Insurmountable Difficulties with Noah's Ark (Jesus, Earth, crucified, tradition)

[atheistthatsme]

There are a number of questions and points I wish to pose to those creationists out there.

a) Where did all that water come from?
There are number of theories made by creationists as to how the world became flooded. Let me present and rebut these claims.

The only known place for water to naturally occur is the atmosphere. For there to have been enough water to cover earth to the tip of Mount Everest, four billion, billion, million cubic metres of water would have been needed. If so, the atmosphere would have been sitting at around 99% water vapour. Therefore Earth was a dense, apshyxiating planet unable to support life as we know it, therefore eliminating the need for an ark.

Another theory is that water came from extraterrestrial sources, for example meterorites. Such an impact would have been similar to a 12 trillion megaton nuclear bomb. This impact would have risen average temperatures to around 6800 degrees centigrade, hotter than the surface of our sun.

How did Noah gather all the animals from around the world? for example my home continent of Australia, unknown at those times.

How did the ark maintain itself? all those faecies would have created poisonous gases...

Im almost certain that Noah couldn't load 60 000 000 organisms, enormous, untame and microscopic on board. The bible says the ark was loaded in a 24 hr period. This equates to the boarding of over 460 organisms per second.

(Some of my stats are from "Telling Lies for God, Ian Plimer.")

[Atheist_Dave]

We have kinda been over this a thousand times, but yes you are correct, there are so many problems with the story, it is scientifically impossible. Another fun thing to point out is that it would be impossible to make a boat that big with the tools and technology available at the time, but you see creationists have one weapon we cannot combat.... ignorance, and of course, that killer phrase, "god can do anything he wants" (hold a boat together, for example)

Neat post.

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by atheistthatsme

There are a number of questions and points I wish to pose to those creationists out there.

It's funny that you are seeking natural solutions to a supernatural event.

Matthew 19:26 Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." NIV

But then, if you refuse to believe in God, how could you possibly believe in his power? Until your perspective on God changes, the entire Bible will appear as but a fairy tale.

I Corinthians 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. NIV

[jewscout]

once you get into the science of the flood as an event it comes down to faith.

just like believing in an invisible man in the sky, it's faith.

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by Atheist_Dave

but you see creationists have one weapon we cannot combat.... ignorance,

Well, you've got us beat with condescension and arrogance.

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by jewscout

once you get into the science of the flood as an event it comes down to faith.

The "Flood" happened. It's recorded in more than Christian scripture and tradition. Was it global? It was to them. It's amazing to me that the only ones who seem to be more literalists than the Christian extremists when it comes to reading scripture are those who claim to be atheists. Not all mind you, but quite a few.

When you read the Bible as what it was MEANT to be read: a blog about man trying to find God. Then you stop trying to justify or tear down every single statement and look for the deeper meanings (pun not intended).

Originally Posted by jewscout

just like believing in an invisible man in the sky, it's faith.

Those who can't see God have choosen not to. The evidence is there whether you choose to accept it or not.

[CaptainXeroid]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

Well, you've got us beat with condescension and arrogance.

Well, that's pretty much all some atheists have these days.

Originally Posted by atheistthatsme

...For there to have been enough water to cover earth to the tip of Mount Everest...

Since you hold yourself out to be interested in science, I'm sure you are aware that if the world's surface were smooth, the ocean would be about 2 miles deep. Now, unless you can prove exactly what the earth's topography was at the time of the flood, you cannot discount the possibility that it took much less water to completely cover the land masses. Hmmm....didn't think you could.

Since you're an atheist, that means you claim to believe that God does not exist. If that were true, what interest would you have in the exact details of the Biblical account of Noah?? Logic suggests you may have doubts about your atheism. Good luck examining those doubts.

[Atheist_Dave]

In hindsight perhaps I should have said "willfully ignorant", sorry if I caused any offense. It just seems to me (well it would do, as Im an atheist) that you would have to block out a hell of a lot of information to really believe these things. But I guess I will never see it from the other side, again, I did not mean that the way it sounded. People who know me will assure you I am not deliberately arrogant.

By the way, congrats on the repartee netdoc

[evearael]

I'd like to add that not every person of faith takes a 100% literal translation of the entirety of scripture. There are many levels of meaning within every verse. That said, religion and science are two separate realms of inquiry. At the heart of it, they are both trying to answer the same sorts of questions, but with different starting points and different methods. Science will never be able to completely prove or disprove the existance of God. Neither will religion. Using science to attempt to disprove religion is like using literary analysis to disprove the quadratic formula... they are different fields with different requirements. Religion requires faith, and science requires reason. There is absolutely no reason why a person is barred from both. I have studied religion, philosophy, mathematics, quantum and nuclear physics... I love it all. The choice is not binary. Think of photons... are they particles or waves?