Noah’s Ark

[noonereal]

I pointed out your hypocrisy and don't feel bad for true Christians...

I feel sorry for aLl dupes.

Orange cult dupes or religious cult dupes.
Funny how most times they are the same people.

 

[devildavid]

You complain because you think Christians pick and choose what to believe in the Bible and then when I tell you true Christians do not pick and choose, you still complain...I think you merely love to complain...

All Christians pick and choose. There is no one objectively true Christian set of beliefs.

 

[Ug make hammer]

All Christians pick and choose. There is no one objectively true Christian set of beliefs.

Literal truth of the Ark story is a signal of literalism though. People who believe it just because it's in the Bible, would believe anything.

Even Genesis only requires distortion of time to be resistant to disproof. All the different species of animal fitting on one boat, however ...

 

[Gordy327]

I don't believe you.

I don't care. And you still haven't answered my question. Why is that?

 

[Logicman]

I don't care. And you still haven't answered my question. Why is that?

Because I don't really care to feed your folly. It doesn't do any good. You just kick it all to the curb. Get a new thread and a new pooch to run around the arena. So far you've struck out.

 

[Gordy327]

Because I don't really care to feed your folly. It doesn't do any good. You just kick it all to the curb. Get a new thread and a new pooch to run around the arena. So far you've struck out.

I figured you were just cowardly deflecting and FOS as usual.

 

[rahl]

Explain why people were able to see the Ark 2,000 years ago.

They weren't.

Ancient references to Noah's Ark, cited by the 1st century Jewish historian Josephus:

“However, the Armenians call this place (the resting place of Noah’s Ark) ‘The Place of Descent,’ for the ark being saved in that place, its remains are shewn there by the inhabitants to this day.”

“Now all the writers of barbarian histories make mention of this flood and of this ark; among whom is Berosus the Chaldean; for when he is describing the circumstances of the flood, he goes on thus: ‘It is said there is still some part of the ship in Armenia, at the mountain of the Cordyeans; and that some people carry off pieces of the bitumen, which they take away and use chiefly as amulets for the averting of mischiefs.’ Hieronymus the Egyptian, also, who wrote the Phoenician Antiquities, and Mnaseas, and a great many more, make mention of the same. Nay, Nicolaus of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a particular relation about them, where he speaks thus: ‘There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses, the legislator of the Jews wrote.’”

https://www.peopleofar.com/2013/08/11/noahs-ark-in-the-mountains-of-armenia/

ALSO –

Interesting quote from about 180 AD:

"The remains of the Ark (of Noah) can be seen to this day in the Arabian mountains." - Theophilus. Theophilus was the Bishop of Antioch. Source: Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, by David Bercot, referencing the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2, pg. 117.

https://books.google.com/books?id=nFlVEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT81&lpg=PT81&dq=The+remains+of+the+Ark+(of+Noah)+can+be+seen+to+this+day+in+the+Arabian+mountains."+-+Theophilus&source=bl&ots=IqhwUDDBpR&sig=ACfU3U2kt_K01oMXpSsx8Ml0De5QM9gjCQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjtyP7Q0rv1AhXiEEQIHXnlCYAQ6AF6BAgCEAM#v=onepage&q=The remains of the Ark (of Noah) can be seen to this day in the Arabian mountains." - Theophilus&f=false

Yea, people believe all kinds of shit that isn't true. As I said, we know empirically that at no time, ever, has the earth been covered by a global flood.
We also know, empirically, that 2 of every single species on earth can not fit onto a single manmade wooden vessel, nor can the earth be repopulated with just a single male and female member of any given species.

Science doesn't care what your beliefs are.

 

[Ug make hammer]

The average depth of the oceans is 3.7 km.

To immerse Mt Sinai would require 100%/70% x 2.285km more water. That's 3.26 km or roughly the same amount currently in the oceans.

Mt Ararat on the border of Iran and Turkey, is 5.137 km high. To cover that would require 7.339 km (just on the oceans) or just under double the existing water.

And God of course doesn't lie. If he says he covered all the land, that means he covered Mt. Everest too. It's 8.848 km high. Covering it would require more than 3 times the amount of water in all the oceans.


By the way, the necessity for really big "caverns in the Earth" was not the reason Edmund Halley proposed the hollow earth. His reasoning was that the earth's crust is too dense to explain the total weight of the Earth, and (quite logically) the crust should not be more dense than the interior. But it was an honest mistake: his number for the total mass of the Earth was too low. I mention this only in case someone claims there is scientific support for huge empty caverns underground. We can see all the way to the solid core of the Earth, with seismology. There aren't any caverns of the necessary scale.

 

[Gordy327]

The average depth of the oceans is 3.7 km.

To immerse Mt Sinai would require 100%/70% x 2.285km more water. That's 3.26 km or roughly the same amount currently in the oceans.

Mt Ararat on the border of Iran and Turkey, is 5.137 km high. To cover that would require 7.339 km (just on the oceans) or just under double the existing water.

And God of course doesn't lie. If he says he covered all the land, that means he covered Mt. Everest too. It's 8.848 km high. Covering it would require more than 3 times the amount of water in all the oceans.


By the way, the necessity for really big "caverns in the Earth" was not the reason Edmund Halley proposed the hollow earth. His reasoning was that the earth's crust is too dense to explain the total weight of the Earth, and (quite logically) the crust should not be more dense than the interior. But it was an honest mistake: his number for the total mass of the Earth was too low. I mention this only in case someone claims there is scientific support for huge empty caverns underground. We can see all the way to the solid core of the Earth, with seismology. There aren't any caverns of the necessary scale.

The sheer volume of water necessary to flood the planet alone discredits the Biblical flood myth as depicted. I pointed that out in my article discussing Noah's Ark and the Flood. Of course, theists just say the additional water volume and its subsequent evaporation is due to magic.

 

[Ug make hammer]

The sheer volume of water necessary to flood the planet alone discredits the Biblical flood myth as depicted. I pointed that out in my article discussing Noah's Ark and the Flood. Of course, theists just say the additional water volume and its subsequent evaporation is due to magic.

Well they didn't understand evaporation, so the first part can be excused. To a non scientific eye, clouds appear "as if by magic".

Where the water went afterwards should still have given them some doubt. I've heard the claim there were no mountains until after the Flood, but it hardly matches with the Ark coming to ground on mount Ararat, does it?

 

[Gordy327]

Well they didn't understand evaporation, so the first part can be excused. To a non scientific eye, clouds appear "as if by magic".

Where the water went afterwards should still have given them some doubt. I've heard the claim there were no mountains until after the Flood, but it hardly matches with the Ark coming to ground on mount Ararat, does it?

Magic, miracles, divine intervention; 3 ways to say the same thing and explain away everything while avoiding any critical thinking.

 

[Logicman]

They weren't.

Yea, people believe all kinds of shit that isn't true. As I said, we know empirically that at no time, ever, has the earth been covered by a global flood.

There's scientists who support the flood of Noah.

Science doesn't care what your beliefs are.

Science has its limitations.

 

[rahl]

There's scientists who support the flood of Noah.

No there aren't.

Science has its limitations.

Obviously. But we know empirically that at no time, ever, has the earth been covered by a global flood.
We also know, empirically, that 2 of every single species on earth can not fit onto a single manmade wooden vessel, nor can the earth be repopulated with just a single male and female member of any given species.

This is proven science, and not in any way debatable. I'm sorry, but the biblical flood account is no more real than herculian legends.

 

[Logicman]

No there aren't.

Obviously. But we know empirically that at no time, ever, has the earth been covered by a global flood.

Well, that's your opinion.

We also know, empirically, that 2 of every single species on earth can not fit onto a single manmade wooden vessel....

There's answers to that on the net also.

Let me tell you something: Jesus confirmed the days of Noah, and he was resurrected from the dead. He is also the God of the Burning Bush (John 8:58). So I believe him rather than the detractors of the flood.

 

[Gordy327]

Well, that's your opinion.



There's answers to that on the net also.

Let me tell you something: Jesus confirmed the days of Noah, and he was resurrected from the dead. He is also the God of the Burning Bush (John 8:58). So I believe him rather than the detractors of the flood.

It's not opinion. It's fact! There is no empirical evidence to support the notion of a global flood. All current evidence and logic directly contradicts the Biblical flood as depicted.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Find a thread more to your liking?

I do not think we should be shy about this any longer, subscription to these tails from the Bronze Age has become a real plague on humanity.

Not just the story itself, but the implication of what that belief entails.

 

[Logicman]

It's not opinion. It's fact! There is no empirical evidence to support the notion of a global flood. All current evidence and logic directly contradicts the Biblical flood as depicted.

I don't believe you, Gordy. You don't have any credibility with me. Your empirical evidence fulminations are not to be trusted.

 

[rahl]

Well, that's your opinion.

It's proven science. Biology, physics, and hydrodynamics.

There's answers to that on the net also.

No there isn't.

Let me tell you something: Jesus confirmed the days of Noah, and he was resurrected from the dead.

You can not prove either of these statements.

He is also the God of the Burning Bush (John 8:58).

You can not prove this statement either.

So I believe him rather than the detractors of the flood.

Your beliefs do not change reality. We know empirically that there was never at any time, a global flood.

 

[Ug make hammer]

I do not think we should be shy about this any longer, subscription to these tails from the Bronze Age has become a real plague on humanity.

Not just the story itself, but the implication of what that belief entails.

I actually couldn't care less whether people believe in the Flood or the Creation myth. It's the horrendously barbaric social beliefs they get from the Bible (particularly the OT) which actually affect my world. Those I can't tolerate.

 

[Overitall]

You're not seeing it from the point of view of the owner of the fruit tree.

The owner of the fig tree would have thanked Jesus for cursing the tree. An unfruitful tree (that was considered the "people's tree") would have made him look bad.

 

[Gordy327]

I don't believe you, Gordy. You don't have any credibility with me. Your empirical evidence fulminations are not to be trusted.

What you believe is irrelevant, if not outright wrong. It's not my empirical evidence, but rather what science presents. Burying your head in the sand to avoid the facts doesn't change the facts.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Well, that's your opinion.



There's answers to that on the net also.

Let me tell you something: Jesus confirmed the days of Noah, and he was resurrected from the dead. He is also the God of the Burning Bush (John 8:58). So I believe him rather than the detractors of the flood.

Jesus would have been a much better prophet if he had asserted NOTHING BUT the Ten Commandments, from the barbaric religion he was raised in. The uniquely Christian virtues of humility, honesty, charity etc do not require an overbearing psycho of a God, and would be a better message without all the negative shit that some self-proclaimed "Christians" are obsessed with.

But if he had not proclaimed the Old Testament he'd have been killed within weeks, instead of just under four years. Given Jesus's enormous influence on history, it could be seen as a cunning move to subvert Judaism rather than to directly challenge it.

 

[Gordy327]

I actually couldn't care less whether people believe in the Flood or the Creation myth. It's the horrendously barbaric social beliefs they get from the Bible (particularly the OT) which actually affect my world. Those I can't tolerate.

It's not just the social beliefs, it's also the willful ignorance, misinformation, and denial or hostility to science (especially when it contradicts the bible) that's also a problem.

 

[Ug make hammer]

The owner of the fig tree would have thanked Jesus for cursing the tree. An unfruitful tree (that was considered the "people's tree") would have made him look bad.

Oh bullshit. Nothing more to say. That attitude to someone else's property is 100% bullshit.

 

[Overitall]

Oh bullshit. Nothing more to say. That attitude to someone else's property is 100% bullshit.

Being ignorant of the history of the fig tree's representation only makes your viewpoint full of BS. You don't have to be a believer to understand history.