What I consider to be the best refutation to Noah's ark :)

Encountered a "new" argument that we haven't addressed? Post it here.

What I consider to be the best refutation to Noah's ark :)

Postby Skeptic » Mon Dec 29, 2008 11:32 pm

I looked this up recently, there are 1,263,186 species of animals accounted for today (excluding fish). But we know that 99.9% of all the animals who ever lived have gone extinct. So Noah would have had to take 12.6 billion species of animals onto the ark, if you're a literal biblical young earth creationist. So multiply that by 2 and you get around 25 billion animals on a boat that according to Genesis was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet tall. I rounded up the cubic footage from 1.5 million ft3 to 2 million ft3 (to be charitable :) ) and that leaves an average of .00008 cubic feet of space per animal. That is less than a pencil eraser. Oh and don't forget they had to have food, and Noah and his family needed a place to live for 150 days as well.
Skeptic
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:21 pm
Location: Cedar Falls, IA

Postby donnyton » Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:07 am

Time to play Jesus Advocate:

The bible never says Noah took every species of animals that existed, it said that he took two of every "kind" of animal. It is possible that wolves, hyenas, and dogs were included under a single animal and Noah only needed to take a small percentage of all animals. Besides God is all powerful so he could have given them a "push" to evolved into many more species later on.
"To say that it's not okay to believe in something that may or may not be true is ridiculous. Some people like to have that mystical fantasy in the world. It adds flavor."
donnyton
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:17 am

Postby eebamxela » Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:18 am

donnyton wrote:Time to play Jesus Advocate:

The bible never says ..... species later on.


I hope you cleared your browser cache, and did a virus scan on your computer after you posted this. Oh and then took a scalding hot shower.
eebamxela
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:42 am
Location: Jacksonville, FL

Postby Eilonnwy » Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:01 pm

I personally like the idea that Noah's ark was like a bag of magic.
~Jackie
Candy Coloured Frown

"Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" - Douglas Adams
Eilonnwy
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 2:19 pm
Location: Boston, MA

Postby donnyton » Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:50 am

eebamxela wrote:
donnyton wrote:Time to play Jesus Advocate:

The bible never says ..... species later on.


I hope you cleared your browser cache, and did a virus scan on your computer after you posted this. Oh and then took a scalding hot shower.


I've studied plenty of apologetics as a previous believer...I even have some of Ken Ham's books. I'm pretty sure that if I wanted to, I could debate myself and present accurate arguments from both sides if I wanted.
"To say that it's not okay to believe in something that may or may not be true is ridiculous. Some people like to have that mystical fantasy in the world. It adds flavor."
donnyton
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:17 am

Postby DallasHeathen » Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:08 am

donnyton wrote:Besides God is all powerful so he could have given them a "push" to evolved into many more species later on.


I've always liked the irony in that animals can't evolve over hundreds of millions of years, but just in the last, what, 4000 years since the ark, the bear kind has branched out into polar bears, black bears, grizzlies, etc., and the wolves have branched out into all kinds of canines. If they just accepted that kind of evolution, it all could have happened in just a million years or so, from single cells to modern animals (or "molecules to man" as the creationists like to say).
Is there a God? Find the answer at The Official God FAQ.
DallasHeathen
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 5:40 pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Postby 7od » Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:11 pm

DallasHeathen wrote:I've always liked the irony in that animals can't evolve over hundreds of millions of years, but just in the last, what, 4000 years since the ark, the bear kind has branched out into polar bears, black bears, grizzlies, etc., and the wolves have branched out into all kinds of canines. If they just accepted that kind of evolution, it all could have happened in just a million years or so, from single cells to modern animals (or "molecules to man" as the creationists like to say).


and i guess all the marsupials built their own boat and sailed off to australia after the flood.
7od
 
Posts: 180
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:04 am
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Postby helo darqness » Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:19 pm

Eddie Izzard, maybe the greatest comedian ever, on the flood:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFdmG-TRxzE

i saw him live last year, and he did this, but added a bit about how the lions and tigers and bears ate everyone else. he does i alot better.

(if you arent familiar with his comedy, it is meant to be very ADD and surreal...bear with it, though he isnt for everyone)

*the long-ear bit, was a reference to an earlier joke where dogs with floppy ears stick their heads out of windows because it looks good in photographs.
If God controls the land and disease,
Keeps a watchful eye on me,
If he's really so damn mighty,
My problem is I can't see,
Well who would wanna be?
Who would wanna be such a control freak?
--Modest Mouse
helo darqness
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:10 pm
Location: Queens, NY

Postby clippo » Sat Apr 25, 2009 10:37 pm

My offer for best refutation is: What do all these animals and people eat after they get off the ark? All the plant life on earth has been killed by the flood. Seems like the writers of this story maybe didn't know that plants need air too.
clippo
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:16 pm
Location: Sourthern California

Postby Marathon » Tue Apr 28, 2009 3:36 am

clippo wrote:My offer for best refutation is: What do all these animals and people eat after they get off the ark? All the plant life on earth has been killed by the flood. Seems like the writers of this story maybe didn't know that plants need air too.


The problem here is that you're dealing with magic. Any problem you can come up with can easily be explained away by saying God did it.

No plants? God made some grow after the water went away. Problem solved.
Marathon
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:32 am
Location: Fargo

Postby eimerian » Tue Apr 28, 2009 9:14 am

The most sound argument against the ark I know of is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIlWKp44T50

In this video it is shown that Cheetahs went through a population bottleneck in the recent past and as a result of this suffer under the effects of inbreeding.

We would expect to see the same effects in every animal if they were all reduced to two individuals 2300 BC.
Jesus saves.
Do not remove memory card, controller, or reset/switch off the console.
eimerian
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:08 pm
Location: Austria

Postby ZenMondo » Sun Aug 16, 2009 12:15 pm

the thing that gets me about Noah's ark is not just the assertion that he took two of every kind of animal, but a few verses later it claims he took two of every "unclean" animal and 7 of every "clean" animal.

But it never explains how Noah would know what animals were clean and unclean as God had not yet told Moses the laws describing what was clean and unclean.
Certainty is the point where the margin of error is at its smallest but no further. A margin of error is always there. I am certain of this.
ZenMondo
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:11 pm
Location: Casper, WY

Postby Cephus » Mon Aug 17, 2009 2:53 pm

clippo wrote:My offer for best refutation is: What do all these animals and people eat after they get off the ark? All the plant life on earth has been killed by the flood. Seems like the writers of this story maybe didn't know that plants need air too.


According to the creationists, and yes it is a stupid idea, God made all the animals eat the rotting animal carcasses that littered the planet until the plants started to grow again. But you have to remember that the ancient Hebrews didn't consider plants to be alive in the same sense as animals and in their way of thinking, when the waters receded, the plants were probably happily growing already.

That's what happens when you rely on a scientifically-illiterate Bronze-age myth.
Want to know more? http://BitchSpot.JadeDragonOnline.com
Religion is a mental disease.
Cephus
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:55 am
Location: Redlands, CA

Postby DallasHeathen » Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:44 pm

Image
Is there a God? Find the answer at The Official God FAQ.
DallasHeathen
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 5:40 pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Postby tktt » Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:53 pm

I think the best response to Noah's ark is questioning the whole reason, why god should create a global flood.
Even if a god wanted to wipe out most of the worlds population, an omnipotent god would have so many more effective methods of doing it. A god could have just caused all those people to vanish and fade out of existence instantly, or something like that.

This does not really refute the Noah's ark tale, but it puts christians into a difficult position, because now they need to start making excuses why their god should use a flood instead of some other killing method.

The most common christian response that I have seen, is that people in the world were so sinful and corrupt that the god wanted to make them suffer and caused the flood so they would die slowly by drowning instead of dying instantly.
This puts christians into position where they need to themselves portray their god as a sadist to make their mythology to make sense.
tktt
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 2:41 pm

Next

Return to New Arguments

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Larisaallaky and 0 guests

cron