• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Fallacy Of Biblical Stories, Part 1: The Great Flood & Noah's Ark

Does GOD know everything? Did HE see them as already corrupt and evil? I can imagine if one attends a Christian University, it may just go without saying. You keep bringing up slavery; however the primary reason slavery ended in England and the US was primarily a Bible Believing Christian Movement and not an atheistic one. In fact, I can imagine an atheist who doesn't believe in GOD and has selfish ambitions would likely make an excellent slavery Taskmaster. I feel that pangs of conscience are GOD's way of softening one's heart... Perhaps you lack that also.

So those children had no free will?

England and the US ended slavery in spite of the Bible, not because of it. The Bible makes it very clear slavery is morally acceptable to its God.
 
The Smithsonian Magazine had a very scientific article regarding whether Noah's Ark could even float. And the consensus was as follows: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/could-noahs-ark-float-theory-yes-180950385/
The ark might float if empty. But your own source says it would capsize if it were loaded. Never mind the continual downpour of rain which might fill the ark too. Floating is one thing. Staying afloat is quite another, especially given the circumstances. In short, the ark would sink.
I'll let you in on a little secret:) --------- Moses didn't actually separate the Red Sea either. It was GOD.;)
Here's another secret: no he didn't. There's another, more logical and natural based explanation. I'll include it in my next article.
If one doesn't believe in GOD the rest of the stories make no sense. GOD is the KEY to ETERNITY!
The stories make no sense if one has a rational, logical mind. God is more like the key to self delusion.
That is certainly true with DARWINISM. It sounds "scientific," but it's all fabricated under a wrong assumption.
What "assumption" would that be? Evolution has plenty of supporting empirical evidence. Your god, not so much. As in, not any at all. God, or "god did it," is an assumption.
A scientific theory as to why we have not found fossils of Dinosaurs and humans together ----- YET!:https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/humans/why-dont-we-find-human-dinosaur-fossils-together/
Ken Hamm would love you. But there is no credible scientific theory or evidence (geological nor paleontological) positing humans and dinosaurs lived together.
God doesn't sent anyone to hell for sinning. GOD turns people away from heaven because they never accepted CHRIST as their personal SAVIOR. Have you done that?
So all Jews, Muslims, and everyone who is generally non-christian is screwed, right?
AND I'm sure that if you wrote on your resume' that you didn't believe in Darwinism or that Evolution is the means from which life became diverse from one living thing, or such a belief came up in an interview ----you most likely wouldn't get the job.
I would hope not. Especially not in the sciences or academia.
There are too many willing to accept anything to land a career.
There are also too many willing to suppress critical and rational thinking to accept dogma over science.
This is to keep honest secular scientists out --- meaning those who really only believe in evolution and abiogenesis.
One does not, and should not "believe" in evolution or any scientific theory. One should accept or reject them based on the evidence.
And do you know that Creation researchers must be willing to accept evolution as entirely the only way or they cannot get a job at most secular science laboratories and institutions of higher learning?
Why would you want to hire a "scientist" who doesn't accept actual science? That's like a quack must be willing to learn actual medicine to get a job as a doctor. Would you want a quack on the job?
 
Does GOD know everything? Did HE see them as already corrupt and evil?
If god is omniscient, as he is often described to be, then yes!
I can imagine if one attends a Christian University, it may just go without saying. You keep bringing up slavery; however the primary reason slavery ended in England and the US was primarily a Bible Believing Christian Movement and not an atheistic one. In fact, I can imagine an atheist who doesn't believe in GOD and has selfish ambitions would likely make an excellent slavery Taskmaster. I feel that pangs of conscience are GOD's way of softening one's heart... Perhaps you lack that also.
Neither God or the bible prohibits slavery.
 
Do they constitute a decent percentage of theist thinkers? no.
According to a 2011 gallup poll, 30% of Americans take the bible literally. 40% accept creationism. That seems like a decent percentage to me. Granted, the numbers might be a little lower now. But I'd wager not by much.
Bottom line- in 2022 science is not at the threat of biblical literalist.
Science was never a threat because biblical literalists generally dismiss any science which might contradict their beliefs or dogma. But biblical literalists are a "threat" to science. Or at least to critical thinking.
I don't think the story as in the Bible is true but it seems to come from a true source,
Most likely from the Epic of Gilgamesh.
All around the worlds people have a story of a massive flood.
Which were more likely regional floods. But from the perspective of ancient people, it might have seemed like a global flood. At least, their "world" was flooded.
The lack of paleontological and geological evidence is not true. It just means the exact "facts" given is the Bible are a folklore narrative, that has been telephoned, dramatized, and changed in ways we will never know.
There is no evidence which supports a global flood. If anything, current evidence demonstrates it could not or never happened.
There was dramatic climate change 12,900 year ago that abruptly ended the last ice age. From 12,900 to 11,600 years ago is known as the younger dryas period, that ended the ice age and rose the temperature of the Earth. In this, massive flooding and sea level rise is well established. It is coming to be understood that this younger dryas period might of been initiated by a relatively large meteor that hit the ice shelfs and cause catastrophic flooding. This lack of geological evidence you claim has actually been discovered by geologist. The North American continent is full of this geological evidence.

Though the story as told in the Bible is a messed up depiction of it that traveled orally for ten thousand years. The folktale is a dramatization of humans having to start over again.
Don't forget, certain biblical literalists and creationists support a 6000 year old Earth. Complete with dinosaurs alongside humans, a la The Flinstones. 😆 The biblical version is rather exaggerated. Like a theistic Roland Emmerich story.
 
You realize Answers In Genesis requires its "researchers" to sign a pledge that they will never publish anything that contradicts the Bible, right?
Talk about built in, contractual bias.
 
Best history of Noah and the ark was Bill Cosby's take many years ago. God tells Noah to build an ark, and after some discussion Noah asks, "what's an ark?" Then God tells him it's to be so many cubits by so many, and Noah asks, "what's a cubit?" Ends up with Noah asking God if He has looked in the bottom of the ark and noticed the mess from all the animals pooping. "Who's gonna clean that up?" Still a good comedy bit years later, despite Cosby's disgrace.
 
This story has so many problems with it, it's difficult to know where to begin. To simplify, I will not be focusing on other cultures earlier flood myths, which probably influenced the creation of the biblical flood myth. Neither will I be focusing on God's own imperfection (or incompetence), as his Creation had some major design flaws forcing him to essentially reboot Creation over again. I also won't delve into the implausibility of rapid repopulation over a short time after the flood either. So here are some problems with the Flood story:

1. The sheer number of animals that had to be aboard the Ark : For this, I'm going to assume that the animals on the ark were all land animals. According to the California Academy of Sciences, there are approximately 6.5 million species of land animals. I'll be conservative and round down to 6 million, give or take a million. Since we have two of every animal, the ark must be capable of holding and supporting 12 MILLION animals for an extended duration, without additional support. That alone makes the Flood story quite implausible (even more so if one includes dinosaurs as passengers). Anyone who has been in a pet store will know housing many animals takes up quite a lot of space and resources. To put that into perspective, a single adult elephant (the largest land mammal in the world) can weigh upwards of 14,000 pounds, grow up to 35 feet long, and eat 200-600 pounds of food and drink 50 gallons of water PER DAY! And Noah had 12 million animals to feed and water daily, which is an impossible task for the relatively few people aboard the ark (never mind cleaning up after the animals too). In addition, it is supposed to believed that many of those animals traveled thousands of miles, some over the ocean, and from remote places like Antarctica, outside of their natural environments and ecosystems, in time to board the ark before the flood. Really?

First of all - how big is the ark? Do you know?

Genesis 6:15
5 This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark 300 cubits, its breadth 50 cubits, and its height 30 cubits.



While various cubit lengths have been used throughout history, the Ark Encounter calculated the size of the ark based on a 20.4-inch (52 cm) cubit. The result is a vessel 510 feet (155 m) long, 85 feet (26 m) wide, and 51 feet (16 m) high. Accounting for a 15% reduction in volume due to the curvature of the hull, an ark this size could contain the equivalent of 450 semi-trailers of cargo or about 1.88 million cubic feet (53,200 m3)—a truly massive ship.




Next: Which animals were required in the ark?

The Bible informs us that the ark housed representatives of every land-dependent, air-breathing animal—ones that could not otherwise survive the flood (Genesis 7:21–23).

So, you can count out marine animals.




Next: How many species?

Skeptics often assert that there are millions of species in the world— far more than the number that could fit on the ark. However, according to estimates published in 2014, there are fewer than 1.8 million documented species of organisms in the world. Consider also that over 98 percent of those species are fish, invertebrates, and non-animals (like plants and bacteria).
This means that
there are fewer than 34,000 species of known, land-dependent vertebrates in the world today.
2


Remember, you don't include marine animals! Or, those that don't require air to live.




Next: SPECIES
The Bible didn't speak of "species." It refers to the Hebrew, "min" which translates to "KIND."
That makes sense, no? Considering when He created earth (Genesis 1), He referred to creatures as "........according to their kind."

Well, my friend - a kind is a broader category that ONE KIND may include many species.

An example ONE ARK KIND of animal we see today that had developed after the flood, and classified into species: horse, donkey, zebra
Another one: Coyotes, wolves, dingoes,

You get the pic?
 
A myth is a myth regardless of what book or oral tradition it's in.



Lol - a classic example of eyes closed, covered ears.
In other words, no matter what - I'll just dig in.

Proof that atheism is close-minded. 🤷
 
The lack of paleontological and geological evidence is not true. It just means the exact "facts" given is the Bible are a folklore narrative, that has been telephoned, dramatized, and changed in ways we will never know.

There was dramatic climate change 12,900 year ago that abruptly ended the last ice age. From 12,900 to 11,600 years ago is known as the younger dryas period, that ended the ice age and rose the temperature of the Earth. In this, massive flooding and sea level rise is well established. It is coming to be understood that this younger dryas period might of been initiated by a relatively large meteor that hit the ice shelfs and cause catastrophic flooding. This lack of geological evidence you claim has actually been discovered by geologist. The North American continent is full of this geological evidence.

Though the story as told in the Bible is a messed up depiction of it that traveled orally for ten thousand years. The folktale is a dramatization of humans having to start over again.


Can you please explain HOW ancient people have made claims regarding the universe (which we thought were just poetic statements) without any sophisticated instruments, but have later on been reaffirmed by MODERN science
- thousands of years later?

HOW COULD THEY HAVE BEEN RIGHT?

Just so you know where I'm coming from, please refer to these:



Superiority over beasts - #21, #31
Dominion over and stewardship of all creation - #89
Hydrological Cycle - #70
Description of destruction of Sodom consistent with archeological findings - #71
Stretching Universe - #111

The biblical curse on the snake - #133
The human body - #134
Genesis creation narrative in the right order. - #180 (thanks to Patriotic Voter)
#182and #183

Springs in the ocean - #288
The universe has a beginning – the Big bang - #342
One land. One ocean. - #349
Post #497 – Genders and Reproduction
Pathfinder of the Seas – Matthew Maury -
#527

 
Last edited:
So those children had no free will?

England and the US ended slavery in spite of the Bible, not because of it. The Bible makes it very clear slavery is morally acceptable to its God.
They ended slavery because it was MORALLY wrong from a Christian perspective, not an atheistic one. William Wilberforce tackled slavery in the UK. Please see: https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/wilberforce_william.shtml. In the United States it was Christian ethics that finally broke the back of slavery. Please see: https://americainclass.org/the-religious-roots-of-abolition/
 
If god is omniscient, as he is often described to be, then yes!

Neither God or the bible prohibits slavery.
That is not entirely true. There were specific ways to acquire servants and workers. And these were indeed spelled out in the Bible. And actually, the Labor Movement depended on Christian considerations. Men have to work or they don't eat. This was the work ethic America was founded upon.
2 THESSALONIANS 3:10

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you: that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
 
According to a 2011 gallup poll, 30% of Americans take the bible literally. 40% accept creationism. That seems like a decent percentage to me. Granted, the numbers might be a little lower now. But I'd wager not by much.

Science was never a threat because biblical literalists generally dismiss any science which might contradict their beliefs or dogma. But biblical literalists are a "threat" to science. Or at least to critical thinking.

Most likely from the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Which were more likely regional floods. But from the perspective of ancient people, it might have seemed like a global flood. At least, their "world" was flooded.

There is no evidence which supports a global flood. If anything, current evidence demonstrates it could not or never happened.

Don't forget, certain biblical literalists and creationists support a 6000 year old Earth. Complete with dinosaurs alongside humans, a la The Flinstones. 😆 The biblical version is rather exaggerated. Like a theistic Roland Emmerich story.
What human wants to live among dragons? And how many humans existed on the earth at the time of the FLOOD. Answer ---- We don't honestly know. If there were only a few thousand due to the violence ----- what would be the possibility of finding any? And also man would have tried to outrun the FLOOD and seek higher ground. I believe the dinosaurs might have also but were they not accustomed to living in marshy areas, and would they not be among the first to succumb to the Flooding? The Bible doesn't spell everything out, but it makes one think.
 
They ended slavery because it was MORALLY wrong from a Christian perspective, not an atheistic one. William Wilberforce tackled slavery in the UK. Please see: https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/wilberforce_william.shtml. In the United States it was Christian ethics that finally broke the back of slavery. Please see: https://americainclass.org/the-religious-roots-of-abolition/

That “Christian perspective” has no basis in the Bible. The Bible makes it quite clear that to God, the supposed perfect moral being, slavery is morally acceptable.

And Atheists are almost universally Humanists, which oppose slavery.
 
Although interesting, the Smithsonian article is not "very scientific". The author mostly ignores the ever so small fact that a wooden vessel of the size examined by the students just wouldn't stay together. Even with steel beams added to the wooden hull structure of several large trading ships toward the end of the 19th century, none of them were as large as the mythical Ark and each of them had a very short life at sea.

Who told you? Where did you get that?
Cite your source.


Scientists: Noah's Ark Would Have Floated With 70,000 Animals If Built By Dimensions In The Bible


Scientists at the University of Leicester have discovered that Noah's Ark could have carried 70,000 animals without sinking if built from the dimensions listed in The Bible.

 
You realize Answers In Genesis requires its "researchers" to sign a pledge that they will never publish anything that contradicts the Bible, right?

You refute the argument then.
You did not sign the "pledge" did you?
 
Please show where that requirement exists in any secular laboratory or college. Provide a quote or admit you are lying. And lying is one of those things that your God will send you to Hell for, isn't it?

Well, I didn't know they had to sign anything until you posted it here.
Whether they did sign or not - is irrelevant.

You'll score a point instead if you prove them wrong in their claims.
If you can't, then you've got no grounds.



Lol - like as if signing that they wouldn't contradict the Bible would automatically mean they would lie.
 
Is this the same Jesus that is also the God who was cool with people owning other people as slaves and who ordered his followers to kill children? Why would I accept such an evil being as anything?

What resume requires writing one's beliefs about Evolution? Do you think beliefs are a normal section to include in a resume?


Lol - you guys have a way of changing the channel, eh?
That must be another default stance.
If you're not gaining any point, and worse -you're getting stumped - change the issue. DEFLECT.

I know we must be winning whenever you guys do that.



What happened to Noah's Ark? Hello? :ROFLMAO:
 
Who told you? Where did you get that?
Cite your source.


Scientists: Noah's Ark Would Have Floated With 70,000 Animals If Built By Dimensions In The Bible


Scientists at the University of Leicester have discovered that Noah's Ark could have carried 70,000 animals without sinking if built from the dimensions listed in The Bible.


Tosca, you ain't got a clue and once again show your unwillingness to read what others have posted in the thread. The study at Uni of Leicester found that the calculated weight of 70,000 animals, none of them very large, could be fitted upon a container of the size described in the OT. However, the vessel would not have been able to stay afloat in any normal sea conditions, nevermind storm waves. Then there is the ever so small matter, as other have mentioned - where would all the shit go? Then we have a problem with holding sufficient food and water for the beasts and the 8 people in the crew.

from the linked article:
"It is a separate matter whether all of the animals would fit inside an ark of these dimensions – the physics students were simply calculating the buoyancy of the ark."

Once again, a misleading headline causes True Believers to shout, OH Thank you Lord Jesus! Your Daddy was the best evah!
The students did their calculations using the estimated weight of the 70,000 animals but not bothering to look at the space required for each pair to survive on a boat that wouldn't stay afloat during any sea voyage.
 
Lol - you guys have a way of changing the channel, eh?
That must be another default stance.
If you're not gaining any point, and worse -you're getting stumped - change the issue. DEFLECT.

I know we must be winning whenever you guys do that.



What happened to Noah's Ark? Hello? :ROFLMAO:

What happened to Noah’s Ark is that there is zero reason to believe it actually existed.
 
What human wants to live among dragons?
Did dragons exist? Dinosaurs are not dragons.
And how many humans existed on the earth at the time of the FLOOD. Answer ---- We don't honestly know. If there were only a few thousand due to the violence ----- what would be the possibility of finding any?
We can estimate. If we go by a biblical timeline, then the flood occurred at about 2600 BC. So according to historical estimates, there were approximately 21 million people in the world at the time. Regardless if it was more or less, just about everyone, and every animal, was killed off.
And also man would have tried to outrun the FLOOD and seek higher ground. I believe the dinosaurs might have also but were they not accustomed to living in marshy areas, and would they not be among the first to succumb to the Flooding?
Irrelevant. The flood still wiped everything out.
The Bible doesn't spell everything out, but it makes one think.
No, it does the exact opposite. It makes one accept dogma without critically thinking about anything.
 
First of all - how big is the ark? Do you know?
Next: Which animals were required in the ark?
So, you can count out marine animals.
Next: How many species?
Did you even read the article? I addressed all of that.
Remember, you don't include marine animals! Or, those that don't require air to live.
Because they wouldn't be on a boat, duh! But marine animals generally require either fresh water or salt water. It's likely salt water marine life would die off as the salinity of the oceans changed from a deluge of fresh water.
Next: SPECIES
The Bible didn't speak of "species." It refers to the Hebrew, "min" which translates to "KIND."
That makes sense, no? Considering when He created earth (Genesis 1), He referred to creatures as "........according to their kind."
Well, my friend - a kind is a broader category that ONE KIND may include many species.
That's quite the logic pretzeling you have going there.
An example ONE ARK KIND of animal we see today that had developed after the flood, and classified into species: horse, donkey, zebra
Another one: Coyotes, wolves, dingoes,
And what do you base that on? Horses alone took 50 million years to evolve.
Lol - a classic example of eyes closed, covered ears.
In other words, no matter what - I'll just dig in.
Sounds like theistic defense of dogma.
Proof that atheism is close-minded. 🤷
No, atheism simply isn't convinced unless there's evidence.
Back to where they came from.
In other words, magic.
 
I wonder how many Creationists in this thread are willing to admit that the “Kinds” argument would require a Super Evolution in order work?
 
According to a 2011 gallup poll, 30% of Americans take the bible literally. 40% accept creationism. That seems like a decent percentage to me. Granted, the numbers might be a little lower now. But I'd wager not by much.
11 year poll, the percentage in now around 20. Also that poll is flawed, because it's doesn't give an option for atheism, or other religious preferences. You can also find study that say 56% of American believe in a god. Or that over 20% of Christians. don't believe in god. There's a flurry of conflicting statistics, church member ship is extremely down as well.
Science was never a threat because biblical literalists generally dismiss any science which might contradict their beliefs or dogma. But biblical literalists are a "threat" to science. Or at least to critical thinking.
My point is there aren't challenging the scientific model, they don't have the material to do so. This isn't the 90s there isn't a nation wide debate on what we should teach kids. Link shows a good visual and science is only garnering more and more of that percentage as years pass. This is also only for kids, they most defielty don't have creationism 101 in college that is a phd level science class on the 6,000 year evolution of Earth. It's an imaginary enemy that progressive atheist love to exist for their sense of moral superiority.

Which were more likely regional floods. But from the perspective of ancient people, it might have seemed like a global flood. At least, their "world" was flooded.
The worlds Northern ice shelf melted, its rose sea levels by around 400 feet. Water is a liquid it doesn't choose to stay in regional areas, It was mostly certainty a global flood.
There is no evidence which supports a global flood. If anything, current evidence demonstrates it could not or never happened.
1645384197825.png
Don't forget, certain biblical literalists and creationists support a 6000 year old Earth. Complete with dinosaurs alongside humans, a la The Flinstones. 😆 The biblical version is rather exaggerated. Like a theistic Roland Emmerich story.
Where are the scholars that actually think this, you know ones that could actually have power in changing our academic perception of the worlds history.
 
Back
Top Bottom