Noahs Ark

[Autodidact]

But there is no reason for the Sun to melt all the ice on earth in 40 days/nights.
According to Genesis the globe was warm at that time.
Don't researchers find animals that were flash frozen at the ice caps?

What if the mountainous areas of the earth were at a lower level at the time before the Deluge started? Lower in height would mean mountains could be covered with a lower water level.

If today all the land was made level by dumping the excess in the oceans how high would the water level rise on earth?

So what you're saying is that before the flood there were no mountains? This passage then would be wrong?

The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.
Genesis 7:20

Or are you saying there were mountains, but they were lower, so that at the time of the flood the planet basically was smooshing around like silly putty, with mountains popping up and laying down again, with nobody noticing?

When we have flood today, do mountains pop up as a result?

what do ice caps have to do with it? Are you saying that during the non-existent flood suddenly water started freezing as well? Does it mention that anywhere in the Bible?

 

[Autodidact]

How does this happen? Do the continents suddenly tilt and slide into the ocean? Do mountains start skipping like young goats and leap into the sea? Is there an invisible giant backhoe scooping the Rocky Mountains into the Pacific Ocean?

I'm usually willing to go along with entertaining flood fantasies, but this one is beyond hysterical. I mean, entire mountain ranges (hello, the Himalayas?) are humping into distant oceans like giant caterpillar parades.

The problem is that the whole thing, the entire thing from start to finish, is just a silly, primitive, tribal myth, like the Great Turtle lifting North America out of the ocean on her back, or the cosmic egg cracking open. It has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with reality. Why can't creationists just admit that they reject science and the scientific method, and prefer to remain in a darkened cave telling each other scary stories around a fire?

 

[Vile Atheist]

How does this happen? Do the continents suddenly tilt and slide into the ocean? Do mountains start skipping like young goats and leap into the sea? Is there an invisible giant backhoe scooping the Rocky Mountains into the Pacific Ocean?

I'm usually willing to go along with entertaining flood fantasies, but this one is beyond hysterical. I mean, entire mountain ranges (hello, the Himalayas?) are humping into distant oceans like giant caterpillar parades.

The problem is that the whole thing, the entire thing from start to finish, is just a silly, primitive, tribal myth, like the Great Turtle lifting North America out of the ocean on her back, or the cosmic egg cracking open. It has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with reality. Why can't creationists just admit that they reject science and the scientific method, and prefer to remain in a darkened cave telling each other scary stories around a fire?

While that's certainly important to note, even if you entertain the absurdity of the idea, it's demonstrably false, even if you suspend all your knowledge of how geologic processes work.

 

[lunamoth]

When I imagine a literal Noah's Ark, all I can think is "The bugs! My God! Think of living with all those bugs for 40 days and nights!"

 

[Gunfingers]

Nah, you only have to live with two! A male and female of the "bug kind". Because obviously they could evolve into the thousands of distinct species we see now.

 

[Vile Atheist]

When I imagine a literal Noah's Ark, all I can think is "The bugs! My God! Think of living with all those bugs for 40 days and nights!"

I thought only animals that breathed with their nostrils were taken aboard the ark?

 

[Amill]

I thought only animals that breathed with their nostrils were taken aboard the ark?

I imagine the magnificent smells from the beasts and poop on board would have attracted a "flood" of bugs. Unless god gave Noah a good bug repellent. :jiggy:

 

[Vile Atheist]

That's another argument, Amill. If God forbade the presence of bugs on the Ark, (or at least Noah intentionally bringing them), could the bugs have gone on the Ark despite this?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

There is no evidence for a world wide flood, so if you ask us what if the mountains were lower, you might want to tell us when this is supposed to have happned. Some mountains were lower in the past than today, but that depends how much earlier you are talking. Why dont you tell us when this "deluge" is supposed to have happened and we can address your question. You might want to add some evidence for your date.

Water would not have to rise as high if the highest mountains were lower of course than they are today. We do know massive amounts of water does move or have effect on things.

The year 539 BC(BCE) is a pivotal date for Bible chronology as the year for the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus the Persian. Using such a pivotal date then that can relate to specific Bible events to specific calendar dates. This puts Adam at 4026 BC(BCE), and the Flood at 2370 BC(BCE).

 

[Vile Atheist]

Water would not have to rise as high if the highest mountains were lower of course than they are today. We do know massive amounts of water does move or have effect on things.

The year 539 BC(BCE) is a pivotal date for Bible chronology as the year for the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus the Persian. Using such a pivotal date then that can relate to specific Bible events to specific calendar dates. This puts Adam at 4026 BC(BCE), and the Flood at 2370 BC(BCE).

At 2370 BCE, there would not have been significant enough geologic change to justify lower mountains. They would be roughly the same as they are today. 4000 years is a drop in the bucket for geologic time.

Besides, if Adam came in at ~6000 years ago, why have we found human-related fossils radiometrically dated to millions of years ago? I point to Ardipithecus and Australopithecus. Nevermind them, how do you account for the other fossils of other animals dated much earlier than that?

Am I to expect a case against radiometric dating? I'll be happy to answer all your objections to it.

 

[Autodidact]

Water would not have to rise as high if the highest mountains were lower of course than they are today. We do know massive amounts of water does move or have effect on things.

The year 539 BC(BCE) is a pivotal date for Bible chronology as the year for the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus the Persian. Using such a pivotal date then that can relate to specific Bible events to specific calendar dates. This puts Adam at 4026 BC(BCE), and the Flood at 2370 BC(BCE).

Smack dab in the middle of the Egyptian 6th dynasty?

 

[Arlanbb]

Smack dab in the middle of the Egyptian 6th dynasty?

It also puts the biblical flood in the middle of the Ur Civilization and the Indus Civilization and the Sumer Culture. For some reason all these civilization never found out that they were to drown by a flood in 2370 BC. :yes:

 

[Arlanbb]

I thought only animals that breathed with their nostrils were taken aboard the ark?

Did that include seals and whales?????:yes:

 

[Vile Atheist]

Did that include seals and whales?????:yes:

It must have.

 

[Amill]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWjtRFNSl2s

 

[MountainHumanist]

After 1,116 posts, let's summarize:

The simplest explanation is probably correct:

Option 1. Despite the many contradictions inherent in a literal world flood/ark story, Noah's Ark nevertheless really happened despite the lack of any archeological or geological evidence and the presence of many scientific facts that solidly refute the account.

Option 2: Noah's Ark was a myth based on an earlier Sumerian/Babylonian myth. It was never meant to be taken literally nor was it meant to serve as a scientific textbook for zoology, geology or biology. It was like an Aesop fable.


If you knew NOTHING about world religions — if you had no previous emotional investment or attachment to any religion, which option seems to make more sense?

 

[Autodidact]

Option 3: The Hebrew flood myth has some basis in historical fact, is the best effort of primitive Hebrew historians to record their history and tradition, but is largely mistaken due to the limitations of those early scribes.

 

[Autodidact]

Here's the point I want to make:
You can accept and base your life on this particular myth, what you might call a Biblical worldview. That's one option.
Or you can accept the scientific method.
But you can't do both. To accept this flood-myth as being real, you have to reject the scientific method itself, and most of modern natural science. Which is certainly your prerogative.
But to say you accept both is impossible. You're lying or fooling yourself.
Now, flood-believers, can I have your computer? Thanks.

 

[MountainHumanist]

Option 3: The Hebrew flood myth has some basis in historical fact, is the best effort of primitive Hebrew historians to record their history and tradition, but is largely mistaken due to the limitations of those early scribes.

That's still within the framework of Option 2 since most myths have a general historical context. I should have been more precise in my definition of "myth."

"a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."

 

[Autodidact]

My point is that it probably was meant to be taken literally, it's just wrong, that's all.