Bible: Facts or Truths? (Split)

[Brewtus]

This is all so simple to me.

If I believe in God and I'm wrong....No big deal.

If I don't believe in God and I'm wrong....d'uh!!!

Pascal's Wager is a sucker bet.

 

[lvbuckeye]

I shall also add.... how were these beasts fed? Let us agree that Lions exist and would be on the ark. What was fed these beasts for 40 days? Nothing? Grain? Lions, of course, are meat eating animals. Should they not suffocate, why did they not starve? Again, consider the Tryanosaur... how was it fed? Of course, even if we assume that each animal became a herbivore for 40 days, in as much as the entire world was flooded, all food stores must have also been on board. 40 days of rations for the entire population of the world...

first, the animals did not need to be fully mature.
second, it is commonly held that all antedeluvian creatures were herbivores, considering the post flood commission given to Noah in Genesis 9.
third, regarding all the different species, the Hebrew word which is translated into 'kind' in English does not indicate species, but rather genus. in each distinct ancestor genus was contained all the information contained in all the specific species we see today. it is only through separation and breeding and a narrowing of the gene pool that the genetic gaps have widened so that each individual species is no longer able to mix with others of their kind. even so, many species are able to interbreed with others of their kind even today; there are zebroids and camas, and ligers and so on. SO, there weren't 19 separate species of cat on the ark, there were only two cats. the same goes on down the whole taxonomical list.

This, of course, is a serious problem which one must have an answer for to believe. My guess is, one defers to God's more magical side. In doing so - while maintaing faith - we leave the rational world behind.... and frankly, in leaving the rational world behind, we insult God by a tacit admission that he created something which cannot possibly be without supernatural intervention. If supernatural intervention is required, it would mean God is not so infallibale as we'd like... for, was it Not God himself who made that which he decided he needed to destroy via the flood anyway? While this may well be devine providence, it begs the question... why, God.. didn't you see this coming?

it is pointless to quote Bible passages to you, even if it would answer your questions, so i won't bother. a fallible man is NOT indicative of a fallible God, because- here's the shocker: GOD CREATED MAN TO FALL, in order that God might be glorified. GOD creates sin. GOD creates evil. GOD created the shining one that tempted Eve to eat the fruit. GOD placed the serpent in the Garden of Eden. GOD placed the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden. look at the very words "Let us create Man in our image." in order for man to truely be in God's image, man HAD to have a knowledge of good and evil; however the kicker is that man cannot possibly know what sin is UNTIL HE HAS PARTICIPATED IN SIN. GOD knows that we cannot possibly hope to meet the mark, because we cannot simultaneously be innocent and also be in His image, which is why He sent His Son Jesus Christ- the Lamb that was slain from the foundations of the world, to atone for our transgressions. God exists outside of the constraints of time. He knows the end from the beginning. God sacrificed Himself for us before He even created us.

 

[lvbuckeye]

Well, that is all good, but what does correct geological sediment dating have to do with a belief in God? Nothing, unless you link it with a belief in literal Biblical facts. And there is no need to, IMHO. Here, we are simply talking about another form of the universe revolves around the earth controversy.

how is it a controversy? modern physics has shown that there are at least 11 dimensions, possibly 14, and maybe even as many as 20. we exists in 3 dimensions, and pass through a fourth- we can only move one way through time- we can only go forward and look back, we cannot go back and we cannot look forward. we cannot remember tomorrow.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

first, the animals did not need to be fully mature.
second, it is commonly held that all antedeluvian creatures were herbivores, considering the post flood commission given to Noah in Genesis 9.
third, regarding all the different species, the Hebrew word which is translated into 'kind' in English does not indicate species, but rather genus. in each distinct ancestor genus was contained all the information contained in all the specific species we see today. it is only through separation and breeding and a narrowing of the gene pool that the genetic gaps have widened so that each individual species is no longer able to mix with others of their kind. even so, many species are able to interbreed with others of their kind even today; there are zebroids and camas, and ligers and so on. SO, there weren't 19 separate species of cat on the ark, there were only two cats. the same goes on down the whole taxonomical list.

OK.. I'll try and take this in turn.
1 - The Animals need not be fully mature. I suppose that could be true, but without Biblical citation I'm at a loss as to how you could advance that notion. As you have warned me, seems you're entering the world of speculation. Likewise, as I indicated in my posts, there are still ventilation and food problems which you simply ignore. I'm sure if I gave it more thought, I might come up with other logistical problems for you to consider, but until you address these two, I'll not seek to overburden you.
2 - Antediluvian creatures. I guess I'll need more information on the nature of antediluvian creatures. If these "giants" are to be understood as dinosaurs, for example, it's pretty clear that the Tyrannosaur would be hard pressed to succeed with it's teeth at surviving on plants. I suppose it might be possible, though inefficient, but then aren't we speculating? How about animals which stun their prey with poison? I find it difficult to imagine a use for stunning capabilities if you're a non-predatory herbivore.
After the fall, these - or some of these - creatures became predatory. On what theory? The fall only requires death, not that animals now prey on each other... If I'm wrong, why are there herbivores today, shouldn't they now all be carnivores as a consequence of the fall? If you are able, please provide Biblical citation as to the nature of these creatures. I confess, I am not aware of any Biblical support for your contention, which appears highly speculative... which, as you've made no mistake about, you are no champion of speculation.
3 - Lets assume then that the Genus information you speculate about is true. Lets even go so far as to assume that at this level of categorization, there's enough room on the Ark (which, I would suggest is still unlikely, but I won't belabor the point, as I believe your theory fails regardless). You do not get past the ventilation or feeding problems in the first instance, and in the second, your mechanism for explaining why there is such diversity now is largely unexplained. I can't help but note my puzzlement that you're willing to accept this diversity as possible in a time frame of 6,000 years (Although, I note you also fail to cite to any particular time frame at all as I requested above.) but are unwilling to believe the same process you describe on the scale of Billions of years.

Shall I assume that you've abandoned any discussion of your mistaken remarks about the Colorado River's delta, a discussion of under what processes the Himalayas have formed (with, of course, Biblical support and not conjecture) and a response to my post about that Japanese Lake?

it is pointless to quote Bible passages to you, even if it would answer your questions, so i won't bother.

I'm begging you to do so, actually. Your unwillingness to do so troubles me. Indeed, it has been several pages now that when asked to "put up or shut up" you've opted to try and get out of putting up by suggesting that it is I who has the problem.

a fallible man is NOT indicative of a fallible God, because- here's the shocker: GOD CREATED MAN TO FALL, in order that God might be glorified. GOD creates sin. GOD creates evil. GOD created the shining one that tempted Eve to eat the fruit. GOD placed the serpent in the Garden of Eden. GOD placed the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden. look at the very words "Let us create Man in our image." in order for man to truely be in God's image, man HAD to have a knowledge of good and evil; however the kicker is that man cannot possibly know what sin is UNTIL HE HAS PARTICIPATED IN SIN. GOD knows that we cannot possibly hope to meet the mark, because we cannot simultaneously be innocent and also be in His image, which is why He sent His Son Jesus Christ- the Lamb that was slain from the foundations of the world, to atone for our transgressions. God exists outside of the constraints of time. He knows the end from the beginning. God sacrificed Himself for us before He even created us.

I have no idea where you think I've made arguments to the contrary in this thread. I would be compelled to agree, for example, that God created Evil. In any case, this paragraph seems to me highly displaced in the present discussion, arguing the irrelevant as if to bolster your position - which sadly remains in most part unannounced.

 

[sandgk]

how is it a controversy? modern physics has shown that there are at least 11 dimensions, possibly 14, and maybe even as many as 20.

Not picking on you lv but this jumped out at me, and I thought a minor clarification might be in order.
Modern physics has done many things. However, it has not shown that there are at least (pick a number from 11 to 20) dimensions. At least not in the manner say that physics has shown there are electrons, neutrons and the like, which is to say, by experimentation. This is because the entire area of multi-dimensional physics is at root theoretical. Thus it would be true to say that modern theoretical physics has provided mathematical models for space-time that either require, are best explained in terms of, or do themselves yield, a larger number of dimensions than we can directly observe or physically appreciate.

Sadly, without that tangible link it is impossible to directly demonstrate said higher dimensions, thus they have never been shown in the manner of classical physics - through experimentation

Conversely, this does not mean that there really are only three lineal dimensions and one temporal dimension - even though that is all that classical physics and mechanics require or can eloquently demonstrate (show).

 

[Gatorubet]

Not picking on you lv but this jumped out at me, and I thought a minor clarification might be in order.
Modern physics has done many things. However, it has not shown that there are at least (pick a number from 11 to 20) dimensions. At least not in the manner say that physics has shown there are electrons, neutrons and the like, which is to say, by experimentation. This is because the entire area of multi-dimensional physics is at root theoretical. Thus it would be true to say that modern theoretical physics has provided mathematical models for space-time that either require, are best explained in terms of, or do themselves yield, a larger number of dimensions than we can directly observe or physically appreciate.

Sadly, without that tangible link it is impossible to directly demonstrate said higher dimensions, thus they have never been shown in the manner of classical physics - through experimentation

Conversely, this does not mean that there really are only three lineal dimensions and one temporal dimension - even though that is all that classical physics and mechanics require or can eloquently demonstrate (show).

I was going to answer, but I'm tired after 19 posts on the other BPs

 

[lvbuckeye]

OK.. I'll try and take this in turn.
1 - The Animals need not be fully mature. I suppose that could be true, but without Biblical citation I'm at a loss as to how you could advance that notion. As you have warned me, seems you're entering the world of speculation. Likewise, as I indicated in my posts, there are still ventilation and food problems which you simply ignore. I'm sure if I gave it more thought, I might come up with other logistical problems for you to consider, but until you address these two, I'll not seek to overburden you.

you are asking me to write a book. :)

regarding ventilation, where does it say that each deck was sealed off from the others? it doesn't. regarding the window, the command that God gave to Noah called for a tsohar, which is quite different than the tradition Hebrew word for window challown which is what Noah opened in order to let the birds out. tsohar is more indicative of a light source or reflective light than an opening. in conclusion, there was almost certainly more than one opening in the ark.

regarding food storage on the ark, i'm not quite sure that you fully appreciate the scale of it. it was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet tall, incidentally, making the absolute most stable design possible for a boat of that size. these dimensions also validate the Biblical account, and invalidate the Utnapishtim account in the Gilgamesh epic, as the Babylonian account recalls a cube-shaped ark. the Utnapishtim (whose name, incidentally correlates exactly to the Hebrew description for Noah: that he was a just man, perfect in his generations) tale in the Gilgamesh epic is a bastardization of the Genesis account.

but anyway, back to the ark. its length rivaled that of modern naval destroyers, and it was considerably wider. each deck was approximately 30,000 square feet, giving a total of 90,000 square feet of deck surface. that would make one hundred 300 foot rooms on each deck, for a total of 300 rooms, but consider that the average room size on a modern cruise ship is somewhat less than 200 square feet. also consider the fact that the average size of all animals is approximate to that of a sheep. an animal of that size would scarcely need a 10x10 room, let alone 17x17 which would give a 300 square foot total. if each room averaged the 60x80 inches- more than enough room for two sheep-sized animals- there would be a total of nearly 2,700 rooms. including extinct animals, there are about 8,000 genera in the animal kingdom, which seems like an incredible total, well, because it is. it would mean that there were 16,000 animals on the Ark, which leads to obvious problems. however, paleontologists have a tendency to create a new genera for each new fossil specimen found, so the total number was likely considerably lower. additionally, the Bible states that the flood destroyed 'every living thing that breathes from its nostrils,' which immediately excludes the insect world, which breathe through a different apparatus. however, even if it doesn't, and insects' breathing apparatus counts, it won't make too much of an impact. bugs are very small, you see. which brings up another point, the median size of living creatures is about the size of a rat, not a sheep.

however, the above dimensions only take into account the surface area of the decks. the total volume of the ark was approximately 1.5 million cubic feet. i read somewhere that 1.5 million cubic feet is equivalent to 522 railroad stock cars, which each can hold 240 sheep. the railroad car analogy is a good one, considering that circuses have used trains to transport lions, tigers, bears, elephants, giraffes, etc. for a hundred years. doing the arithmetic gives a total possible number of 125,280 sheep-sized animals, in a 1.5 million cubic foot space. however, i am unable to locate the dimensions of a railroad stock car. a box car is roughly 50x12x10 for a total of 6,000 cubic feet; and the total volume of the ark approximates 253 box cars. so if the number of sheep remains 240, then the total amount of sheep-sized animals would be 60,720. suffice to say that if there is enough room for 60,000+ sheep-sized animals in the Ark, then the high estimate of 16,000 sounds completely reasonable when it comes to storing the food necessary. by stacking them in pens on the decks, you could fit all the animals in less than half of the total space.

2 - Antediluvian creatures. I guess I'll need more information on the nature of antediluvian creatures. If these "giants" are to be understood as dinosaurs, for example, it's pretty clear that the Tyrannosaur would be hard pressed to succeed with it's teeth at surviving on plants. I suppose it might be possible, though inefficient, but then aren't we speculating? How about animals which stun their prey with poison? I find it difficult to imagine a use for stunning capabilities if you're a non-predatory herbivore.

ah, the giants. they are NOT dinosaurs. the Hebrew is pretty clear on that, but that needs to be saved for a later post. regarding carnivorous creatures seeming unable to eat anything but meat, dogs eat plants all the time. so do bears. so do cats for that matter.

After the fall, these - or some of these - creatures became predatory. On what theory? The fall only requires death, not that animals now prey on each other... If I'm wrong, why are there herbivores today, shouldn't they now all be carnivores as a consequence of the fall? If you are able, please provide Biblical citation as to the nature of these creatures. I confess, I am not aware of any Biblical support for your contention, which appears highly speculative... which, as you've made no mistake about, you are no champion of speculation.

i must inquire, when did i ever assert that animals became predatory after the fall? that's not my assumption. i know that in Genesis 1:29-30, all plant life is given to the creatures and man to eat, and in Genesis 9:2,3- that's after the flood- Noah is given permission to eat animals. that passage also says that fear and dread of man shall now be upon the animals, indicating, that animals didn't have fear and dread of man prior to the flood. however, to go back to the fall and the curse, God cursed the ground, but i am not aware of any curse of the animals. so, to answer your question, or rather, to not answer it, i will say, i don't know.

3 - Lets assume then that the Genus information you speculate about is true. Lets even go so far as to assume that at this level of categorization, there's enough room on the Ark (which, I would suggest is still unlikely, but I won't belabor the point, as I believe your theory fails regardless). You do not get past the ventilation or feeding problems in the first instance, and in the second, your mechanism for explaining why there is such diversity now is largely unexplained. I can't help but note my puzzlement that you're willing to accept this diversity as possible in a time frame of 6,000 years (Although, I note you also fail to cite to any particular time frame at all as I requested above.) but are unwilling to believe the same process you describe on the scale of Billions of years.

my hesitance to hazard a guess as to the age of the earth- which is separate from the question regarding the time span of life on earth- resides in the distinction between Genesis 1:2 and Genesis 1:3. the first day occurred when God created light and separated it from darkness. prior to that separation there was nothing to gauge the passage of time. since time did not exist prior the that, there is no way to judge how "old" the earth is. further, the sun, moon and stars were not created until the fourth day, and were placed in the heavens "for signs and seasons, months and years." additionally, there is no indication regarding how long Adam and Eve were residing the in the Garden before the fall. and there is that thing about the rotation of the earth slowing down, and years only being counted as 360 days in the past. furthermore, what is time anyway? my dogs sure don't have any concept of it. i can go out to get the mail, and they act like they thought they'd never see me again when i come back in. i'm sure that doesn't answer your question, but whatever...

regarding the diversity we see today, it shouldn't be too difficult to comprehend. how many horse generations can be born in 6,000 years? it shouldn't be too difficult to visualize the horse line splitting up through separation and breeding. the two that got off the ark contained the DNA information which led to the zebras, donkeys, etc. recall that in our earlier discussions, i have never denied what people like to call microevolution. it's macroevolution that i have a problem with.

Shall I assume that you've abandoned any discussion of your mistaken remarks about the Colorado River's delta, a discussion of under what processes the Himalayas have formed (with, of course, Biblical support and not conjecture) and a response to my post about that Japanese Lake?

no. the arithmetic of the Colorado delta is making my head hurt... trying to figure out if a 3125 square mile delta is compatible with the erosion of 800 cubic miles of rock... *ouch* i will point out that Spirit Lake Canyon at Mt. St. Helen's was carved in 5 months, and layered strata formed in three hours. there's a lot of other stuff at Mt St Helen's that supports the catastrophist view... infer what you will... we essentially agree regarding the Himalayas; the only difference is you apply incremental movement over an inordinate amount of time, and i apply rapid movement over a short period of time. i think i've already touched on the Biblical stance regarding the formations of the mountains when i mentioned the breaking up of the great foundations of the deep. i feel that the hydoplate theory is a pretty solid model of how the earth's crust rapidly split apart, the resultant crash of the plates on the other side caused the mountains to rise.

I'm begging you to do so, actually. Your unwillingness to do so troubles me. Indeed, it has been several pages now that when asked to "put up or shut up" you've opted to try and get out of putting up by suggesting that it is I who has the problem.

i have not suggested that you have a problem. what i have implied is that you would be unwilling to look objectively at what i link as evidence, much as i would greet your supporting evidence with a VERY healthy amount of skepticism... i believe i covered the underlying issue in my post regarding spiritualism versus naturalism.

I have no idea where you think I've made arguments to the contrary in this thread. I would be compelled to agree, for example, that God created Evil. In any case, this paragraph seems to me highly displaced in the present discussion, arguing the irrelevant as if to bolster your position - which sadly remains in most part unannounced.

would you like to revisit what you said? you questioned the infallibility of God by positing that He failed in His creation because man failed. i addressed that question. let's try it this way, if you perform an experiment and it fails, does that make you a failure?

i probably missed some stuff, but i quit for now... someone better give me some rep for this, for the volume alone. :)

 

[lvbuckeye]

just wanted to ask you guys who don't take Genesis literally, if the Genesis flood account is just a myth, then why do Matthew 24:37-38, Luke 3:36, Luke 17:26-27, Hebrews 11:17, 1 Peter 3:20, and 2 Peter 2:5 all mention Noah?

the Matthew and Luke accounts are very similar... they are referencing something that Jesus Christ said will be occurring in the last days before His return that was also occurring during the days of Noah... and it's something that i'm pretty sure no one ever told you in Sunday School. who can tell me what that is?

BKB, you brushed up against it earlier...

 

[MaxBuck]

just wanted to ask you guys who don't take Genesis literally, if the Genesis flood account is just a myth, then why do Matthew 24:37-38, Luke 3:36, Luke 17:26-27, Hebrews 11:17, 1 Peter 3:20, and 2 Peter 2:5 all mention Noah?

the Matthew and Luke accounts are very similar... they are referencing something that Jesus Christ said will be occurring in the last days before His return that was also occurring during the days of Noah... and it's something that i'm pretty sure no one ever told you in Sunday School. who can tell me what that is?

BKB, you brushed up against it earlier...

lv, you are not about to be persuaded that the Bible is better read as instructional and allegorical; you prefer to see it as prophetic and factual, and to look for "hidden signs." That will never be my view, because I think the Bible was intended by God to be directional as to how to live our lives, and to not be studied as one studies tea leaves, looking for "predictions" where none exist.

Have fun on this thread with all the other fine folks.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

LV - I'm thinking of the best way to respond to your post in terms of format. As you mention, it is very long. I will try and capture your arguments without block quoting. I hope this is satisfactory.

First, I have to note, you make this remark which I find puzzling: "In conclusion, there was almost certainly more than one opening in the ark." Genesis 6:14-16 is very specific about the Ark's specifications, and you are the Biblical literalist. God instructed Noah to build an Ark with one window and one door (which, incidentally, remained closed most the time). If you suspect more openings, you're going to have to support your assertion.

You offer additional speculation by saying the Bible only required that one genus of animal, and not species, be on the vessel. Unsupported. Likewise, it remains unsupported that juvenile or adult creatures we taken, you assume juveniles when it suits you. You likewise have failed to support how these animals we fed, both in terms of how much food was required to be on board along with the problematic who fed them, and equally important where did the waste go (that is, who shoveled the shit in to the sea?)? Likwise, you gloss over the ventilation problem. And.. we haven't even talked yet about all the plants Noah had to take to repopulate their numbers after the flood, nor the fact that there were 7 (possibly 14) of every "Clean" animal.

In short, you're simply speculating. I'm afraid, therefore, your theory is as fragile as you want Science to be viewed. I don't see the point in going line by line and countering your conclusory and self serving contentions regarding how many animals were taken. You have offered NO suggestion of proof, and I won't do the work for you.

While I appluad your use of math in discussion of the Ark's dimensions you have not established the vessel's size is up to the task required of it. Here's a much bigger ship It is 1,181 feet long (almost 3 times as long as the Ark), 154 feet wide (twice as wide as the Ark) and sits 213 feet above the water line (that is, there is more ship below too) (which is 4 times as high as the Ark. It has a gross tonnage of 220,000 (That's how much the ship can carry) The Ark is estimated to have 14,000 gross tonnage capacity based on the dimensions. Lets not even consider the weight of the animals aboard, let's consider only the food needed to feed them all for 40 days (even though they were aboard longer than 40 days, waiting for the waters to recede) A single elephant eats about 500 pounds a day. That's one ton of food every 4 days, or 20,000 tons for 40 days. I should also note, even though the Ark is considerably smaller than the ship I linked to, Noah sure did have his worked cut out for him to build the thing. Not sure how long it took Noah to build the Ark.... let alone collecting all the animals, etc..

Lets now mention the amount of water required to conform to the tale..
To cover the earth with water, to the required depth (that of at least as tall as Everest) would require the following: Everest is 348,336 inches tall. To reach that height in 40 days, it would have to rain 8,708 inches per day, uniformly over the entire earth. That's 363 inches per hour, or six inches per minute.

For enough rain to fall in a period of 40 days to reach the peak of this mountain, the cloud formations would have to drop 8,708 inches of rain per day uniformly over all the earth. This would amount to 363 inches per hour or six inches per minute.... a tenth of an inch per second. I know you live in a desert, but let me assure you, that's a SHITLOAD of rain. The present known record for rainfall is 96" falling over 4 days That comes out to be an inch per hour, or .01 per second.

I'm gonna leave it at that. I don't want this post to become unweildy.

But, I will answer this:

just wanted to ask you guys who don't take Genesis literally, if the Genesis flood account is just a myth, then why do Matthew 24:37-38, Luke 3:36, Luke 17:26-27, Hebrews 11:17, 1 Peter 3:20, and 2 Peter 2:5 all mention Noah?

Because they were aware of the story? Because I mentioned Harry Potter a number of posts back, is he now a real person, and the 7 book series a facutal biography? Of course not.

 

[AKAK]

What about fish?

 

[sandgk]

What about fish?

Must have been taken by all the animals that left - "so long, and thanks for all the fish."

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Thanks to AKAK for pointing out a math error I made

A single elephant eats about 500 pounds a day. That's one ton of food every 4 days, or 20,000 tons for 40 days. I should also note, even though the Ark is considerably smaller than the ship I linked to, Noah sure did have his worked cut out for him to build the thing. Not sure how long it took Noah to build the Ark.... let alone collecting all the animals, etc..

1 ton every 4 days = 20 tons for 40 days, not 20,000 tons.

Given that mistake I have to do more analysis than I was prepared for... This post reprsents a place holder for that analysis...

As I mentioned, the animals were on the ark for longer than 40 days,

Gen 7:24 -And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days. (I don't know if this mean in addition to the 40 days of rain, or just a total, inclusive.. I'll go with the lesser figure - and we'll also assume that Noah considered these animals "unclean" otehrwise, there'd be 7 of them on board - mosianic law would, I believe, have them defined as "unclean" but, Moses came later, so it's unknown if Noah would have understood the distinction. We'll presume he did)

20* x 150 = 3,000 Tons for a single Elephant. For 2 = 6,000 tons. Nearly half of the capacity of 14,400 tons is devoted to feeding 2 animals. (And, doesn't include the animal's themselves in the weight)

LV said we need to concern ourselves with the Genus level, and there are two genus of Elephant. Now we have food requirements of 12,000 Tons. We have not included Mastadons, Mammoths, or the heavy eating Saropauds, nor have we included the weight of these beasts. The boat cannot store enough food to feed them, and we've only dealt with 4 animals, and we've assume Noah knew before hand that he'd only need 150 days rations.

Also - upon doing some research, I came across this which I'd like to see LV's response to...

It address the population of humans (to say nothing of the population of animals, let alone their diversity along the species level... )

If we create a simple formula using today's population of ~6 billion, and figure in the starting population (8 individuals), and the starting time (4360 YBP), we get an annual growth rate of about 0.0047. Since that IS what happened, according to creationists, and it IS the only possible explanation for today's human population then...

1. At Christ's death there were only about half a million people in the whole world!
2. At the time the Israelites entered Canaan, (about 1180 BCE) we get a world population of 2024! By the time you divide that up between Egypt, Canaan, the rest of the world, and Israel, that leaves maybe 6 or 7 people for the Israelite army!
3. If we go back to the time that the Jews were expelled from Egypt, in 1560 BCE, we get a world population of only 340 people!
4. In 2300 BCE there were only about 10 people on Earth! How did fewer than a dozen people build the pyramids?

(and from another contributor) Those silly Chinese, just building and building, oblivious to the Flood and all its implications. Around 200 BCE, the Chinese built two great monuments: the first section of the Great Wall and a tomb for their first emperor. The equation from creationists says there were only around 170,000 people in the world, while the historians are quite certain the Emperor dedicated 300,000 soldiers immediately to the task of the Great Wall. Man, that's pretty rough, right? Now the tomb...700,000 citizens at the very least cooperated to build this massive monument to their leader. That's a minimum of 1 million in this part of the world at this time.

Link

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

By the way, I would like to note, I have not spoken about the other arguments on the table (ie Lake Suigetsu and the Colorado river delta (which LV appears to deny because he can't understand the math) for purposes of focusing on the Flood discussion. I am hopeful we can return to these other discussions, but treating each in one post is growing cumbersome.

 

[lvbuckeye]

LV - I'm thinking of the best way to respond to your post in terms of format. As you mention, it is very long. I will try and capture your arguments without block quoting. I hope this is satisfactory.

i block quote.

First, I have to note, you make this remark which I find puzzling: "In conclusion, there was almost certainly more than one opening in the ark." Genesis 6:14-16 is very specific about the Ark's specifications, and you are the Biblical literalist. God instructed Noah to build an Ark with one window and one door (which, incidentally, remained closed most the time). If you suspect more openings, you're going to have to support your assertion.

you obviously didn't pay attention:
Genesis 6:16: "Build a tshohar," which is an opening for a light source.
Genesis 8:6: "Noah opened a challown," which is a window.
two different things. two different openings.

You offer additional speculation by saying the Bible only required that one genus of animal, and not species, be on the vessel. Unsupported. Likewise, it remains unsupported that juvenile or adult creatures we taken, you assume juveniles when it suits you. You likewise have failed to support how these animals we fed, both in terms of how much food was required to be on board along with the problematic who fed them, and equally important where did the waste go (that is, who shoveled the shit in to the sea?)? Likwise, you gloss over the ventilation problem. And.. we haven't even talked yet about all the plants Noah had to take to repopulate their numbers after the flood, nor the fact that there were 7 (possibly 14) of every "Clean" animal.

Hebrew kind:READ THIS
WHO fed them? Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their three wives.
WHERE did the waste go? Noah, his wife, their three sons, and their three wives shoveled that shit in the sea.
i did not gloss over the ventilation problem. i addressed the fact that Noah did not build the ark with only one window, as you insist.
we have addressed the issue concerning the food when we determined that all the animals could have fit IN LESS THAN HALF OF THE ARK. when an ark contains enough room for 60,000 animals, and you put 16,000 in it, there is plenty of room left over for food, you see. also, considering how long it took Noah to build the Ark, there was plenty of time for all the grass, fruit, hay, etc, to dry out.

In short, you're simply speculating. I'm afraid, therefore, your theory is as fragile as you want Science to be viewed. I don't see the point in going line by line and countering your conclusory and self serving contentions regarding how many animals were taken. You have offered NO suggestion of proof, and I won't do the work for you.

ooookay.
do pictures of it convince you?

IT HAS A VISITOR'S CENTER!

IT WAS IN THE NEWSPAPER!

that part that looks like it says "Nuhum Gimisi" means "Noah's Big Boat."

edit: i'll go on a bit here. where is the oldest known civilization? Sumeria in Mesopotamia. Genesis 10 tells us that Noah's grandson founded Babel. where is that? in the land of Shinar. where is that? MESOPOTAMIA. why haven't more people visited the region and seen Noah's Ark for themselves? because it's in northern Iraq, where Saddam Hussein was killing the Kurds- direct descendants of Noah who have never left- for decades, not to mention the fact that it is near the Iranian border... not exactly a hot spot for tourism.

While I appluad your use of math in discussion of the Ark's dimensions you have not established the vessel's size is up to the task required of it. Here's a much bigger ship It is 1,181 feet long (almost 3 times as long as the Ark), 154 feet wide (twice as wide as the Ark) and sits 213 feet above the water line (that is, there is more ship below too) (which is 4 times as high as the Ark. It has a gross tonnage of 220,000 (That's how much the ship can carry) The Ark is estimated to have 14,000 gross tonnage capacity based on the dimensions. Lets not even consider the weight of the animals aboard, let's consider only the food needed to feed them all for 40 days (even though they were aboard longer than 40 days, waiting for the waters to recede) A single elephant eats about 500 pounds a day. That's one ton of food every 4 days, or 20,000 tons for 40 days. I should also note, even though the Ark is considerably smaller than the ship I linked to, Noah sure did have his worked cut out for him to build the thing. Not sure how long it took Noah to build the Ark.... let alone collecting all the animals, etc..

while i marvel at your colossal doubt, i am fairly confident that you understand the difference between the ship you linked and the Ark. the Ark was not covered with a steel hull. surely you can understand how it would have more buoyancy.
i noticed that it wasn't until the 4th google link that you found the 500 pound figure for elephant intake. nice deceptive tactics. the first two links stated as little as 220. that cuts your required weight by more than half.
the Bible says how long it took Noah to build the Ark. you don't believe the Bible, so i won't bother telling you.

Lets now mention the amount of water required to conform to the tale..
To cover the earth with water, to the required depth (that of at least as tall as Everest) would require the following: Everest is 348,336 inches tall. To reach that height in 40 days, it would have to rain 8,708 inches per day, uniformly over the entire earth. That's 363 inches per hour, or six inches per minute.

why do you insist that the waters must reach a height that would cover Mt Everest today?
1) we have already determined that water DID cover earth where the Himalayas are, including fossilized sea life, and sedimentary rock at the TOP of Mt Everest.
2) you contend that the mountains were not as high when the water covered them. I AGREE. your problem is that you assume that the current growth rate has been the same for millions of years.

For enough rain to fall in a period of 40 days to reach the peak of this mountain, the cloud formations would have to drop 8,708 inches of rain per day uniformly over all the earth. This would amount to 363 inches per hour or six inches per minute.... a tenth of an inch per second. I know you live in a desert, but let me assure you, that's a SHITLOAD of rain. The present known record for rainfall is 96" falling over 4 days That comes out to be an inch per hour, or .01 per second.

it didn't need to rain that much...

But, I will answer this:

Because they were aware of the story? Because I mentioned Harry Potter a number of posts back, is he now a real person, and the 7 book series a facutal biography? Of course not.

DO YOU NOT READ WHAT I POST? go back and read what Jesus said about Noah. if the story is a myth, then Jesus Christ is a liar, which would make the Bible NOT a book of 'truth' but a book of the most insidious lie ever invented.