Noah’s Ark Found!!

[Jimmy Higgins]

My favorite question about the ark story is simply "What about all the people who already owned boats? Why didn't any of them survive too?"

They had boats, not an ark.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Boat, ark, ship, vessel, pontoon, punt, canoe, coracle, kayak, raft... Loads of people had a way to escape from floodwater. Why didn't any of them survive?

Approx. 370 days from the rain beginning until Noah left the ark. He has a large vessel, presumably well stocked. Had about 90 years to build it.

90 years?! They'd have to of started rebuilding the first half of the boat about 60 years into the process. They'd been chasing construction and never be done.

One of the consequences of the ark account is that nobody believed Noah that it would happen.

They were probably pissed he had horded what would have had to of been the entire forested area within a hundred miles (or 14 megacubits) of the site. It is good that Noah understood how to design, obtain the materials, build a massive contained sea faring vessel that could house 7 pair of every clean animal and one pair of the dirty sod ones, to survive for a long time that wasn't quite discussed in the planning sequence.

Once the rains came and the fountains of the deep broke open there would not have been enough time to have gathered provisions, stocked a vessel for how long? They did not know. I suspect Noah did not know either when it all began.
No real surprises that no one else survived.

The issue would have been supplies. Even though some might have had boats (presuming they must of because Noah knew what an ark was) they wouldn't have had enough food to survive the flood. Could have subsided on fish though... and the water would have presumably been fresh... and waste wouldn't have been an issue...

You know, someone else should have made it. And if they were as wicked as foretold, enough of them should have been able to take over the Ark well before it was too late. Then probably would have eaten the animals.

So now the question becomes how many people could have survived on the Ark with the food and animals that were on board? This makes so much more sense. They'd likely eaten the unclean animals first. So Noah's command was 7 pair of all animals. And after the boat is overtaken, the animals get eaten until there is only one pair left. Noah gets drunk after the flood because of the mess that was his failure to secure the ark and PTSD to survive the next while. Story gets spun after the fact.

 

[Elixir]

90 years?! They'd have to of started rebuilding the first half of the boat about 60 years into the process. They'd been chasing construction and never be done.

Word!
Anyone who ever had to care for a wooden boat - or virtually any wooden thing - for 90 days would know that. I bet Noah got awful sick of the smell of Helmsman Urethane.

 

[Bronzeage]

Well, let's get back to this "ark" that was "found" . . .

You can't start a thread about anything remotely attached to the bible without it turning into how dumb is religion thread, which quickly becomes a god Christians are so dumb thread, and given a page or two, morphs into god how dumb American Christians are thread.

Indeed.

The most parsimonious explanation for this is that American Christians really are astoundingly and remarkably dumb, even amongst the very dumb Christians, who themselves exemplify how dumb religion (particularly biblical religion) is.

The Christian Church reached its zenith of power about the same time science was beginning to question the accepted model of the Universe. The Earth was assumed to be the center, for no better reason than "Why wouldn't it be?"

People like Copernicus and Galeleo stood up and said, I know it looks like that, but that's not the way it works. Having planted their flag on young Earth centric model, they couldn't back down. After all, if they got that wrong, it might bring everything else into question. Ever since those days, it's been a slow retreat as astronomy and geology marched forward.

Arguing with someone who thinks the story of Noah and the Ark is historical is a supreme waste of time.

 

[WAB]

After Bilbo gives the Ring to Frodo, he begins to age rapidly, and is old and decrepit when he finally goes to the Grey Havens.

Gollum was just a regular Stoor called Smeagol. When he acquires the Ring, he keeps it for 800 years, and transforms into a ghoulish creature with time, homelessness, exposure, seclusion, harassment from his Other, as well as mental torment from the Ring and Sauron, not to mention having to eat raw fish, and not having genitals. (Imagine living for 800 years and not being able to rub one out! I think you'd have a bad attitude as well.)

So, Gollum loses the Ring to Bilbo when the latter was about 60. How come Gollum does not rapidly age the way Bilbo did when he gave the Ring to Frodo? It is 70 years from the time he loses the Ring to the time he dies in Mordor. But he stays the same. And is nimble as hell for an old coot.

These are important questions!

And another thing, why don't the characters in LOTR go to the bathroom, or bathe, or ever change their clothes?!

Ark schmark!

 

[Learner]

Indeed Tigers.

If we go by the current geological evidence.
It seems your analysis is quite correct.

No it doesn't:

It doesn't what?

the collision of tectonic plates formed the mountains.

the rapid rise of the mountain chain from the sea floor over the last 15 to 20 million years.

uplift from tectonic activity.

2.7-million-year-old

Your own source says that the mountains rose out of the sea, due to tectonic activity, over millions of years.

Mountains rising out of the sea means a global flood then?

This should be the atheists "counter" claim for the flood having happened naturally..
Denying there was never oceans covering land when the evidence suggests this...gives the impression of desperation, erroneously just for the sake to oppose the bible.

That's completely the opposite of an "analysis" that absurdly suggests that the sea rose over the mountains, in less than a year.

They're opposite ideas sure....

If we go by the evidence you yourself just posted, it is immediately obvious that Tigers' "analysis" is
utter tripe.

...but Tigers said:

I was responding to the comment that says that there is not enough water to cover all the land on earth. There is more than enough water to cover the earth provided certain conditions are met.

I was highlighting in my previous post He was right here.

 

[pood]

I was responding to the comment that says that there is not enough water to cover all the land on earth. There is more than enough water to cover the earth provided certain conditions are met.

I was highlighting in my previous post He was right here.

No, he wasn’t.

But what does “certain conditions” mean?

That Goddie magicked more water into existence?



Why do you think the geologic record disproves a global flood?

 

[Learner]

I was responding to the comment that says that there is not enough water to cover all the land on earth. There is more than enough water to cover the earth provided certain conditions are met.

I was highlighting in my previous post He was right here.

No, he wasn’t.

But what does “certain conditions” mean?

He explained previously that the exposed land could fit in the seas.

That Goddie magicked more water into existence?

Um..no. The water existed...God directed it if you read the not-a-magic book ...
God says magic and witchcraft etc..is not good.

Why do you think the geologic record disproves a global flood?

You mean according to Noah I'm sure. Not that the mountains and pretty much everywhere on earth you'll find evidence of past sea life on dry land as well as mountains.

 

[pood]

I was responding to the comment that says that there is not enough water to cover all the land on earth. There is more than enough water to cover the earth provided certain conditions are met.

I was highlighting in my previous post He was right here.

No, he wasn’t.

But what does “certain conditions” mean?

He explained previously if the exposed land h

“If the exposed land h.” OK.

That Goddie magicked more water into existence?

Um..no. The water existed...God directed it l

“God directed it I.” Huh?

God says magic and witchcraft etc..is not good.

Why do you think the geologic record disproves a global flood?

You mean according to Noah I'm sure. Not that the mountains and pretty much everywhere on earth you'll find evidence of past sea life on dry land as well as mountains.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Could you please try to write more clearly?

 

[pood]

I think you edited the errors in your previous post, so OK.

It’s still rubbish.

 

[Learner]

I was responding to the comment that says that there is not enough water to cover all the land on earth. There is more than enough water to cover the earth provided certain conditions are met.

I was highlighting in my previous post He was right here.

No, he wasn’t.

But what does “certain conditions” mean?

He explained previously if the exposed land h

“If the exposed land h.” OK.

That Goddie magicked more water into existence?

Um..no. The water existed...God directed it l

“God directed it I.” Huh?

Yeah...no Wands

God says magic and witchcraft etc..is not good.

Why do you think the geologic record disproves a global flood?

You mean according to Noah I'm sure. Not that the mountains and pretty much everywhere on earth you'll find evidence of past sea life on dry land as well as mountains.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Could you please try to write more clearly?

Pardon me.. perhaps later after a good rest

 

[bilby]

Which is an excellent bit of desperate ad-hoc reasoning, right up until somebody points out that a very large proportion of boat owners at the time were fishermen. Like, professional fishermen, who made their livings by catching enough fish to have some to eat, and some left over to trade.

Presuming they can find fish to catch in an ocean that has just largely turned into a dead zone due to rapid temperature change.

Fishes don't have the "breath of life", and so were unaffected by the flood, just like plants were.

21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

The sudden addition of an entire extra ocean atop their usual habitat would not be good for the fishies.

Well, yes, if we want to ignore the Bible, of course that's true.

Indeed, the sudden addition of an entire extra ocean atop their usual habitat would not only not be good for the fishies, it would disrupt geochemistry, microbiota, and of course both aquatic and terrestrial plant life so severely as to make the Permian extinction look like a picnic, and Noah and his crew would be dead too.

Unless the Ark was airtight, had its own independent air supply and stocks of alr, (as well as food and water), and they and their descendants stayed in it for at least several tens of thousands of years until the atmosphere once again became breathable for vertebrate life.

But the Bible says Noah was growing grapes and making wine shortly after the waters receeded, so the miraculous survival of the fishes due to their failure to possess "breath of life" seems like a fairly minor concession.

 

[bilby]

Arguing with someone who thinks the story of Noah and the Ark is historical is a supreme waste of time.

IIDB is my go-to site for arguments that are a complete waste of time.

Though really, they are not complete. Entertainment is a good way to spend time, and I do find it quite entertaining to discuss why absurd ideas are, in fact, absurd; Along with the thinking about the research and experimental and observational activities that are needed to show each idea to be wrong (and thereby show how we know what is right).

Hypotheticals can be interesting, even if they are crazy. And it's good practice in scientific first-principles to find ways to empirically demonstrate the falsehood of bizarre assertions - not least given how bizarre some widely accepted empirical observations actually are (eg the double slit experiment showing the quantum nature of photon interference, which is totally crazy, but observably true).

 

[bilby]

Indeed Tigers.

If we go by the current geological evidence.
It seems your analysis is quite correct.

No it doesn't:

It doesn't what?

It doesn't seem that his analysis is quite correct.

Are you having trouble with English comprehension? That three word sentence clearly refers to, and contradicts, the sentence that preceeds it.

the collision of tectonic plates formed the mountains.

the rapid rise of the mountain chain from the sea floor over the last 15 to 20 million years.

uplift from tectonic activity.

2.7-million-year-old

Your own source says that the mountains rose out of the sea, due to tectonic activity, over millions of years.

Mountains rising out of the sea means a global flood then?

No. It explains how aquatic fossils can be found on mountaintops, without there ever having been a global flood.

This should be the atheists "counter" claim for the flood having happened naturally..
Denying there was never oceans covering land when the evidence suggests this...gives the impression of desperation, erroneously just for the sake to oppose the bible.

Or it simply means that you have (as usual) misinterpreted what the evidence "suggests".

Thinking things through is hard, but you really should at least try. Indeed, doing so is a prerequisite if you wish to ever render your username even vaguely true.

That's completely the opposite of an "analysis" that absurdly suggests that the sea rose over the mountains, in less than a year.

They're opposite ideas sure....

But explain the same observation - aquatic fossils at the tops of mountains.

You are saying "if we find fossil fish on mountain tops, then the ONLY explaination is that the mountains must once have been underwater".

But I (and the geological evidence you quoted, which contradicts you, but which you apparently didn't comprehend), say "Not so fast! There are TWO possible explanations. EITHER the mountains must once have been underwater; OR the rocks formed underwater, and were then pushed up into mountains later on - and all the evidence points to the latter explanation".

Rocks pushing up into mountains seems on its face to be a bit silly; But we now know it actually happens (and is still happening). It is a very slow process - takes millions of years - and is driven by something called "plate tectonics".

If we go by the evidence you yourself just posted, it is immediately obvious that Tigers' "analysis" is
utter tripe.

...but Tigers said:

I was responding to the comment that says that there is not enough water to cover all the land on earth. There is more than enough water to cover the earth provided certain conditions are met.

I was highlighting in my previous post He was right here.

And I pointed out that this is both utterly different from the events described in the Bible (and therefore irrelevant to Noah's story); And trivially true of any water covered solid sphere with sufficient gravity (and therefore uninteresting and obvious).

The question is, "Was there ever a global flood", and the answer is "Observably, there was NOT".

Many of the details of why your "suggestion", that mountaintop fossils say otherwise, is wrong are contained in your very own post, thereby making you look like a complete clown.

And now that you are in a hole, you seem keen to reinforce that appearance by continuing to dig.

Is your choice of username just a bad joke, or an attempt at ironic humour through self-contradiction?

 

[Elixir]

People like Copernicus and Galeleo stood up and said, I know it looks like that, but that's not the way it works. Having planted their flag on young Earth centric model, they couldn't back down. After all, if they got that wrong, it might bring everything else into question. Ever since those days, it's been a slow retreat as astronomy and geology marched forward.

Why such a big deal? If you’re in a mall, looking at a map of the mall because you’ve been looking for the food court for the last two hours, the little red arrow labeled “YOU ARE HERE” is only intended to orient you. Its position on the map is not an indication of your location’s heightened importance, even if it’s right in the very middle. You’re still lost. Get over it.

 

[bilby]

If the universe has a finite age, then the observable universe is, due to the constraints imposed by Einstein, centred on the observer. Not only is the Earth the centre of the observable universe; I, personally, am the exact centre of the observable universe (as are we all).

That we each inhabit different, unique, and self-centred universes is clearly apparent to anyone who reads YouTube comments.

 

[Bronzeage]

If the universe has a finite age, then the observable universe is, due to the constraints imposed by Einstein, centred on the observer. Not only is the Earth the centre of the observable universe; I, personally, am the exact centre of the observable universe (as are we all).

That we each inhabit different, unique, and self-centred universes is clearly apparent to anyone who reads YouTube comments.

If you have two working eyes(higher than average), the center of the observable universe will depend upon whether both eyes are open at the same time.