises anytime those of faith, in the modern world, attempt to interpret -- in a way that makes sense -- the spiritual beliefs of those who lived two millennium ago.  The fact is secular explanations work perfectly well in explaining the spiritual texts.

Quote from: "Achronos"The story of the world's creation is an image. It might have happened that explicit way, or probably a different way that we understand better now. But it was an image of what happened. God made the world in different steps, if not in the explicit way we would read it.

By the way, some skeptics and non-Christians have a big problem with Christianity for this reason. They demand a literal reading of the OT and don't realize the image-in-ary approach of the prophecies. The Fathers also saw the visible creation itself as an image, a symbol, of heavenly realities...therefore it should not be taken "literally" either.

That is why it's in miraculous terms that Jesus "opened their understanding" about the scriptures for the apostles on the Road to Emmaus. Because the explicit-only approach leads to confusion.

Funny, seems to me that nothing in the old or new testament can be taken explicitly without leading to too much confusion.
I think you got it right when you wrote "image-in-ary," that sums it all up very well.

I just posted this on aniother thread about the Flood, but I may as well post it here too! This is my take on the story as a student of mythology and archaeology / ancient history...

There's a reason why Flood myths exist from all over the world, even from places where flooding never occurred, and it's that the Flood myths are allegorical. They're to do with the movement of the stars in the heavens over long periods of time, maybe linked to the idea of the Great or Platonic Year. It may be that the ancients believed that this Great Year of the movement of the stars due to precession had a summer and a winter, just like our years. During the summer the world was cleansed or destroyed by a great conflagration, and during the winter by a great flood. All people share the night sky, hence the same allegorical myth could be found in places where floods didn't historically occur.

Although the earliest flood myths known are from Mesopotamia, and the biblical version's the most famous, the Greek variants are the best for decoding the myth. The two main Greek flood myths were that of Deucalion (very similar to the Noah account) and Atlantis (the flood myth created by Plato). I always wonder why people try to find a historical basis for Atlantis (like the eruption of Thera) as Plato makes it clear the story is allegorical / mythological, and not historical. He clearly mentions the cycle of Flood and Conflagration;

‘There have been and will be many different calamities to destroy mankind, the greatest of them by fire and water…Your story of how Phaethon, child of the sun, harnessed his father’s chariot, but was unable to guide it along his father’s course and so burnt up things on the earth and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt, is a mythical version of the truth that there is at long intervals a variation in the course of the heavenly bodies and a consequent widespread destruction by fire of things on the earth…on the other hand the gods purge the earth with a deluge.’

The 2nd Century philosopher Celsus also mentioned this cycle in his brilliant critique of Christianity called 'On the True Doctrine' (which should be compulsory reading for all atheists) when talking about the Christians belief in the Second Coming / Final Judgement;

'They postulate, for example, that their Messiah will return as a conqueror on the clouds, and that he will rain fire upon the earth in his battle with the princes of the air, and that the whole world, with the exception of Christians, will be consumed with fire. An interesting idea â€" and hardly an original one. The idea came from the Greeks and others â€" namely, that after cycles of years and because of the fortuitous conjunctions of certain stars there are conflagrations and floods, and that after the last flood, in the time of Deucalion, the cycle demands a conflagration in accordance with the alternating succession of the universe. This is responsible for the silly opinion of some Christians that God will come down and rain fire upon the earth.’

The cycle of Flood and Conflagration is also mentioned in the Corpus Hermeticum;

‘God the creator, when he looked upon the things that happened, established his design, which is good, against the disorder. Sometimes he submerged it in a great flood, at other times he burned it in a searing fire.’

I'm really amazed that people still try to explain the Flood by looking for an actual historical event. It seems the modern mind isn't imaginative enough to think in terms of mythology and allegory!

Quote from: "Too Few Lions"I just posted this on aniother thread about the Flood, but I may as well post it here too! This is my take on the story as a student of mythology and archaeology / ancient history...

There's a reason why Flood myths exist from all over the world, even from places where flooding never occurred, and it's that the Flood myths are allegorical. They're to do with the movement of the stars in the heavens over long periods of time, maybe linked to the idea of the Great or Platonic Year. It may be that the ancients believed that this Great Year of the movement of the stars due to precession had a summer and a winter, just like our years. During the summer the world was cleansed or destroyed by a great conflagration, and during the winter by a great flood. All people share the night sky, hence the same allegorical myth could be found in places where floods didn't historically occur.

Although the earliest flood myths known are from Mesopotamia, and the biblical version's the most famous, the Greek variants are the best for decoding the myth. The two main Greek flood myths were that of Deucalion (very similar to the Noah account) and Atlantis (the flood myth created by Plato). I always wonder why people try to find a historical basis for Atlantis (like the eruption of Thera) as Plato makes it clear the story is allegorical / mythological, and not historical. He clearly mentions the cycle of Flood and Conflagration;

‘There have been and will be many different calamities to destroy mankind, the greatest of them by fire and water…Your story of how Phaethon, child of the sun, harnessed his father’s chariot, but was unable to guide it along his father’s course and so burnt up things on the earth and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt, is a mythical version of the truth that there is at long intervals a variation in the course of the heavenly bodies and a consequent widespread destruction by fire of things on the earth…on the other hand the gods purge the earth with a deluge.’

The 2nd Century philosopher Celsus also mentioned this cycle in his brilliant critique of Christianity called 'On the True Doctrine' (which should be compulsory reading for all atheists) when talking about the Christians belief in the Second Coming / Final Judgement;

'They postulate, for example, that their Messiah will return as a conqueror on the clouds, and that he will rain fire upon the earth in his battle with the princes of the air, and that the whole world, with the exception of Christians, will be consumed with fire. An interesting idea â€" and hardly an original one. The idea came from the Greeks and others â€" namely, that after cycles of years and because of the fortuitous conjunctions of certain stars there are conflagrations and floods, and that after the last flood, in the time of Deucalion, the cycle demands a conflagration in accordance with the alternating succession of the universe. This is responsible for the silly opinion of some Christians that God will come down and rain fire upon the earth.’

The cycle of Flood and Conflagration is also mentioned in the Corpus Hermeticum;

‘God the creator, when he looked upon the things that happened, established his design, which is good, against the disorder. Sometimes he submerged it in a great flood, at other times he burned it in a searing fire.’

I'm really amazed that people still try to explain the Flood by looking for an actual historical event. It seems the modern mind isn't imaginative enough to think in terms of mythology and allegory!

I think it would have been much easier to just state:  

Floods happen, have happened, and ancient or religious people will claim it was an act of GOD for whatever reason or agenda.

Very true, my point was I think the Flood Myth (like pretty much all the other stories in the Bible) is allegorical, and nothing to do with an actual physical or historical flood. Therefore there's no point in trying to debunk it scientifically and say that it can't logistically have happened based on the biblical account. Albeit I did say it in a very long winded manner...

Does anyone else find it sad/disappointing that we can be sucked into silly debates like this one?

Yeah, yeah....freedom of speech and all that stuff....but still, it is pretty obvious that this type of silliness can easily lead to things like Jared Loughner.

I know that the above is going to irritate some of you (please don't shoot me),  I was just wondering if anyone else can see where I am coming from.  The keyword to my question  is 'SAD/DISAPPOINTING'.

I just never liked the idea when I went to church growing up that some of the Bible was to be taken as nice stories, or symbolism, but other parts were word-for-word literal.  Every time new science came along to explain what we used to think was God's work, the explanation was that part of the Bible was now symbolism or image-in-ary.  When I was young, it was inspired by God.  Then, when we saw things like the different genealogies in two of the books in the gospel, it was inspired by God, but written by imperfect men.  That explains it.  The worst part was that we just had to take the pastor's word for what was literal and what wasn't, and every preacher has a different idea of that.

Blasphemy, everybody knows the dinosaurs were on the ark and that Jesus was a raptor.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi138.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq273%2Fblank_20%2Fnoahsark.jpg&hash=f10ad68aa28bfe335033fcf739ba7e1a80d32c8d)

I calculated that for the sea to have covered the tallest mountain plus 15 cubits (17.5" each) the mass of water would have to be 145 times the entire ice mass of both Poles melting in a matter of a day or two.

Quote from: "PaulKing"I calculated that for the sea to have covered the tallest mountain plus 15 cubits (17.5" each) the mass of water would have to be 145 times the entire ice mass of both Poles melting in a matter of a day or two.

But that doesn't stop the limitless god from practicing his all-powerfulness to flood the world and then make the excess water disappear beyond the firmament.

Aye, when you start with the conclusion and don't care about reality, all sorts of things can lead to the conclusion.

There are about 5,000 species (times two of each) of mammals plus fresh water fish and reptiles so the Ark would have to be about five time the size of the Titanic. Not bad work for a week not to mention rounding up all those critters.

Sound plausible to me.....when I am on mushrooms.

Just think of all of the hard work of Noah's family in the business of waste disposal.  There wasn't anything in the Ark plans about Elephant poopoo chutes.

So... Noah's family had to repopulate the Earth  through incest? Then why do we have different races/ethnicities?

I aleays wanted someone to touch ground on this, and the Adam/Eve story.  They annoy me the most.

I can't believe anyone would believe Adam/Eve story. And love how their all powerful God was nice enough to press the reset button and watch everyone drown in agony.

-Sweetdeath

Quote from: Sweetdeath on May 29, 2011, 01:59:55 AM
So... Noah's family had to repopulate the Earth  through incest? Then why do we have different races/ethnicities?

I aleays wanted someone to touch ground on this, and the Adam/Eve story.  They annoy me the most.

I can't believe anyone would believe Adam/Eve story. And love how their all powerful God was nice enough to press the reset button and watch everyone drown in agony.

-Sweetdeath

Makes sense if you think about it.  Before Noah's descendents, humans had 1 eye.  Thank God for incest.

But I enjoyed being a unicorned cyclops ;;

The Ark. There are a lot of 'if's' and 'givens'. But basically, the Ark would be nothing but a barge; no propulsion, no steering, no sails. All a barge does is float and hold cargo. Most barges are flat-bottomed. But the Ark couldn't be flat-bottomed and hold the weight of itself and cargo without breaking up. So there must be a keel and a keel is the backbone. Everything is built around and upwards from the keel. Most ships/barges with a keel have a draft, which is the depth of water a ship needs to float. Even if it has a keel, we need to keep the Ark from tipping over. To much weight above the water-line and it'll go over. So there must be some sort of ballast. Ballast could be anything from rocks and dirt to animals and feed for said animals. The ballast must be spread evenly throughout the bottom of the Ark.


Now we have to strengthen the keel and bulkheads and supports and then make the outside of the Ark below the water-line water-proof because the ballast is below the waterline. Enormous amounts of wood would be needed to strengthen the Ark. Perhaps Bronze Age peoples could have used bronze and other soft metals in strengthening, but these materials would have given way sooner or later and it would be sooner if there storms, wind, eddies or conflicting currents.

What would they have used to water-proof? Some sort of pitch, I reckon. But this pitch would not keep barnacles, wood-boring lifeforms and other oceanic lifeforms from adhering to the bottom of the boat. These lifeforms will weaken the bottom of the wooden boat by boring into it after time, creating soft spots and eventually rot and decay. Seventeenth century buccaneers had to periodically (as in several times per year) beach their ships to scrape off the bottoms and apply more water-proofing.

So, since we can't make a seaworthy long flat boat, we have to make one several storys high to hold the cargo. We have ballast to keep it from tipping. We have made the keel and superstructure so strengthened that there is little room below and must build higher. Still, we can keep from tipping over. We've distributed the weight of our cargo evenly throughout. And we've water-proofed it.

IF nothing inside the Ark moved about...
IF there were no storms or wind....
IF there were no eddies or currents or whirlpools or swells...
IF nothing adhered to the bottom of the Ark...
IF nothing sought to weaken the keel or structure in any way, the Ark may float for an unspecified time. There are so many 'ifs' that it just wouldn't be possible, especially using Bronze Age tech.

Also, there would need to be supports along the bottom of the beached preflood Ark. You can't make a boat without stabilising it some way because if it wasn't stabilised, as the water came up, it would put enormous pressures on parts of the boat not yet in the water. It would crack or even just pull apart.




But then again.....the Ark could float..and did float..because God held it together....

Hellllooooooo... haven't you watched Evan Almighty?  It's all right there!

I've only seen Bruce Almighty. I can  only part soup. ;_;

Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 11, 2011, 12:26:47 AM
I've only seen Bruce Almighty. I can  only part soup. ;_;

*laffin*

Quote from: PaulKing on April 20, 2011, 09:20:28 AM
There are about 5,000 species (times two of each) of mammals plus fresh water fish and reptiles so the Ark would have to be about five time the size of the Titanic. Not bad work for a week not to mention rounding up all those critters.

Sound plausible to me.....when I am on mushrooms.

And what about all of the insects, and the birds?  Sure some of them could fly around above the water but even they'd need places to roost now and then -- 40 days and 40 nights is a long time to be airborne.  And what about the ones that can't fly, or swim? 

And if there's no evolution, you can't just collect one male and female beetle, for instance, you'd have to collect one male and female of every single type of beetle.  I'm thinking that even with only one mating pair of each kind of bug, there'd be enough weight on the ark to sink it before it set sail.

Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 03, 2011, 08:23:15 AM

Quote from: PaulKing on April 20, 2011, 09:20:28 AM
There are about 5,000 species (times two of each) of mammals plus fresh water fish and reptiles so the Ark would have to be about five time the size of the Titanic. Not bad work for a week not to mention rounding up all those critters.

Sound plausible to me.....when I am on mushrooms.

And what about all of the insects, and the birds?  Sure some of them could fly around above the water but even they'd need places to roost now and then -- 40 days and 40 nights is a long time to be airborne.  And what about the ones that can't fly, or swim? 

And if there's no evolution, you can't just collect one male and female beetle, for instance, you'd have to collect one male and female of every single type of beetle.  I'm thinking that even with only one mating pair of each kind of bug, there'd be enough weight on the ark to sink it before it set sail.

And of course if every species came from two progenitors 5,000(?) years ago there would be NO genetic diversity to speak of in any creatures. The closest we have to that are cheetahs which may have had a total population at one time of 20 or so individuals and they are all incredibly genetically close. Any way you look at it the ark is a fairy story, nothing more and nothing less.

Quote from: Tank on October 03, 2011, 09:01:44 AM
Any way you look at it the ark is a fairy story, nothing more and nothing less.

But as the subject for a great game of "what's wrong with this picture?", there's nothing  better.  We could play it for years without repeating ourselves.

Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on October 04, 2011, 02:29:04 AM

Quote from: Tank on October 03, 2011, 09:01:44 AM
Any way you look at it the ark is a fairy story, nothing more and nothing less.

But as the subject for a great game of "what's wrong with this picture?", there's nothing  better.  We could play it for years without repeating ourselves.

Absolutly!

It is estimated that there are somewhere in the vicinity of 1,300,000 species of animals, but 60 percent of these are insects. There are 24,000 amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. 10,000 are birds and 9,000 are reptiles and amphibians, many of which could have survived outside the ark. Only 5,000 are mammals, including whales and porpoises which would have been outside the ark.

There are probably only 290 species of land animals which are larger than a sheep and perhaps 1,360 smaller than rats.

Plenty of room for all on the ark for the period of time needed. Keeping in mind that there didn't need to be every breed of cat, dog, horse, cow etc. There needed to be only cats, dogs, horses and cows represented.

Ignoring the problems (and there are plenty of those) with what you said in your attempted defense of the "great flood" story, Earthling, I'd like to ask you to explain to me how all of the salt water fish survived the huge drop in salinity of the oceans that would have occurred, and how the fresh water fish survived their immersion in a much saltier environment than they were equipped to deal with. It seems to me that unless there were a large number of aquariums aboard the ark, the only fish that would have survived the osmotic shock induced by the flood would have been those adapted to a brackish environment.

It's clear to me that the only way for a believer to accept the flood story is to ignore science, and rely on the miraculous intervention of YHVH. He would have needed to perform some serious direct manipulation of the physical world, making multiple adjustments to reality to produce the world we presently inhabit, while at the same time petulantly wiping out almost all life on the planet in a fit of divine pique.

Quote from: Whitney on July 16, 2006, 02:45:37 PM
I was bored and answering yahoo questions...one came up about Noah's ark so I decided to do a little math:

"Noah's Ark was taller than a 3-story building and had a deck area the size of 36 lawn tennis courts. Its length was 300 cubits (450 feet, or 135 meters); its width was 50 cubits (75 feet, or 22.5 meters); it had three stories and its height was 30 cubits (45 feet, or 13.5 meters)."
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/arksize.html (http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/arksize.html)

Even at that size, it would not be able to hold the diversity of life we see today...even if they were all babies:

"The United Nations Environment Programme's Global Biodiversity Assessment is often cited, which estimates the number of described species at approximately 1.75 million. One study done by prominent biologist E.O. Wilson and others estimate known species at approximately 1.4 million, while another study estimates the number at approximately 1.5 million."
http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/58.html (http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/58.html)

That also doesn't include what these creatures would have eaten (many of which are meat eaters) or where their waste would go and how Noah's family could have possibly kept up with feeding and cleaning. Plus, add in that there were 7 of each 'clean' animal and 7 of each "birds of the air".

Now, someone trying to defend the Noah story could say that Noah didn't have to bring ocean creatures into the ark...but it would have been necessary. As the rain fell it would have quickly changed the salinity (salt content) of all bodies of water. Fresh and Salt water creatures would not be able to survive under such conditions.

Someone could also say that 'kind' isn't the same as species, however that would require accepting evolution. Also, even with just taking 'kinds' of animals, they still wouldn't all fit on the ark and some of them would try to eat the others. http://www.answersingenesis.org/.. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/..). claims that 16,000 individual animals would be on-board the ark (of coarse, they also think dinosaurs would have been on the ark...lol)

Here's an idea of why they wouldn't fit. We first have to remember that the animals couldn't just be crammed in with each other...they need some space. So, assuming that on average they would need 10sf of space per animal. (this is probably a low estimate..especially if dinosaurs are included). The ark is 450ft by 75ft..that's 33,750 sft per floor. Divide that by 10sf and get 3,370 then take 3,370 and multiply by 3 levels (they can't use the roof because of the weather) and we have room for only about 7,200 individual animals (give or take a thousand since I didn't actually calculate how much average room an animal would take up...it was just an estimate).

More about the myth:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/oldearth2.htm (http://www.religioustolerance.org/oldearth2.htm)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html)
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/6flood.htm (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/6flood.htm)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_proof1.htm (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_proof1.htm)
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/stream ... flood.html (http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/science/flood.html)
http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/wyatt.html (http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/wyatt.html)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noah.htm (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noah.htm)

Also one on continental drift (how far can a land animal swim?)
http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/cdmovie.html (http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/cdmovie.html)

Well I've been saying the same thing less math but that is just not possible ill have to use your math from now on also someone else posted about the pressure ill have to add it on to my debates. Thanks everyone and I want to say I share the same opinion with all of you.

Quote from: Jassman on July 17, 2006, 04:16:45 AM
I always tell people that the Noah story is stupid because of facts like this.

Also, after it had been raining for 5 days or so, didn't anyone else decide to build their own boat before they drowned?

And no one else had built their own boat before hand? I mean no one owned a boat?

Also man the smell of ammonia and shit would be terrible in there...

And if God is omnipotent (nothing impossible for him to do) couldn't he just insta kill everyone.

Quote from: envilid on December 30, 2011, 04:46:59 PM

Quote from: Jassman on July 17, 2006, 04:16:45 AM
I always tell people that the Noah story is stupid because of facts like this.

Also, after it had been raining for 5 days or so, didn't anyone else decide to build their own boat before they drowned?

And no one else had built their own boat before hand? I mean no one owned a boat?

Also man the smell of ammonia and shit would be terrible in there...

And if God is omnipotent (nothing impossible for him to do) couldn't he just insta kill everyone.

Nahh, he enjoyed watching his little creations struggle til their final gasps. :D

I just wanted to weigh in on the geological side. Where did all the water go. Even if we melted all the ice locked up in the ice caps it would not be enough to flood every dry piece of earth on the planet. so in order for the earth to be covered in water that excess water had to go someplace. Water does not just vanish, it becomes vapor clouds or ice. Where is all the extra water?

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/spaceart/earthicefree.jpg

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html

Quote from: Twentythree on December 30, 2011, 06:59:58 PM
I just wanted to weigh in on the geological side. Where did all the water go. Even if we melted all the ice locked up in the ice caps it would not be enough to flood every dry piece of earth on the planet. so in order for the earth to be covered in water that excess water had to go someplace. Water does not just vanish, it becomes vapor clouds or ice. Where is all the extra water?

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/spaceart/earthicefree.jpg

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html

Bleh, facts!! Facts , reason, and logic are the tools of the devil.

J/k

I totally bring that up in my argument as well. There is not enough water to flood to such capacity. But religious morons don't wanna hear it.

Quote from: Twentythree on December 30, 2011, 06:59:58 PM
I just wanted to weigh in on the geological side.

He just shrunk the earth allowing water to cover the earth, then he returned it to its original size.
Honestly, some of you are so narrow minded.

Quote from: The Magic Pudding on December 31, 2011, 01:04:28 AM

Quote from: Twentythree on December 30, 2011, 06:59:58 PM
I just wanted to weigh in on the geological side.

He just shrunk the earth allowing water to cover the earth, then he returned it to its original size.
Honestly, some of you are so narrow minded.

great point and to the same effect he could have just..."Honey, I Blew up the Water!"

Makes alot of sense. Glad I decided to read this thread

Quote from: Twentythree on December 30, 2011, 06:59:58 PM
I just wanted to weigh in on the geological side. Where did all the water go. Even if we melted all the ice locked up in the ice caps it would not be enough to flood every dry piece of earth on the planet. so in order for the earth to be covered in water that excess water had to go someplace. Water does not just vanish, it becomes vapor clouds or ice. Where is all the extra water?

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/spaceart/earthicefree.jpg

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html

Perhaps it went back through the floodgates to the other side of the firmament where it came from.  Remember, the skies aren't just atmosphere dwindling into space, but an actual firmament separating the seas.

Stumbled across a Holy Jesus video that proves the validity of Genesis, the Ark, and a lot more.  A fun video if you are at leisure and have an ample supply of a reliable antacid.  Some of it is humorous but do keep the Pepto Bismol handy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTqA4iWgglE  Bill Maher is marginally involved. Have fun all. 

The vid is a long one but you can skim it to find the high spots. This is a reminder for the ancient admonition: "Know thine enemy".