Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rmadison · 10-21-2003, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
Maybe before bringing up this argument, you should read a little bit more. It rained non-stop for 40 days and 40 nights. Noah sent out a dove to see if the waters had subsided, 7 days after the rain stopped. The waters remained on the Earth for 150 days. At 150 days, they began to receed. The waters kept receeding ( inclusive of your 225, 318, and 375 numbers) until a bit over a year after the rain started, the Earth began to show. Where is the problem? The Bible never says it rained for 47, 150, 225 etc. days. It said 40 days and 40 nights, and then it took over a year for the waters to completely receed.

You know, I think this is another reason I never take atheist alleged contradictions very seriously. 90% of the time, its an extremely poor case of reading comprehension.

Fine. Let's read together.

Genesis 8:3-4
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

Now, I don't know about you, but it seems to me that if the Ark came to rest ON Mt. Ararat, that the water must have been below the summit, in order for the Ark to come to rest ON the mountain.

I think you'd agree with this, yes?

But then, lo & behold, in the very next verse, we see this:

Genesis 8:5
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.

Now, how is it that the Ark came to rest UPON Mt. Ararat, when the tops of the mountains didn't become visible for another three months?

Is this just one of those moments you shrug your shoulders and say, "It was a miracle"?

Also, why'd you assume I was an atheist? Did I ever say that I was?

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
God told Noah how to build the ship, and Noah had 120 years to build it. Building that big of a ship in 120 years under the guidance of God isn't that difficult. How long did it take to build the U.S.S. Wyoming? A heck of a lot less than 120 years, and without God telling them what to do. Lets say the USS Wyoming took 5 years to build. That leaves 115 more years to increase the ship length by 121 feet. Not a very good argument, sorry.

Wow! I concede Magus...your brilliance is too much. Please let me off easy this time, and don't thrash me like this again.

*thinks to self* "Now, why didn't I think of that? God did it? Why of course!"

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
Typical atheist response. You're assuming the Ocean floor was as deep as it currently is, and the mountains as high, when the Bible says God changed the land to accomodate and hold the water.

Yes, I am.

There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Unless you've been holding out on us?

Please...share....

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
I'm not in the least bit impressed with your rebuttal of the flood, and I doubt any Christian would be. Care to try again?

I'm not trying to impress you, or any other christian.

I just enjoy pointing out the absurdities in your ideas, and then watching the show develop.

If it weren't for folks like you, my daily entertainment would be wanting!

Please, continue...

rlogan · 10-21-2003, 02:21 PM

Bagfullosnakes has put some erroneous information out there that needs to be corrected:
______________________
the largest wooden ship ever built, the six-masted schooner U.S.S. Wyoming, measured 329 feet in overall length.
_______________________

The largest wooden ship ever built, by my calculations was 300 cubits (at least 450 feet) and had no masts at all. One of the things you fail to grasp is the advantage of building with Gopher wood.

In the lost text of "Noah's Ark" the exact figure is given for the structural strength scale economies provided for by gopher wood. As soon as we can locate some gopher wood, we can experimentally determine where the point of inflection begins where decreases in strength become increases in strength.

Now the bad news - my research into animal food storage dictates consideration of SPOILAGE. There must be a coefficient introduced for this. Since there is no ventilation in the Ark, both reason (AAAAA!!!!) and practice demand a high spoilage coefficient. Like 80%.

But lets give Noah a break and use something like 15% food spoilage. The direct calculations now provide food for 157 pairs of animals. Applying our ten fold fudge factor, we now are at food storage space for 1,570 pairs of animals.

I've got a couple of mice in a bucket here to see how long they can swim.

rmadison · 10-21-2003, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rlogan
Bagfullosnakes has put some erroneous information out there that needs to be corrected:
______________________
the largest wooden ship ever built, the six-masted schooner U.S.S. Wyoming, measured 329 feet in overall length.
_______________________

The largest wooden ship ever built, by my calculations was 300 cubits (at least 450 feet) and had no masts at all. One of the things you fail to grasp is the advantage of building with Gopher wood.

Sorry, didn't really mean to hijack your thread. I was trying to, ah...supplement it.

OK, OK...I admit it - I've got a weakness with Noah's flood. I can pass on the "evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics" threads, and the "sun is shrinking", or...whatever the hell the fundies are claiming...but I just can't pass a "Noah thread" without putting my two cents in.

You know, if magus replies...I HAVE to respond! You realize that...right?

[inner-voice]seek help BFOS...seek help[/inner-voice]

rlogan · 10-21-2003, 02:36 PM

All in jest, my friend. Never had so much fun.

We have to interject these, uh, "points of interest" or it would be like attending a sermon.

Doctor X · 10-21-2003, 03:44 PM

rlogan:

No disrespect, but I am trying to learn Irish because I am a masochist. Your user name looks familiar and is probably pronounced "geep."

Right. . . .

Quote:

As Dr. X points out, shoveling the waste out the one door or the window requires some slick engineering. But since there's no room for any animals on the ark to begin with, I'm assuming that problem away. Right now I'm just trying to figure out how to store all the food.

I HAVE IT!!!

They are all arranged so their posteriors point outside . . . of course this may make urination a problem . . . also how do you convince a tiger to keep its tush in a port hole . . . where is Roy Horn when you need him?

bagfullofsnakes:

Wins the award for recognizing that more than one "flood" exists in the texts. Of course, none of the "floods" work. As rlogan notes, whether you want "20 cubits" higher than mountains or land" that is still a prohibitive amount of water!

HerodionRomulus:

. . . on first!

Brian_iiiii:

IKEA--this was before the Tower of Babel so Noah could read the directions.

Magus:

Quote:

90% of the time, its an extremely poor case of reading comprehension.

Perchance you should re-read your post and, mayhaps, the OT texts cited?

FYI. . . .

cjack:

Quote:

This is really pointless. Any logical, scientific argument that refutes the possibility of the flood and the ark will be automatically shot down by some variation of "God can do anything."

. . . except save a dying child.

This reminds me of a favorite "Halloween" Simpsons where Lucy "Xena" Lawless guests as a speaker at a Nerd Convention. The nerd-scientist asks about "how come in episode" such and such "you were on a white horse but later in the episode were on a beigh horse." Lawless replies, "we have been told that whenever a discrepency arises it was because of a Wizard."

"Well . . . ah . . . okay . . . what about the episode where. . . ?"

"Wizard."

"Ah . . . but what about. . . ?"

"Wizard."

The nerd-scientist sits down defeated by this impenatrable logic.

In a sense, this is the only answer Magus has--"he just did it." Despite the fact it breaks "the laws of physics, Captain!" for whatever reason--it is a "mystery" you know--Big Daddy broke them all. . . .

. . . except . . . the different versions of the myth do not reconcile . . . okay . . . where is the Wizard . . . right ALL versions of the flood myth happened at the same time . . . yes . . . next question. . . .

Thus, back to bagfullofsnakes:

Quote:

Is this just one of those moments you shrug your shoulders and say, "It was a miracle"?

"Wizard."

Back to rlogan:

Quote:

As soon as we can locate some gopher wood, we can experimentally determine where the point of inflection begins where decreases in strength become increases in strength.

Unfortunately, Noah used up all of the gopher wood . . . the rest perished in the flood.

Somewhere there is a story where the wood becomes every piece of wood in the Bible from the first and second Temple to the cross . . . I think even boat Junior uses to "still the waters."

You see? It is MAGIC WOOD!

. . . you can expect nothing less from IKEA. . . .

Now, since this is a Serious Forum [Cue Low C.--Ed.], we must dispense with this frivolity . . . at least until Magus replies [Stop that!--Ed.] okay . . . okay . . . trying to "justify" the flood myths detracts from any appreciation of "what" the authors were trying to "do."

Did they merely take a myth that became popular and try to make it their own?

--J.D.

cjack · 10-21-2003, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X

Unfortunately, Noah used up all of the gopher wood . . . the rest perished in the flood.

Brilliant, funny stuff.

The above quote brings up another question:

What did God have against plants?

I mean, there is no mention of plants being saved on the Ark, so I'm just gonna assume that plants did something pretty nasty in order to piss off the Almighty, right?

I mean, when I go back and read Genesis, the only justification for the Flood was a rather vague accusation of people being "wicked."

All those pre-Flood plants must have been pretty fucked up to have shared their leafy fate with all the wicked pre-Flood humans!

Except, of course, for the olive trees. They were, apparently, spared...is that because the Lord was merciful, or because he realized that Noah's family would need something to make salad dressing from?

Of course, there wouldn't be anything to make salads, but...

Doctor X · 10-21-2003, 04:02 PM

YE OF LITTLE FAITH!!

The animals on the Ark ATE the plants, held in the feces . . . despite the roughage . . .--since this solves the "shovel problem"--and then "repopulated" the earth with plants as the wandered and deficated.

Of course, for some reason, they did not starve in the process . . . or die from the poisonous plants. . . .

Feel sorry for the ones that had to walk and then swim to Australia . . . they had to "hold it in" for a considerable amount of time. . . .

Now the carnivores . . . they ate the unicorns.

"There were green aligators and long necked beasts. . . ."

--J.D.

Calzaer · 10-21-2003, 04:59 PM

Quote:

You're assuming the Ocean floor was as deep as it currently is, and the mountains as high, when the Bible says God changed the land to accomodate and hold the water.

Why shouldn't we assume all that? Even the Bible doesn't mention that the composition of the earth was any different then than it is today.

How many long strings of totally unsubstantiated EXTRA-BIBLICAL assertions are you going to make, Mr. "No Really, I Believe in Sola Scriptura 100%"??

openeyes · 10-21-2003, 05:05 PM

"Some humpty-backed camels and some chimpanzees. . ."

Quote:

Sometimes i think too much reasoning can be unhealthy....

Maybe for you, but reasoning and reality seem to work pretty well for me.

Besides, if you really thought that, why are you trying to make a logical argument for the actual occurrence of "The Flood"? You are being a little inconsistent, to say the least.

Sometimes I think too much blind faith can be unhealthy.

Weltall · 10-21-2003, 05:09 PM

Given that the Wyoming required iron banding to simply mainain its hull integrity and it still required constant pumping to counter the leaks, I think we're on fairly solid ground in saying that a ~450 foot long Ark wouldn't be seaworthy on a flat sea unloaded. Care to comment Magus, it's a fairly simple question of shipbuilding?

10-21-2003, 02:21 PM	#32
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	erroneous information Bagfullosnakes has put some erroneous information out there that needs to be corrected: ______________________ the largest wooden ship ever built, the six-masted schooner U.S.S. Wyoming, measured 329 feet in overall length. _______________________ The largest wooden ship ever built, by my calculations was 300 cubits (at least 450 feet) and had no masts at all. One of the things you fail to grasp is the advantage of building with Gopher wood. In the lost text of "Noah's Ark" the exact figure is given for the structural strength scale economies provided for by gopher wood. As soon as we can locate some gopher wood, we can experimentally determine where the point of inflection begins where decreases in strength become increases in strength. Now the bad news - my research into animal food storage dictates consideration of SPOILAGE. There must be a coefficient introduced for this. Since there is no ventilation in the Ark, both reason (AAAAA!!!!) and practice demand a high spoilage coefficient. Like 80%. But lets give Noah a break and use something like 15% food spoilage. The direct calculations now provide food for 157 pairs of animals. Applying our ten fold fudge factor, we now are at food storage space for 1,570 pairs of animals. I've got a couple of mice in a bucket here to see how long they can swim.

10-21-2003, 02:36 PM	#34
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	No apology necessary All in jest, my friend. Never had so much fun. We have to interject these, uh, "points of interest" or it would be like attending a sermon.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-21-2003, 04:02 PM	#37
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	YE OF LITTLE FAITH!! The animals on the Ark ATE the plants, held in the feces . . . despite the roughage . . .--since this solves the "shovel problem"--and then "repopulated" the earth with plants as the wandered and deficated. Of course, for some reason, they did not starve in the process . . . or die from the poisonous plants. . . . Feel sorry for the ones that had to walk and then swim to Australia . . . they had to "hold it in" for a considerable amount of time. . . . Now the carnivores . . . they ate the unicorns. "There were green aligators and long necked beasts. . . ." --J.D.

10-21-2003, 05:09 PM	#40
Weltall Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: San Francisco Posts: 3,283	Given that the Wyoming required iron banding to simply mainain its hull integrity and it still required constant pumping to counter the leaks, I think we're on fairly solid ground in saying that a ~450 foot long Ark wouldn't be seaworthy on a flat sea unloaded. Care to comment Magus, it's a fairly simple question of shipbuilding?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.