You cannot re-populate the earth with two of each kind. This would not allow enough genetic diversity in most species for them to continue to thrive. The resulting inbreeding would cause the extinction of most species on the ark, even given such a crazy thing were possible.
Take with you SEVEN of every kind of CLEAN animal, a male and its mate, and TWO of every kind of UNCLEAN animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
Not to get into the religious side of it all, but the gene pool had to start from something, right? What's the scientific explanation for a large gene pool? That it started large to begin with? (again, I'm NOT backing the bible story on this on, just asking)
My dog pooped in the house once... very unclean.
Never again! His ancestors didn't deserve to make it to this point, as I'm sure they pooped on the Ark too ...unlike those clean animals.
actually inbreeding happens quite commonly in the animal world and is the reason why we have so many animals today with high rates of recessive genes and birth defects. like tigers which are like the genetic hill billies of the world. and who is to say God didnt make more animals after the flood? Also there is allot f hybridization which happens after the ark eliminating old species and creating new ones which is one of the reasons we have so little animals today compared to what once populted the earth. IE DINASUARS...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Some animals find ways to survive extreme genetic bottlenecks. Cheetahs are a good example, but they do suffer some anomalies and also possible extinction as a result of their low genetic diversity.
Primatologists, as an example, do not believe the 100 bonobos (a great ape, equally related to us as chimpanzees) that are alive in captivity would provide enough genetic diversity to keep the species from going extinct, if it were to go extinct in it's one tenuous wild habitat. Even 100 bonobos would not be enough to provide them with a "Noah's Ark" through zoos and modern animal husbandry.
Noah's Ark would have been a genetic disaster, and a disaster on so many other levels I can't even believe I'm having this discussion.
" I can't even believe I'm having this discussion."
Using logic, nonetheless. Read some Thomas Paine for headaches and Bill Nye for nausea and call me in the morning.
So an all powerfull being cant add more animals after a flood? iom not sure your understanding the Bible but let me break it down. EVERYTIME you think you see a point where you go oh that doesnt make sense cause science says X is true just remember that my side has an all powerful deity that can do whatever he wants so whenever it doesnt make sense i can point and go here is my explain all. so if you want to dissprove something in the BIble you better have something very solid not weak ass genetics says this crap.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"who is to say God didnt make more animals after the flood?"
That's the problem when you debate with religious folks. They find themselves painted in a logical corner. No problem! Just pull out the ever-handy "God did it!" card.
yea its so much more comforting then the Well science isnt meant to prove that or "thats not in the realm of science" or my favorite its so widely accepted its considered fact (refering to the THEORY of evolution). your just angry because your belief system is so narrow that it needs mine to be wrong to exist where mine welcomes your views it just tells you there is something behind it all that loves and cares for you and you must accept that. I never see science at war with the Bible because science is the study of the universe God created so all its ever been used for is to gain us a better understanding of How God left the world for our stewardship,
Seriously? Has it ever occured to anyone that the bible could pretty much have contained anything and people would just say god works in mysterious ways? How many more thousands of years will you people wait on your knees for something that will never come?
Im sorry was that insensitive? It was just a question, I live on this planet too. If all "religious people" (better?) are awaiting salvation and according to the book you worship, the end of the world, its kind of hard to keep my mouth shut. Excuse me for not being courteous to those that would wish the apocolypse and eternal damnation for me and my secular family. And arent you supposed to be turning the other cheek or something? Ass?
Yes, the real world. The one were 85% believe in some higher power and believe it or not gives them comfort and some rational. It's been proven over and over again we ARE better humans when we believe in something. It motivates us as humans it gives us hope during dark times and it strengthens us when we are weak.
That is fine if you don't want to believe in a higher power but don't berate us for doing something that has been done since the beginning of time. I don't think your snide comments are going to change that any time soon.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Believing in "some higher power" and believing a 2000 year old book and using it to set laws for people that dont believe it are two very different things. Maybe my snide comments arent going to change that. But maybe 36 million snide comments will.
Don't we all know already that the ark couldn't fit all the animals of the world onto the boat?
Nevermind that how did..
2 penguins swam across the Atlantic to the Ark...and then back.
2 kangaroos hopped across the ocean..and then hopped back.
2 moose swam across an ocean.
I could go on.
Unless God teleported them I suppose..it's not real clear. Hey, why not..there's nothing biblical literalist idiots won't believe.
If you believe the ark literally then you must also believe a man lived inside of a whale.
Only deluded morons would believe this s**t literally happened.
2043408/2 (2 of each kind) species doesn't sound like a lot to me (especially when they're mostly insects). And what about all the species of plants that would've died for lack of sunlight and CO2 for a year?
a year?????? wow like how ignorant can you be of the story 40 days and 40 nights which if my math is right is still only 40 24 hour periods and sunlight penetrates water so even if the whole earth flooded not all plants would die cause they would still be getting light from above the surface.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
It may have rained for 40 days and 40 nights, but once the rain stopped the water stuck around for a long time. If there wasn't any water at the end of the 40 days it would mean it drained aways as it fell and there wouldn't have been a flood.
If the water acts as a light filter, can enough of the right kind of light reach the plant? Can the plant survive living in a salt environment? Can plants survive if the water freezes in the winter? Can plants evolved to live on land survive invasive species (both plant and animal)? Can plants evolved to live on the land extract CO2 from water? I really don't know how long a plant that hasn't evolved to live under water could survive being submerged, I'm not a biologist, but I suspect it would be exceptionally tough. I'd expect there to be many lost species.
yea the beauty of my side is we have written history on our side so its up to the otherside to prove us wrong so his questions are more like a list of things he needs to prove to make his side right not a list of things i need to dissprove...
@glue has proof that water from flooding doesn't disappear suddenly after the rain stops. @glue also has proof that flooding devastates local animal and plant life precisely in the ways they have mentioned. They are well documented scientific facts.
There is the concept of Pangaea, depending on the time you want to use for the story.
Also, a great flood isn't exclusive to the bible.
It's much more plausible that a great flood did happen at some point in history - it just didn't cover the entire planet. Different groups of people just have their own explanations for how and why it happened bound by what they knew at the time (which they knew little by comparison to today's standards).
I think you're taking the bible a bit too literally. It's like Santa Claus. It's the reason people use for having gifts appear under the tree. But just because there is no Santa doesn't mean gifts never show up.
"I think you're taking the bible a bit too literally."
If you're suggesting that the Bible is a collection of Hebrew history and folklore borrowed from other cultures, I won't argue with that.
The problems begin with those who "believe" the Bible is "the word of god" and they use it not only to pass judgment but also attempt to pass laws that enforce their "belief".
i think your being a bit judgmental... just because im religious doesn't mean i carry those beliefs into the political world. Just like anyone should. it sounds like most people on here are just bringing there personal hatred of religion instead of there logical mind to the discussion.
yea that would be true if all insects were colonial or needed the whole colony in fact just the queens would technically be efficient enough for most insects as once fertile most of them will live producing whole colonies on there own.
Someone once wrote: The ark was built by amateurs ...The Titanic was built by professionals. How is it possible that God sank the Titanic but not Noah's Arc?
I'm a Sinbad agnostic. I believe in God, and that his voice is identical to that of Sinbad. He told me Jesus was just some dude, and that they weren't related. And that I should rent House Guest this weekend
I don't care what anyone says but Sinbad movies were the s**t. I mean who didnt like House Guest or Jingle All the Way or Good Burger. Those cheesy 90's comedies hold a special place in my heart
Well, God didn't sink the Titanic - an ice berg did. It seems logical that God, unless he was creating the H2O molecules from nothing (and then making them disappear again when the flood was complete), would require all the water reserves on the Earth (including glaciers and ice bergs) to create the flood, so, it stand to reason, that during the great flood there wasn't any ice.
The answer is simple: Noah had a TARDIS. It would fit however many he needed inside, then jump forward a year in time so as not to require so much food and water. It all fits.
Actually, Noah had to put many more animals than just two of each species. Because some animals can only survive by eating other animals, we can only assume that he kept additional animals purely to feed the other animals.
Sadly, there is no way of knowing if he had 5000 cows (and lots and lots of hay), or if he just started feeding one species to another after the animals started getting hungry. If could be that of the many species that he saved from the flood, there were many more that went extinct due to food shortages.
If we could only find the ark, we would find the bones of the thousands of species that didn't make it.
if there had only been a decent tofu substitute for meat at that time, we would have many more cool and exotic animals running around today.
OK well, "Higher Powers" aside, it's pretty much accepted as fact that the Hebrews copy/pasted this whole story from "The Epic of Galgamesh" written looooooooooooong before the first page of the Bible was every concieved.
But "believers" don't really care about light ... or even truth. What they really care most about is perpetuating their own fantasies ... by force if necessary.
Acts 17:11, 'the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they eagerly studied the Law everyday to see if what Paul said was true'.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Its an f'n parable, not meant to be taken literally. When people start interpreting the bible in the same way that you would read Greek mythos and take it for the positive, the world will be a much simpler place and I wont have to read another comment regarding how anyone can believe a book with so many faults.
A parable is a succinct story, in prose or verse, which illustrates one or more instructive principles, or lessons, or (sometimes) a normative principle. It differs from a fable in that fables use animals, plants, inanimate objects, and forces of nature as characters, while parables generally feature human characters. It is a type of analogy. - Wikipedia
So what instructive principle or analogy do we get out of Noah's Ark?
Better listen to God, or you're gonna get flooded?
Every New Testament parable doesn't use any names for the characters.
"Its an f'n parable, not meant to be taken literally"
Maybe all this stuff about "god" is really just a parable too, not meant to be taken seriously.
The "parable" argument is ultimately self defeating --- you can never be sure where the parable ends and the facts begin --- or even if there are any facts to be found.
The animals were probably not full grown either. There is also a debate about whether or not the flood was localized or worldwide. I tend to believe that it covered a giant area...but not world wide.
The dimensions are mistaken; the cubit used to describe the Ark was the Royal Egyptian cubit, which was 20.8 inches, not the 18 inch Hebrew cubit, which didn't come into use until much later. The Ark's dimensions, using this measurement, would have been 520 ft. long, and about 52 ft. tall, about 87 ft. wide.
83 percent of Americans identify with a religious denomination of some sort (from the wiki) while just over 4% are athiest. SO for all you athiest out there your only the majority on Digg you are not the majority of the world you are not The "accepted" theory of the world you do not have the market cornered on logic and reason in fact you guys have been at it for just a few years when compared with the religious minds whove been considering the same issues your just purely outnumbered, Does that mean you should give up on questioning? never, but maybe you should take a more objective look at why THE VAST MAJORITY of the planet Knows there is a higher power.
My point: Scientists have a belief that something will happen, enticing them to perform experiments. Because of this, the variables they choose to focus on may in reality have little-no focus on anything scientifically relevant, and they may ignore variables that could have greater meaning. This is not to discount the Scientific method, only to say that Science is not entirely objective when humans attempt to apply it to the world around us. We have postulates, and we attempt to prove them.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
You're badly misrepresenting the scientific method.
A testable hypothesis is not "a belief that something will happen", it's an idea of how something might behave. Experimentation and observation yield results which will either invalidate the hypothesis, or support it. No "belief" required.
Religious faith, in stark contrast, is typically untestable. That's belief.
Faith is used in everything you cant turn the key to your car without the belief its going to turn it on otherwise you have no reason to turn the key. in this same way every theory tested is a testing of there faith in the scientific method to prove true, and just like with the car when you turn the key if it doesn't work your faith in it has been shaken just like when your experiment yields nothing of value to study your faith in the process will be shaken.
scientists love to use this but there wrong you can never be objective no matter who you are cause everyone has prejudices that they bring with them. Observations are BIASED no matter how hard you try it is impossible not to present the facts in ways that support your theory whether or not they actually do.
If the Bible is absolutely true and this ark thing really happened, then why doe we praise Adam and Eve? It's Noah and family that populated the earth as we know it. Right?
? im not sure i understand your question here... Adam being the first man created and eve being made from adam himself made them the genetic beginning of the Human race. We do not "praise" them in fact we should all be a little pissed that they only had 1 thing they could do wrong and they f**ked it up.... As for why we dont talk about Noah and his family being the genetic beginning is because all 3 of his sons had wives that have no ancestry we can trace.
I always wonder if someone doesn't believe in God or higher power then why keeps obeying laws, governments and other "visible" authorities? Are you afraid of them because you know they can punish you and make you suffer? If you define yourself as a good person then why do you try to be a good person? Being a good or bad person doesn't matter when beliefs are collapsed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"If you define yourself as a good person then why do you try to be a good person?"
Enlightened self interest. It's helps avoid being locked up or killed<g>. It makes life better for everyone --- more enjoyable, peaceful, harmonious, etc..
History shows that morality is independent of religion. All of morality comes from the Golden Rule --- do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The history of it predates the written Bible by thousands of years and can be found in most cultures including Ancient Babylon, China, Eqypt and Greece.
well same people who lived in Ancient Babylon or other old kingdoms have done the most disgusting things in the history and they were enjoying it. Those things were their traditions and seen normal by people. Perspective of Good and Bad are clearly different between people.
The European Christians in the middle ages did the most disgusting things including torture and kill those that did not believe as they did.
In the early 21st century, an American Christian President who believed he was being guided by Biblical prophesy did the most disgusting thing by prompting an invasion of another country for no good reason killing hundreds of thousands of it's inhabitants.
Perspective of Good and Bad are clearly not really that different between people.
People done terrible things in the name of GOD or whatever they believed but mostly in the name of GOD and Religion and they are still doing it. That doesn't mean they truly understood their books or guided by GOD.
Remember the crusader wars between muslims and christians. Both sides thinks that they are fighting in the name of GOD and GOD protects them.
What kind of a fanstasy is this for GOD? Some kind a olympic game?
It's people who manipulated religion in the name of self profit, power and greed.
Jeremiah 10:23 says "I know, O LORD, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps."
Obviously people who studied bible actually don't pay attention what it really says.
We all make the decision, we either live like God exists, or we live like He doesn't. Just imagine for a moment, those who take the former, that God exists. Then God, as an infinite being, by definition containing all perfections and no imperfections, could very easily sustain any number of animals on a ship any size. If there is no God, sure, the Arc is a fable. But this debate over the feasibility of Noah's Arc is an incredibly uninteresting question when put in that light. If God is real, then lets find Him. If you search and do not find Him, do not trouble yourself with the beliefs of others.
Down through history, there have been something like 10000 different gods. At one time, all these gods had passionate believers just like you. And just like you, those believers were firmly convinced that they were right and all the non-believers were wrong.
The only difference between you and I --- I disregard one more fake god than you do.
Wish thinking at its best. God can do anything so that no matter how ridiculous and impossible something may seem..it's all possible.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is an axiom for all things..yet religion gets a pass for some reason.
Noone can prove or disprove the existence of God (whatever that means) but
one can quite easily disprove Biblical stories with a 9th grade education
I am referring to Jesus, however, the God to which I am referring is not the issue.
Yes, in a Godless world, Noah's Arc is an impossibility. Notice, this is only dealing with possibility not probability or actuality. In that sense, I agree with you fully.
But in a world with God, nothing can be impossible, merely outside of our will or understanding. This is not a religious or faith claim. This is true by definition of God (even if God doesn't exist outside of my own mind).
I do not assert to you that God's existence necessitate Noah's arc as ophello pointed out. Nor do I claim any difference between jqp123 and I. In my faith we are all sinners before God.
But I do cling to extraordinary claims, Cyberprunes. Because if you postulate a God, then extraordinary things are possible in a strict sense.
Notice, we have not said anything about their actual happening. That is a different story all together, but IF there is a God, then events such as Noah's arc are entirely possible.
As to Jqp123, entirely true. Many belief systems exist. But the daunting failure of the many should not hinder your search for truth (I am including the possibility that I am one of these people). As I said in my first post, if we acknowledge that Noah's Arc is possible only IF there is a God then, "this debate over the feasibility of Noah's Arc is an incredibly uninteresting question [...] If God is real, then lets find Him. If you search and do not find Him, do not trouble yourself with the beliefs of others. "
Again, I believe firmly and as truth. If you seek God, truly and with your whole heart. He will find you.
"That is a different story all together, but IF there is a God, then events such as Noah's arc are entirely possible."
Sure, an all powerful god makes anything possible.
But in the particular case of Noah's flood, this all powerful god would also have had to perform a very long list of supernatural acts just to cover up all the evidence of the event and to leave the world and everything in it the way we find it today.
In other words, assuming this was all the act of a supernatural god, he certainly went out of his way to cover up the scene of the crime with the intent to deceive.
Or --- the event never really happened and the Hebrews were simply repeating some folklore that they had heard. You decide which is more plausible.
"If there is a God then all things are possible"
Well I don't know either way but If there is a God that still doesn't prove that there is a "God of intervention" and meddling.
It doesn't prove that he performed miracles and sent a son to
be sacrificed.
If you believe in Noah's Ark then you must take the entire bible as literal truth. This means you can't leave out what is disliked.
God allowed slavery (a justification used in early America).
We know slavery is clearly immoral but God allows it and provides the rules of slave trade.
God allowed polygamy and concubines (whores). This is clearly deemed as highly immoral.
God commanded genocide, the killing of women and children and of rape.
There is an interesting conflict here.
God has commanded ,condoned and written into law things that we as humans in modernity know to be immoral and evil. Think about that.
How can we know what is immoral and evil over God? The most probable explanation is that the authors of the bible made it up.
I don't know why you try to equate searching for truth with credulity. It seems to me that if someone were really searching for truth they would approach all things with skepticism and doubt. If you are credulous then you will not get very far in your pursuits.
In the end, there is no proof for or against God's existence. In my opinion the Bible does not provide a good case.
"But in a world with God, nothing can be impossible"
with the bible being god's propaganda piece, his introduction to the world, the proof of his existence and greatness ect ect...
wouldn't a miracle like fitting every know land animal on a boot that was far too small and feeding them for a year be worth a mention?
the 'miracle' of him setting fire to a wet wooden altar was mentioned. this seems far far grander to me (not to mention that there is a easy and highly possible explanation for the wet wooden alter bursting into flame) but not for this one.
it just doesn't hold up to any rational logic.
Ugg. If you are going to attack someone's beliefs, you should make an attempt to understand them. This is a strawman arguement to say the least.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
many Christians (not the majority, but a substantial number) say the bible should be interpreted literally.
but this clearly shows that when you do that all sorts of errors and faults crop up. how is that a strawman?
this is just one of the things wrong with the noah's arc story. DNA clearly shows that all animals did not go through a fairly recent population bottleneck. DNA diversity would have been FAR smaller otherwise.
and ofcourse, with just 2 humans... who did the children of those 2 humans have children with? (that's the second time that quest pops up of course, same with Adam and eve)
now some interpretations fix that by adding a couple more humans... but it is in fact humans that have the smallest DNA diversity of almost any species. so that's not right either.
Just saying. "You show a cursury understading of the story" doesn't really serve as a counter-argument, and it certainly isn't a refutation of his points.
Informing someone that they are making a strawman arguement while attempting to refute a belief they only superficially understand is a fine defense. You are right in that it is a poor counter-arguement. I do not wish to offer one.
Which details were wrong here? This is a famous story that many people have read, myself among them.
If taken literally, the story of Noah does not stand up to even the most modest scientific scrutiny.
Responding to this assessment with essentially "You just don't understand it, you should learn more about it" is every bit as meaningless, as intellectually vacuous, as a child saying "Nuh-UH."
If countess666 is wrong, tell us what he got wrong, otherwise we are left to assume that you don't know what you're talking about.
you dont have a argument do you? you're just trying to sound like you do.
there is nothing in my post that is dubious or factually false with regard to noah's story as presented by the bible.
the size of the ark is in there, the data's are in there with regards to how long it took, the animal pairs are in there.
or do you have issue with the fact i used DNA as evidence?
also some versions of the story claim there were 7 pairs of each animal, but that too would show up in DNA, and make the problem of fitting all the animals and food in there even worse.
a literal interpretation is therefore NOT POSSIBLE without denying any and all logic and factual evidence.
So now I have to engage in an argument I don't want to engage in because you presented superficial scrutiny... and I'm the one who is wrong until I stand up for something I don't want to stand up for? You are so much more ignorant than you think. You can't expect people that believe in the story to be at all convinced by your crappy points. I was merely pointing that out.
But apparently you are right until proven wrong. That's not how it works.
If you care to actually read the story (of which there are multiple versions) do it. Then maybe check out some scholorly review of it. It has been studied for centuries, and because most people here saw a cartoon about it, or sort of heard the jist of it when they were a kid, they feel compelled to convince believers it is wrong. That's a f**king retarded position to take.
But okay, I'm the bad guy because I'm asking you to have substance behind your attack of religion... something, by the way, is generally easy to get, but lazy, sloppy arguements get you nowhere other than a false sense of eletism.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The hole is that the facts attack a strawman argument, and I don't want to engage in it because that's how strawman arguments work.
So, seeing as I won't do that, I must concede to you. You've apparently been able to sum up centuries of analysis into a paragraph, and then cleverly disprove it. Congratulations. End of debate. You've convinced everyone to leave their religion. You win. Nice work, very convincing.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
"A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."
the original position of the bible was noah took 1 or 7 pairs of all animals into a ark with clearly mentioned dimensions for 1 years while the whole earth was flooded, killing all other land based species.
my position: all the animals can't possibly fit in there, they can't possibly have enough to eat, and the 8 people on the boot can't possibly take care of them all, and DNA proves that there was no DNA bottleneck for nearly any land based animal.
ergo : it did not happen.
you can claim its a straw man argument but you'll have to explain how that is so. because its not. it uses all the provided facts on the subject matter in question.
Reducing the belief to one f**king sentence like you did is the VERY DEFINITION OF PRESENTING A STRAWMAN.
Go on thinking you're right. I don't care. I know you are wrong, and now I know you are too stubborn to let anything stand in the way of your erroneous beliefs. You are no better than the idiots who believe the Noah's ark story is real. They think they are being rational too.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Rather than squawking "straw man" over and over again,
tell
countess666
what
he's/she's
getting
wrong.
This shouldn't be difficult, but it increasingly looks like you don't actually have an answer. 'I know you're wrong but I refuse to say how' is idiotic!
I'm not saying he's wrong, I would have to make an argument if I were and I don't want to.
I'm saying that countess offers no arguement. I don't have to counter-argue countess to do that, only defend my assertion that countess' argument is weak and flawed.
Imagine If I said to you that, "no doubt, the universe is expanding, and will always expand." And I said that is true because it has expanded from the beginning of time, and we know things are getting farther away from each other based on redshift analysis." Wouldn't you say, ugg... right or wrong, that is a horrible and superficial analysis and a waste of my time reading. Wouldn't you say that the issue is much more complex than I make it seem. Would you have to explain to me all the reasons why in order to be correct? No. Because you are not arguing wether or not the universe is and will always be expanding. You are merely pointing out that my argument is superficial and lacks the substance required to be worthy of taking it seriously.
The burden isn't on me to refute it if all I'm saying is that it isn't a real argument. Strawmen arguments aren't real arguments. And I'm tired of this idea that people think they can irrefutably disprove another's religious beliefs with a cartoon or simple gotcha fact or inconsistency. I can too... watch:
Jesus wasn't resurected because medically, that isn't possible! Woohoo, I disproved Christianity with medical science. I win!
I did justify my claim, and it should be apparent to anyone not emotionally involved in trying to be right about this that his rebuttal of a one sentance version of multiple stories that span across multiple ancient societies, with centuries of history and reinterpretation is a strawman. The issue is far more complicated, and any serious rebuttal of it would require actual analysis, thought and effort.
His is a waste of space. It doesn't accomplish anything but make like minded people high-five each other thinking they both got it right. A serious argument is one capable of challanging those opposed to it, and his doesn't do that because he doesn't even try to understand the basis of it any more deeply than the ship is too small and the animals are to great in number.
People don't even know how to argue any more. They think they can just pull a superficial factoid out (right or wrong) and then be shocked at the stupidity of those who don't just immediately concede. it's the whole Rep vs. Dem thing.
The fact that I have to write this much to point out that countess arguement is nothing more than a superficial joke is utterly dissapointing and worrisome. And what's worse is that the solution seems to be that I have to counter in an equally superficial way or his point stands.
That's horse s**t.
Acknowledge that it is a lazy argument or don't; I don't care. But that doesn't make you right.
Even if you don't take the bible 'literally' but a bit broader...
...so god tried to kill all humans because they didn't do as he pleased?
Even the children and babies - even the unborn but already received ones (godly abortion there I'd say).
What a good god!
How is this a strawman argument? Belief in the bible and religion is in fact based on the search for truth, it is NOT purely faith. Religious believers believe there is truth to be found in their religion.
This comparison highlights that the bible contains flaws, and because it contains flaws, it cannot be used as an absolute book of truth. Nobody is claiming that the entire religion is invalid because of this one example (THAT would be a strawman). However, this one example is enough to completely shatter the notion that the bible is truth.
And if you bring up enough things like this Ark example, you'll see that there is more fiction in the bible than there is truth. Thus, there is no logical reason to believe in it, or use it as a guide to finding the truth.
It always seemed pretty likely to me that the entire world flooded only from the perspective of the author. Likewise, "all" the animals of the world could easily have been restricted to the known world, thus not requiring a literal 2,000,000 insects (most of which are not indigenous to the Middle East), 17,000 birds, 9,000 mammals, etc. And of course, the Titanic easily COULD have held food and water for > 2 weeks if the cruise had been planned to take longer than that, and 3,547 people were hardly packed shoulder to shoulder.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"It always seemed pretty likely to me that the entire world flooded only from the perspective of the author."
So in other words, the Bible only reflects the perspective of the men who wrote it? And it's not really "god's perspective" at all?
This is what happens when you try to defend the indefensible --- things get all logically twisted around and you end up supporting the very point that you're attempting to argue against.
Once you're done peeling away all the stuff about this story that couldn't possibly be true, there's very little core left to believe in. And the same holds true for the rest of the book --- there is absolutely nothing in it to indicate any sort of divine insight. Time and gain, upon closer inspection, it's perspective appears to be limited to that of the men who wrote it and the folklore of the day.
@jqp: " there's very little core left to believe in."
What do you mean by this? You mean any sort of factual evidence that any of these men lived or said what they said, etc? Or do you mean that any life lessons can be gleamed?
I would say Phrases from Christ such as, "Forgive, not seven times but seventy seven times" and "Forgive them for they know not what they do." transcend time, leaving a solid code on how people should treat one another. Regardless of religious dogmas, Such peaceful attitudes would be a great fruit to humanity if more people gleamed lessons from them and applied it to their lives in a positive manner.
oversimplifies? what was missed. the dimensions of the arc are mentioned in the story, the amount of time is too, and we have a rough idea about what "a pare of every animal" would mean in terms of numbers.
the same with the DNA. is says a pare of each animal. there is nothing to oversimplify as its so simple already.
nothing oversimplified, just quantified and compared.
Ah, i think i spotted your misunderstanding with the San Diego Park.
you see, animals in Noah's time were not helps and defenceless.
also those 8 people on the boat were not some lazy, we demand payment, and only work 5 hours a day, also there is no way Im working in the insects area, type of people.
They worked hard.
It also helps when the animals worked to gather in harmony, because they new the alternative was death of their species.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
first insects really? they didnt take 2 of every insect so theres 2 million off the list... Amphibians.... most of them would have been fine off the boat so theres a bunch gone again. 12,000 reptiles theres not even 600 unique families in lizards so they could be done with less then 1500 total. the mammals took up the majority of space and if you look at its design there would have been more then enough space to keep all the animals unlike a park where they need to roam and live this was short term (only 40 days) Also where the hell did you get these measurements it was 40cubits tall (which is the length of a mans arm from finger tip to elbow) and 400 cubits in length and 80 cubits wide which if you think the average mans height is 6 feet making a cubit an average of one and a half feet each. adjusting the numbers to fit this thats 60 ft high 600 ft in length and 120 ft wide thats a total of 4320000 cubic feet. to give you an idea this is the equivalent in space to a 2 by 2 set of football fields stacked 8 high at 10-12 foot intervals.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Believe it or not insects need food, shelter and water to survive. How many bugs do you see outside when it's pouring rain? I don't know about you, but I usually find them crawling into my garage.
Amphibians are not immune to flood. Most species need to breathe air like you and me. If I make it so you can't swim to the edge of the pool, you'll eventually drown just like a frog would.
There are over 9000 unique KNOWN species in the order Squamata (which encompasses lizards and snakes). Many more are discovered every year.
There are over 5000 known species of mammals at the moment. While you are right, most of the largest animals would be mammals, what you fail to take into account is how much food and water mammals require in comparison to other animals. Being warm blooded, these animals require a large amount of energy simply to maintain body temperature.
A squirrel eats about 1.5 ounces of dry food a day. Over 40 days he will consume almost 5 pounds of food by himself. He will also need 2-3 ounces of water a day. Over 40 days that is just shy of a gallon of water. That's about 8.5 pounds of water. So just to have a garden variety squirrel on board, you'd need about 14 pounds of food/water. Naturally, food/water requirements increase significantly with larger species.
And many species require fresh food. And there would also be no modern day refrigeration techniques or canning methods. That would require you to feed and water the live food as well. This would add many complex requirements to transport this group of unlikely passengers. I'm not sure that this would all fit in one boat. No matter how large and impossibly built it would be.
Not only that, the ark had 8 people. And one of them was Noah, who was no spring chicken when he built the ark (500-600 years old). How do you suppose 8 people were able to hand this?
Closed AccountFeb 22, 2012
Did Noah write the specification for the arc? And was it insured by a reputable insurance company?
floepieFeb 23, 2012
Insurance was provided by the lizard-in-residence.
r0g3rFeb 22, 2012
You cannot re-populate the earth with two of each kind. This would not allow enough genetic diversity in most species for them to continue to thrive. The resulting inbreeding would cause the extinction of most species on the ark, even given such a crazy thing were possible.
jameswyattFeb 22, 2012
Genesis 7:2-3
Take with you SEVEN of every kind of CLEAN animal, a male and its mate, and TWO of every kind of UNCLEAN animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
apokalyps2547Feb 23, 2012
Can't really repopulate with seven, either.
r0g3rFeb 23, 2012
Forgive my biblical error. The eight humans would have gone extinct as well, so it makes no difference.
ect5150Feb 23, 2012
Not to get into the religious side of it all, but the gene pool had to start from something, right? What's the scientific explanation for a large gene pool? That it started large to begin with? (again, I'm NOT backing the bible story on this on, just asking)
r0g3rFeb 23, 2012
The gene pool started with self replicating microorganisms that did not rely on sex or genetic diversity to multiply.
jsnchmpnFeb 23, 2012
My dog pooped in the house once... very unclean.
Never again! His ancestors didn't deserve to make it to this point, as I'm sure they pooped on the Ark too ...unlike those clean animals.
flash1117Feb 23, 2012
actually inbreeding happens quite commonly in the animal world and is the reason why we have so many animals today with high rates of recessive genes and birth defects. like tigers which are like the genetic hill billies of the world. and who is to say God didnt make more animals after the flood? Also there is allot f hybridization which happens after the ark eliminating old species and creating new ones which is one of the reasons we have so little animals today compared to what once populted the earth. IE DINASUARS...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
r0g3rFeb 23, 2012
Some animals find ways to survive extreme genetic bottlenecks. Cheetahs are a good example, but they do suffer some anomalies and also possible extinction as a result of their low genetic diversity.
Primatologists, as an example, do not believe the 100 bonobos (a great ape, equally related to us as chimpanzees) that are alive in captivity would provide enough genetic diversity to keep the species from going extinct, if it were to go extinct in it's one tenuous wild habitat. Even 100 bonobos would not be enough to provide them with a "Noah's Ark" through zoos and modern animal husbandry.
Noah's Ark would have been a genetic disaster, and a disaster on so many other levels I can't even believe I'm having this discussion.
dilberterFeb 23, 2012
" I can't even believe I'm having this discussion."
Using logic, nonetheless. Read some Thomas Paine for headaches and Bill Nye for nausea and call me in the morning.
flash1117Feb 27, 2012
So an all powerfull being cant add more animals after a flood? iom not sure your understanding the Bible but let me break it down. EVERYTIME you think you see a point where you go oh that doesnt make sense cause science says X is true just remember that my side has an all powerful deity that can do whatever he wants so whenever it doesnt make sense i can point and go here is my explain all. so if you want to dissprove something in the BIble you better have something very solid not weak ass genetics says this crap.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
inajeepFeb 23, 2012
Now see if you can explain the flintstones with the bible.
whateverhesaidFeb 23, 2012
"who is to say God didnt make more animals after the flood?"
That's the problem when you debate with religious folks. They find themselves painted in a logical corner. No problem! Just pull out the ever-handy "God did it!" card.
flash1117Feb 27, 2012
yea its so much more comforting then the Well science isnt meant to prove that or "thats not in the realm of science" or my favorite its so widely accepted its considered fact (refering to the THEORY of evolution). your just angry because your belief system is so narrow that it needs mine to be wrong to exist where mine welcomes your views it just tells you there is something behind it all that loves and cares for you and you must accept that. I never see science at war with the Bible because science is the study of the universe God created so all its ever been used for is to gain us a better understanding of How God left the world for our stewardship,
varodrigFeb 23, 2012
Oh, it happened. See Kentucky.
CaptainobliviousFeb 22, 2012
Seriously? Has it ever occured to anyone that the bible could pretty much have contained anything and people would just say god works in mysterious ways? How many more thousands of years will you people wait on your knees for something that will never come?
computerczarFeb 22, 2012
"You people", really? Maybe and I mean just maybe you are the "You People" on this one. Ass
CaptainobliviousFeb 22, 2012
Im sorry was that insensitive? It was just a question, I live on this planet too. If all "religious people" (better?) are awaiting salvation and according to the book you worship, the end of the world, its kind of hard to keep my mouth shut. Excuse me for not being courteous to those that would wish the apocolypse and eternal damnation for me and my secular family. And arent you supposed to be turning the other cheek or something? Ass?
computerczarFeb 22, 2012
Yes, the real world. The one were 85% believe in some higher power and believe it or not gives them comfort and some rational. It's been proven over and over again we ARE better humans when we believe in something. It motivates us as humans it gives us hope during dark times and it strengthens us when we are weak.
That is fine if you don't want to believe in a higher power but don't berate us for doing something that has been done since the beginning of time. I don't think your snide comments are going to change that any time soon.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
CaptainobliviousFeb 22, 2012
Believing in "some higher power" and believing a 2000 year old book and using it to set laws for people that dont believe it are two very different things. Maybe my snide comments arent going to change that. But maybe 36 million snide comments will.
http://www.alternet.org/story/151267/there_are_10_times_as_many_atheists_as_mormons%3A_when_will_non-believers_become_a_political_force?page=entire
computerczarFeb 22, 2012
LOL the article is hilarious!!! Man, they must have been smoking some amazing crap to write that. Thanks for the laugh this morning. You made my day.
Here's an article about aliens living amongst us. See, I can find stupid crap on the internet too!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1231151/Aliens-Theyre-living-claim-Bulgarian-government-scientists.htmlComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rockyoumonkeysFeb 22, 2012
THIS. Believe in God or god or "God" or whatever you want. Hell, I'm right there with you.
But I draw the line at man-made religions. I have plenty of respect for people who believe in God.
I have zero respect for people who believe the Bible.
varodrigFeb 23, 2012
"It's been proven over and over again we ARE better humans when we believe in something." [citation needed]
whateverhesaidFeb 23, 2012
"[citation needed]"
I think it's in the Bible.
seroevoFeb 23, 2012
See (at least):
appeal to emotion (wishful thinking)
appeal to tradition
argumentum ad populum
You know, aside from just spouting numbers and unsupported references to "proof" of religious peoples being "better humans."
CaptainobliviousFeb 22, 2012
Ill take that as a no lol
stonesourrynFeb 22, 2012
That's what she said.
cyberprunesFeb 23, 2012
Don't we all know already that the ark couldn't fit all the animals of the world onto the boat?
Nevermind that how did..
2 penguins swam across the Atlantic to the Ark...and then back.
2 kangaroos hopped across the ocean..and then hopped back.
2 moose swam across an ocean.
I could go on.
Unless God teleported them I suppose..it's not real clear. Hey, why not..there's nothing biblical literalist idiots won't believe.
If you believe the ark literally then you must also believe a man lived inside of a whale.
Only deluded morons would believe this s**t literally happened.
rudegarFeb 23, 2012
yeah even very big whales have pretty narrow throats because their diet are tiny animals
glueFeb 22, 2012
2043408/2 (2 of each kind) species doesn't sound like a lot to me (especially when they're mostly insects). And what about all the species of plants that would've died for lack of sunlight and CO2 for a year?
jqp123Feb 22, 2012
And what about all the insects with a normal lifetime of only a few weeks?
And what about all the microscopic organisms that can't survive under water?
And what about the kangaroos and the buffalo? How did they swim from the Middle East to Australia and North America?
And where did all that water come from? The atmosphere could never hold it all. And where did it all disappear to?
Long story short --- it never happened.
flash1117Feb 23, 2012
a year?????? wow like how ignorant can you be of the story 40 days and 40 nights which if my math is right is still only 40 24 hour periods and sunlight penetrates water so even if the whole earth flooded not all plants would die cause they would still be getting light from above the surface.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
glueFeb 23, 2012
It may have rained for 40 days and 40 nights, but once the rain stopped the water stuck around for a long time. If there wasn't any water at the end of the 40 days it would mean it drained aways as it fell and there wouldn't have been a flood.
If the water acts as a light filter, can enough of the right kind of light reach the plant? Can the plant survive living in a salt environment? Can plants survive if the water freezes in the winter? Can plants evolved to live on land survive invasive species (both plant and animal)? Can plants evolved to live on the land extract CO2 from water? I really don't know how long a plant that hasn't evolved to live under water could survive being submerged, I'm not a biologist, but I suspect it would be exceptionally tough. I'd expect there to be many lost species.
ghostrunner1Feb 23, 2012
I think @glue may have just punched you in your logic...
flash1117Feb 27, 2012
yea the beauty of my side is we have written history on our side so its up to the otherside to prove us wrong so his questions are more like a list of things he needs to prove to make his side right not a list of things i need to dissprove...
ghostrunner1Feb 27, 2012
@glue has proof that water from flooding doesn't disappear suddenly after the rain stops. @glue also has proof that flooding devastates local animal and plant life precisely in the ways they have mentioned. They are well documented scientific facts.
Your turn.
ect5150Feb 23, 2012
There is the concept of Pangaea, depending on the time you want to use for the story.
Also, a great flood isn't exclusive to the bible.
It's much more plausible that a great flood did happen at some point in history - it just didn't cover the entire planet. Different groups of people just have their own explanations for how and why it happened bound by what they knew at the time (which they knew little by comparison to today's standards).
I think you're taking the bible a bit too literally. It's like Santa Claus. It's the reason people use for having gifts appear under the tree. But just because there is no Santa doesn't mean gifts never show up.
jqp123Feb 24, 2012
"I think you're taking the bible a bit too literally."
If you're suggesting that the Bible is a collection of Hebrew history and folklore borrowed from other cultures, I won't argue with that.
The problems begin with those who "believe" the Bible is "the word of god" and they use it not only to pass judgment but also attempt to pass laws that enforce their "belief".
flash1117Feb 27, 2012
i think your being a bit judgmental... just because im religious doesn't mean i carry those beliefs into the political world. Just like anyone should. it sounds like most people on here are just bringing there personal hatred of religion instead of there logical mind to the discussion.
meccaydnaFeb 23, 2012
Insects don't mate like other animals. You need an entire colony in order for them to survive.
flash1117Feb 27, 2012
yea that would be true if all insects were colonial or needed the whole colony in fact just the queens would technically be efficient enough for most insects as once fertile most of them will live producing whole colonies on there own.
k4b20Feb 22, 2012
Someone once wrote: The ark was built by amateurs ...The Titanic was built by professionals. How is it possible that God sank the Titanic but not Noah's Arc?
espressodudeFeb 22, 2012
God uses ordinary people and ordinary things to show people His extraordinary power.
k4b20Feb 22, 2012
Maybe because that one guy said "not even God can sink this ship" that might have pissed Him off lol :D
And sometimes an amateur can do it better.
ArkadiuszhooverFeb 22, 2012
This is how it is possible: God sank the Titanic and not Noah's Arc. Case closed
mjm6783Feb 22, 2012
Or: Noah's ark is a human fable, and the Titanic a human folly... and there is no God.
djguerrillaFeb 23, 2012
I'm a Sinbad agnostic. I believe in God, and that his voice is identical to that of Sinbad. He told me Jesus was just some dude, and that they weren't related. And that I should rent House Guest this weekend
thefirewireFeb 23, 2012
@djguerrilla11
I don't care what anyone says but Sinbad movies were the s**t. I mean who didnt like House Guest or Jingle All the Way or Good Burger. Those cheesy 90's comedies hold a special place in my heart
inajeepFeb 23, 2012
Or you know, the ark was a fable to try to make gullible people believe that god would wipe you out if you misbehaved.
rockyoumonkeysFeb 22, 2012
I didn't realize it was God's intention to sink Noah's Ark.
Oh yeah, plus the Titanic is REAL.
rudegarFeb 23, 2012
maybe god was the end boss and noah did a power jump over him
finalizing the level ?
seroevoFeb 23, 2012
Yeah but it had those Mode 7 graphics that only used half the screen.
ophelloFeb 22, 2012
Noah's Arc: Noah was not good at spelling.
berkanaFeb 23, 2012
Well, if you consider the narrative, God preserved the Ark and Noah's family because Noah was a righteous man, at least up through the flood.
varodrigFeb 23, 2012
Not Noah's grandfather though: He drowned in the flood. No lie - check out the dates!
glueFeb 23, 2012
Well, God didn't sink the Titanic - an ice berg did. It seems logical that God, unless he was creating the H2O molecules from nothing (and then making them disappear again when the flood was complete), would require all the water reserves on the Earth (including glaciers and ice bergs) to create the flood, so, it stand to reason, that during the great flood there wasn't any ice.
weborbiterFeb 23, 2012
The answer is simple: Noah had a TARDIS. It would fit however many he needed inside, then jump forward a year in time so as not to require so much food and water. It all fits.
jamboidFeb 23, 2012
Actually, Noah had to put many more animals than just two of each species. Because some animals can only survive by eating other animals, we can only assume that he kept additional animals purely to feed the other animals.
Sadly, there is no way of knowing if he had 5000 cows (and lots and lots of hay), or if he just started feeding one species to another after the animals started getting hungry. If could be that of the many species that he saved from the flood, there were many more that went extinct due to food shortages.
If we could only find the ark, we would find the bones of the thousands of species that didn't make it.
if there had only been a decent tofu substitute for meat at that time, we would have many more cool and exotic animals running around today.
ophelloFeb 22, 2012
Also, the world is flat.
jqp123Feb 22, 2012
And the sky is a solid dome (the firmament) that separates the waters above from the waters below.
esrb99Feb 23, 2012
And people explain things based off of how their senses and physical limitations let them.
jqp123Feb 24, 2012
Yes, which is to be expected from people ... but not god ... nor even from people claiming to speak for him.
jameswyattFeb 22, 2012
http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
ophelloFeb 22, 2012
Yeah I heard of them...sad, lonely bunch of fools.
xaulted1Feb 22, 2012
OK well, "Higher Powers" aside, it's pretty much accepted as fact that the Hebrews copy/pasted this whole story from "The Epic of Galgamesh" written looooooooooooong before the first page of the Bible was every concieved.
In this light the whole topic is moot.
jqp123Feb 22, 2012
"In this light the whole topic is moot"
In this light, the whole religion is moot.
But "believers" don't really care about light ... or even truth. What they really care most about is perpetuating their own fantasies ... by force if necessary.
jameswyattFeb 22, 2012
Acts 17:11, 'the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they eagerly studied the Law everyday to see if what Paul said was true'.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ghostrunner1Mar 7, 2012
"Moot" means "open to discussion"
apokalyps2547Feb 22, 2012
I eagerly await temlakos and his colorful attempts to rationalize young-earth creationism and "flood geology".
fu4chanFeb 22, 2012
Its an f'n parable, not meant to be taken literally. When people start interpreting the bible in the same way that you would read Greek mythos and take it for the positive, the world will be a much simpler place and I wont have to read another comment regarding how anyone can believe a book with so many faults.
countess666Feb 22, 2012
"Its an f'n parable, not meant to be taken literally."
could you please explain that to evangelicals?
jameswyattFeb 22, 2012
A parable is a succinct story, in prose or verse, which illustrates one or more instructive principles, or lessons, or (sometimes) a normative principle. It differs from a fable in that fables use animals, plants, inanimate objects, and forces of nature as characters, while parables generally feature human characters. It is a type of analogy. - Wikipedia
So what instructive principle or analogy do we get out of Noah's Ark?
Better listen to God, or you're gonna get flooded?
Every New Testament parable doesn't use any names for the characters.
jqp123Feb 22, 2012
"Its an f'n parable, not meant to be taken literally"
Maybe all this stuff about "god" is really just a parable too, not meant to be taken seriously.
The "parable" argument is ultimately self defeating --- you can never be sure where the parable ends and the facts begin --- or even if there are any facts to be found.
skinturtleFeb 23, 2012
The animals were probably not full grown either. There is also a debate about whether or not the flood was localized or worldwide. I tend to believe that it covered a giant area...but not world wide.
berkanaFeb 23, 2012
The dimensions are mistaken; the cubit used to describe the Ark was the Royal Egyptian cubit, which was 20.8 inches, not the 18 inch Hebrew cubit, which didn't come into use until much later. The Ark's dimensions, using this measurement, would have been 520 ft. long, and about 52 ft. tall, about 87 ft. wide.
ghostrunner1Feb 23, 2012
Well, that fixes the problem right there! NOW it makes sense.
flash1117Feb 27, 2012
83 percent of Americans identify with a religious denomination of some sort (from the wiki) while just over 4% are athiest. SO for all you athiest out there your only the majority on Digg you are not the majority of the world you are not The "accepted" theory of the world you do not have the market cornered on logic and reason in fact you guys have been at it for just a few years when compared with the religious minds whove been considering the same issues your just purely outnumbered, Does that mean you should give up on questioning? never, but maybe you should take a more objective look at why THE VAST MAJORITY of the planet Knows there is a higher power.
greenmanjeffreyFeb 25, 2012
Impossible much?
greenmanjeffreyFeb 25, 2012
Impossible much?
fisherandsonsFeb 23, 2012
Noah's Arc, ironic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Arc_(TV_series)
conahFeb 23, 2012
In religion your belief of what is correct is entirely subjective, in science entirely objective.
esrb99Feb 23, 2012
Last time I checked, there's a group of Physicist who believe there is a fifth force, even when all evidence points to otherwise.
conahFeb 23, 2012
[citation need]
esrb99Feb 23, 2012
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=30&q=fifth+force&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0370269384908189
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=192269
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v102/i10/e101301
My point: Scientists have a belief that something will happen, enticing them to perform experiments. Because of this, the variables they choose to focus on may in reality have little-no focus on anything scientifically relevant, and they may ignore variables that could have greater meaning. This is not to discount the Scientific method, only to say that Science is not entirely objective when humans attempt to apply it to the world around us. We have postulates, and we attempt to prove them.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
apokalyps2547Feb 23, 2012
You're badly misrepresenting the scientific method.
A testable hypothesis is not "a belief that something will happen", it's an idea of how something might behave. Experimentation and observation yield results which will either invalidate the hypothesis, or support it. No "belief" required.
Religious faith, in stark contrast, is typically untestable. That's belief.
flash1117Feb 28, 2012
Faith is used in everything you cant turn the key to your car without the belief its going to turn it on otherwise you have no reason to turn the key. in this same way every theory tested is a testing of there faith in the scientific method to prove true, and just like with the car when you turn the key if it doesn't work your faith in it has been shaken just like when your experiment yields nothing of value to study your faith in the process will be shaken.
flash1117Feb 28, 2012
i love how when someone takes the time to put in a well thought out argument it is immediately buried go go objectivity.
flash1117Feb 28, 2012
scientists love to use this but there wrong you can never be objective no matter who you are cause everyone has prejudices that they bring with them. Observations are BIASED no matter how hard you try it is impossible not to present the facts in ways that support your theory whether or not they actually do.
ghostrunner1Feb 23, 2012
If the Bible is absolutely true and this ark thing really happened, then why doe we praise Adam and Eve? It's Noah and family that populated the earth as we know it. Right?
flash1117Feb 28, 2012
? im not sure i understand your question here... Adam being the first man created and eve being made from adam himself made them the genetic beginning of the Human race. We do not "praise" them in fact we should all be a little pissed that they only had 1 thing they could do wrong and they f**ked it up.... As for why we dont talk about Noah and his family being the genetic beginning is because all 3 of his sons had wives that have no ancestry we can trace.
analogkid1Feb 23, 2012
Shoveling all the Brontosaurus s**t overboard was a 24-7 job.
analogkid1Feb 23, 2012
Noah had a shrink ray, given to him by an advanced alien species. They forgot to mention that in the bible.
floepieFeb 23, 2012
What happened to the millions of unicellular and microscopic animals that surely would have perished?
rudegarFeb 23, 2012
wonder if Noah took 2 of each self reproduction animals too
or if god gave him some biological lessons in advanced
and judging by some then the whole term biology is an abomination in his eyes :P
backtothekitchenFeb 22, 2012
Well apparently Noah's arc is made of wood, while Titanic is of heavy metal...
captswuitsFeb 22, 2012
Alien Theory: He had all of the animals DNA.
nitrogliserinFeb 23, 2012
I always wonder if someone doesn't believe in God or higher power then why keeps obeying laws, governments and other "visible" authorities? Are you afraid of them because you know they can punish you and make you suffer? If you define yourself as a good person then why do you try to be a good person? Being a good or bad person doesn't matter when beliefs are collapsed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jqp123Feb 23, 2012
"If you define yourself as a good person then why do you try to be a good person?"
Enlightened self interest. It's helps avoid being locked up or killed<g>. It makes life better for everyone --- more enjoyable, peaceful, harmonious, etc..
History shows that morality is independent of religion. All of morality comes from the Golden Rule --- do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The history of it predates the written Bible by thousands of years and can be found in most cultures including Ancient Babylon, China, Eqypt and Greece.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule
nitrogliserinFeb 23, 2012
well same people who lived in Ancient Babylon or other old kingdoms have done the most disgusting things in the history and they were enjoying it. Those things were their traditions and seen normal by people. Perspective of Good and Bad are clearly different between people.
jqp123Feb 23, 2012
The European Christians in the middle ages did the most disgusting things including torture and kill those that did not believe as they did.
In the early 21st century, an American Christian President who believed he was being guided by Biblical prophesy did the most disgusting thing by prompting an invasion of another country for no good reason killing hundreds of thousands of it's inhabitants.
Perspective of Good and Bad are clearly not really that different between people.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/aug/10/religion-george-bush
nitrogliserinFeb 23, 2012
People done terrible things in the name of GOD or whatever they believed but mostly in the name of GOD and Religion and they are still doing it. That doesn't mean they truly understood their books or guided by GOD.
Remember the crusader wars between muslims and christians. Both sides thinks that they are fighting in the name of GOD and GOD protects them.
What kind of a fanstasy is this for GOD? Some kind a olympic game?
It's people who manipulated religion in the name of self profit, power and greed.
Jeremiah 10:23 says "I know, O LORD, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps."
Obviously people who studied bible actually don't pay attention what it really says.
sybaekFeb 23, 2012
Your need to constantly capitalize god disturbs me.
jqp123Feb 23, 2012
By the way, if you read the Bible, you'll find that the Hebrews did some pretty disgusting things as well.
The only difference, their god told them to do it. Or at least that was their story.
esrb99Feb 23, 2012
and Stalin committed genocide all on his own.
The united states captured dissenting 'red commies' here in the US and had them carted to Prison or killed.
Humans induce flaws into religion, politics, etc.
jqp123Feb 25, 2012
Immorality exists with or without religion ... and so does morality.
lumpierpineFeb 22, 2012
We all make the decision, we either live like God exists, or we live like He doesn't. Just imagine for a moment, those who take the former, that God exists. Then God, as an infinite being, by definition containing all perfections and no imperfections, could very easily sustain any number of animals on a ship any size. If there is no God, sure, the Arc is a fable. But this debate over the feasibility of Noah's Arc is an incredibly uninteresting question when put in that light. If God is real, then lets find Him. If you search and do not find Him, do not trouble yourself with the beliefs of others.
For the record, I believe if you search for God, And I mean really give Him a shot, He shows up.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ophelloFeb 22, 2012
A belief in god does not demand a belief in the story of Noah's Ark. One can be true, both can be true, or both can be false.
jqp123Feb 22, 2012
Which god are you referring to?
Down through history, there have been something like 10000 different gods. At one time, all these gods had passionate believers just like you. And just like you, those believers were firmly convinced that they were right and all the non-believers were wrong.
The only difference between you and I --- I disregard one more fake god than you do.
cyberprunesFeb 23, 2012
Wish thinking at its best. God can do anything so that no matter how ridiculous and impossible something may seem..it's all possible.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is an axiom for all things..yet religion gets a pass for some reason.
Noone can prove or disprove the existence of God (whatever that means) but
one can quite easily disprove Biblical stories with a 9th grade education
lumpierpineFeb 23, 2012
I am referring to Jesus, however, the God to which I am referring is not the issue.
Yes, in a Godless world, Noah's Arc is an impossibility. Notice, this is only dealing with possibility not probability or actuality. In that sense, I agree with you fully.
But in a world with God, nothing can be impossible, merely outside of our will or understanding. This is not a religious or faith claim. This is true by definition of God (even if God doesn't exist outside of my own mind).
I do not assert to you that God's existence necessitate Noah's arc as ophello pointed out. Nor do I claim any difference between jqp123 and I. In my faith we are all sinners before God.
But I do cling to extraordinary claims, Cyberprunes. Because if you postulate a God, then extraordinary things are possible in a strict sense.
Notice, we have not said anything about their actual happening. That is a different story all together, but IF there is a God, then events such as Noah's arc are entirely possible.
As to Jqp123, entirely true. Many belief systems exist. But the daunting failure of the many should not hinder your search for truth (I am including the possibility that I am one of these people). As I said in my first post, if we acknowledge that Noah's Arc is possible only IF there is a God then, "this debate over the feasibility of Noah's Arc is an incredibly uninteresting question [...] If God is real, then lets find Him. If you search and do not find Him, do not trouble yourself with the beliefs of others. "
Again, I believe firmly and as truth. If you seek God, truly and with your whole heart. He will find you.
jqp123Feb 23, 2012
"That is a different story all together, but IF there is a God, then events such as Noah's arc are entirely possible."
Sure, an all powerful god makes anything possible.
But in the particular case of Noah's flood, this all powerful god would also have had to perform a very long list of supernatural acts just to cover up all the evidence of the event and to leave the world and everything in it the way we find it today.
In other words, assuming this was all the act of a supernatural god, he certainly went out of his way to cover up the scene of the crime with the intent to deceive.
Or --- the event never really happened and the Hebrews were simply repeating some folklore that they had heard. You decide which is more plausible.
cyberprunesFeb 23, 2012
"If there is a God then all things are possible"
Well I don't know either way but If there is a God that still doesn't prove that there is a "God of intervention" and meddling.
It doesn't prove that he performed miracles and sent a son to
be sacrificed.
If you believe in Noah's Ark then you must take the entire bible as literal truth. This means you can't leave out what is disliked.
God allowed slavery (a justification used in early America).
We know slavery is clearly immoral but God allows it and provides the rules of slave trade.
God allowed polygamy and concubines (whores). This is clearly deemed as highly immoral.
God commanded genocide, the killing of women and children and of rape.
There is an interesting conflict here.
God has commanded ,condoned and written into law things that we as humans in modernity know to be immoral and evil. Think about that.
How can we know what is immoral and evil over God? The most probable explanation is that the authors of the bible made it up.
I don't know why you try to equate searching for truth with credulity. It seems to me that if someone were really searching for truth they would approach all things with skepticism and doubt. If you are credulous then you will not get very far in your pursuits.
In the end, there is no proof for or against God's existence. In my opinion the Bible does not provide a good case.
countess666Feb 23, 2012
"But in a world with God, nothing can be impossible"
with the bible being god's propaganda piece, his introduction to the world, the proof of his existence and greatness ect ect...
wouldn't a miracle like fitting every know land animal on a boot that was far too small and feeding them for a year be worth a mention?
the 'miracle' of him setting fire to a wet wooden altar was mentioned. this seems far far grander to me (not to mention that there is a easy and highly possible explanation for the wet wooden alter bursting into flame) but not for this one.
it just doesn't hold up to any rational logic.
theonewhoknowsFeb 22, 2012
Ugg. If you are going to attack someone's beliefs, you should make an attempt to understand them. This is a strawman arguement to say the least.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
countess666Feb 22, 2012
many Christians (not the majority, but a substantial number) say the bible should be interpreted literally.
but this clearly shows that when you do that all sorts of errors and faults crop up. how is that a strawman?
this is just one of the things wrong with the noah's arc story. DNA clearly shows that all animals did not go through a fairly recent population bottleneck. DNA diversity would have been FAR smaller otherwise.
and ofcourse, with just 2 humans... who did the children of those 2 humans have children with? (that's the second time that quest pops up of course, same with Adam and eve)
now some interpretations fix that by adding a couple more humans... but it is in fact humans that have the smallest DNA diversity of almost any species. so that's not right either.
theonewhoknowsFeb 22, 2012
You show a cursury understading of the story.
apokalyps2547Feb 22, 2012
...go on?
theonewhoknowsFeb 22, 2012
I'm not the one making the argument.
apokalyps2547Feb 22, 2012
Just saying. "You show a cursury understading of the story" doesn't really serve as a counter-argument, and it certainly isn't a refutation of his points.
theonewhoknowsFeb 22, 2012
Informing someone that they are making a strawman arguement while attempting to refute a belief they only superficially understand is a fine defense. You are right in that it is a poor counter-arguement. I do not wish to offer one.
If someone wishes to actually learn about the belief in finer detail, and then offer his or her criticism, I have no objection.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
apokalyps2547Feb 22, 2012
Which details were wrong here? This is a famous story that many people have read, myself among them.
If taken literally, the story of Noah does not stand up to even the most modest scientific scrutiny.
Responding to this assessment with essentially "You just don't understand it, you should learn more about it" is every bit as meaningless, as intellectually vacuous, as a child saying "Nuh-UH."
If countess666 is wrong, tell us what he got wrong, otherwise we are left to assume that you don't know what you're talking about.
countess666Feb 23, 2012
you dont have a argument do you? you're just trying to sound like you do.
there is nothing in my post that is dubious or factually false with regard to noah's story as presented by the bible.
the size of the ark is in there, the data's are in there with regards to how long it took, the animal pairs are in there.
or do you have issue with the fact i used DNA as evidence?
also some versions of the story claim there were 7 pairs of each animal, but that too would show up in DNA, and make the problem of fitting all the animals and food in there even worse.
a literal interpretation is therefore NOT POSSIBLE without denying any and all logic and factual evidence.
theonewhoknowsFeb 23, 2012
So now I have to engage in an argument I don't want to engage in because you presented superficial scrutiny... and I'm the one who is wrong until I stand up for something I don't want to stand up for? You are so much more ignorant than you think. You can't expect people that believe in the story to be at all convinced by your crappy points. I was merely pointing that out.
But apparently you are right until proven wrong. That's not how it works.
If you care to actually read the story (of which there are multiple versions) do it. Then maybe check out some scholorly review of it. It has been studied for centuries, and because most people here saw a cartoon about it, or sort of heard the jist of it when they were a kid, they feel compelled to convince believers it is wrong. That's a f**king retarded position to take.
But okay, I'm the bad guy because I'm asking you to have substance behind your attack of religion... something, by the way, is generally easy to get, but lazy, sloppy arguements get you nowhere other than a false sense of eletism.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
countess666Feb 23, 2012
"But apparently you are right until proven wrong. That's not how it works."
when i use facts, and use them together with logic and reasoning to come to a conclusion then yes, that is how it works.
if you have facts that contract the ones i used, or see holes in my reasoning then please point them out.
theonewhoknowsFeb 23, 2012
The hole is that the facts attack a strawman argument, and I don't want to engage in it because that's how strawman arguments work.
So, seeing as I won't do that, I must concede to you. You've apparently been able to sum up centuries of analysis into a paragraph, and then cleverly disprove it. Congratulations. End of debate. You've convinced everyone to leave their religion. You win. Nice work, very convincing.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
countess666Feb 23, 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
"A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."
the original position of the bible was noah took 1 or 7 pairs of all animals into a ark with clearly mentioned dimensions for 1 years while the whole earth was flooded, killing all other land based species.
my position: all the animals can't possibly fit in there, they can't possibly have enough to eat, and the 8 people on the boot can't possibly take care of them all, and DNA proves that there was no DNA bottleneck for nearly any land based animal.
ergo : it did not happen.
you can claim its a straw man argument but you'll have to explain how that is so. because its not. it uses all the provided facts on the subject matter in question.
theonewhoknowsFeb 23, 2012
This is beyond f**king ridiculous.
Reducing the belief to one f**king sentence like you did is the VERY DEFINITION OF PRESENTING A STRAWMAN.
Go on thinking you're right. I don't care. I know you are wrong, and now I know you are too stubborn to let anything stand in the way of your erroneous beliefs. You are no better than the idiots who believe the Noah's ark story is real. They think they are being rational too.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
apokalyps2547Feb 23, 2012
Rather than squawking "straw man" over and over again,
tell
countess666
what
he's/she's
getting
wrong.
This shouldn't be difficult, but it increasingly looks like you don't actually have an answer. 'I know you're wrong but I refuse to say how' is idiotic!
theonewhoknowsFeb 23, 2012
@ apok
I'm not saying he's wrong, I would have to make an argument if I were and I don't want to.
I'm saying that countess offers no arguement. I don't have to counter-argue countess to do that, only defend my assertion that countess' argument is weak and flawed.
Imagine If I said to you that, "no doubt, the universe is expanding, and will always expand." And I said that is true because it has expanded from the beginning of time, and we know things are getting farther away from each other based on redshift analysis." Wouldn't you say, ugg... right or wrong, that is a horrible and superficial analysis and a waste of my time reading. Wouldn't you say that the issue is much more complex than I make it seem. Would you have to explain to me all the reasons why in order to be correct? No. Because you are not arguing wether or not the universe is and will always be expanding. You are merely pointing out that my argument is superficial and lacks the substance required to be worthy of taking it seriously.
The burden isn't on me to refute it if all I'm saying is that it isn't a real argument. Strawmen arguments aren't real arguments. And I'm tired of this idea that people think they can irrefutably disprove another's religious beliefs with a cartoon or simple gotcha fact or inconsistency. I can too... watch:
Jesus wasn't resurected because medically, that isn't possible! Woohoo, I disproved Christianity with medical science. I win!
It takes much more than that, and countess doesn't have it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
apokalyps2547Feb 23, 2012
I'm not saying you need to refute what he's saying about genetics, I'm saying you should justify your claim that his argument is a straw-man.
You say he's getting the story wrong. What part of the story is he getting wrong? You don't have to make an argument, it's a citation!
theonewhoknowsFeb 23, 2012
@Apok,
I did justify my claim, and it should be apparent to anyone not emotionally involved in trying to be right about this that his rebuttal of a one sentance version of multiple stories that span across multiple ancient societies, with centuries of history and reinterpretation is a strawman. The issue is far more complicated, and any serious rebuttal of it would require actual analysis, thought and effort.
His is a waste of space. It doesn't accomplish anything but make like minded people high-five each other thinking they both got it right. A serious argument is one capable of challanging those opposed to it, and his doesn't do that because he doesn't even try to understand the basis of it any more deeply than the ship is too small and the animals are to great in number.
People don't even know how to argue any more. They think they can just pull a superficial factoid out (right or wrong) and then be shocked at the stupidity of those who don't just immediately concede. it's the whole Rep vs. Dem thing.
The fact that I have to write this much to point out that countess arguement is nothing more than a superficial joke is utterly dissapointing and worrisome. And what's worse is that the solution seems to be that I have to counter in an equally superficial way or his point stands.
That's horse s**t.
Acknowledge that it is a lazy argument or don't; I don't care. But that doesn't make you right.
murxFeb 23, 2012
Even if you don't take the bible 'literally' but a bit broader...
...so god tried to kill all humans because they didn't do as he pleased?
Even the children and babies - even the unborn but already received ones (godly abortion there I'd say).
What a good god!
agmlauncherFeb 22, 2012
How is this a strawman argument? Belief in the bible and religion is in fact based on the search for truth, it is NOT purely faith. Religious believers believe there is truth to be found in their religion.
This comparison highlights that the bible contains flaws, and because it contains flaws, it cannot be used as an absolute book of truth. Nobody is claiming that the entire religion is invalid because of this one example (THAT would be a strawman). However, this one example is enough to completely shatter the notion that the bible is truth.
And if you bring up enough things like this Ark example, you'll see that there is more fiction in the bible than there is truth. Thus, there is no logical reason to believe in it, or use it as a guide to finding the truth.
cryinlionFeb 22, 2012
It always seemed pretty likely to me that the entire world flooded only from the perspective of the author. Likewise, "all" the animals of the world could easily have been restricted to the known world, thus not requiring a literal 2,000,000 insects (most of which are not indigenous to the Middle East), 17,000 birds, 9,000 mammals, etc. And of course, the Titanic easily COULD have held food and water for > 2 weeks if the cruise had been planned to take longer than that, and 3,547 people were hardly packed shoulder to shoulder.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jqp123Feb 22, 2012
"It always seemed pretty likely to me that the entire world flooded only from the perspective of the author."
So in other words, the Bible only reflects the perspective of the men who wrote it? And it's not really "god's perspective" at all?
This is what happens when you try to defend the indefensible --- things get all logically twisted around and you end up supporting the very point that you're attempting to argue against.
Ouzel7Feb 22, 2012
In the sense that Noah believed God told him to build the ark and load it with the animals of that region...yes. He would be divinely inspired.
Whether or not the ENTIRE world flooded is in question.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jqp123Feb 22, 2012
Once you're done peeling away all the stuff about this story that couldn't possibly be true, there's very little core left to believe in. And the same holds true for the rest of the book --- there is absolutely nothing in it to indicate any sort of divine insight. Time and gain, upon closer inspection, it's perspective appears to be limited to that of the men who wrote it and the folklore of the day.
esrb99Feb 23, 2012
@jqp: " there's very little core left to believe in."
What do you mean by this? You mean any sort of factual evidence that any of these men lived or said what they said, etc? Or do you mean that any life lessons can be gleamed?
I would say Phrases from Christ such as, "Forgive, not seven times but seventy seven times" and "Forgive them for they know not what they do." transcend time, leaving a solid code on how people should treat one another. Regardless of religious dogmas, Such peaceful attitudes would be a great fruit to humanity if more people gleamed lessons from them and applied it to their lives in a positive manner.
theonewhoknowsFeb 22, 2012
How is it a strawman arguement? Well, it oversimplifies the proposition, and then attacks the oversimplified version of the proposition.
Yup, that's how it is a strawman arguement.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
countess666Feb 23, 2012
oversimplifies? what was missed. the dimensions of the arc are mentioned in the story, the amount of time is too, and we have a rough idea about what "a pare of every animal" would mean in terms of numbers.
the same with the DNA. is says a pare of each animal. there is nothing to oversimplify as its so simple already.
nothing oversimplified, just quantified and compared.
mazebotFeb 23, 2012
Ah, i think i spotted your misunderstanding with the San Diego Park.
you see, animals in Noah's time were not helps and defenceless.
also those 8 people on the boat were not some lazy, we demand payment, and only work 5 hours a day, also there is no way Im working in the insects area, type of people.
They worked hard.
It also helps when the animals worked to gather in harmony, because they new the alternative was death of their species.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
varodrigFeb 23, 2012
Animals 'new' the alternative was death. Seems legit.
flash1117Feb 23, 2012
first insects really? they didnt take 2 of every insect so theres 2 million off the list... Amphibians.... most of them would have been fine off the boat so theres a bunch gone again. 12,000 reptiles theres not even 600 unique families in lizards so they could be done with less then 1500 total. the mammals took up the majority of space and if you look at its design there would have been more then enough space to keep all the animals unlike a park where they need to roam and live this was short term (only 40 days) Also where the hell did you get these measurements it was 40cubits tall (which is the length of a mans arm from finger tip to elbow) and 400 cubits in length and 80 cubits wide which if you think the average mans height is 6 feet making a cubit an average of one and a half feet each. adjusting the numbers to fit this thats 60 ft high 600 ft in length and 120 ft wide thats a total of 4320000 cubic feet. to give you an idea this is the equivalent in space to a 2 by 2 set of football fields stacked 8 high at 10-12 foot intervals.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sybaekFeb 23, 2012
Believe it or not insects need food, shelter and water to survive. How many bugs do you see outside when it's pouring rain? I don't know about you, but I usually find them crawling into my garage.
Amphibians are not immune to flood. Most species need to breathe air like you and me. If I make it so you can't swim to the edge of the pool, you'll eventually drown just like a frog would.
There are over 9000 unique KNOWN species in the order Squamata (which encompasses lizards and snakes). Many more are discovered every year.
There are over 5000 known species of mammals at the moment. While you are right, most of the largest animals would be mammals, what you fail to take into account is how much food and water mammals require in comparison to other animals. Being warm blooded, these animals require a large amount of energy simply to maintain body temperature.
A squirrel eats about 1.5 ounces of dry food a day. Over 40 days he will consume almost 5 pounds of food by himself. He will also need 2-3 ounces of water a day. Over 40 days that is just shy of a gallon of water. That's about 8.5 pounds of water. So just to have a garden variety squirrel on board, you'd need about 14 pounds of food/water. Naturally, food/water requirements increase significantly with larger species.
And many species require fresh food. And there would also be no modern day refrigeration techniques or canning methods. That would require you to feed and water the live food as well. This would add many complex requirements to transport this group of unlikely passengers. I'm not sure that this would all fit in one boat. No matter how large and impossibly built it would be.
Not only that, the ark had 8 people. And one of them was Noah, who was no spring chicken when he built the ark (500-600 years old). How do you suppose 8 people were able to hand this?
Wait wait. Don't tell me. Divine intervention?
varodrigFeb 24, 2012
Excellent spelling and grammar? Check.
Realistic estimates? Check.
Accurate math? Check.
Solid, logical arguments based on examples? Check.
All this and you STILL don't realize you're wasting your time arguing with these fools?
eazybuzyFeb 22, 2012
<a href="http://www.eazybuzy.com">awsome article with much information and facts...you may also visit eazybuzy.com</a>
jacalladine2000Feb 22, 2012
It's tricky one but then again the biggest question to ask is, did the ark sink?? I think not.
www.foreverpleasure.co.uk