Sadly, I became curious as to how many species there are. Scientists argue, but the different sources I looked at seem to come to a more or less similar set of numbers.
The animals that would need the Ark:
Mammals: 4200 (less a few swimming ones)
Reptiles: 6700 (less a few swimming ones)
Arachnids: 44,000 (I expect a few can swim)
The ones that don't need an Ark:
Birds: 9700 (because they can obviously keep on flying for as long as it takes for the waters to go down)
Insects: 1,000,000 (because they too can either fly or swim for the necessary time)
Molluscs: 80,000
Does the story discuss plants? There are around 250,000 different species of flowering plants. I dare say 40 days underwater wouldn't harm them, so that's not a problem.
For completeness, fish. About 21,000.
So ignoring insects (damn tricky things to catch, little and fiddly most of the time, Noah probably figured the ones God wanted to save that couldn't fly or swim could cling to the outside of the Ark), our friend Noah had to collect around 54,900 species, or 109,800 specimens.
I think we can safely ignore the question of food and sanitation.
Food was taken care by God - plenty of water around, and as long as Noah remembered to bring some bread some multiplying a thousand fold every few days would take care of that. The carnivores, obviously, went on vegetarian diets as they could see the big picture.
As for sanitation - a 'bucket and chuck it' approach would have been used.
So really, Chris is right after all. It is possible that an Ark occurred.
The conditions are there - a guy who could build a big boat. He had the time and inclination to collect 109,000 animals, he had the God link thing going which took care of the food and no inter species feeding went on.
Wait a minute - perhaps prior to the flood there were in fact 50,000 species of mammals, and Darwin's survival of the fittest theories actually related to a big bunfight on the ark, and not to an evolutionary process - it's all starting to fit.
But wait - there weren't two of every animal but seven (or is this just a contradiction?) - Genesis 7:2-3:
Oops. My mistake. But damn, he talks of the birds too. They weren't expected to fly continuously.
Quote:
Did he discover America and Australia personally in the case of indigenous localised beasts such as the duck-billed platypus?
pity you used the duck billed platypus as your example, as that one wouldn't need an ark. Kind of demolishes your argument
Quote:
but even if so, studies have shown that such a length would not survive a regular storm,
sorry, but off-base again. God, after going through the aggro of getting Noah to work bl**dy hard to sort out the Ark, would not then give him a vessel endangering storm.
Quote:
The most interesting question here is, why, after thousands of years of human civilization, have we not outgrown primitive and backward superstitions and why do we cling to outmoded mythologies that say nothing to us about our present culture and capacities and even derive from cultures we not only do not understand but, in many cases, have no wish to.
Seriously, you ask a very valid question. And it is beyond me.
Chris got a little upset when I described him as irrational. But what other term is appropriate? Earlier on in the thread he accepts that some parts of the Bible are meant to be figurative. And yet Noah's Ark he accepts as being literal!
Come on Chris, be rational. There are plenty of stories in the Bible that one could accept as having occurred. Why pick one of the least likely and proclaim it as the truth?
But wait - there weren't two of every animal but seven (or is this just a contradiction?) - Genesis 7:2-3:
Quote:
You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; 3also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth."
Actually, I read that differently than you in a way much more damning to the ark theory. It seems to me that the passage reads that Noah was to take with him 7 pairs of each clean animal.
Actually, I read that differently than you in a way much more damning to the ark theory. It seems to me that the passage reads that Noah was to take with him 7 pairs of each clean animal.
Damn good thing for Noah that elephants are classified as "unclean".
I started with 109,000, and then it was pointed out clean animals come in 7 pairs, unclean only 2 pairs. Anyone know the split between clean and unclean? For arguments sake, lets say on average there were three pairs of animals.
So that's 327,000 animals on the ark.
But I now need to add in the birds.
9700*2*3 = 58,200 more.
OK, so now we have 385,200 animals.
Excluding insects.
Mmmmm.
I wonder if Chris would accept the above as any sort of proof his Ark didn't happen? Somehow, I doubt it.
I started with 109,000, and then it was pointed out clean animals come in 7 pairs, unclean only 2 pairs. Anyone know the split between clean and unclean? For arguments sake, lets say on average there were three pairs of animals.
I think you can safely assume (as long as we're in the world of cartoon logic) that Noah decided anything even slightly unusual or unfamiliar looking was "unclean" -- keeping the list of "clean" animals down to around 50 or so.
I think Chris sometimes gets himself into these arguments and then can't extract himself from these absurd positions. Maybe I'm naive, but I simply can't believe that he and dmz believe in the literal truth of a deluge that killed everything on the planet except what Noah brought with him on a boat. I haven't heard either of them directly say whether they think that really literally happened.
Chris? dmz?
Even if you accept the basic outline of the story as having some historical truth, isn't it possible that somebody built a boat and put his family and animals on it to escape some flooding, but that it didn't actually destroy the whole planet's animals? Or that maybe there was a great flood (like the Black Sea theory), passed down through oral history, but there was no guy on a boat?
Anyone's belief that it did not happen is based on faith as is my own belief that it did happen.
where "it" referred to the Ark. Seems to me a definite statement.
The birds are definitely an issue. Over 9000 species, of which most fly. So yes, millions of birds looking for a landing site would cause the ark a problem.
Anyone's belief that it did not happen is based on faith as is my own belief that it did happen.
reason and logical analysis != faith. In fact, logical analysis is the opposite of faith by definition: faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
where "it" referred to the Ark. Seems to me a definite statement.
Well it still seems to me that he left some room for a folklorish interpretation rather than a literal one. Right? Please?
Quote:
The birds are definitely an issue. Over 9000 species, of which most fly. So yes, millions of birds looking for a landing site would cause the ark a problem.
Haha. This seems a lot like poking holes in episodes of Bugs Bunny. "Yeah right, how could he really get blown up by Acme TNT and live through it!"
Rather than me wasting...err..spending lots of time dissecting each individual post on this Noah, thing, I will simply refer any interested parties to some websites (quick summarized reads, so no excuses here) that have done some thinking and reasoning about this very question.
None (that I saw) of them (and nor do I) claim these things to be proof that Noah's story did happen...only fairly reasonable thinking/reasoning through the questions and issues to arrive at a point where it could have happened and is not merely in the realm of insanity.
Now, we have ventured WAY off topic (and I am surprised no one has been mod-slapped for it yet.) But, I will say this, as a gentle segue back to the original topic, there are "facts" that one can examine in relation to this Noah question. These "facts" are presented in some of the links above. Then there is "truth" derived, deductively from the facts. The truth may not be absolute in the "proven absolutely" sense of things...but it maybe a "supportable" or "reasonable" truth. The reasonablness will be dependent upon the reasonaleness/openness of the receiver though I suspect.
P.S. I don't know what dmz believes about this...he might even disagree with me. If he believes it is possible, I will assume that he's done some thinking/reading (and not assume he is an "illogical, nutjob loony" or some such) on the subject and (perhaps) has other references for you. That is up to him and I will not speak for him. He is free to call me a "loony nutjob" too (though dmz has been demonstrably more respectful than that, so I don't expect it.)
I didn?t really want to click on Chris?s links. It felt like someone pointing me to a website that proves a vegetarian diet is no good and the url is www .meatcouncilofuk .com or something.
But I did.
Now, the premise that Chris asked me to keep in mind was ? could the Ark story be true based on what we know about the physical world today? And these websites purportedly show that.
First off, I hadn?t realized that Noah was 480 years old when he started building the ark, and this building process took 120 years. So based on what we know of the world today, that could not have happened. Unless, of course, when Noah was around 50 God looked ahead, decided he?s be needed, so kept him alive for another 430 years in preparation for his big moment. Divine Intervention Required (DIR)
These websites suggest only around 36,000 animals were required (still a sizeable amount), and that if their average size was a rabbit, then they would all fit with room left over for food etc required for the 371 days afloat. How did they all congregate? Turns out Noah didn?t do the work, they were guided there by God. DIR.
They suggest that Noah didn?t necessarily feed them, as they may well have gone into hibernation mode to save strength, even those animals that don?t normally hibernate. DIR.
So no, these websites do not in any way show that the Ark could have happened based on our physical world.
But hey, live and let live.
Chris, you didn?t respond to what I thought was an interesting question to you ? since you do accept that there are bible passages that are meant to taken figuratively, why have you decided that this passage is meant to be taken literally?
But I do have a second question ? you wrote that 'there are "facts" that one can examine in relation to the Noah question'. What ?facts? are there in this story? Certainly not that Noah was 480 when he started. Certainly not that he built an Ark. The only fact that I can discern is that a cubit was an historical measurement unit. There?s one serious journey from that single fact to an ark story.
Cheers,
David
PS hopefully the reason we haven?t been mod-slapped is that the thread has been most enjoyable and has remained civil.
I didn?t really want to click on Chris?s links. It felt like someone pointing me to a website that proves a vegetarian diet is no good and the url is www .meatcouncilofuk .com or something.
Well, unfortunately, that would not have been a very effective argumentation technique. Taking that approach would have demonstrated to me that you weren't really serious. By that approach you would simpyl dimiss anything I would say just because I am a Christian and I believe the story.
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
But I did.
Good for you.
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
Now, the premise that Chris asked me to keep in mind was ? could the Ark story be true based on what we know about the physical world today?
Well, I'm pretty sure I simply asked if it was possible. It seems that you may have added the "based on what we know about the physical world today".
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
First off, I hadn?t realized that Noah was 480 years old when he started building the ark, and this building process took 120 years. So based on what we know of the world today, that could not have happened.
So, based on what we know and see here and now. But that really isn't evidence that it didn't happen.
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
How did they all congregate? Turns out Noah didn?t do the work, they were guided there by God. DIR.
I never claimed any differently.
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
They suggest that Noah didn?t necessarily feed them, as they may well have gone into hibernation mode to save strength, even those animals that don?t normally hibernate. DIR.
This is a possible explanation, yes.
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
So no, these websites do not in any way show that the Ark could have happened based on our physical world.
Well, I think you moved that goal line on me.
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
since you do accept that there are bible passages that are meant to taken figuratively, why have you decided that this passage is meant to be taken literally?
Well, I begin with the assumption, based on the general nature of this part of the Bible as historical narrative. It might be allegorical or metaphorical in some way, I will give you that. But I would not automatically jump to that assumption.
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
But I do have a second question ? you wrote that 'there are "facts" that one can examine in relation to the Noah question'. What ?facts? are there in this story?
Actually, I was referring to the facts as presented in the links I posted...facts about species, "kinds", boat size, etc. Especially since that was the main line of argumentation that you were using to dispel the Ark story as unbelievable.
Just to briefly amplify iMac David's comments - if we resort to DIR even just one time then it takes the discussion out of all logic.
Fair enough. However, faith can be defined (not MY definition) as "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". So...in the absense of proof that there wasn't devine intervention at some point, is also a faith choice.
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Instead they want their cake and eat it - they want a transcendent God and a God susceptible to rational analysis - though of course this latter exists merely to 'prove' God to skeptics.
I'm not (and I did not see anything in those links) trying to "prove God". I don't believe that God can be "proven". However neither can "non-God". So back to square one...Faith.
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
But the main problem - and in is an enormous nail in the coffin - is a theological one not a rationalist one. The ludicrous nature of such beliefs are proved by theology and Scriptural analysis (ie reason) from the literalist's own perspective.
Not really...see below...
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
For example - the ark, Noah and the flood are all in the 'natural' order - ie non-miraculous. That is to say, God tells Noah that there will be a flood (natural) and advises Noah to build a boat (natural).
This is ok as far as it goes but when you introduce DIR at any point (as the literalists do from the very start in assuming God <i>ordered</i> a flood - this is not necessarily the case) then it makes all else nonsensical.
No one (me included) ever claimed that it was all "naturalistic" or all "devine intervention". God's narrative was, is and always is about His working with the world He's created. Sometimes choosing to suspend natural "laws"/forces, other times using or even amplifying them. This is not inconsistent or hypocritical or theologically weak...though I understand that you will find it so, and unbelievable to boot.
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Why have DIR on board with the relation to the animals for example? Why does God not just say "Noah, there's going to be a flood but don't bother building a boat - I'll do some DIR".
Why not just do a DIR and actually <i>stop</i> the flood - you could still zap all the evildoers with a disease or the angel of death that God previously dispatched to kill the first borns - in fact, why bother with all that anyway? Why not just click your fingers and make everything allright?
This is the classic (and weak) "Well, if 'God' had really done it, he would have done it the way I think he would have done it" argument. Not even worth addressing.
So, I'm done with this. Happy to discuss fact/truth I guess. But this has run its course (way off course in fact). Fun exercise though I must admit. Good day.
as you say, we are in a cul de sac. I think I have demonstrated that the Ark could not have occurred without divine intervention.
I agree I modified your question about the possibility of the Ark story, to add the bit about knowledge of today's world. But I had to, because it is not answerable unless I do.
To clarify:
Q from Chris: Is it possible the Ark story is a true story?
A from David: No it is not. Based on our knowledge of the way the world works, it is simply not possible to be a true story. Noahs age, the collection of animals, the water etc mean that it did not happen.
Response from Chris: Ah, but Divine Intervention removes all the obstacles - God kept Noah alive, God showed Noah how to build an Ark, God ensured the animals arrived at the Ark, slept for the days necessary, etc.
Final Response from David: Oh well, if God did do all that, then yes, it is possible.
So Chris, carry on believing, however nonsensical and irrational the thoughts are.
BTW, my meat council example was not irrelevant. If the websites you had posted us were a group of nautical engineers that considered the possibility, made up of Christians and non-christians, then there's half a chance it would have been read seriously.
But the website was headed something along the lines of 'defending genesis from day 1', so is hardly that serious.
I think I have demonstrated that the Ark could not have occurred without divine intervention.
But that wasn't really the challenge...at least not the one that the Biblical story creates.
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
But I had to, because it is not answerable unless I do.
Not really.
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
So Chris, carry on believing, however nonsensical and irrational the thoughts are.
You call my thoughts "nonsensical and irrational" but fail to admit that your belief that either a) their is no God, and/or b) even if there is, he did not or would not have intervened in this event is a faith choice. Mine is too..but I am willing to admit it.
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
BTW, my meat council example was not irrelevant. If the websites you had posted us were a group of nautical engineers that considered the possibility, made up of Christians and non-christians, then there's half a chance it would have been read seriously.
So...your implication is that because the source is who it is, their arguments are unreliable, weak or illogical. Then it will be no problem at all to dissect and refute them, so you can just skip the "well because it is from so-and-so" and go right to the dissection.
The question I would like to pose is this: why do some people conceive of God as a being who does not respect the very laws and institutions He created?
Ie: science, rationalism, reason and all other laws - if He wanted these laws disregarded then why make them?
It just doesn't make sense (bangs head on table).....
Bang away my friend.
This is the classic (and weak) "Well, if 'God' had really done it, he would have done it the way I think he would have done it" argument. Not even worth addressing.
Btw, you do realise that the 'God does it my way' argument you so frequently (over) employ is actually the sole basis of your religious position don't you? Please say yes...it will be my own head otherwise.....
Well...no...it's that God does it His way. Not mine. I have no such delusions in that regard.
Comments
The animals that would need the Ark:
Mammals: 4200 (less a few swimming ones)
Reptiles: 6700 (less a few swimming ones)
Arachnids: 44,000 (I expect a few can swim)
The ones that don't need an Ark:
Birds: 9700 (because they can obviously keep on flying for as long as it takes for the waters to go down)
Insects: 1,000,000 (because they too can either fly or swim for the necessary time)
Molluscs: 80,000
Does the story discuss plants? There are around 250,000 different species of flowering plants. I dare say 40 days underwater wouldn't harm them, so that's not a problem.
For completeness, fish. About 21,000.
So ignoring insects (damn tricky things to catch, little and fiddly most of the time, Noah probably figured the ones God wanted to save that couldn't fly or swim could cling to the outside of the Ark), our friend Noah had to collect around 54,900 species, or 109,800 specimens.
I think we can safely ignore the question of food and sanitation.
Food was taken care by God - plenty of water around, and as long as Noah remembered to bring some bread some multiplying a thousand fold every few days would take care of that. The carnivores, obviously, went on vegetarian diets as they could see the big picture.
As for sanitation - a 'bucket and chuck it' approach would have been used.
So really, Chris is right after all. It is possible that an Ark occurred.
The conditions are there - a guy who could build a big boat. He had the time and inclination to collect 109,000 animals, he had the God link thing going which took care of the food and no inter species feeding went on.
Wait a minute - perhaps prior to the flood there were in fact 50,000 species of mammals, and Darwin's survival of the fittest theories actually related to a big bunfight on the ark, and not to an evolutionary process - it's all starting to fit.
David
But wait - there weren't two of every animal but seven (or is this just a contradiction?) - Genesis 7:2-3:
Oops. My mistake. But damn, he talks of the birds too. They weren't expected to fly continuously.
Did he discover America and Australia personally in the case of indigenous localised beasts such as the duck-billed platypus?
pity you used the duck billed platypus as your example, as that one wouldn't need an ark. Kind of demolishes your argument
but even if so, studies have shown that such a length would not survive a regular storm,
sorry, but off-base again. God, after going through the aggro of getting Noah to work bl**dy hard to sort out the Ark, would not then give him a vessel endangering storm.
The most interesting question here is, why, after thousands of years of human civilization, have we not outgrown primitive and backward superstitions and why do we cling to outmoded mythologies that say nothing to us about our present culture and capacities and even derive from cultures we not only do not understand but, in many cases, have no wish to.
Seriously, you ask a very valid question. And it is beyond me.
Chris got a little upset when I described him as irrational. But what other term is appropriate? Earlier on in the thread he accepts that some parts of the Bible are meant to be figurative. And yet Noah's Ark he accepts as being literal!
Come on Chris, be rational. There are plenty of stories in the Bible that one could accept as having occurred. Why pick one of the least likely and proclaim it as the truth?
David
Originally posted by segovius
But wait - there weren't two of every animal but seven (or is this just a contradiction?) - Genesis 7:2-3:
Quote:
You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; 3also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth."
Actually, I read that differently than you in a way much more damning to the ark theory. It seems to me that the passage reads that Noah was to take with him 7 pairs of each clean animal.
Originally posted by audiopollution
Actually, I read that differently than you in a way much more damning to the ark theory. It seems to me that the passage reads that Noah was to take with him 7 pairs of each clean animal.
Damn good thing for Noah that elephants are classified as "unclean".
I started with 109,000, and then it was pointed out clean animals come in 7 pairs, unclean only 2 pairs. Anyone know the split between clean and unclean? For arguments sake, lets say on average there were three pairs of animals.
So that's 327,000 animals on the ark.
But I now need to add in the birds.
9700*2*3 = 58,200 more.
OK, so now we have 385,200 animals.
Excluding insects.
Mmmmm.
I wonder if Chris would accept the above as any sort of proof his Ark didn't happen? Somehow, I doubt it.
David
Originally posted by iMac David
I started with 109,000, and then it was pointed out clean animals come in 7 pairs, unclean only 2 pairs. Anyone know the split between clean and unclean? For arguments sake, lets say on average there were three pairs of animals.
I think you can safely assume (as long as we're in the world of cartoon logic) that Noah decided anything even slightly unusual or unfamiliar looking was "unclean" -- keeping the list of "clean" animals down to around 50 or so.
Chris? dmz?
Even if you accept the basic outline of the story as having some historical truth, isn't it possible that somebody built a boat and put his family and animals on it to escape some flooding, but that it didn't actually destroy the whole planet's animals? Or that maybe there was a great flood (like the Black Sea theory), passed down through oral history, but there was no guy on a boat?
Anyone's belief that it did not happen is based on faith as is my own belief that it did happen.
where "it" referred to the Ark. Seems to me a definite statement.
The birds are definitely an issue. Over 9000 species, of which most fly. So yes, millions of birds looking for a landing site would cause the ark a problem.
Mmmmmm.
Chris, the answer to this conundrum is.....?
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Anyone's belief that it did not happen is based on faith as is my own belief that it did happen.
reason and logical analysis != faith. In fact, logical analysis is the opposite of faith by definition: faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Originally posted by iMac David
Bottom of page 2 Chris wrote:
where "it" referred to the Ark. Seems to me a definite statement.
Well it still seems to me that he left some room for a folklorish interpretation rather than a literal one. Right? Please?
The birds are definitely an issue. Over 9000 species, of which most fly. So yes, millions of birds looking for a landing site would cause the ark a problem.
Haha. This seems a lot like poking holes in episodes of Bugs Bunny. "Yeah right, how could he really get blown up by Acme TNT and live through it!"
None (that I saw) of them (and nor do I) claim these things to be proof that Noah's story did happen...only fairly reasonable thinking/reasoning through the questions and issues to arrive at a point where it could have happened and is not merely in the realm of insanity.
So, have fun:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...i2/animals.asp
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c006.html
http://www.christianinformation.org/...e.asp?artID=71
Now, we have ventured WAY off topic (and I am surprised no one has been mod-slapped for it yet.) But, I will say this, as a gentle segue back to the original topic, there are "facts" that one can examine in relation to this Noah question. These "facts" are presented in some of the links above. Then there is "truth" derived, deductively from the facts. The truth may not be absolute in the "proven absolutely" sense of things...but it maybe a "supportable" or "reasonable" truth. The reasonablness will be dependent upon the reasonaleness/openness of the receiver though I suspect.
P.S. I don't know what dmz believes about this...he might even disagree with me. If he believes it is possible, I will assume that he's done some thinking/reading (and not assume he is an "illogical, nutjob loony" or some such) on the subject and (perhaps) has other references for you. That is up to him and I will not speak for him. He is free to call me a "loony nutjob" too (though dmz has been demonstrably more respectful than that, so I don't expect it.)
There are estimated to be 30 to 50 million species of insect
source 1 or source 2
And of course, the termites might have eaten the ark...
But I did.
Now, the premise that Chris asked me to keep in mind was ? could the Ark story be true based on what we know about the physical world today? And these websites purportedly show that.
First off, I hadn?t realized that Noah was 480 years old when he started building the ark, and this building process took 120 years. So based on what we know of the world today, that could not have happened. Unless, of course, when Noah was around 50 God looked ahead, decided he?s be needed, so kept him alive for another 430 years in preparation for his big moment. Divine Intervention Required (DIR)
These websites suggest only around 36,000 animals were required (still a sizeable amount), and that if their average size was a rabbit, then they would all fit with room left over for food etc required for the 371 days afloat. How did they all congregate? Turns out Noah didn?t do the work, they were guided there by God. DIR.
They suggest that Noah didn?t necessarily feed them, as they may well have gone into hibernation mode to save strength, even those animals that don?t normally hibernate. DIR.
So no, these websites do not in any way show that the Ark could have happened based on our physical world.
But hey, live and let live.
Chris, you didn?t respond to what I thought was an interesting question to you ? since you do accept that there are bible passages that are meant to taken figuratively, why have you decided that this passage is meant to be taken literally?
But I do have a second question ? you wrote that 'there are "facts" that one can examine in relation to the Noah question'. What ?facts? are there in this story? Certainly not that Noah was 480 when he started. Certainly not that he built an Ark. The only fact that I can discern is that a cubit was an historical measurement unit. There?s one serious journey from that single fact to an ark story.
Cheers,
David
PS hopefully the reason we haven?t been mod-slapped is that the thread has been most enjoyable and has remained civil.
Originally posted by iMac David
I didn?t really want to click on Chris?s links. It felt like someone pointing me to a website that proves a vegetarian diet is no good and the url is www .meatcouncilofuk .com or something.
Well, unfortunately, that would not have been a very effective argumentation technique. Taking that approach would have demonstrated to me that you weren't really serious. By that approach you would simpyl dimiss anything I would say just because I am a Christian and I believe the story.
Originally posted by iMac David
But I did.
Good for you.
Originally posted by iMac David
Now, the premise that Chris asked me to keep in mind was ? could the Ark story be true based on what we know about the physical world today?
Well, I'm pretty sure I simply asked if it was possible. It seems that you may have added the "based on what we know about the physical world today".
Originally posted by iMac David
First off, I hadn?t realized that Noah was 480 years old when he started building the ark, and this building process took 120 years. So based on what we know of the world today, that could not have happened.
So, based on what we know and see here and now. But that really isn't evidence that it didn't happen.
Originally posted by iMac David
How did they all congregate? Turns out Noah didn?t do the work, they were guided there by God. DIR.
I never claimed any differently.
Originally posted by iMac David
They suggest that Noah didn?t necessarily feed them, as they may well have gone into hibernation mode to save strength, even those animals that don?t normally hibernate. DIR.
This is a possible explanation, yes.
Originally posted by iMac David
So no, these websites do not in any way show that the Ark could have happened based on our physical world.
Well, I think you moved that goal line on me.
Originally posted by iMac David
since you do accept that there are bible passages that are meant to taken figuratively, why have you decided that this passage is meant to be taken literally?
Well, I begin with the assumption, based on the general nature of this part of the Bible as historical narrative. It might be allegorical or metaphorical in some way, I will give you that. But I would not automatically jump to that assumption.
Originally posted by iMac David
But I do have a second question ? you wrote that 'there are "facts" that one can examine in relation to the Noah question'. What ?facts? are there in this story?
Actually, I was referring to the facts as presented in the links I posted...facts about species, "kinds", boat size, etc. Especially since that was the main line of argumentation that you were using to dispel the Ark story as unbelievable.
Originally posted by segovius
Just to briefly amplify iMac David's comments - if we resort to DIR even just one time then it takes the discussion out of all logic.
Fair enough. However, faith can be defined (not MY definition) as "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". So...in the absense of proof that there wasn't devine intervention at some point, is also a faith choice.
Originally posted by segovius
Instead they want their cake and eat it - they want a transcendent God and a God susceptible to rational analysis - though of course this latter exists merely to 'prove' God to skeptics.
I'm not (and I did not see anything in those links) trying to "prove God". I don't believe that God can be "proven". However neither can "non-God". So back to square one...Faith.
Originally posted by segovius
But the main problem - and in is an enormous nail in the coffin - is a theological one not a rationalist one. The ludicrous nature of such beliefs are proved by theology and Scriptural analysis (ie reason) from the literalist's own perspective.
Not really...see below...
Originally posted by segovius
For example - the ark, Noah and the flood are all in the 'natural' order - ie non-miraculous. That is to say, God tells Noah that there will be a flood (natural) and advises Noah to build a boat (natural).
This is ok as far as it goes but when you introduce DIR at any point (as the literalists do from the very start in assuming God <i>ordered</i> a flood - this is not necessarily the case) then it makes all else nonsensical.
No one (me included) ever claimed that it was all "naturalistic" or all "devine intervention". God's narrative was, is and always is about His working with the world He's created. Sometimes choosing to suspend natural "laws"/forces, other times using or even amplifying them. This is not inconsistent or hypocritical or theologically weak...though I understand that you will find it so, and unbelievable to boot.
Originally posted by segovius
Why have DIR on board with the relation to the animals for example? Why does God not just say "Noah, there's going to be a flood but don't bother building a boat - I'll do some DIR".
Why not just do a DIR and actually <i>stop</i> the flood - you could still zap all the evildoers with a disease or the angel of death that God previously dispatched to kill the first borns - in fact, why bother with all that anyway? Why not just click your fingers and make everything allright?
This is the classic (and weak) "Well, if 'God' had really done it, he would have done it the way I think he would have done it" argument. Not even worth addressing.
So, I'm done with this. Happy to discuss fact/truth I guess. But this has run its course (way off course in fact). Fun exercise though I must admit. Good day.
as you say, we are in a cul de sac. I think I have demonstrated that the Ark could not have occurred without divine intervention.
I agree I modified your question about the possibility of the Ark story, to add the bit about knowledge of today's world. But I had to, because it is not answerable unless I do.
To clarify:
Q from Chris: Is it possible the Ark story is a true story?
A from David: No it is not. Based on our knowledge of the way the world works, it is simply not possible to be a true story. Noahs age, the collection of animals, the water etc mean that it did not happen.
Response from Chris: Ah, but Divine Intervention removes all the obstacles - God kept Noah alive, God showed Noah how to build an Ark, God ensured the animals arrived at the Ark, slept for the days necessary, etc.
Final Response from David: Oh well, if God did do all that, then yes, it is possible.
So Chris, carry on believing, however nonsensical and irrational the thoughts are.
BTW, my meat council example was not irrelevant. If the websites you had posted us were a group of nautical engineers that considered the possibility, made up of Christians and non-christians, then there's half a chance it would have been read seriously.
But the website was headed something along the lines of 'defending genesis from day 1', so is hardly that serious.
Regards,
David
Originally posted by iMac David
I think I have demonstrated that the Ark could not have occurred without divine intervention.
But that wasn't really the challenge...at least not the one that the Biblical story creates.
Originally posted by iMac David
But I had to, because it is not answerable unless I do.
Not really.
Originally posted by iMac David
So Chris, carry on believing, however nonsensical and irrational the thoughts are.
You call my thoughts "nonsensical and irrational" but fail to admit that your belief that either a) their is no God, and/or b) even if there is, he did not or would not have intervened in this event is a faith choice. Mine is too..but I am willing to admit it.
Originally posted by iMac David
BTW, my meat council example was not irrelevant. If the websites you had posted us were a group of nautical engineers that considered the possibility, made up of Christians and non-christians, then there's half a chance it would have been read seriously.
So...your implication is that because the source is who it is, their arguments are unreliable, weak or illogical. Then it will be no problem at all to dissect and refute them, so you can just skip the "well because it is from so-and-so" and go right to the dissection.
Originally posted by segovius
The question I would like to pose is this: why do some people conceive of God as a being who does not respect the very laws and institutions He created?
Ie: science, rationalism, reason and all other laws - if He wanted these laws disregarded then why make them?
It just doesn't make sense (bangs head on table).....
Bang away my friend.
This is the classic (and weak) "Well, if 'God' had really done it, he would have done it the way I think he would have done it" argument. Not even worth addressing.
Originally posted by segovius
It wasn't my head I was banging
Btw, you do realise that the 'God does it my way' argument you so frequently (over) employ is actually the sole basis of your religious position don't you? Please say yes...it will be my own head otherwise.....
Well...no...it's that God does it His way. Not mine. I have no such delusions in that regard.
Now, I guess you can bang away.
Originally posted by segovius
It wasn't my head I was banging
Oh...I just got that...haaa....OUCH!