# Questions about Noah's Ark that may bug creationists



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

> During 2010's International Year of Biodiversity I lost count of the number of references to the quotation attributed to the geneticist John Haldane, who is said to have answered a clergyman's question about what his studies had taught him about the creator by saying: "He is inordinately fond of beetles." It is such a good line it really ought to have happened. And it raises a question about the very scale of biodiversity that ought to give creationists and biblical literalists pause for thought.
> 
> So far some 1 million species of insect have been discovered. Estimates of how many remain unknown vary between another million and 30m. Of these, some 400,000 are beetles – beetles in a wide array of shapes and sizes certainly, but still just beetles. A creator who made all of these but was so highly uninventive about body plans is puzzling. There are only 30 or so orders of insects, and the last was discovered nearly a century ago (there was a lot of excitement a few years ago, when a new order, the Mantophasmatodea, was erected, but that has now been demoted to a suborder). One wonders why a creator would make so many beetles but only 32 species of Zoraptera, or if beetles are so good, why the creator didn't make 300 more and not bother with the Notoptera at all. The argument for a creator's ineffability is unanswerable, of course, but mainly because it is not in any way explanatory. "Inordinately fond of beetles" just about covers it.
> 
> ...


Questions about Noah's Ark that may bug creationists | John Hollier | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk


----------



## WeKnowWeCanFeel (Jan 20, 2011)

I always wondered why creationists don't question whether "the flood" was salt water or fresh water and how come there are now species that survive in either salt water or fresh water... 

but then again, I'm pretty sure religious people don't value logic in the way that non-religious people do.


----------



## nameno1had (Jan 16, 2011)

I wanted to say that it is eye opening to consider the information in your post.I also appreciate that you did a really good job of presenting a set of scenarios that show two sides of a good debate.aside from the fact it appeared to me you seem to lean towards the side of evolution over a long period instead of isolated gene pools mutating over the shorter biblically proposed span of time.I am pretty well aware as probably you are also of the two sides for and against creation and evolution beyond the Noah's ark story.I instead became fixated on your question of why would an omnipotent God have to or choose to use a combination of His perfect and uncomprehendable power and the mishap prone and slow human way of doing things?
Without trying to argue where and why He did or didn't at each juncture of the ark story,I'd rather go at it from a different and more general angle.Why would the same God I described earlier not just make people who were incapable of making mistakes if He hates sin so much.You can look at my next statement as if I am nuts,but I don't care.He said to me,"have you ever saw a robot love someone"?What good is it if you can create every inanimate object you can think of if no living thing loves you and recognizes who you are and appreciates you.So from that angle, even from the outset, I can see on a regular basis,why God would mix His perfect ability that is mysterious(mystery attracts attention)with our often imperfect attempts at anything good(we need all the supernatural help we can get ).


----------



## Snakecharmer (Oct 26, 2010)

The comedian Ricky Gervais discussed Noah's Ark and how the vast number of animal species would not fit on such a vessel. 

Long, but worth it:


----------



## SuperDevastation (Jun 7, 2010)

> I'm pretty sure religious people don't value logic in the way that non-religious people do.


You are making a generalization, Me, my dad, and my mom are all theists and we value logic, especially me, and jsyk, I don't belong to any particular religion. Also, being non-religious doesn't automatically make anyone logical, I've come across plenty of atheists who had no logic whatsoever.


----------



## MDMStudios (Jan 22, 2011)

The water was most likely (or it would seem to me) brackish to a very low extent. As the 'flood' began to dissipate, concentrations of minerals in the water would begin to become higher. This wouldn't happen instantly, and would presumably happen over enough time where the animals could adapt to be either fresh or salt water animals through the process of evolution. The process of evolution still applies for the majority of animals that could have been on the ark, presumably a significant portion of time has passed since then and now, and as the platypus shows us, a single species of animals can become quite diverse given a small amount of time and variance in habitat. One thing that is somewhat interesting, is the tallest mountain in Turkey (Mount Ararat), which would be around the location that scholars believe the beginning of the Bible would have taken place, contains an ark at the top of the mountain. This of course doesn't prove a single faith, as many faiths have tales of such a flood/ark, however, it does suggest that there may have been such a flood and such an ark.

As for your comment about theists and logic, logic is not something that only one faith shares (whether that faith be in a omnipotent being, or that faith be in the lack of said being), however, it is something that all people have to various degrees. The degree of which someone has it is also not necessarily located in one small localization (if you will allow the play on words), but spread out fairly evenly. There are more theists than atheists, so of course you will notice more idiotic theists than atheists, however, that does not change the percentages necessarily. Arguments towards the value someone places on logic will of course wind up at two places, argument at the deduction, or argument at the facts. These two areas change if the logic is correct, incorrect, true, or false, however, often times people who haven't spent much time thinking on the subject see all negative values as incorrect, when in reality the 'incorrectness' may just be falseness, or alleged falseness. In other words, you think you are right, and even if you are wrong you will still retain that belief, and with the belief that you are right, you must believe the other person is wrong, and in doing so you presume it is do to logical conclusion of which the other person fails at. That is not always the case.


----------



## WeKnowWeCanFeel (Jan 20, 2011)

MDMStudios said:


> Arguments towards the value someone places on logic will of course wind up at two places, argument at the deduction, or argument at the facts. These two areas change if the logic is correct, incorrect, true, or false, however, often times people who haven't spent much time thinking on the subject see all negative values as incorrect, when in reality the 'incorrectness' may just be falseness, or alleged falseness. In other words, you think you are right, and even if you are wrong you will still retain that belief, and with the belief that you are right, you must believe the other person is wrong, and in doing so you presume it is do to logical conclusion of which the other person fails at. That is not always the case.


Of course not all theists are illogical, some haven't yet seen all of the evidence and we all have different evidence thresholds. Not all atheists are logical as well, but percentage-wise I'd be willing to bet that atheists have a higher evidence threshold. It takes a lot of thought and research to go from theism to atheism and most of the atheists I know would change their minds if the evidence pointed the other way.


----------



## MDMStudios (Jan 22, 2011)

Evidence can be found that will say nearly anything, the evidence of which is often trusted or not trusted depending on the source of the giver, the giver in question is rarely verified properly, and if it is then you wind up with a recursive problem of evidence verification. Evidence is a relative term, or at least the validity of evidence with an argument dealing with things 'larger' than ourselves (I of course mean larger in a understanding sort of way), are impossible to verify properly, as Godel points out. 

As for your point about atheists having to make an active decision that theists often don't have to make, you do make a good point there, however, the point will become less and less relative, as atheists reproduce, their children will be born into atheism and won't give it much thought, under such circumstance, they will have to think about it and make a logical deduction to become a theist.

Evidence points accurately or inaccurately in one way, as evidence is biased facts, and facts are just aspects of knowledge that can be pieced together to make a logical deduction in a related field, the deduction of which turns these facts into biased facts, i.e evidence. What makes it even harder, is most bits of evidence in the areas of both theism and atheism aren't proven, they are just likely, or deemed by said group to be likely.


----------



## WeKnowWeCanFeel (Jan 20, 2011)

A massive amount of primary evidence seems a more logical thing to support than a small amount of secondary evidence...


----------



## Longdove (Jan 4, 2011)

I always follow up on the wars between creationists and scientists when it comes to this topic, so I think I'm pretty well informed on both sides. The general answer is that insects were not needed to be taken in, since they do not breathe through lungs, unlike flesh and blood type animals.

Then, millions of species per type is not the way it is categorized - any type of beetle for example, would just fall into the beetle family, same with crickets.


----------



## MDMStudios (Jan 22, 2011)

You forget Godel; no evidence can be proven correct in a matter as such, and thus all evidence winds up being equal in value/size, and a great quantity of unproven evidence/not perfected evidence isn't better than a smaller amount of said evidence. The interpretation is what matters, and the interpretation can be understood to mean many things, and so far there is no proven 'evidence' that proves theism false.


----------



## WeKnowWeCanFeel (Jan 20, 2011)

and back to the teapot...

I could state any outrageous claim and I would be justified because evidence is based on interpretation?


----------



## MDMStudios (Jan 22, 2011)

Yes or no depending on what the actual facts are. I believe this argument is beginning to spiral into recursion.


----------



## StandingTiger (Dec 25, 2010)

WeKnowWeCanFeel said:


> I'm pretty sure religious people don't value logic in the way that non-religious people do.


That's why I don't try to argue with my religious friends about Bible tales, such as the flood, Adam & Eve, or the resurrection. There's just no way they'll step back & look at it logically (to my standards of what constitutes logic, at least).

I don't think these facts would change a thing in the minds of religious people I know. They're not big into science.


----------



## Black Rabbit (Apr 15, 2010)

Although I appreciate this article, the silliness of Noah's Ark can be probably explained without an intense entomological explanation.

If you look at the story, Noah was preaching about the destruction of the earth, people thought he was crazy, and ignored the bastard. If we take for granted that it didn't rain, sure getting in Noah's ark seems nuts. 

But, I don't know about you, if I see a spontaneous single file line of animals marching towards the ark I would probably think, "Son of a bitch was right" and take my place behind the penguins. The implication doesn't seem too hard to grasp.

Besides, what's the moral of Noah and the Ark? Hearken unto the town drunk preaching armageddon on the street corner?


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

nameno1had said:


> What good is it if you can create every inanimate object you can think of if no living thing loves you and recognizes who you are and appreciates you.So from that angle, even from the outset, I can see on a regular basis,why God would mix His perfect ability that is mysterious(mystery attracts attention)with our often imperfect attempts at anything good(we need all the supernatural help we can get ).


I don't like egocentrism in other people (nor in myself either) so I'm certainly not going to like it in a deity.

All this says is that he was looking for what he could get out of it. Like a human would...

Humans I can understand, we didn't create the world, we live in it. If God created the world and humans, then he also somehow allowed flaws to come into being. 

I compare this to a human who gains magic powers, creates a baby, and also creates fire so that he can protect the baby from said fire and make it love him. From an omnipotent deity perspective this is practically Munchausen by Proxy..


----------



## StandingTiger (Dec 25, 2010)

Troisi said:


> Besides, what's the moral of Noah and the Ark?


One should trust God and be obedient.


----------



## Black Rabbit (Apr 15, 2010)

hmwith said:


> One should trust God and be obedient.


Then let god prove his trustworthiness by not being so elusive.


----------



## noz (Dec 7, 2009)

oh please.... this is getting so LAME. BEATLES, now? Just let them have their fable already, for fuck's sake. Who cares if it's true or not? only them.

It is a sour soul that gains joy from going around popping others' balloons.


----------



## Ecky (Dec 6, 2010)

noz said:


> oh please.... this is getting so LAME. BEATLES, now? Just let them have their fable already, for fuck's sake. Who cares if it's true or not? only them.
> 
> It is a sour soul that gains joy from going around popping others' balloons.



I'm happy to live and let live, but I don't want this nonsense getting in the way of teaching science in schools. Children deserve a secular education, let them decide on religion outside of the classroom.


----------



## Black Rabbit (Apr 15, 2010)

noz said:


> oh please.... this is getting so LAME. BEATLES, now? Just let them have their fable already, for fuck's sake. Who cares if it's true or not? only them.
> 
> It is a sour soul that gains joy from going around popping others' balloons.


If George Bush didn't say "I felt I was led by God to invade Iraq" then sure, I'd let it go. I'm not sure why that doesn't scare people.


----------



## roflcopter (Nov 9, 2010)

The bible can be taken literally or figuratively in its entirety. Too many people pick and choose what to take literally and what to take figuratively. This can't be done. Noah's Ark is simply a metaphor. I believe in God. I once decided that I didn't believe, but the deeper I go in the study of biology, the more impossible for me not to believe in God. The Bible is simply a book. A book written by people. A book written by people like you and me.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

Troisi said:


> If George Bush didn't say "I felt I was led by God to invade Iraq" then sure, I'd let it go. I'm not sure why that doesn't scare people.


Hrmm wonder if all the Democrats and Republicans in the Congress felt this way too then, since they are the ones who allowed it and voted on it.


But back to the purpose of the OP. I always fall back to this:

Religion was made by man
Science was made by man

There's your answer.


----------



## INFJUSER7218 (Jan 31, 2011)

Insects populate through eggs and larva which may survive a flood quite easily. Plants, obviously have seeds and roots which would certainly survive. The water was obviously rainwater, freshwater fish wouldn't have a problem. The rain water (fresh) would dilute some of the salt water, but possibly not enough to kill the fish in it. It would take a lot of time (much longer than 30 days) for an ocean to be totally diluted by the fresh water (No, I haven't done the science behind it, I am just offering possibilities) If God could create the oceans and rivers, then he certainly could keep the salt and fresh water from mixing. 
Yes, it would still leave a lot of mammals, reptiles and more. 

The scriptures indicate that God brought the animals to Noah. Perhaps it was just the "known world" that was wiped out because it was only necessary to wipe out the people. If people were concentrated in the continent of Asia, perhaps, He just wiped it out. They would not have travelled to to other continents at that time. - Just Ideas.


----------



## Ecky (Dec 6, 2010)

Nevermind that the Hebrew flood story was plagiarized from earlier religions, that we have found human bones in South America over 35,000 years old, and that most of the middle east is above sea level and thus would not serve as a basin to hold floodwater. 

It's possible that the flood story is a cultural memory of the filling of the Mediterranean basin, but I find it more likely that the whole thing is just a creation myth, like the world on the back of a sea turtle.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

roflcopter said:


> The bible can be taken literally or figuratively in its entirety. Too many people pick and choose what to take literally and what to take figuratively. This can't be done. Noah's Ark is simply a metaphor. I believe in God. I once decided that I didn't believe, but the deeper I go in the study of biology, the more impossible for me not to believe in God. The Bible is simply a book. A book written by people. A book written by people like you and me.


When something can be taken literally or figuratively and it is not explicitly specified which one you should do, then it should ALL be taken figuratively. 

The whole thing depends on faith - even faith that the little "voice of God" in your mind telling you that your interpretation is the right one, isn't just you and your own mind.

I personally don't have a problem with there being a creator. I only have two conclusions, personally:
1. I don't know anything about it and should maintain an agnostic attitude or
2. If what's said is _true_, I want nothing to do with it, because to me it is vulgar. I don't buy into a jealous yet also loving god - that is _way_ too humanized.

So either way, I'm not having it.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

Collection of flood stories that talk about a "great" flood covering the land. From all different locations not just the middle east.

Flood Stories from Around the World


----------



## Ecky (Dec 6, 2010)

mrniceftw said:


> Collection of flood stories that talk about a "great" flood covering the land. From all different locations not just the middle east.
> 
> Flood Stories from Around the World



I''ll pick through them, creation myths are fascinating. I lack the imagination to see how the mechanics of the flood could work though - where did the water come from, where did it go? If the oceans really rose hundreds or thousands of feet, how did this not (apparently) effect marine life? Where is all of the salt that would have been deposited on land? What about forests, trees? What of the genetic evidence (mitochondrial eve, for instance) against it? Why do many of the stories claim that this great flood killed everyone except those telling the story, yet they come from all parts of the globe? 

Floods happen everywhere, it doesn't surprise me that there would be stories everywhere about them.

/sorry for derail


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

Hundreds of thousands of feet? I think to kill off communities that were basically living mostly in huts or cities made of sand the water would only have to rise maybe a few hundred feet. Also, if you living radius was 10 miles and no one was alive within that 10 miles they probably felt it destroyed everyone. You have to think of simple minds here. They weren't checking their facebook and using telephones to connect across the world, all they knew was what they saw. I mean most civilizations didn't even know of the others. 

/sorry for derail? Is that suppose to mean the ideas that don't fit yours are wrong? Again as stated earlier.

Religion is created by man
Science is created by man

There's your answer. Sorry science isn't almighty either (ha a religious pun) 

Science is just another form of ingrained truths. This is why we understand 2 + 2 = 4 someone told us it was so and it was accepted.


----------



## INFJUSER7218 (Jan 31, 2011)

Ecky said:


> Nevermind that the Hebrew flood story was plagiarized from earlier religions, that we have found human bones in South America over 35,000 years old, and that most of the middle east is above sea level and thus would not serve as a basin to hold floodwater.
> 
> It's possible that the flood story is a cultural memory of the filling of the Mediterranean basin, but I find it more likely that the whole thing is just a creation myth, like the world on the back of a sea turtle.


Actually, It wasn't necessarily plagerized. Two cultures or religions recording the same event would be added testimony to it's truth. What was the other religion you had in mind?

Also, If more than one religion attested to that as truth, that would mean more than one author testified to it. That, in my opinion would be pretty firm testimony. 

Also as to figurative or historically literal, it was written as history so it would be a literal translation. Granted their perspective would be very unique not having the technology we know of today, but for figurative works you could go to Psalms and Proverbs. Genesis was a historical account.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

INFJUSER7218 said:


> Actually, It wasn't necessarily plagerized. Two cultures or religions recording the same event would be added testimony to it's truth. What was the other religion you had in mind?
> 
> Also, If more than one religion attested to that as truth, that would mean more than one author testified to it. That, in my opinion would be pretty firm testimony.
> 
> Also as to figurative or historically literal, it was written as history so it would be a literal translation. Granted their perspective would be very unique not having the technology we know of today, but for figurative works you could go to Psalms and Proverbs. Genesis was a historical account.


More than one person saying something at the same time doesn't tell us _why_ they are saying it. They could _all_ be wrong.

It could be possible that there was merely a global recession of water, it was noticed, and a bunch of people assumed that the earth was still drying from a "great flood" that actually didn't happen.

Or it could be any number of reasons. It's people vs. physical evidence, we don't truly know what happened precisely either way but humans are generally _less reliable_ as a source.

This leads to two simple explanations: They were all right at the same time, and physical evidence is somehow wrong, or they were all wrong at the same time.

I find it more likely that everyone was wrong at the same time. For whatever reason it was.


----------



## sarek (May 20, 2010)

Alll these wordlwide flood legends may be linked to some kind of natural catastrophe in a distant past. Perhaps something that happened even long before writing was invented and passed down by stories through the generations. It has been shown that in 'prehistoric' times there have been massive floods caused by the breaking through of ice barriers blocking the exits of major lakes and even seas. 

I do agree with @roflcopter that we can not take the Bible or any major religious book literally and we can not pick and choose which parts to interpret metaphorically and which to interpret literally.
But I do uphold the view that some parts of the book may have some kind of basis in actual historic fact, no matter how distorted it has become in the telling.
There may be an analogy with the Iliad by Homer. The story is not literally true, nonetheless Troy was exactly where he said it would be.

On a different note:
It strikes me as though everyone's (both evolutionists and creationists) view of God is still rather traditional. I think in fact that we are all demeaning God by making God fit into our nice little cubicles of human understanding. 
I think you can not catch God in words. God is everyone's personal experience. God is the same everywhere yet different for everyone.


----------



## INFJUSER7218 (Jan 31, 2011)

sprinkles said:


> More than one person saying something at the same time doesn't tell us _why_ they are saying it. They could _all_ be wrong.
> 
> It could be possible that there was merely a global recession of water, it was noticed, and a bunch of people assumed that the earth was still drying from a "great flood" that actually didn't happen.
> 
> ...


You still haven't mentioned what the other books are. If there were more than one witness then in a courtroom situation that would verify. Especially if there was a detailed account. Genesis gives a detailed account. There have been geological findings to back it up - disturbances in the rock strata in that time period. The account tells of the entire event, not just the draining. It also records the filling. And seeing how there was only one family saved from the flood, yes, the multiple accounts probably originated from the same source. Moses wrote the account in Genesis, but it was probably handed down verbally. Why would more than one account give such a wild story? How could they be wrong about hundreds of thousands of lives being snuffed out by a great flood????



sarek said:


> I do agree with @roflcopter that we can not take the Bible or any major religious book literally and we can not pick and choose which parts to interpret metaphorically and which to interpret literally.
> 
> It strikes me as though everyone's (both evolutionists and creationists) view of God is still rather traditional. I think in fact that we are all demeaning God by making God fit into our nice little cubicles of human understanding.
> I think you can not catch God in words. God is everyone's personal experience. God is the same everywhere yet different for everyone.


We certainly can take the Bible literally. It's pretty easy to tell which passages are metephoric - usually they are poetry or they indicate they are metaphoric. As for, fitting God on paper or in a box. HE gave the Word for the purpose of us understanding Him better.Yes, everyone has a personal experience, but God is God, unwaivering and unchangeable. Traditional - yes. God does not change because some frutloop decides they have a wacko idea of what He might be and decides to call it a religion.


----------



## roflcopter (Nov 9, 2010)

INFJUSER7218 said:


> God does not change because some frutloop decides they have a wacko idea of what He might be and decides to call it a religion.


And yet this is how christianity came about! hmmm


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

roflcopter said:


> And yet this is how christianity came about! hmmm


Christianity is about Christ, not so much God. It's about following Jesus.


----------



## whisperycat (Aug 9, 2009)

So, given that god wiped out all human life because of their behaviour, apart from Noah and his crew, it's demonstrably the case that God created defective goods when he started mankind with Adam & Eve, since racial genocide was the only way to deal with the naughtiness of the human race by the time we get to Noah, God failed. God produced defective lifeforms who had to be put down like vermin. And then, having wiped out almost all of human kind, and all animal life that didn't make it onto the ark, it was up to Noah to re-populate the world? 

What a crock of bronze age sh*t.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

whisperycat said:


> So, given that god wiped out all human life because of their behaviour, apart from Noah and his crew, it's demonstrably the case that God created defective goods when he started mankind with Adam & Eve, since racial genocide was the only way to deal with the naughtiness of the human race by the time we get to Noah, God failed. God produced defective lifeforms who had to be put down like vermin. And then, having wiped out almost all of human kind, and all animal life that didn't make it onto the ark, it was up to Noah to re-populate the world?
> 
> What a crock of bronze age sh*t.


Cause and effect. The universe that God created was simply balancing itself out. God can give you shoes but a person has to walk in them.


----------



## whisperycat (Aug 9, 2009)

mrniceftw said:


> Cause and effect. The universe that God created was simply balancing itself out. God can give you shoes but a person has to walk in them.



That's just your baseless, subjective opinion based on a delusional belief in some divine sky fairy. An interesting theory which falls at the first hurdle when entertained by anyone nor buying into the un-proveable assertion that there is a god who created humankind


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

Religion and opinion, yep they usually go hand in hand. Just like scientist's opinion of a past at which they can't possibly be part of. Again, Religion was made by man, Science was made by man. No one seems to want to make any arguments about this. 

“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” - Albert Einstein 


Oh also I don't believe God lives in the sky, I think He exists outside of the universe. 

2+2 = 4 Why? Because you were told it was. It may be more "tangible" but you are still buying into a system.


----------



## nallyha (Apr 23, 2010)

WeKnowWeCanFeel said:


> I always wondered why creationists don't question whether "the flood" was salt water or fresh water and how come there are now species that survive in either salt water or fresh water...
> 
> but then again, I'm pretty sure religious people don't value logic in the way that non-religious people do.


That's because the wisdom of God is wiser than men, even his foolishness-Corinthians


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

INFJUSER7218 said:


> You still haven't mentioned what the other books are. If there were more than one witness then in a courtroom situation that would verify. Especially if there was a detailed account. Genesis gives a detailed account. There have been geological findings to back it up - disturbances in the rock strata in that time period. The account tells of the entire event, not just the draining. It also records the filling. And seeing how there was only one family saved from the flood, yes, the multiple accounts probably originated from the same source. Moses wrote the account in Genesis, but it was probably handed down verbally. Why would more than one account give such a wild story? How could they be wrong about hundreds of thousands of lives being snuffed out by a great flood????


_One_ account makes it even _worse_. Multiple "Noah's" would be more believable. Would still be incredibly improbable, but more likely than just _one_ Noah. Evidence for is also trumped by more evidence _against_.



> We certainly can take the Bible literally. It's pretty easy to tell which passages are metephoric - usually they are poetry or they indicate they are metaphoric. As for, fitting God on paper or in a box. HE gave the Word for the purpose of us understanding Him better.Yes, everyone has a personal experience, but God is God, unwaivering and unchangeable. Traditional - yes. God does not change because some frutloop decides they have a wacko idea of what He might be and decides to call it a religion.


You can take it literally, but it would make no sense if it is not true. I prefer to say it is metaphorical rather than say it is an outright literal _untruth_.

Here:
Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition

I recommend reading that whole thing. But for those who think TL;DR, the _really_ strong points begin here:
Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition (part 6)


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

Scientists can tell me I'm "wrong" when they figure out the equation of the universe (No, not saying I know it either and I'm not saying any religion knows it either, I'm not talking down to others because of their beliefs), though any man-made system will never be "right" only (work for us basically) so the word we have here is conundrum.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

mrniceftw said:


> Scientists can tell me I'm "wrong" when they figure out the equation of the universe (No, not saying I know it either and I'm not saying any religion knows it either, I'm not talking down to others because of their beliefs), though any man-made system will never be "right" only (work for us basically) so the word we have here is conundrum.


Nobody who actually knows what they are talking about is saying ANYONE is wrong (or right).

Why is this so hard to realize?

Case in point: 
The article I posted is titled "Problems with a Global Flood" and not "Why Global Flood is Wrong".
It also gets out in the open right in the beginning the potential weaknesses and things it cannot even argue against.

If you want to be a solipsist, then you go ahead and be one, but we don't get to choose which arguments to undermine by adhering to rules some times and not others. We either get with the program or throw out all of it.


----------



## trustus (Feb 1, 2011)

First let's take into consideration how many times the bible has been translated, retranslated, translated, retranslated, retranslated and translated again. Then consider that (most of) the stories were passed along by WOM until someone who had the ability to write wrote of them down. Now take the actual fact that the Catholic church discarded books from the bible. Now lets try to think about the probability that, over time, things were added and tweaked, changed and rewritten.

Taking that into consideration.. I think that the bible should not be taken so literally. The point of Noah's Ark is not the flood. Or how big the ark was. Or how he could have gotten 1 million species aboard. Even though I have a hard time reading between the lines in almost all cases.. the bible should kind of be a given in this one. All in all, let's say there is a Christian God, I doubt he's too concerned as to whether or not you really 'get' how he got animals on the ark. In fact, I don't really think this story is all that important.

ETA- I guess I kind of wonder what the point of this kind of argument is. I used to have this sort of "debate" with my boyfriend because he's religious and I'm agnostic. He finally asked me what I was trying to achieve. I wasn't really trying to achieve anything, and all I ended up doing was belittling something he believed in. In the end, what he believes doesn't really matter to me and vise versa. If you don't believe what the Bible says, than don't.. but to be like "haha but science says THIS".. come on. It's a religion based on faith. 

You can't bring science into an argument of faith.. it's a nonsensical argument because faith isn't about logic.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

trustus said:


> First let's take into consideration how many times the bible has been translated, retranslated, translated, retranslated, retranslated and translated again. Then consider that (most of) the stories were passed along by WOM until someone who had the ability to write wrote of them down. Now take the actual fact that the Catholic church discarded books from the bible. Now lets try to think about the probability that, over time, things were added and tweaked, changed and rewritten.
> 
> Taking that into consideration.. I think that the bible should not be taken so literally. The point of Noah's Ark is not the flood. Or how big the ark was. Or how he could have gotten 1 million species aboard. Even though I have a hard time reading between the lines in almost all cases.. the bible should kind of be a given in this one. All in all, let's say there is a Christian God, I doubt he's too concerned as to whether or not you really 'get' how he got animals on the ark. In fact, I don't really think this story is all that important.
> 
> ...


Precisely. I agree with you. 

My only problem is when people force it into the area of science, I will be obliged to examine it in the same way as anything else. I'd rather leave it be, but when people insist upon it then yes I am going to examine it without any favoritism, and of course it is not going to hold up if it eludes scientific examination in the first place.


----------



## Bote (Jun 16, 2010)

sprinkles said:


> My only problem is when people force it into the area of science, I will be obliged to examine it in the same way as anything else. I'd rather leave it be, but when people insist upon it then yes I am going to examine it without any favoritism, and of course it is not going to hold up if it eludes scientific examination in the first place.


Part of the reason why people are seriously investigating biblical stories is cause some of them have archeological evidence and coincide with other extrabiblical accounts. They threat the story of Noah in a similar way even though it chronologically fits into a much older framework than e.g. David, Solomon, Asyrian and Babilonian conquests. Most biblical scholars are leaning towards a theory that it was a mythical account necessary to form an identity of a invaded folk (circa 700 BC). But, few exceptions to academic skepsis (like Schlieman's discovery of Troy) lead people to romantic quests. That is fine, because the euhemeristic perspective on myth interpretation is sometimes closest to truth.


----------



## INFJUSER7218 (Jan 31, 2011)

trustus said:


> First let's take into consideration how many times the bible has been translated, retranslated, translated, retranslated, retranslated and translated again. Then consider that (most of) the stories were passed along by WOM until someone who had the ability to write wrote of them down. Now take the actual fact that the Catholic church discarded books from the bible. Now lets try to think about the probability that, over time, things were added and tweaked, changed and rewritten.
> 
> Taking that into consideration.. I think that the bible should not be taken so literally. The point of Noah's Ark is not the flood. Or how big the ark was. Or how he could have gotten 1 million species aboard. Even though I have a hard time reading between the lines in almost all cases.. the bible should kind of be a given in this one. All in all, let's say there is a Christian God, I doubt he's too concerned as to whether or not you really 'get' how he got animals on the ark. In fact, I don't really think this story is all that important.
> 
> ...


1. It has been shown that the retranslations stay very close to the original. It's not a matter of retranslation. It is a matter of rewriting within the same language. For many years we wondered how those rewritings had changed - because yes, there are several rewritings of some of the scriptures. But - for example- they found the dead sea scrolls, which predated many of the texts. They found the rewritings to be very true to the original.

And it's not a matter of Science VS Faith. God is the author of Science. But he goes many dimensions past that. It's like asking a blind man to describe an elephant. One examines the tusk, the other the ear and the other the toes. Each has a different descriptions. But then along comes God who actually created it and says, No, your all wrong, with your puny little brains, There are so many things you have not considered. And man with his puny little brain says "but I proved an elephant is hairy because I examined the elephant" And God says, You examined one dimension - the tail. I know about several dimenensions you don't even know about yet. As for creationism, God is able to go around science and beyond it any time he feels like it. I have seen him do it in small ways. If he tells me this is so, then I will challenge it with science, but I know that God has truth. It is science which yet has to mature. Just ask Galileo - Man is not the center of the Universe!


----------



## trustus (Feb 1, 2011)

INFJUSER7218 said:


> 1. It has been shown that the retranslations stay very close to the original. It's not a matter of retranslation. It is a matter of rewriting within the same language. For many years we wondered how those rewritings had changed - because yes, there are several rewritings of some of the scriptures. But - for example- they found the dead sea scrolls, which predated many of the texts. *They* found the rewritings to be very true to the original.
> 
> And it's not a matter of Science VS Faith. God is the author of Science. But he goes many dimensions past that. It's like asking a blind man to describe an elephant. One examines the tusk, the other the ear and the other the toes. Each has a different descriptions. But then along comes God who actually created it and says, No, your all wrong, with your puny little brains, There are so many things you have not considered. And man with his puny little brain says "but I proved an elephant is hairy because I examined the elephant" And God says, You examined one dimension - the tail. I know about several dimenensions you don't even know about yet. As for creationism, God is able to go around science and beyond it any time he feels like it. I have seen him do it in small ways. If he tells me this is so, then I will challenge it with science, but I know that God has truth. It is science which yet has to mature. Just ask Galileo - Man is not the center of the Universe!


Two things. One- there are words that have no english translation, or any other language. Secondly, ever played this game?
Bad Translator! - Funny Free Translation Tool

As for paragraph two, to be completely honest with you, my post was pretty much going for your side of the fence. Fascinating way to look at things though, tip of the hat to you.


----------



## MissJordan (Dec 21, 2010)

SuperDevastation said:


> You are making a generalization, Me, my dad, and my mom are all theists and we value logic, especially me, and jsyk, I don't belong to any particular religion. Also, being non-religious doesn't automatically make anyone logical, I've come across plenty of atheists who had no logic whatsoever.


It doesn't matter what the athiests are -- logical or not.
But the accusation was on the religious people being illogical -- which, it kind of is.

You're replying to an accusation you made up, are you sure you're not religious?


----------



## Ravenstar (Apr 2, 2011)

Genesis isn't even originally from the bible... it is a rip-off of an earlier Babylonian or Sumerian creation myth.. in some cases verbatim.

We live in a fairly closed system on earth... the amount of water that is here now has been here for a very, very long time and isn't enough to cover the world... UNLESS all the water trapped in the crust (rock has water in it) were to appear on top and even then. I don't even know if that's possible. Anyone a geologist?

I have a pretty open mind but a global flood, repopulating the earth from one family and repopulating the animals and plants? Not possible as long as the laws of physics are working. I don't know if one has to go as far as using beetles to prove it. lol

Which has nothing to do with "God" or not "God", just the veracity of a story from a collection of ancient stories and myths that probably began as oral tradition to keep tribal unity and identity in a time when either the tribe survived or everyone perished..


----------



## DarklyValentine (Mar 4, 2010)

What _bugs_ me is the complete lack of knowledge/information/facts pouring forth deluge style from ingrained secular people & their singular doctrine, trumpeting their _seven trumpets_. No doubt whilst discounting all others as the stuff of heresy and garbage. Still ive seen them come up with some interesting sums as to what would go into said ark (300ish cubics) and that which would not.

There are a great many flood myths.
Earliest I know (there are older just i dont know much about them) comes from the Epic of Gilgamesh &#8211 tablet 11 which may have been nicked from the Epic of Atrahasis , which may have been nicked from older poems perhaps Gilgamesh uns who knows 
This Babylonian epics, predate noah/genesis, and certainly have precedence. Odd this is not taught in schools along with evolution. A sure fire case of either or, but just not all. A selection of 1 or 2 just not 100s ( I think there are approx 2000 flood myths spanning 5 continents) 
*
Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabiters of the earth*


_O Solon, Solon, you Hellenes are but children and there is never an old man who is an Hellene. Solon, hearing this, said, What do you mean? I mean to say, he replied, that in mind you are all young; there is no old opinion handed down among you by ancient tradition; nor any science which is hoary with age. And I will tell you the reason of this. There have been and will be again, many destructions of mankind arising out of many causes; the greatest have been brought about by the agencies of fire and water, and other lesser ones by innumerable other causes.._


----------

