archaeologist

Means nothing.

You people need to stop assuming and stop telling me what i already know. What you described is nothing more than human opinion not science.

never said that but then of course you would distort what I said to make a false point. do you know what a comparison is?

archaeologist

I have already decided not to debate you. Who said they were christian?

MarkA

How does a flood destroy pottery?

Rooster

In response to post #54, all you offered was:

I understand it was a long post (with boring Bible quotes in there too!) and you may have missed the part where I calculate the ark's size. Also, you appear to have missed the questions I asked of you.

Allow me to summarise the previous post, in the hopes of a more adequate response.

The ark has a volume of 43,000 cubic metres, at the absolute maximum. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please share your calculation of the volume of the ark, and state why it is different than what the Bible says.

This volume, contrary to your claim, is vastly insufficient for the number of species alive today (and dinosaurs). Which leaves you with two options.

Option one, the number of species alive at the time of the flood (x thousand years ago) was much, much lower than the number alive today. This would require an explanation on your part of how so many new species came about in such a short period of time. Is this your belief? Rapid speciation?

Option two is magic. If you believe the ark was magical, and could fit as many creatures as Noah needed to, despite the physical impossibility, please say so.

If you believe there is a third option, I urge you to share it.

rizdek

Let me help. The flood waters came on so rapidly that they caused massive torrents of water to flow rapidly flooding all civilized areas (which would have been near waterways). These raging flood waters would wisk away and likely pulverize all the pottery into bits so tiny as to be unrecognizable as pottery. That's what would happen if there was a worldwide flood caused by rains that fell for 40 days. Is that a good answer?

archaeologist

Don't know how I missed this as I am tired of such insulting bull. It is not rational to live in denial, to dismiss or mis-credit other people's evidence or to insult other people and their beliefs.

I have no interest in your calculations as you have no idea how large the cubit was that Noah used. The egyptian one was not yet invented nor was the Hebrew one as far as we know. So do all the calucations you want you will only be guessing. also you do not know how many animals were brought on board for the passage sasy in one version, simply the word 'creatures' not species, thus to insert a word that you cannot confirm is wrong.

Oh and take your magic option and just put some place you can never find it for that is an insult by very irrational people.

a frivolous question and one that I will not address again.

graymouser

This is such a ridiculous punt that it's laughable - if you believe the flood and Noah's Ark really happened, you should be able to give straight answers about how it's even feasible. "The Bible says so and you just don't understand it" is not going to convince anybody here.

But your "you have no idea how large the cubit was" gambit still doesn't hold water - literally. No wooden boat, no matter how big or small its cubit (a measurement based on the length of the forearm) was, large enough to hold a population of animals that could repopulate the earth after a global flood, could have floated. Ships of the scale we're talking about (anywhere over 300 feet) would just take on water continuously until they sank, no matter how well they were sealed and built. It's a double problem: if Noah had arms that were too short, the animals couldn't have possibly fit (although this is probably true unless Noah had a forearm several meters long), while if his arms were long enough, the ship couldn't have been seaworthy.

As for how many "creatures" or "species" or "kinds" were bought on, the fact is that a creationist account must be able to show how it gets from what was on the ark to modern biodiversity in a few thousand years. If it can't, it's no more credible than any other myth. Your responses thus far have universally been to attempt to weasel your way out of hard problems for the flood account; again, you're not convincing anybody with that.

spin

Where's the extra water now?


spin

Rooster

Do you think the cubit of Genesis is equal to a mile? Equal to a centimetre? Obviously, there is some realistic range which it falls between, otherwise the use of 'cubit' is meaningless at best and deceptive at worst. Do you believe it to be meaningless or misleading?

From your knowledge of the times, I ask you for the upper and lower limits you would personally accept the Biblical cubit could reasonably apply to. I can see no reason why you would refuse to give an answer here.

Further, using 'species' or 'creature' does not matter to the point. I will even use the Biblical word 'kind' if it will make you actually engage, rather than evade. (Of course, in that case, I would need to you define 'kind' for me.)

I see you prefer to quote one paragraph from posts you reply to, so I ask that if you quote and address only one from this post, you make it the following.

What are the upper and lower limits you would accept for the Biblical cubit? Do you believe in large scale, rapid changes in creatures over a short period of time?

It is not an insult. A magical ark is the only alternative to something that is physically impossible. I asked you to provide another if you could see it, which you declined to do.

Where do you feel I've been irrational? I've been playing by your rules, using only the Bible as evidence. Every post so far I've asked for your clarification or definitions, which you refuse to provide for some reason.

dog-on

Probably on my pant leg, as some of the discussion on this thread is making me piss myself...