ten to the eleventh

The local flood idea deserves critical investigation, as well. It is safe to say that rocky formations are very close to the height they would have been at the time of the flood, about 4,000 years ago. So, if we can propose a depth of the water, then we can investigate the possibility of a local flood, and see how well such a flood matches the biblical description.

MachineGod, would you propose a maximum elevation for the flood level? I suggest studying a topographic map of the Mesopotamian region to determine this, and keep in mind that the flood waters did not begin to recede for six months.

handle_2001

Hello all, this is my first post on these forums so I'll try not to create a bad impression. However I would like to point out that this thread is apparently devoid of any christians who wish to defend the Noah story. Could this mean they accept it as a myth as well?
I would like to quote at this point an author I'm sure most of you are familiar with: George Smith. In his book, "Atheism: the Case Against God" he points out that (and I won't directly quote because the exact words escape me at the moment) any use of "means" to satisfy an "end" indicates that the option of direct causation of the end was not possible. In other words, even assuming the Noah story is true, God had to use the machinations of a flood to purge the earth of all evil, because it was not within his power to simply *poof* away all evil. What implications does this have for God's omnipotence?
Taking another perspective, myth or not, what relevance does the flood story have to any other part of the bible, before or after the event "occured"? What was the author trying to impress upon his readers? Is this simply an historical account, or does it have metaphorical meanings that escape my grasp? I suppose my main question would be, what is the point of the Noah story, whether the story itself is true or not?

secular buddhist

Consider your local mob boss. He wants to get rid of a rival, a snitch, or someone not paying her protection money. It won't do to simply eliminate that person quickly and quietly. No, he needs to liquidate her and her family in a very noisy, very visible manner. To make sure everyone else gets the point - don't mess with the boss.

handle_2001

Millions of people suddenly drop dead and vanish = noisy and very visible, in my mind at least. If that weren't enough then certainly a loud booming voice from heaven proclaiming "I killed those muthas cus they was bad bad dudes." would get the point across. Even if it were the case that a flood was the most poignant way to prove a point, why does God use such a "loud and visible" approach here, and at other times show an affinity for more subtle methods?

Magus55

Sure thing. But could you find me some gopher wood?

Magus55

And yet Egyptian slaves could build some of the most mind boggling structures on Earth that even modern technology couldn't do, with dimensions so precise as to baffle most people? The pyramids aren't called one of the 7 wonders of the world for nothing.

And then again, no bronze age people could ever build a ship that size, if they weren't guided by an all-knowing being.

Magus55

Superseding the laws of nature? Breaking the sound barrier - beyond the laws of nature - we did it. Flying out of Earth's atmosphere -beyond the laws of nature - we did it. Diving to water pressures of a million pounds per square inch - beyond the laws of nature - we did it. Since when has humanity had a problem going beyond what we perceive are the laws of nature?

Magus55

And you are only looking at it from a natural point of view. I find this quite amusing, and rather odd of atheists. You argue and debate over how implausible something is from the Bible, yet you ignore the fact that the Bible never claims Noah did this on his own. If you aren't gonna consider all elements from the story, why are you bringing up this one? We aren't claiming Noah built the largest wooden ship in history all by himself. If God isn't part of the picture, than discussing Noah's ark is a moot point.

secular buddhist

But the planes were not made of gopher wood.

The question is not whether any old ark is possible, but one made according to the technology available to Noah.

Or is "gopher wood" the ancient Hebrew for riveted steel plates?

Doubting Didymus

Magus is right. When we're arguing against noahs ark, it's important that we remember that as soon as miracles are part of the picture, all bets are off. The arguments that centres around the flood being physically impossible are only applicable to that actually quite rare breed of creation science that insists that everything in the bible is scientifically plausible.

It's easy to forget that even the vast majority of christians can't work out why they do that.