This should be fun...
Joey on the thread “What would it take for someone to change their mind on something they once believed in?” has now stated what he would require to start to change his mind on his belief in Christianity is “a clear demonstration of the fallibility of the Bible”
Now, we have agreed to keep it simple because, as Joey writes “being proved wrong in regards to something I don't understand [physics, geology, etc...] wouldn't bother me too much)” – so any science talk will be kept to simple high school level and no more (Yellow and Red cards await for when this rule is problem. I also assume that any challenges on the bible based on history and/or translations is ‘open season’. Oh, and we can talk about the logical fallacy made as well later)
OK... so we are going to keep it simple as I said – and for me simple mistakes in the bible don’t come simpler than Noah and the Flood.
Billy has already written a rather good post on the subject called “A Floody Stupid Story” so I am going to be rude and steal (as the evil atheist that I am) some of arguments that Billy got from an inquisitive 5 year old for the price of a bag of sweets and place them here on this post – it saves me a bit of time."
1. How did Noah stop all the animals eating each other?
2. How did
he get space for all the Dinosaurs? (An adult Argentinasaurus weighed 100
tonnes).
3. Where did he keep all the food? What did the carnivores
eat?
4. What about fresh water?
5. What about all the shit? (It is a
source of disease after all, see Q9).
6. Why did all the fish not die (fish
generally have very restricted salinity tolerances – think about it fundies)?
Were there fish tanks on the ark? How was correct temperature
maintained.
7.How did Kangaroos get to Australia (There is a big problem with
biogeography – and paleo-biogeography?
8.Why did the termites not eat the
ark? (Or indeed beetle grubs or fungi?)
9. Did Noah take germs on the ark?
(Think about it fundies – every pathogen in existence? How did Noah’s family
avoid dying of small pox, syphilis, malaria etc…?).
10. How did
Noah collect all the animals? (I worked out, using a conservative estimate of 10
million species, that in the week god allowed him to collect the animals in, he
would have to round up and put one species on the ark every 60
microseconds.
"
I will also like to add one of my own that I asked Joey on an earlier threadQ: If Noah only brought two of every ‘kind’ onto the ark – and the flood
killed ALL other creatures on the Earth (since it was a global flood with water
higher than the highest mountain this would seem like the literal
interpretation) What did the lion eat when it got off the ark? If it ate a
zebra, then the zebra would become extinct.If you wish to claim the lion was a
vegetarian (?) then what actually did it eat before and after the flood (since
assumingly, without evolution, the lion could still eat this food today)
Oh, and one from Eddie Izzard (video clips can be found on this thread)that God made a mistake – He wanted to kill ALL the animals on the Earth but forgot the loop-hole for all the animals that could float or swim – and those ducks can be really evil as well. QUACK QUACK
OK – that should be enough to get us started.
It is my aim to show that the account in the bible is unlikely, and would require further and equally unlikely occurrences to have happened (which since they have not been explained or outlined in the bible suggests more that the account is wrong)
Maybe after this topic would we move onto the historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth – but then I would be stealing from Philip’s blog and his history lessons part 1 and 2
Well, if Newton could stand on the shoulders of giants (stealing a lot of work from a certain Robert Hooke) why can’t I steal from a few friends?
Lee
Monday, August 11, 2008
The Flood Gates Open...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
76 comments:
I'm curious as to whether the nature of light was changed by Yahweh, as he supposedly gave rainbows as a sign he'd never again drown the planet.
Perhaps he simply changed the refractive index of water, though I don't imagine that is any easier to accomplish :-)
so I am going to be rude and steal (as the evil atheist that I am) some of arguments that Billy got from an inquisitive 5 year old for the price of a bag of sweets and place them here on this post – it saves me a bit of time.
No problem Lee, you are free to use anything from my blog - glad it's usefull.
The flood is a great place to start when looking at the fallibility of the bible - that is why so many concede that the flood did not happen and claim it is a metaphor.
Perhaps he simply changed the refractive index of water, though I don't imagine that is any easier to accomplish :-)
Yes, that would mean a change in the laws of physics and bite the same lots' fine tuneing argument on the bum.
Rian I'm curious as to whether the nature of light was changed by Yahweh, as he supposedly gave rainbows as a sign he'd never again drown the planet.
Perhaps he simply changed the refractive index of water, though I don't imagine that is any easier to accomplish :-) <
Or it never rained before the flood… but (as you can read over at Billy’s blog) would still cause problems since there was surface water on the Earth according to the bible – there was a sun according to the bible… so why no evaporation of the surface water causing rainbows according to the bible?
Oops… either an oversight or a crap gift from God.
We would be back to creating more excuses to explain issues in the bible… more complex than the problem we are trying to resolve -it would be a hint to me that something is wrong.
I could get into a lot more physics talk about refractive index (and even mention the eyes and optics) but this would be moving into physics more than we have too to highlight the issues with the Noah story and I would not want to scare Joey from the topic giving the reason of ‘advanced physics’ as an excuse to ignore the problems (though we are at the moment only talking high school science - see here
http://www.kidzone.ws/water/
No, I would like Joey to address the simple questions about the lion and the Zebra first – then some of the ‘complex’ questions that Billy got from a 5 year old.
Billy No problem Lee, you are free to use anything from my blog - glad it's usefull.
Thanks… not sure if I should be ashamed now – you write all this advanced PhD level stuff (OK – A level stuff probably, but I am trying to make myself feel better for not understanding it all) and I ignore that and take the simple stuff you say is written by a 5 year old.
Sorry.
The flood is a great place to start when looking at the fallibility of the bible - that is why so many concede that the flood did not happen and claim it is a metaphor.
I think it is as simple as you can get – it isn’t open to as much interpretation as the Jesus stories (though we can shoot some holes into those if we need too as well)
Still – would love to hear what Joey has to say on the subject…
Lee
Didn't mean to "derail" the thread. I'll get back to watching and wating. Over to you Lee & Joey :-)
I think it is as simple as you can get – it isn’t open to as much interpretation as the Jesus stories (though we can shoot some holes into those if we need too as well)
The trouble is that they start talking about paradigms and how we specifically rule out the flood beforehand.
They never justify their paradigm. It is just a cheap dodge that fools no one.
Billy: It is just a cheap dodge that fools no one.
It fools them, or they'd refrain from using it, surely.
Hi Rian,
Didn't mean to "derail" the thread.
You’ve not “derailed” the thread (it’s not even started yet so how could you?) – I didn’t mean to sound like you did.
Just that Joey on the previous thread (as I quoted) said he is not bothered about being proved wrong on something he doesn’t understand i.e. physics (which does beg a few questions but I am ignoring that for now)
Pains me though it does – I am therefore not trying to throw physics or ‘complex’ science into the mix and trying to keep my objections as simple as possible.
I don’t know how simple I can make it then the example I gave... we require a mummy Zebra and a daddy Zebra to love each other very much to make a baby Zebra.
But if daddy Zebra is eaten by a nasty lion with his big pointy teeth before they shared their love together... there can be no baby Zebra – no more Zebras.
Problem... we see Zebras today - So what did the lion eat?
This to me is a problem with the Noah story... as about as “clear [of a] demonstration of the fallibility of the Bible” as I can show. Joey says if I highlight such a problem he will start to doubt.
So, either this isn’t a problem in the bible and Joey can explain to me why... or Joey should be true to his word.
Let’s wait and see.
Rian: I'll get back to watching and wating. Over to you Lee & Joey :-)
No please – jump in anytime... otherwise I will probably end up talking to myself here :)
Billy wrote: The trouble is that they start talking about paradigms and how we specifically rule out the flood beforehand.
Surely not...?
I cannot see how Joey could use such reasoning here against me here... I have not ruled out the global flood with my questions, merely asking IF the flood occurred as the bible literally describes – how can we explain the observations that we see today i.e. lots of Zebras.
No complex science... just simple counting. One Zebra, two Zebra... lots of Zebras :)
So in fact, I am in fact, for the sake of argument, accepting the bible’s literally account of Noah’s Flood here (just like Joey) but then asking if this fits best with the observations we actually see around us. Is the literally interpretation of the flood account the best explanation we can think of?
They never justify their paradigm. It is just a cheap dodge that fools no one.
Well, I have hoped I have dodged this dodged before it happens :)
Rian It fools them, or they'd refrain from using it, surely.
I am sure Joey will not use such flawed reasoning and use the dodge described by Billy.
Lee
Lee: Problem... we see Zebras today - So what did the lion eat?
I just read something which implied the lions could eat fish (which would have survived the flood) carrion (from the unsaved animals), fungus and even vegetables.
I suppose Yahweh must have commanded the carnivores to leave the herbivores alone for a few hundred/thousand years until their numbers had reached a level which could support predation :-)
Lee: No please – jump in anytime... otherwise I will probably end up talking to myself here :)
Can't have that, it's supposed to be the first sign of madness or something :-)
Lee: So in fact, I am in fact, for the sake of argument, accepting the bible’s literally account of Noah’s Flood here (just like Joey) but then asking if this fits best with the observations we actually see around us. Is the literally interpretation of the flood account the best explanation we can think of?
Not wanting to put words in anyone's mouth, but I've found that biblical "truth" is often thought to outweigh empirical evidence, such that if the two conflict, the empirical observation MUST be in error, as God's word cannot be false. Surely creation, which was spoken into existence, is just as much the "word of Yahweh" and as such shouldn't be false? Claims of tampering by the forces of evil would surely also apply as much to the bible as to the empirical evidence?
Just thinking out loud :-)
Hi Rian,
I just read something which implied the lions could eat fish (which would have survived the flood) carrion (from the unsaved animals), fungus and even vegetables.
You like to play devil’s what-not don’t you :)
This is good.
OK then... not so many fish on the fields of Africa, but I can see your point.
Though I think you will be pushing the limits of common sense to say that lions where fishing for the first few hundred years after the flood.
Still having large number of fish is a problem for the Noah Flood isn’t – unless you allow the loop-hole Eddie Izzard pointed out for the creatures that can swim and float...
Let’s check... Oops
So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.
My mistake... it seems God loves the creatures of the sea and water MORE than the creatures of the land. God doesn’t try and kill them.
A bit weird that don’t you think? I’m sure Joey can explain this inconsistency though... oh, and those evil ducks are still OK it seems.
Oh and as for food... the bible shows this problem as well.
You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."
Erm... so maybe Noah saved a load of extra Zebras but classified them as food (but wouldn’t this break the 2 of every kind bit of the deal?)
As for vegetables/plants... not sure how well they survive under several miles of ocean for several months so I hope Noah packed a lot of food on the boat – enough not only for those on the ark, but for the children, and the children’s children... and the...
(And what about animals that only eat fresh leaves and stuff... when it is months old, they are not going to eat it... the poor Koala should be dead or did it only recently become a fussy eater?)
I suppose Yahweh must have commanded the carnivores to leave the herbivores alone for a few hundred/thousand years until their numbers had reached a level which could support predation :-)
Can you tell me which chapter and verse it says that in the bible?
I mean, the first thing Noah does after the flood is to kill a load of animals in sacrifice right? – It doesn’t seem he has any idea that he should not kill the animals for a while.
Can't have that, it's supposed to be the first sign of madness or something :-)
The first sign? Damn... erm, what is the second sign?
Not wanting to put words in anyone's mouth, but I've found that biblical "truth" is often thought to outweigh empirical evidence,
Prove it :)
such that if the two conflict, the empirical observation MUST be in error, as God's word cannot be false.
Why can’t the word of God be false? Maybe there is no such thing as the word of God – how could be prove it one way or the other?
However if the bible account is inconsistent and/or requires more excuses from apologists to ‘fit’ the observations – then there is something wrong.
Is it the universe that is wrong, or the book written 2,000 years ago?
Surely creation, which was spoken into existence, is just as much the "word of Yahweh" and as such shouldn't be false? Claims of tampering by the forces of evil would surely also apply as much to the bible as to the empirical evidence?
Just thinking out loud :-)
So the bible could have been tampered with by the devil? How would we know? How could we test this idea to be certain?
... and who is this devil guy anyway?
Must go... I’m hungry.
Lee
Lee: So the bible could have been tampered with by the devil?
I don't see why not. The Muslims certainly believe the message which was given to Prophet Isa to have been corrupted afterwards.
Lee: How would we know? How could we test this idea to be certain?
I'd have thought that, if we accept Yahweh exists, and the bible purports to be his word, then inconsistencies within it's many books, or with the external world, would indicate tapering of some kind. As for testing the idea to see which is more likely - I can stretch my imagination only so far :-)
Lee: ... and who is this devil guy anyway?
Chief amongst Yahweh creations. Yahweh's right hand man and go to guy. "The Adversary" of the prosecuting lawyer variety. Didn't seem to get the "absolute evil, emnity towards god and man" wrap until quite late in the day (near the 1st century CE).
I think I'm at risk of derailing the thread again. Whoops! :-)
Lee: Must go... I’m hungry.
Hope you enjoyed your lunch.
My mistake... it seems God loves the creatures of the sea and water MORE than the creatures of the land. God doesn’t try and kill them.
Except there would be salinity problems - if the flood was salty, the fresh water species die, if it was fresh, everything dies - especially coral.
OK then... not so many fish on the fields of Africa, but I can see your point.
Except the walking catfish http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php
?storyId=5338989
Rian I think I'm at risk of derailing the thread again.
No problems… we can get back on track when Joey comes back :)
Hope you enjoyed your lunch
I did thanks… a big bowl of noodle soup – how do the Chinese do it?
Except there would be salinity problems - if the flood was salty, the fresh water species die, if it was fresh, everything dies - especially coral.
There is also a problem with the water pressure – any fish that lived off the sea bed at normal sea levels would not be able to survive the at the new depths when you add a couple of miles of more sea on top of them (plus it would be dark down there – and without sunlight the plant life down there will die as well I guess.
So actually most of the fish will be screwed as well… and God wasn’t even trying to kill them according to the bible?
Some of the whales will probably be ok though with the salt/fresh water…?
Not sure about there food stock though. However they are fat bastards so will probably survive a couple of months without water… assuming they don’t get trapped on dry land when the water went back to normal levels.
I wonder why God didn’t kill the whales though… it not as if they are fish or anything?
Must go...
Lee
Except the walking catfish
Bloody evolution has an answer to everything doesn't?
That story was pretty cool... though it would have been better if it truly was a living missing link...
Lee
couple of months without water
I meant food of course...
typing too fast as always.
Lee
Lee
You have my full permission to steal from any of my blog posts, I feel honoured that you would use it in the first place :)
I wonder why God didn’t kill the whales though… it not as if they are fish or anything?
Yeah, the krill eating abominations! Maybe he's just incompetent - like when he designed our windpipe
though it would have been better if it truly was a living missing link...
Ah, you want Neoceratodus fosteri then
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensland_lungfish
Well Lee, I'll try my best to answer these, I'm sure we'll debate it out :)
In regards to your "evil atheist" comment, I have to disagree. I was talking about the Darfur Genocide with a local worship leader, and he said we as Christians can't expect atheists to care or do anything about it; with which I strongly disagreed and pointed out that atheists can behave just as morally as a Christian (which was strange, one might think I'd be on the opposite end of the spectrum, since I'm much more the "literalist" then this fellow is).
1. How did Noah stop all the animals eating each other?
Cages, walls, bars, etc...
2. How did
he get space for all the Dinosaurs? (An adult Argentinasaurus weighed 100
tonnes).
Is it possible some dinosaur species had already gone extinct? Did Noah have to take full-grown adults?
3. Where did he keep all the food? What did the carnivores
eat?
The ark was pretty big. Also, would there have been dead carcasses floating around? Of course, then we must asked how they fished them out; but it is possible.
4. What about fresh water?
Well there would have been a lot of rain... buckets maybe?
5. What about all the shit?
Toss it overboard... I would have hated that job
6. Why did all the fish not die (fish
generally have very restricted salinity tolerances – think about it fundies)?
Were there fish tanks on the ark? How was correct temperature
maintained.
I don't think there were fish tanks on the ark. What could be asked is has there been a re-shaping of the oceans since the flood? That is, were the oceans pre-flood similar to the oceans today, or has there potentially been a change in the make-up of the earth's water supply?
7.How did Kangaroos get to Australia
Has Australia always been separated from other land masses by great oceans?
Why did the termites not eat the
ark?
They may have started, like I said, it was a big ark; a lot of wood.
9. Did Noah take germs on the ark?
Yes, but certain diseases haven't developed until recent times; so would all of those things you mentioned have been a threat? Could they have been carried on without being transmitted? Could they have survived in water?
10. How did
Noah collect all the animals?
How many species Noah actually had to take is in debate, even among Biblical literalists. What defined a species back then, and how many would have had to be preserved to have everything we've seen since the flood? That is, did Noah have to take every kind of dog, or just a couple different dogs that could be inter-bred for what we have today?
If Noah only brought two of every ‘kind’ onto the ark – and the flood
killed ALL other creatures on the Earth (since it was a global flood with water
higher than the highest mountain this would seem like the literal
interpretation) What did the lion eat when it got off the ark? If it ate a
zebra, then the zebra would become extinct.If you wish to claim the lion was a
vegetarian (?) then what actually did it eat before and after the flood (since
assumingly, without evolution, the lion could still eat this food today)
Wouldn't there have been a plethora of carcasses deposited in various places? Assuming most of them had rotted or been eaten by carnivorous sea critters, wouldn't some fish have died and been left on the ground when the waters receded?
I know this is going to bring a plethora of questions, some of these responses I've intended to.
God bless!
Joey
Oh, forgot one thing. There were two of every kind of unclean animal; seven of the clean animals.
Joey: Oh, forgot one thing. There were two of every kind of unclean animal; seven of the clean animals.
There are ~2million known species (I think) and an estimated 10-100 million in existence.
How many "kinds" were there on the ark?
Remember, the ark had to hold all of them, as well as store their food for ~1 year. 8 humans had to feed, clean etc up after them.
The ark would only have been big enough for a very small number of kinds, which if you agree with means that evolutionary processes have been occuring faster than the theory of evolution predicts - speciation events.
Also, the ark was too large to be made of wood - wood does not have the structural integrity, even if the ark were unloaded.
(Sorry for butting in again :-) )
Philip You have my full permission to steal from any of my blog posts, I feel honoured that you would use it in the first place :)
Thanks... you keep writing the history, and I will keep stealing it :)
The bible can be questioned many ways - science is one, history is another... then there is plain common sense.
The hurdle though it seems a theist must get over is that all assumptions must be questioned and challenged – and of course this included “God exists”
If you assume “God exists” everything else can follow from that... (He can do anything God remember so we could just be brains in a jar in God’s lab – how would we know?)
However consistency and honesty in the approach is all I ask... so these type of questions should be also asked, “what would the universe look like if no gods existed... Would holy books exist and would be expect them to be all the same?”
I can jump between assuming God exists or God doesn’t exist when asking questions... not sure if the theist can, but time will tell.
Joey In regards to your "evil atheist" comment, I have to disagree.
Thank you... I was about to turn myself into the police, but I guess I’m not that evil.
It was a joke on my part since morals normally come up in debates with theists, so I just admit that I am evil from the outset – saves time :)
I was talking about the Darfur Genocide with a local worship leader, and he said we as Christians can't expect atheists to care or do anything about it; with which I strongly disagreed
I’m glad you did...
and pointed out that atheists can behave just as morally as a Christian (which was strange, one might think I'd be on the opposite end of the spectrum, since I'm much more the "literalist" then this fellow is).
I could argue the atheists can be more moral than the Christian, but that is a debate for another time.
After all, is the Christian being good for the wrong reasons... do they do it for the reward of heaven or the fear of hell? Neither would be very moral in my book...
Rian (Sorry for butting in again :-) )
Please stop saying that... you are more than welcome to comment. (It saves me having to write a full response as well...)
Lee
PS
Joey,
Thanks for the response on the flood questions - I will get back to them shortly, it will take me a bit of time to flesh out a reply
I can answer the questions without reading them all.
goddidit.
"a clear demonstration of the fallibility of the bible"
Guess hes an atheist now.
Don't even know highschool science. You just need a third grade level reading ability and critical thinking skills.
TWP: Don't even know highschool science. You just need a third grade level reading ability and critical thinking skills.
Well, when you're entire worldview presupposes the existence of Yahweh, and therefore the infallibility of the words attributed to him, 3rd grade reading and critical thinking doesn't seem enough.
Things like:
'1 + 1 = 2'
become:
'1 + 1 + Yahweh = 2 + Yahweh'
Both the question and the answer have to have Yahweh as he must be the cause and reason of everything.
Hi thewhitepearl
I can answer the questions without reading them all.
goddidit.
Damn... you got me :)
However does the account make sense?
I am not saying that God didn't do it, merely asking if the account in the bible makes sense and is the simplest of the possible solutions.
It is Joey who is claiming that the bible is infallible. I challenge that of course.
I have made an analogy before on an earlier thread to Joey that the Roswell 'incident' can of course be answered in more than one way.
For example:-
Aliens from another star system came to Earth and crashed landed...
OR
A man-made (and then top secret) military device crashed in a field and the US military did a shit job tidying up the mess.
(There may of course be more solutions, I do not wish to make a false dichotomy just a simple example)
So two possibility solutions – one is more likely than the other and requires less assumptions
i.e. It is known that the military exists and they make equipment that sometimes crash into the countryside, and when it is a secret mission, like spying on the Russians in the middle of the Cold War, it is likely that they would try and cover this up. No major assumptions made.
The other requires the assumption that aliens have flown billions of miles across the galaxy but mucked up when they got to Earth and crashed landed... all this without any other supporting evidence for either a) Intelligent aliens b) aliens that can fly inter-stellar distances or c) Any wreckage that does not appear to have a man-made origin.
It is not that I have proved the alien option as false, merely not the obvious choice.
I am trying to do the same for the bible account on the Flood and by doing so, showing that the bible account is flawed (and requires many more unnecessary assumptions)
This is all I need to do... the next step from Joey requires honesty and consistency.
"a clear demonstration of the fallibility of the bible"
Guess hes an atheist now.
Doubt it... the problem arises from the first assumption Joey is making – it overrides all else. That is “God exists and can do anything” (Even make the bible look like it was written by ignorant fools it would appear based on this Noah Account)
With the example I just gave above regarding Roswell... if your first assumption are “Aliens exist and have visited the Earth in recorded history” then almost anything could be used as evidence there after to back up your original assumption....
The trick is to make as few assumptions as possible and then look at the evidence. This isn’t what Joey is doing... I hope I am highlighting that to him :)
Don't even know highschool science. You just need a third grade level reading ability and critical thinking skills.
third grade – is that about 8 years old?
Well, you have advanced the level of the debate already; we started with questions Billy got from a 5 year old for a bag of sweets.
Thanks
Lee
Hi Joey,
First, thanks for taking the ‘challenge’ and thinking about these flood questions.
Of course I have comments to make on them.
“1. How did Noah stop all the animals eating each other?”
Cages, walls, bars, etc...
Erm... are these cages, walls and bars etc mentioned in the bible, or are you making an assumption?
Do you think Noah would know how to keep an elephant for example without being told – why didn’t God tell him then in the bible?
Did God say that Zebras should not be kept next to the lions in any chapter and verse you are aware of?
“2. How did he get space for all the Dinosaurs? (An adult Argentinasaurus weighed 100 tonnes).”
Is it possible some dinosaur species had already gone extinct?
You tell me... I’ll placing bets on 65 million years ago – but I am not sure you agree. After all, this is the first mass extinction mentioned in the bible isn’t it? So there will have to be a LOT of dinosaurs around if the bible is true
Did Noah have to take full-grown adults?
I’ve heard the ‘baby animal’ response before... isn’t that sweet.
I wonder though who then taught these animals how to hunt after leaving the ark or how and where to hide from predators?
Oh, and just a thought – what about animals that don’t live for 40 days (Billy I’m sure you could name a few)... is breeding allowed on the ark (a new question I know, but they just keep coming)
“3. Where did he keep all the food? What did the carnivores
eat?”
The ark was pretty big.
Is it really? I suppose you could help me out and give me a modern measurement for the dimensions – all those cubics get me confused.
Then I can work out how much food an elephant needs for 40 days and nights on the ark... plus of course all the time it will take for the trees to grow back (unless you think they could survive under several miles of sea water?
Another problem for you to consider that :)
Also, would there have been dead carcasses floating around? Of course, then we must asked how they fished them out; but it is possible.
Erm... so now you assume dead carcasses are the source of food. So I am glad you are not saying the lion is a vegetarian as I have heard before and you accept carnivores existed.
However, we have a couple of problems... how long do carcasses float for (not long I guess or all you would see is floating dead fish and other dead animals on the ocean) then we have to assume all the carnivores will eat carcass... then worry about diseases.
More assumptions then, and more problems...
“4. What about fresh water?”
Well there would have been a lot of rain... buckets maybe?
You are right about the rain fall... so I will give you this one, assuming you can work out the amount of water you need for all the animals... how big of a bucket would you need?
An aside – did all the flood water came from rain?
We can do some maths on the rate of rain fall if this is the case... this would be fun and it would be simple maths for a rough estimate.
Would you like metric or empirical units? (The maths is the same)
I’ll assume being American you like feet and inches (since in the US you like miles, gallons, lbs and fahrenheit)
What’s the height of the highest mountain?
Mount Everest - 29,029 feet which is 348,348 inches.
How long did it rain?
40 days and 40 nights?
40 x 24 hours=960 hours... or 57,600 minutes
So what is the rate of rain fall?
348,348 inches divided by 57,600 minutes giving 6.05 inches of rainfall per minute.
WOW... that is some rainfall.
This also assumes a constant rate around the WHOLE world for 40 days and nights which is bloody silly – but hey, God can do that right – it says so in the bible :)
So not bad when you think the world record for one day in a tiny area of the globe is around 2 metres of rainfall I believe. This will record would be beaten in less than 15 minutes at the Flood rate.
Make you think? Probably not. I bet you have not thought how you could maintain 40 days of constant rainfall either :)
A miracle on top of another miracle... no problem
“5. What about all the shit?”
Toss it overboard... I would have hated that job
I think they will be shovelling a lot of shit... but I will let Billy do some simple estimates on this.
How much shit does an elephant shit a day?
“6. Why did all the fish not die (fish generally have very restricted salinity tolerances – think about it fundies)?
Were there fish tanks on the ark? How was correct temperature
maintained.”
I don't think there were fish tanks on the ark. What could be asked is has there been a re-shaping of the oceans since the flood? That is, were the oceans pre-flood similar to the oceans today, or has there potentially been a change in the make-up of the earth's water supply?
This answer doesn’t even address the problem... I will let you try again.
Hint: All the water will be mixed together... either all salty or all fresh I guess.
The temperature will also be pretty much the same due to mixing up of all the oceans... no hot shallow water (or indeed ice cold water need by some fish)
Also, what will the fish eat when they cannot eat food from the bottom of the ocean because it is now 5 miles deep (any idea of the pressures that would create?)
“7.How did Kangaroos get to Australia”
Has Australia always been separated from other land masses by great oceans?
Again you tell me... you will have to be consistent though.
How did the pre-flood would look? What were the ocean levels like before the flood?
I accept plate tectonics slowly moving the continents apart – what about you? (This model doesn’t fit the 6,000 year of old though so I guess you don’t.)
“8. Why did the termites not eat the ark?”
They may have started, like I said, it was a big ark; a lot of wood.
And there was only two of them... so I am happy to give you this one.
“9. Did Noah take germs on the ark?”
Yes, but certain diseases haven't developed until recent times;
Can you explain how new diseases came into being without evolution?
Did God perform a second creation not mentioned in the bible?
I think you have a problem here... without evolution, you have to say God created new diseases... but this is not mentioned in the bible. Why?
so would all of those things you mentioned have been a threat? Could they have been carried on without being transmitted? Could they have survived in water?
I’ll let Billy tackle this one... more his field. I could only guess and Billy has a PhD on the subject.
“10. How did Noah collect all the animals?”
How many species Noah actually had to take is in debate, even among Biblical literalists.
Is it really... well, if you don’t believe in evolution, it has to be ALL of them.
If you do believe in evolution... then please explain your position again, since I thought you said you don’t believe in evolution (not mentioned in the bible and all that...)
Also, the number of animals is NOT addressing the HOW part of the question... how many butterfly nets did Noah have for example? How much dung did Noah have to go through to find two dung beetles etc etc etc
What defined a species back then, and how many would have had to be preserved to have everything we've seen since the flood?
Evolution again... you cannot have it both ways. Consistency please :)
Either evolution happens or it doesn’t - right?
That is, did Noah have to take every kind of dog, or just a couple different dogs that could be inter-bred for what we have today?
Evolution at work again... and the breeding of dogs is a fine example I think on how evolution (in this case artificial) can change a species greatly.
You would not have thought a Chihuahua was once a wolf just a few thousand years ago... how do you think this happened?
As for species, do you think a Great Dane could naturally breed with a Chihuahua?
So what is your definition of a species since I can tell we will be moving into this area soon?
I asked: “What did the lion eat when it got off the ark?”
Wouldn't there have been a plethora of carcasses deposited in various places?
How long do you think I have to assume carcasses lasted for?
How long do you think it will take for the Zebra population to grow for it to be able to sustained being eaten by lions again?
Oh... and if you were a lion... why would you eat carcass when they is a lovely fresh Zebra just walking off the ark and all you have eaten for the last 40 days was dead rotting flesh? You are assuming then that the lion will not act like a lion when it see’s fresh meat walking in front of it :)
SO, you still have problems here – how many assumptions do you have to make to maintain your position? When will it become unreasonable?
I know this is going to bring a plethora of questions, some of these responses I've intended to.
You’re right... and thanks
Lee
Oh, and Joey... just to remind you so we don't have to enter into a debate on evolution (unless you really, really want too but I would recommend you read Billy's blog first)
I will be happy to say evolution is false for our discussions on the Flood. It is up to you.
After all - without evolution, I think you have an even larger problem to address i.e. ALL animals :)
Lee
Lee: Is it really... well, if you don’t believe in evolution, it has to be ALL of them.
Just being pedantic - "if you don't accept evolution".
As far as I can tell, there isn't too much belief involved, backed up with evidence as it is.
Seems the literalist "acceptance" of evolution has altered over the years as well.
Initially, evolution was completely false, everything was as it had always been, just as the good lord made it.
Evidence showed this to be false, so we then got the "Well, individual species can change, but you can't get new species through evolution".
Again, evidence showed this to be false, and now we seem to have a lot of "Evolution cannot change kinds. Grass is still grass, dogs are still dogs" I think this is where the infamous crock-a-duck comes into the picture.
I may be wrong, but I think this last may be Joey's position.
Interesting how the literalist/creationist position has had to change in light of new evidence, yet each time those holding the position have seemed absolutely convinced of the truth of their position :-)
(and yes, I'm probably strawman'ing the creationist stance on evolution. This is the right place for that, I've been told) :-)
Hi Rian,
Just being pedantic - "if you don't accept evolution".
OK... “accept evolution” – but are we talking about the theory of evolution that tries to explain the observations, or the fact of evolution as seen in the evidence :)
As far as I can tell, there isn't too much belief involved, backed up with evidence as it is.
Well, some people believe that the sun will still raise tomorrow... the fools!!!
No wait...
Seems the literalist "acceptance" of evolution has altered over the years as well.
Just a little bit... next they will be saying evolution is true but was guided by God or something – no just minute, isn’t that the Roman Catholics position?
So it has happened already :)
and now we seem to have a lot of "Evolution cannot change kinds. Grass is still grass, dogs are still dogs" I think this is where the infamous crock-a-duck comes into the picture.
I may be wrong, but I think this last may be Joey's position.
You may be right – hence I have asked for Joey to tell me what a species is... when does a wolf become a dog?
I’m waiting for Billy to jump in here... any minute to tidy this up for me..
(and yes, I'm probably strawman'ing the creationist stance on evolution. This is the right place for that, I've been told) :-)
I have no problem with creating strawmen :)
I like a good fire...
Lee
Lee: but are we talking about the theory of evolution that tries to explain the observations, or the fact of evolution as seen in the evidence :)
Theory of course. Who'd deny the facts? :-)
Lee: You may be right – hence I have asked for Joey to tell me what a species is... when does a wolf become a dog?
Dogs and wolves are obviously the same kind. I don't know if cats are the same kind as dogs, or whether goats and sheep are the same kind (they can apparently breed, though without fertile offspring).
I wonder if the definition of "kind" lumps us in with the other primates? :-)
Hi Joey,
A lot to respond to and I'm in a hurry today. I wont repeat what Lee has said - as I a gree with him, but will just add extras to it
Cages, walls, bars, etc...
You have to bear in mind the number of species - possibly 10s of millions, and each one has to be cared for (would there even be enough time with so few people on board?
Is it possible some dinosaur species had already gone extinct?
I would think perhaps one or two :-) You would need fertile adults otherwise they would become someones lunch and go extinct - making the ark somewhat pointless.
Oh, and just a thought – what about animals that don’t live for 40 days
Well, the flood conditions lasted a lot longer than that. There are many species with very short life spans - including plants. Gatrotrichs live for 3 days.
Also, would there have been dead carcasses floating around? Of course, then we must asked how they fished them out; but it is possible.
Not really, they sink quickly - and by the end of a year, any you do find would be toxic.
Lee
Concerning the amout of rain that fell, the friction would boil the ocean.
Toss it overboard... I would have hated that job
Again, think about it - you have to feed them, clean them and stop the ark flooding - how many people were on board again?
Has Australia always been separated from other land masses by great oceans?
It was joined at one time that allowed the ancestors of kangaroos to spread there. It then separated. Placental animals evolved elsewhere, that is why they are not native to australia.
And there was only two of them... so I am happy to give you this one.
I'm not. What did the anteaters eat?
so would all of those things you mentioned have been a threat? Could they have been carried on without being transmitted? Could they have survived in water?
Absolutely not. Tapeworm, malaria, schistosomes.......hookworms....small pox...the list goes on all need to live inside a host.
That is, did Noah have to take every kind of dog, or just a couple different dogs that could be inter-bred for what we have today?
This is interesting. It means that by making this claim, the creationist is accepting that beneficial mutations must occur and that animal shapes can vary - in a very short time (one objection they raise against evolution - that there is not enough time). If they think kind means "mammals" or "fish", then a shrew becoming an elephant in a few thousand years would be a claring inconsistency.
Wouldn't there have been a plethora of carcasses deposited in various places?
But they are nicely ordered - you do not find placentals in Australia or man in dinosaur bearing rocks.
Billy
Rian Theory of course. Who'd deny the facts? :-)
Erm… let me think
Rian Dogs and wolves are obviously the same kind.
I’m not so sure… hence my question about the Great Dane naturally breeding with a Chihuahua – not sure how that could be done.
If it isn’t naturally – surely it is against God?
I wonder if the definition of "kind" lumps us in with the other primates? :-)
So I have a monkey for an uncle now do I?
You have to bear in mind the number of species - possibly 10s of millions, and each one has to be cared for (would there even be enough time with so few people on board?
Once we agree on the number of species onboard, we can easily do the maths.
With 10 million animals, for 40 days and nights – we are talking in the order of a few seconds per cage and that would be working 24x7 without any tea breaks… another act that would surely be against God… no tea break?
Well, the flood conditions lasted a lot longer than that. There are many species with very short life spans - including plants. Gatrotrichs live for 3 days.
I cannot remember the actually time they were on the ark… was it 40 days or 150?
And all the plants would surely be dead – not sure they could live under 5 miles of ocean… the last time I checked when you get 5 miles deep in today’s oceans you don’t see many trees
Concerning the amout of rain that fell, the friction would boil the ocean.
Didn’t think of that… of course that amount of mass hitting the Earth would pass a lot of it’s kinetic energy onto the ground and the heat will have to go somewhere.
Good point… though I have not done the numbers to confirm the boiling. It does make sense.
I'm not. What did the anteaters eat?
Maybe Noah brought some extra ants for food but they didn’t count them… however, wouldn’t God have told this to Noah and it be in the bible?
Have to go… that should be enough for Joey to think about.
Lee
The creationist concept of kind
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY8SMVPubKo
Thanks Billy - something to look forward to when I get home.
Lee
Great vid billy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark#Seaworthiness
Is a quick run down on whether or not the Ark would have been seaworthy. From an engineering standpoint, it would appear that a wooden vessel of that size (~450ft) would likely not be sound in calm seas, let alone the conditions the biblical flood would have caused.
Of course, we could claim supernatural intervention to prevent this (and stopping the animal eating each other etc), but then, why bother with the flood at all? :-)
It rained for 40 days and nights, but the waters didn't recede for at least a year. I'm surprised one of the Christians who visit here didn't set you straight on that already...
Lol
Lol: It rained for 40 days and nights, but the waters didn't recede for at least a year.
But how long?
Genesis 8:3-5 "The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, 4 and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. 5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible."
So the ark settles on a mountian after ~7.5 months, but it is not until 10 months that the tops of the mountains become visible. And during that time the waters continued to recede. That doesn't seem to make sense.
Lol: I'm surprised one of the Christians who visit here didn't set you straight on that already...
As above, it's a little hard to pin down a number. That's biblical consistency for you :-P
What do we have:
40 days of rain.
300 days (10 months)
40 days (cooped up in the ark)
7 days (dove flights)
-----
~387 days
Approximate because I'm not sure what is meant by month in the text (guessed 30 days), nor the amount of time between releasing the raven and the dove nor the amount of time it took the dove to find no dry ground and the second time to find an olive tree alive and with leaves.
I do like genesis 8:20-21 "Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. 21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart
Ol' Yahweh loves a good sacrificial burning/barbeque :-)
Oops. Seems month is meaning lunar month (how foolish of me), and I forgot a third release of the dove, when it did not return, so:
40 days of rain.
280 days (10 lunar months)
40 days (cooped up in the ark)
7 days (dove 1 -> 2)
7 days (dove flight 2 -> 3)
-----
374 days
Doubt concerning length of dove flight, raven flight and ambiguity of language notwithstanding :-)
but then, why bother with the flood at all? :-)
That is such a simple yet devastating point. God had the power to just kill everyone and keep the animals alive.
I never noticed the 40 days in the ark before either. Thats another blow to the fishing putrid carcasses out of the water and feeding them to animals
Also worth mentioning that the volume and ferocity of the rainfall necessary to cover the whole earth (as calculated by Lee above)would have pulverised any huge wooden boats..like the Ark!
As you think it through, Yahweh has to do more and more for the story to work: he has to make the carnivores vegetarian, protect the Ark, change the refractive index of water to allow the new phenomenom of rainbows, somehow sustain all the fish and other animals (coral, etc.) with very specific salinity tolerances, and prevent the Ark, a free floating wooden box, from drifting out of the middle east region (despite all the turbulence and chaotic tides that would have resulted from the flood).
Lol
Hi Lol and welcome to the show
Yahweh has to do more and more for the story to work
Yep... this is my point - you have to make more and more major assumptions to make the story work - and for a loving God why not just kill the bad people with a click of the fingers (which would not actually be that loving, but nicer and easier)
And thanks Rian for the maths on the number of days... a year is a long time - a living hell almost.
Again not very loving or wise
Lee
Billy That is such a simple yet devastating point. God had the power to just kill everyone and keep the animals alive.
I've just repeated what you said... sorry.
That's a year at the least. If we want to take it literally (and I assume we do), then we need to factor in a large flying time for genesis 8:8-9 "Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground. 9 But the dove could find no place to set its feet because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark.
How long would it take a dove to find that there is no place to set it's feet in the entire earth? (and again, Yahweh needs to make sure the dove doesn't die of exhaustion or drown)
As for simply killing people at the snap of his supernatural fingers, it occurs elsewhere
Acts 5:5 "When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened."
Can Yahweh only kill a single person at a time in this manner? (He kills Ananias' wife shortly after)
Or what about poor Onan who wouldn't dump his baby gravy in his brother's wife's lady bits
" 8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. 10 But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also." (Gen 38:8-10)
baby gravy
My screen was nearly hit with a mouthful of corn flakes.
That's a new one to me :)
It also has me thinking (an old and classic question I am sure) where does God get his morals from and why are they different to man’s? For example. Thou shall not kill, lie or be jealous etc etc.
I’m sure God has broken most of ‘important’ of the 10 commandments (the one’s about having no other God but himself etc I am excluding because obviously that cannot apply to him). The killing part is what this post is about, so one down... a few more to go.
Also, if God is all-loving and all-good... is there an act God could perform that would make him not-good... unholy? If we cannot think of any act, how can we label God in this way - we have no way of knowing?
I need to think about this a little more – I’m sure there is a major problem with the Christian worldview somewhere on this matter. Just not pinned it down...
Maybe a new post is required for this one... just need to find references from the bible of God breaking his own laws first – shouldn’t be hard.
I’ve gone way off the topic of the flood – well, without any comment from the Christian side we don’t have much else to talk about.
Lee
Lee: Also, if God is all-loving and all-good... is there an act God could perform that would make him not-good... unholy? If we cannot think of any act, how can we label God in this way - we have no way of knowing?
Definitionally:
Yahweh = Good
Yahweh = Holy
So anything Yahweh does is good and holy, and nothing is bad or unholy.
For example:
ordering genocide = good
drowning every living thing = good
stating that a rape victim and the rapist must marry = good
etc etc
It's pretty easy to see that the biblical definition of "good" does not equate to the normal usage definition.
The link below has some comments on using the word "good" to describe the bible god.
http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4549108
May Yahweh's grectful'ness be never in doubt :-)
Lee,
You do bring up a good point. If God is good and can act no other way, then god can not be the source of moral absolutes. The source would be what ever defines god's behaviour. If a christian claims that everything god does is good (even the bad) it makes god a law unto himself and not absolute. If god cannot choose to do bad, then he does not have free will - so why blame our "sin" on free will? Again, something is restricting god
The likes of William Lane Craig argue that god only ordered genocide or inflicted floods, etc., because the victims were so tainted with sin that to let them live would have allowed that sin to infect the whole of creation. In other words, genocide is ok if you have a good enough justification.
Using the same logic, if it could be shown that Hitler had any evidence to suggest that there was a Jewish plot to undermine Germany, then the Holocaust may also be justifiable. Perhaps we should quiz the Vatican, given its documented implicit support of Nazism...
BTW, is Joey an atheist yet? Perhaps a fairer option would have been to allow him to choose the biblical myth he is most confident is true, in the interests of attacking an argument at its strongest point.
Fascinating blog, btw. Loved the stats on rainfall, etc.
Cheers,
Lol
Lol: The likes of William Lane Craig argue that god only ordered genocide or inflicted floods, etc., because the victims were so tainted with sin that to let them live would have allowed that sin to infect the whole of creation. In other words, genocide is ok if you have a good enough justification.
Yet the magic man could have simply thought it and the taint of sin would have been removed, or the people would have ceased existing, or any number of other remedies. Just can't understand why, if you were all loving, you'd want your chosen people murder, or why you'd want people you love to be murdered by them.
Lol: Using the same logic, if it could be shown that Hitler had any evidence to suggest that there was a Jewish plot to undermine Germany, then the Holocaust may also be justifiable. Perhaps we should quiz the Vatican, given its documented implicit support of Nazism...
Well, there's a few quotes stating that he believed he was doing god's work, the same as the Israelites in the biblical story. I suppose all he needs is for someone sympathetic to write it up that way, and he'll be vindicated to future generations :-)
Didn't Hitler use the old "The Jews killed Jesus" line?
Didn't Hitler use the old "The Jews killed Jesus" line?
Wouldn’t surprise me – but Hitler was just a very naughty boy.
It makes me laugh (or is that cry?) that Hitler is still brought up in theist/atheist moral debates… he was an arsehole – the end of it. Whether he was a Christian, atheist or a full blown believer in the flying spaghetti monster it doesn’t matter – what DOES matter is what the people who called themselves Christians did or didn’t do at the time… it could be argued not only did the Christians do nothing when they could do something, they actually helped Hitler gain the power to do all these nasty things.
This would make an interesting debate, but the theist normally just want to count dead bodies…
Lee
Wow... another post with over 50 comments - PARTY TIME.
If Joey comes back to discuss any more of this, I might pass 100... dream on
Lee
it could be argued not only did the Christians do nothing when they could do something, they actually helped Hitler gain the power to do all these nasty things.
not only did Hitler get support from the main christian parties, he got legitimised by the vatican. Christians also played an active role in the attrocities too. The argument that christianity leads to moral societies and that atheism leads to genocide is pathetic, as are those who use it
The argument that christianity leads to moral societies and that atheism leads to genocide is pathetic, as are those who use it
Yes, but it is one of their main arguments (and they think it is one of the better ones at that)
Lee
Wow, I go away for a weekend and now I'm way behind...
After all, is the Christian being good for the wrong reasons... do they do it for the reward of heaven or the fear of hell? Neither would be very moral in my book...
My primary concern is a relationship with Christ, the greatest commandment being 1. Love God and 2. Love people; while I do appreciate Heaven, and I certainly don't mind avoiding hell; those are not the reasons I behave morally.
Erm... are these cages, walls and bars etc mentioned in the bible, or are you making an assumption?
Do you think Noah would know how to keep an elephant for example without being told – why didn’t God tell him then in the bible?
Did God say that Zebras should not be kept next to the lions in any chapter and verse you are aware of?
I think I'm making an assumption, but it's a reasonable one. If the Bible said "there were no cages..." then there might be a problem. However, since we must assume the flood in order to answer questions about it's feasibility the idea of assuming is not illogical.
I don't know everything that God told Noah, the Bible doesn't record every word. There are numerous possibilities. But I don't see any reason why Noah would not have had common sense enough to keep carnivores away from prey.
You tell me... I’ll placing bets on 65 million years ago – but I am not sure you agree. After all, this is the first mass extinction mentioned in the bible isn’t it? So there will have to be a LOT of dinosaurs around if the bible is true
It is the first mass extinction mentioned; doesn't necessarily mean it was the first mass extinction ever. We're in a mass extinction right now that isn't going to be recorded in the Bible :)
I’ve heard the ‘baby animal’ response before... isn’t that sweet.
I wonder though who then taught these animals how to hunt after leaving the ark or how and where to hide from predators?
Oh, and just a thought – what about animals that don’t live for 40 days (Billy I’m sure you could name a few)... is breeding allowed on the ark (a new question I know, but they just keep coming)
There are adolescents that are not babies that still have not reached their full size. Just a couple weeks ago I saw a moose that was certainly no baby, but still much smaller then a full grown cow (a full grown cow did show up too, they sparred, so I got to see a pretty good comparison).
Is it really? I suppose you could help me out and give me a modern measurement for the dimensions – all those cubics get me confused.
Then I can work out how much food an elephant needs for 40 days and nights on the ark... plus of course all the time it will take for the trees to grow back (unless you think they could survive under several miles of sea water?
Well I'm told (I'm not so good with cubits either) it would have been about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. There's all sorts of calculations regarding the volume, square footage, etc... in there, which I could try to check but with my lack of proficiency in converting one measurement to another I'm not really sure how accurate they are.
Erm... so now you assume dead carcasses are the source of food. So I am glad you are not saying the lion is a vegetarian as I have heard before and you accept carnivores existed.
However, we have a couple of problems... how long do carcasses float for (not long I guess or all you would see is floating dead fish and other dead animals on the ocean) then we have to assume all the carnivores will eat carcass... then worry about diseases.
More assumptions then, and more problems...
Yes, it was an assumption. I'm not a flood scholar so I just guessed on a lot of this.
I suppose the heart of the issue deals with how many species did Noah really have to take, how much room was really on the ark, and how much cargo could he have held? I'll be quite honest and point out I don't know. You are saying millions of species, more conservative scholars say several thousand.
You are right about the rain fall... so I will give you this one, assuming you can work out the amount of water you need for all the animals... how big of a bucket would you need?
An aside – did all the flood water came from rain?
We can do some maths on the rate of rain fall if this is the case... this would be fun and it would be simple maths for a rough estimate.
Would you like metric or empirical units? (The maths is the same)
I’ll assume being American you like feet and inches (since in the US you like miles, gallons, lbs and fahrenheit)
What’s the height of the highest mountain?
Mount Everest - 29,029 feet which is 348,348 inches.
How long did it rain?
40 days and 40 nights?
40 x 24 hours=960 hours... or 57,600 minutes
So what is the rate of rain fall?
348,348 inches divided by 57,600 minutes giving 6.05 inches of rainfall per minute.
WOW... that is some rainfall.
This also assumes a constant rate around the WHOLE world for 40 days and nights which is bloody silly – but hey, God can do that right – it says so in the bible :)
So not bad when you think the world record for one day in a tiny area of the globe is around 2 metres of rainfall I believe. This will record would be beaten in less than 15 minutes at the Flood rate.
Make you think? Probably not. I bet you have not thought how you could maintain 40 days of constant rainfall either :)
A miracle on top of another miracle... no problem
Well there was a lot of rain, we agree; but keep in mind the fountains of the great deep were broken up (Genesis 7:11). So there's water coming from both ways, it's not all in the form of rain fall. Some suggest this water shooting up would account for certain aspects of plate tectonics, and I suppose it could; not really my area of expertise.
This answer doesn’t even address the problem... I will let you try again.
Darn, I was hoping you wouldn't notice (j/k).
I hate to answer with questions, but assuming a flood is there a possibility salt was deposited in certain bodies of water afterward? Or salt was filtered out of rivers, lakes, etc... afterward?
Again you tell me... you will have to be consistent though.
How did the pre-flood would look? What were the ocean levels like before the flood?
I accept plate tectonics slowly moving the continents apart – what about you? (This model doesn’t fit the 6,000 year of old though so I guess you don’t.)
Well how the pre-flood world looked is something I'm certainly not qualified to explain, and I hate to keep saying that but I'd also hate to cite somebody and not fully understand what they mean or how they are getting where they are.
I will say many suggest that we had a super continent before the flood (which more or less agrees with science, with the exception of time); when the waters of the deep were broken they helped split the continents and set them on the course they are on now.
Of course that would involve a quick split and then a slowing down, and I'm not really sure how to evaluate the plausibility of that.
As far as the possibility of evolution I certainly believe in it to an extent. I never really counted different species of dogs breeding and making new species as "evolution", but if that's evolution then I certainly believe in it.
I'm an evolutionary creationist, God created the earth in six days, but certain breeds have "evolved" since then. I do hope I'm being consistently inconsistent :)
I hate to run, but the semester is rapidly approaching, and my blogging always slows down in between the end of August and December, and mid way through January to the start of May.
I will try to stop by whenever I'm given the opportunity.
For the record though, how many PhD's have I been debating???
God bless!
Joey
Wouldn’t surprise me – but Hitler was just a very naughty boy.
It makes me laugh (or is that cry?) that Hitler is still brought up in theist/atheist moral debates… he was an arsehole – the end of it. Whether he was a Christian, atheist or a full blown believer in the flying spaghetti monster it doesn’t matter – what DOES matter is what the people who called themselves Christians did or didn’t do at the time… it could be argued not only did the Christians do nothing when they could do something, they actually helped Hitler gain the power to do all these nasty things.
This would make an interesting debate, but the theist normally just want to count dead bodies…
I've actually just been debating a fringe Roman Catholic who was trying to convince me the Holocaust didn't happen.
He told me my pastors were lying to me, and I told him I am a pastor :)
Seriously though; just because somebody mis-interprets and abuses a belief doesn't make the belief bad.
As a descendant of Charlemagne I apologize for every evil he did under the false pretense of furthering the Kingdom of God.
As a Christian I apologize for those who have taken the name of Christ and used it for every kind of evil. This includes statements by such people as Rev. Jerry Falwell who in discussing the war on terror said "blow them all away in the Name of the Lord!" (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
UY71nzkZHKQ) it's about 2 minutes and 20 seconds into the video.
Please realize we don't all share that philosophy; and some of us are pretty upset about the abandonment of Biblical principle for political power.
God bless!
Joey
You are saying millions of species, more conservative scholars say several thousand
.
Hi Joey,
That would mean extremely rappid evolution - on a scale that is impossible in a few thousand years.
There is also no way to filter salt out of the water.
Some species need to learn how to hunnt. Take two hand reared african hunting dog, rear them by hand, release them and they will starve.
Hi Joey,
Glad you came back... I was worried for a while.
OK, before I actually read your reply I want to point one bit of philosophy at you.
Ockham’s razor.
I assume you know what this means – I will keep it in mind when I read your comments.
Now onto your reply.
Lee
Joey: For the record though, how many PhD's have I been debating???
Well, I barely count as having a Bachelor of Science, as my degree was in Computer Science
Hi Joey,
I will focus on the Noah/flood debate rather than any side issues that came up in your absence (i.e. morals) Happy to come back to them if you like in another thread, but I want to put to rest this flood business first.
That is, is the account in the bible – if taken literal – more likely than say, some scribe just making it up as they go along trying to put to paper some ancient oral story?
For the account in the bible to be literally true, do we need to make further unnecessary assumptions not original mentioned? That is my point (remember Ockham’s razor)
Wow, I go away for a weekend and now I'm way behind...
He he... sorry – you should come back more often, you are always welcome :)
RE: cages, walls and bars etc
I think I'm making an assumption, but it's a reasonable one. If the Bible said "there were no cages..." then there might be a problem. However, since we must assume the flood in order to answer questions about it's feasibility the idea of assuming is not illogical.
I will give you the cages part if you like... it merely increases the amount of work Noah had to do – not my problem – and I don’t think it is not important to me or my argument.
However I do need to highlight one problem I have with your reply – it seems you are saying that if the bible does not specifically rule it out, it ‘could’ have happened.
Since the bible says very little on many of the major issues of the flood – this could then be your answer to everything.
Is this how you reason in normal everyday life?
For example, if you see some litter on the road, do you assume that aliens put it there... after all, with your reasoning (applied when discussing the flood here) the bible doesn’t actually rule this possibility out.
Where do you draw the line? One rule for reality and everyday life... another rule to explain the accounts in the bible? This isn’t right... consistency remember is all I ask.
More example...
“Well, the bible didn’t say God didn’t change the refractive index of water, so it could have happened”
”Well, the bible didn’t say lions didn’t eat carrots for the next 500 years and not meat, so it could have happened”
Remember Joey, we are trying to assess if the account in the bible is reasonable if taken literally – if more and more wacky assumptions are required to justify it, then it highlights issues with the original account.
After all, you would say God can do anything... and I cannot argue against that – everything is possible (and so God answer nothing BTW)
I would question though why God chose to do it this way and not another – at the moment the bible doesn’t make sense. In fact it sounds rather childish and ignorant on the matter of the flood I am sorry to say.
With so many hurdles to over come (i.e. the excuses and reasons you need to introduce to justify the story) shows it is not the simplest method and God should not be doing things the hard way for no reason – right?
I don't know everything that God told Noah, the Bible doesn't record every word. There are numerous possibilities. But I don't see any reason why Noah would not have had common sense enough to keep carnivores away from prey.
You see... you just did it again.
‘common sense’?
Noah would have NEVER seen a zebra or lion would he and so would have no idea what they eat... (and it is not just these two animals that we have to worry about)
God would have needed to tell Noah about what each animal needs to eat and who should not share cages (assuming Noah made cages) and none of this is recorded. Why? You need to assume it... but is it a reasonable assumption for an account from God that is perfect in everyway?
You are therefore creating ad-hoc responses and increasing your assumptions.
Remember that razor I mentioned earlier?
It is the first mass extinction mentioned; doesn't necessarily mean it was the first mass extinction ever. We're in a mass extinction right now that isn't going to be recorded in the Bible :)
Erm... sorry?
So the bible forgot to mention previous mass extinctions? I can live with that, but can you?
These previous mass extinctions (because there were many) that wiped out large percentages of the population – why did God do it? Why did God seem to need to wipe out His creation many, many times... where is any of this in the creation story in Gen1 or 2? Why doesn’t the bible mention any of these mass extinctions – it is after all, missing out a HUGE piece of the puzzle.
Another ad-hoc assumption you need to make... the more you have to make, the worse it is – the more unlikely it seems that this account is accurate.
RE: Baby animals on the ark instead of full grown.
There are adolescents that are not babies that still have not reached their full size. Just a couple weeks ago I saw a moose that was certainly no baby, but still much smaller then a full grown cow (a full grown cow did show up too, they sparred, so I got to see a pretty good comparison).
Oh, so they were adolescents now... so only ‘nearly’ as big as the adults?
Now, where in the bible account does it say “take two adolescents of every kind”?
I missed that bit – so another ad-hoc assumption on your part.
Oh, and an adolescent elephant is still pretty big... and being adolescents they probably don’t yet have the skills of a fully grown adult either – you have to explain how the hunter learnt to hunt :)
Well I'm told (I'm not so good with cubits either) it would have been about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high.
Thanks... I’m nearly as bad with feet and inches – I’ll get my calculator.
135 meters long, 22.5 meters wide and 13.5 metres high.
So a bit smaller than the Titanic then
(“882 ft 9 in (269 m) long and 92 ft 6 in (28 m) wide, had a gross register tonnage of 46,328 tons, and a height from the water line to the boat deck of 60 ft (18 m).”)
Not sure how many animals you can get on a boat that size, even if it did float.
Let’s take a look. Let’s see if it makes sense...
If we made a rectangular box (which is would not be of course) and not worry about the density of the box or if it would float – the volume you gave me would be 1,518,750 cubic feet or 41,006 cubic meters.
Give each pair of animals then a 3 foot by 3 foot by 3 foot cage (not very big for a pair of dogs) – we have around 55,000 cages.
Of course, some animals will need a bigger cage than this, but some will be smaller – but you get the picture.
There is a limit – and it is NOT very large.
Remember also they will be stuck in these cages for over a year. The animal cruelty lobby would be all over them (God doesn’t worry about this though does He? Not a big lover of animals... unless they swim or float of course)
I could also do the calculation the other way around, how many ‘kinds’ were there on the ark?
Ryan quoted there are ~2million known species in the world. This gives a cage size of less than a cubic foot per pair of animals – that’s not nice, and a little small for an elephant :)
Oh... and I have forgotten ALL about the volume needed for the food here.
I suspect the volume required for the food would be greater than the cages for the animals.
Let’s look at one example... the elephant.
Quick Google search:-
“Most elephants in the wild will eat between 300 and 500 pounds of vegetation and drink 50 gallons of water every day”
Another result states 225 kg (which is the upper 500 lb limit just given by the other link).
This is just vegetation remember – grass, leaves and stuff.
Takes up a lot of volume that does but let’s ignore that for a moment.
OK... how much do we need for the ‘trip’, well Ryan again gave numbers from the bible that stated it was over a year on the ark. (Do you disagree?)
Let’s take the lower limit for the elephant’s needs – 300 lbs (130 Kg) and so for a pair of elephants this is 600 lbs (260 Kg)
For a year, this becomes 219,000 lbs (94,900 kg).
Tell me if I am going wrong anywhere... because that’s a lot – I wonder how Noah kept it fresh for all that time, I am wondering how Noah stored this all... let alone collect it all.
No other human at the time thought “I wonder what Noah is doing... with all those leaves – and that is a bloody big boat”
Funny that... why no men with big sticks attacked Noah and his family when it started to rain – not thought of that have you? (These were not nice people remember, that is why God is killing them – another assumption you have to make – that the township of people don’t notice or have big sticks)
Are you being to see the problem you have created for yourself in trying to maintain the flood literally happened as described in the bible?
Yes, it was an assumption. I'm not a flood scholar so I just guessed on a lot of this.
You don’t need to be a scholar in the flood (is there such a thing? Wow) to understand what we are outlining here. High school stuff as I keep saying.
I hope you are noticing that you are making more and more assumptions and not using a bit of the common sense that you normally use in everyday life.
I suppose the heart of the issue deals with how many species did Noah really have to take, how much room was really on the ark, and how much cargo could he have held?
Yep... and how long they were on the ark and how long it takes for a pair of species to grow into a sizable population to be able to take a culling from predators etc etc etc
I'll be quite honest and point out I don't know. You are saying millions of species, more conservative scholars say several thousand.
‘conservative scholars’??? I challenge their scholarship...
Let’s keep this simple (again) how many species/kinds are there alive today?
You can look this up – or phone a friend.
This is the number required on the ark according to the literal interpretation.
If you are saying only a few thousand – then you require evolution (which you reject) and a lot of time (which you don’t have)
If you say a few million – you need a bigger boat :)
Well there was a lot of rain, we agree; but keep in mind the fountains of the great deep were broken up (Genesis 7:11).
He he... another assumption with no mechanism.
Rain fall cannot answer the problem, so insert another unknown?
OK then, where did this water come from... the ‘great deep’ as you describe?
Not that much water in the ‘great deep’ that I am aware of – where could it have come from? (Shall I talk about the formation of the Earth as current physics have it? Or do you have a different idea how the Earth was formed?)
And just as important, where did it go?
So there's water coming from both ways, it's not all in the form of rain fall.
I suppose the water went back into this deep after the flood so we can test this idea of yours? We can look for water? Several miles of it?
Some suggest this water shooting up would account for certain aspects of plate tectonics, and I suppose it could; not really my area of expertise.
I would like to hear from these ‘some’ and their idea on plate tectonics.
I have heard from ‘some’ that all the continents were one super continent at the time of the flood THEN moved to their current locations... this is a great joke and keeps me laughing for hours when I hear it (I just then mention friction and I start laughing all over again)
Of course, this isn’t your argument is it...
I hate to answer with questions, but assuming a flood is there a possibility salt was deposited in certain bodies of water afterward? Or salt was filtered out of rivers, lakes, etc... afterward?
I would like to hear what your mechanism is...
However, this isn’t the problem (you are still avoiding the actual issue/question) – it is the death of the fish that we are talking about here – not how the current salt/fresh water came into being.
That’s strike 2.... (My baseball talk, is it 3 strikes and you are out?)
Well how the pre-flood world looked is something I'm certainly not qualified to explain, and I hate to keep saying that but I'd also hate to cite somebody and not fully understand what they mean or how they are getting where they are.
The problem with this response (which you have cited often) is that you are precisely saying that you understand all the complexities and the current scientific explanation and based on the current evidence you feel it is the bible that is more correct.
If you are not saying this, why are you so certain that the bible account is correct? Faith – that requires you to ignore all the physical evidence against it?
I will say many suggest that we had a super continent before the flood (which more or less agrees with science, with the exception of time);
Oh dear... you have me laughing – I really thought you wouldn’t say that, I warned you what would happen – and you have gone one better by saying it more or less agrees with science except for the time issue.
That is like saying you can fly when you jump off from a high building... more or less, apart from hitting the ground at high speed of course.
Wrong is wrong...
when the waters of the deep were broken they helped split the continents and set them on the course they are on now.
“friction”.... ha ha ha
Sorry, I shouldn’t laugh... you just want to move the continents thousand of miles, this creates a lot of friction, a lot of heat that would melt the crust... Oops, you didn’t think of that before you said yet another ad-hoc response which once again goes against all know physics :)
Of course that would involve a quick split and then a slowing down, and I'm not really sure how to evaluate the plausibility of that.
Now you are seeing the problems... good.
You gave an ad-hoc response to try and resolve a problem – it fails.
Now what?
You still accept the bible account and place it down to your ‘lack of knowledge’ – Why? You have the knowledge already... think about it.
We are not talking about God or Jesus here... just an account in a book and many, many Christians don’t have a problem saying it is myth.
As far as the possibility of evolution I certainly believe in it to an extent. I never really counted different species of dogs breeding and making new species as "evolution", but if that's evolution then I certainly believe in it.
It is part of it I think... it is evolution at work, but not by natural selection – by human selection.
If you accept one, why not accept the other?
I'm an evolutionary creationist
Great!!! This could be a move in the right direction.
God created the earth in six days, but certain breeds have "evolved" since then. I do hope I'm being consistently inconsistent :)
Since when? In a few thousand years all the other species evolved? I will like Billy point out the errors in that one.
Also, no problem with changing your mind when given new information but can you explain please how Gen1 and Gen2 fits in with evolution... you cannot take these account literally if you accept evolution can you?
Do we agree we have our first issue with the bible now?
I hate to run, but the semester is rapidly approaching, and my blogging always slows down in between the end of August and December, and mid way through January to the start of May.
I will try to stop by whenever I'm given the opportunity.
Hope you don’t run feel you have to run away... keep popping back when you can, ask any question you like.
I guess you notice that we have more questions about the flood than you have answers – take your time, ask your friends, and come back when you feel you know more.
Please don’t ignore the problems just because you cannot answer them with the literal interpretation of the bible.
It could be that God and Jesus are real, but you are just reading the bible wrong.... treating the bible itself as an ‘idol’ as one Christian told me some creationists do.
For the record though, how many PhD's have I been debating???
No PhD to my name... only a BSc(Hons) in Physics with Astrophysics – sorry to disappoint :)
You have been talking to Dr Billy though – not sure about the others.
However, as we have been saying all along – you only need high school level science and geography to see the problems with Noah and the Flood, no degree required.
Lee
He he... sorry – you should come back more often, you are always welcome :)
Oh you all have made me feel very welcome... actually it's a little creepy (just kidding about the creepy part).
But I went away and didn't have access to a computer, I was in one of the smallest most obscure towns I've ever been to (and it was beautiful, and I played in a river, which I hadn't done for a few years).
Anyway, I'll come by as I'm able, like I said school is starting, I've got leadership team meetings to go to, Bible studies to lead, merit badges to teach...i
Anyway, I'll come by as I'm able, like I said school is starting, I've got leadership team meetings to go to, Bible studies to lead, merit badges to teach...
I just hope you think about the challenges raised here when you do your bible study classes – since you are leading them, maybe you could ask simple questions about the flood as we have done.
Surely someone should have an answer to our high school questions (send them over) – and be honest with yourself - if it starts to not make sense, ask yourself why?
If you truly believe in God and Jesus (as you do) there most be a reason why this story doesn’t make sense in light of the evidence – blind faith in nonsense doesn’t seem right to me so maybe there is another answer, maybe the flood story should not be read literally. This is what most Christians believe after all (I just go one step further as you know)
See ya
Lee
Lee: blind faith in nonsense doesn’t seem right to me
"Credo quia absurdum" - "I believe because it is absurd" :-)
Rian "I believe because it is absurd" :-)
I mentioned before one Christian's defence of Gen1 and 2 that seemed to be along the lines that it is so absurd and so obviously wrong it must be 'meaningful'
All that business with the fall and original sin must be right - otherwise, why did Jesus die on the cross, so Gen1 and 2 must also be true in someway.
Makes sense right?
Not to me...
What I want to know is, have we made a “clear demonstration of the fallibility of the Bible” on this thread?
I think so, but I need a neutral judge.
Joey at least for me has not been able to explain how the bible makes sense on the Noah story.
Shouldn't this mean Joey should change his mind?
Lee
Lee: Shouldn't this mean Joey should change his mind?
I would expect him to at least become agnostic concerning the flood, given his acknowledged lack of understanding of the arguments for the flood (those of "flood scholars"), and his inability to refute the arguments presented here against the flood.
This of course would mean giving up his belief that the bible is inerrant, something I don't think he is willing to do :-)
Hi Rian,
I agree of course and Joey’s unwillingness to do that is ‘interesting’
We have argued against the literal interpretation of the bible (with nothing more than high school science) and it is found lacking.
The science works... yet Joey is implying that such knowledge is not applicable when discussing the flood – without justification.
The Flood is just a rather silly story... a memory of old oral tales from a major flood that probably did happen many years ago (not a global flood of course)
Joey isn’t even able to say that. Why?
I doubt anyone else here will doubt a major flood DID occur several thousand years ago – the written record is pretty convincing alone (I even think there is some geophysical evidence) BUT a global flood as described in the bible – no chance.
Oh, I’ve got myself in a maths mood this week – and I was thinking to myself – how much water do we need to get the flood water higher than the highest mountain?
The maths is again rather simple, once you know how to calculate the volume of a sphere and know the highest mountain.
It seems rather funny – I think you need a body of ice about the size of the ‘planet’ Pluto – a sphere of water 2,060km across.
This is the amount of water Joey is claiming came up from the deep or whatever... it is just silly.
Joey, please try the maths yourself... test my claims, do you really need a moon size about of water as I am claiming to make the bible flood literally true?
I say yes, I say this is silly – you don’t agree, why?
To help you out... and make it easy for you to find any mistakes.
Volume of a sphere is 4/3*Pi*r^3
(It’s this r to the cube that makes small increases in r add up)
The radius of the Earth is about 6,400 km
The height of Mount Everest is 8.85km
Have I made a mistake? Please tell me were if you think so.
Lee
Just did a search...
No matter how crazy an idea a pluto size comet hitting the Earth sounds... some fundie is saying it happened just this way I think.
Check this out:-
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/
biblicalflood.html
A comet a few 10's km across could wipe out most life on Earth - and they want several such impacts? Are they mad?
I also wonder why no mention of falling stars or stars with tails in the bible... not another ad-hoc response?
It is sad
Lee
Lee: doubt anyone else here will doubt a major flood DID occur several thousand years ago
There is evidence that a major flood occurred around the Levant thousands of years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory
I'd say there have been many major floods throughout history. None of them match the biblical account however.
Lee: how much water do we need to get the flood water higher than the highest mountain?
I was reading a justification of the biblical flood, which claimed that, should you bulldoze the continents into the oceans, there would be plenty of water to cover them. I didn't bother to check if they were correct, because the geological record does not support such a "flat earth" theory.
Lee: This is the amount of water Joey is claiming came up from the deep or whatever... it is just silly.
Yahweh could have magic'ed it into existence, and then magic'ed it out of existence once he'd finished drowning every living creature not on the ark. Of course, that explanation answers nothing, and leaves with Yahweh also hiding all trace of the flood from history - well, all trace apart from a few scraps of parchment (or stone?) :-)
The fundies didn't think the commet strike through did they - it's also not what the bible says.
Rian
It is true that you could bulldoze the continents into the sea - the average sea depth is much greater than the average land hieght (dont quote me, but from memory it is something like 3 times deeper) Ad bulldozing to crazy fundamentalist beliefs. It all just gets more and more bizarre as people try and defend a belief that is not evidence based
None of them match the biblical account however.
Nothing could – that’s the problem with the biblical account. It goes against the natural order of things. It requires constant miraculous intervention all the way – and to think, God could have just click his mighty fingers once and made it all better… actually, come to think of it, it never got better even after the flood – so millions died for nothing.
I was reading a justification of the biblical flood, which claimed that, should you bulldoze the continents into the oceans, there would be plenty of water to cover them.
Did Noah have a bulldozing now?
That doesn’t even start to make sense… it is like me justifying the flood by saying the whole planet Earth could fit into Jupiter’s giant red spot – what has that got to do with the price of fish?
I suppose they have their reasons… I just don’t understand it.
Yahweh could have magic'ed it into existence, and then magic'ed it out of existence once he'd finished drowning every living creature not on the ark.
Mr Yahweh can do anything… but write a good account of what He did it would seem.
The fundies didn't think the commet strike through did they - it's also not what the bible says.
The solutions are harder to explain then the bible account… they just don't get it.
Yes Pluto would be a good source of water (probably) to account for the flood - hooray they might have solved one problem, but created a million more.
Lee
The simplest explanation is to not explain it at all - "God did it. It happened exactly as presented in the bible".
The problem is you can't then say you have any evidence to support your beliefs. I think it's refered to as blind faith, no? :-)
The simplest explanation is to not explain it at all - "God did it. It happened exactly as presented in the bible".
Erm... but that isn’t an explanation – as you said. So any such response actually answers nothing as we know nothing about God (and never can according to the theist... apart from of course they know God somehow – never understood that bit of logic).
The problem is you can't then say you have any evidence to support your beliefs.
All bets are off – since once you try and explain ‘something’ and try and justify it ‘evidence’ or even logic - you have to be consistent and apply it to all.
This is what I am trying to ask Joey to be – consistent.
I think it's refered to as blind faith, no? :-)
Yes... but they don’t like to be told them :)
Lee
Joey at least for me has not been able to explain how the bible makes sense on the Noah story.
Shouldn't this mean Joey should change his mind?
I'll be completely honest, I haven't read all the comments yet; and I've had a hundred other topics distracting me.
But I've not changed my mind because it seems to me all the points that have been brought up can be argued (though I'll readily admit I've failed to argue them; I've failed to comment much on this topic in general). You all know a lot more about science in general then I do. However I also do know there are scientists (though few) who would carry on this debate, and who have carried on this debate. And I've honestly not paid enough attention to either side to say a whole lot about the flood (though the limited amount of time I've spent here has provoked me to research more).
I still believe the Bible is the infallible, inspired Word of God. Is there faith involved, absolutely; I don't know as if I'd call it a blind faith. But the nature of faith is another topic entirely.
God bless!
Joey
P.S.- If this topic should make me doubt the Bible; shouldn't our discussion of prayer make you believe in God? (I know the answer, but it might just help you understand where I'm coming from).
Hi Joey,
I will come back to your main points later, they need a response and I will give it – I am just about to eat dinner so only a have a moment – but I want to comment on your PS
P.S.- If this topic should make me doubt the Bible; shouldn't our discussion of prayer make you believe in God? (I know the answer, but it might just help you understand where I'm coming from).
Not really the same is it? Please explain why you think it is so I may learn.
Have you provided any evidence that prayer works?
I have asked for some, that is ALL I require.
You should be able to provide some evidence if prayer work, but all you provided was hear-say at best, that doesn’t count in the court of law, and neither does it for me.
You also didn’t seem to understand what should constitute as evidence. So I will be happy to continue the prayer debate if you like.
Lee
OK – back again.
Thanks again Joey for having this little discussion – I hope you now see it is an interesting one that creates a lot of questions, that should be resolved.
I'll be completely honest, I haven't read all the comments yet;
No problem – take your time, but please do read them since as a pastor to be you should be able to resolve these simple issues. We are talking about probably the simplest issues in the bible (well, it should be – but you are not finding it that easy)
But I've not changed my mind because it seems to me all the points that have been brought up can be argued (though I'll readily admit I've failed to argue them; I've failed to comment much on this topic in general).
Argue?
I could argue that the Earth is the centre of the solar system with the sun, moon, planets and stars ALL orbiting a flat stationary Earth… what would you say about that?
I probably could do a better job than most creationists would do with the flood (I could also quote the bible to back me up on this since it does have some views on this matter, but another time)
Oh course, I would have to ignore the physical evidence against this view point – like what you seem to be doing with the flood, but would that matter so long as I could ‘argue’ my position?
However, I will take a step back…
I am not actually here to disprove the bible, merely present the arguments and evidence against the flood literally happened as described in the bible – it is up you to say whether they are reasonable or not.
I am not out to convert you (or de-convert), merely ask you to be consistent and honest when looking at the evidence for a claim like the one made in the bible here.
You will accept science in your everyday life, but you seem to be ignoring it to maintain your belief in an infallible bible and the flood – is this right?
Would your God want you to do this? You tell me…
You all know a lot more about science in general then I do.
Maybe, but this isn’t the point – you know a lot more about the bible than I do, and we are talking about the bible here.
I am only using high school science to argue my position – science a 13 year old at school will learn - no more, no less.
However I also do know there are scientists (though few) who would carry on this debate, and who have carried on this debate.
Please name some of these scientists AND their arguments – one’s that you can agree with.
I will then dig out my high school textbooks and show you where they are wrong.
Now, once a scientific hypothesis or theory has been falsified – it remains so. Dead in the water. You don’t just ‘continue’ the debate and hope that you can outlive the objections – it doesn’t work like that.
And I've honestly not paid enough attention to either side to say a whole lot about the flood (though the limited amount of time I've spent here has provoked me to research more).
Please do research it more – don’t trust what I have been saying either, I could be lying through my teeth.
Test what I have been saying as well.
This is why I have been doing some simple maths for you… something you could try at home yourself to give you something to think about - the rate of rainfall, the amount of water required, the size of the cages, the number of animals required – just to provide some pointers on how ‘sensible’ the bible account is – you need to resolve these issues to maintain your position.
Most Christians do NOT believe the literal account for Noah and the flood – Have you thought about that? It does not stop them believing in God or Jesus though, this story therefore isn’t critical for a Christian.
So I think you can relax and be more honest to yourself.
I still believe the Bible is the infallible, inspired Word of God.
And I believe there is a diamond the size of a car in my back garden… I just have to dig a little further to find it. So, you didn’t know it, but you are talking to a billionaire :)
You believe me right? :)
Is there faith involved, absolutely; I don't know as if I'd call it a blind faith. But the nature of faith is another topic entirely.
I’m happy to talk about the power and usefulness of faith as well – it is a topic a lot of Christians run away from.
Lee
Joey,
I strongly recommend that when you do your research that you also consider rebuttals of the creationist position. Talk origins is a very good site, and as I have said before, some of the contributors are christians
Post a Comment