• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Debunking Noah, and I need some help

Clean animals = ruminants (Cloven hooves, chew their own cud etc. Jewish thing)
 
Last edited:
Why not skip all the science stuff that will never win over any true believer instead start pointing out the flaws in the story in the bible. You can start by asking your mom if she really believes that all 10 billion species of the world would fit in boat that 450x75x45 feet and had only 3 cargo decks.

6:14 Make for yourself an ark of cypress wood. Make rooms in the ark, and cover it with pitch inside and out. 6:15 This is how you should make it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. 6:16 Make a roof for the ark and finish it, leaving 18 inches from the top. Put a door in the side of the ark, and make lower, middle, and upper decks.
Click to expand...

Then after that you can ask why there are two conflicting versions of the Noah story in the bible.

6:19 You must bring into the ark two of every kind of living creature from all flesh, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 6:20 Of the birds after their kinds, and of the cattle after their kinds, and of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you so you can keep them alive.
Click to expand...

versus this

7:2 You must take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, the male and its mate, two of every kind of unclean animal, the male and its mate, 7:3 and also seven of every kind of bird in the sky, male and female, to preserve their offspring on the face of the earth.
Click to expand...

So what does Yahweh really want? Is one pair or seven pairs and what is a clean animal versus an unclean animal, that is never specified anywhere in the bible.

All bible text is courtesy of bibile.org, http://bible.org/netbible/
 
Lowpro said:
Clean animals = ruminants (Cloven hooves, chew their own cud etc. Jewish thing)
Click to expand...

Except that no one knew that until Yahweh told Moses, who was born quite some time after Noah died.
 
Noah was expected to know it, after all the Torah was written well after the events were told...
 
Lowpro said:
Clean animals = ruminants (Cloven hooves, chew their own cud etc. Jewish thing)
Click to expand...



I know all too painfully what clean animals are....what I am talking about is that Noah would not have known what they are....they were not defined until Moses' days... so how would Noah know?

Moreover, some christians even argue that animal eating did not commence until after the flood.
 
Leumas said:
I know all too painfully what clean animals are....what I am talking about is that Noah would not have known what they are....they were not defined until Moses' days... so how would Noah know?

Moreover, some christians even argue that animal eating did not commence until after the flood.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying the stories are chronologically logical, but the best explanation for why it is this way was because the writers already had the preconceptions of what animals were clean via tradition and repurposed this in their collection of the Tanakh (remember it was told orally before being written down)

In other words, the events are all stories, but we already know this.
 
Lowpro said:
I'm not saying the stories are chronologically logical, but the best explanation for why it is this way was because the writers already had the preconceptions of what animals were clean via tradition and repurposed this in their collection of the Tanakh (remember it was told orally before being written down)

In other words, the events are all stories, but we already know this.
Click to expand...



You and I, we know it is all a myth.

But when one takes it as God's word and real history then God telling Noah to take 2 or 7 (who knows which) of "clean" animals would have meant nothing to Noah....we are not talking about the people listening to or writing the story....we are talking about God's words to Noah and the fact that they would have meant nothing to Noah.

Of course...the fact that it is written like that is an ANACHRONISM and is one more of the innumerable reasons for rejecting the whole thing as later fabrications by humans.
 
Leumas said:
You and I, we know it is all a myth.

But when one takes it as God's word and real history then God telling Noah to take 2 or 7 (who knows which) of "clean" animals would have meant nothing to Noah....we are not talking about the people listening to or writing the story....we are talking about God's words to Noah and the fact that they would have meant nothing to Noah.

Of course...the fact that it is written like that is an ANACHRONISM and is one more of the innumerable reasons for rejecting the whole thing as later fabrications by humans.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But that's the fault of the moron believing the Bible (or Tanakh) and I am more interested in why it is written the way it is than taking the actual content seriously.

But I don't want to be argumentative about that. BTW did you ever read that Trueorigins link you posted Leumas? It had a good refutation http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/henke_refutes_sarfati.htm
 
Last edited:
bikerdruid said:
wow...another one....
hyperbaric chamber?

jude, dude...where do you get this stuff?
Click to expand...

It's not exactly new. Just look at some of the Creationist propaganda videos. As I recall, it's also been shown to require miracles in all kinds of ways to occur in the first place and to deal with the numerous problems inherent in reconciling the model with the collected relevant data in the first place, removing any value of the explanation for skeptics or science, in general. Naturally, this is no obstacle to those who set blind faith above any mere evidence or logic, though.
 
Lowpro said:
Agreed. But that's the fault of the moron believing the Bible (or Tanakh) and I am more interested in why it is written the way it is than taking the actual content seriously.

But I don't want to be argumentative about that. BTW did you ever read that Trueorigins link you posted Leumas? It had a good refutation http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/henke_refutes_sarfati.htm
Click to expand...


Yes...it is a rebuttal to the rebuttal of the rebuttal of the story... :D
 
Leumas said:
Yes...it is a rebuttal to the rebuttal of the rebuttal of the story... :D
Click to expand...

It's usually how it goes. Shame that Safarti is both a lying bastard AND capable of typing. I hate that combination...
 
Lowpro said:
It's usually how it goes. Shame that Safarti is both a lying bastard AND capable of typing. I hate that combination...
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with creationist fantards... I take it he's an established figure in their camp?
 
Mudcat said:
My mom is getting deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole with religion and has become positively obsessed with the book of Genesis, believing every word of it to be true.
Click to expand...

How does she reconcile Genesis 1 with Genesis 2?

So lets start with Noah, who somehow managed to live to be the age of 950 years old. Since we know that no one in the distant past would have lived much past 40 years old, never mind 900, that is clearly impossible.
Click to expand...

The Bible gets around this with Genesis 6:3

Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.”

As far as fundamentalists are concerned, people (such as Noah) lived much longer before God put this limit on the human lifespan.
 
Mudcat said:
My mom is getting deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole with religion and has become positively obsessed with the book of Genesis, believing every word of it to be true. Normally I wouldn't be concerned with it except that she keeps on trying to force that crap on me.
...
Click to expand...

Why not explain it to her the way the Pope does:

http://books.google.com/books?id=gK...easoned Answers to Questions of Faith&f=false

Try starting with chapter 9 - The Bible, Myth or History?
(the correct answer is "some of each" or "both")
Starts on page 212 with some good background, but probably doesn't hit really good meat for your purposes til about page 220.
 
Last edited:
If we could keep it old testament that would be good, she's Jewish. Thanks for the link anyhow Trakar.
 
Here's a few off the top of my head.

A worldwide flood would have altered salinity levels, killing off all sorts of aquatic life and generally messing with the ocean ecosystem.

Where did all the water go after the flood? If it simply evaporated off, it would have to go somewhere. Not to mention that after it evaporated, the whole world would have been covered in salt. How on earth that's going to sustain a chain of eucalyptus trees to get koalas to Australia is beyond me.

No modern animals being fossilised at the lowest levels of strata.

What on earth did all the herbivores eat? There would have been no surviving plant life, begging the question of how they survived to their modern day locations.

Also, what on earth did the carnivores eat? The only reasonable explanation I can think of is that they carried an enormous sack of miraculously preserved meat.

/braindump
 
Mudcat said:
If we could keep it old testament that would be good, she's Jewish. Thanks for the link anyhow Trakar.
Click to expand...

The basic tenets of scriptural exegesis are applicable whether Jewish or Christian depending upon degree of orthodoxy. Take what you can use, leave the rest to those with faith to worry about.
 
JudeBrando said:
Some theorize that the pre-flood environment may have been greatly different than ours is today. What if the earth was essentially surrounded by an atmosphere of greater water vapor and greater atmospheric pressure, essentially amounting to something like a hyperbaric chamber and which greatly shielded the earth from uv rays? Longer, healthier lifespans, larger creatures and a more uniform global climate with lush vegetation at the poles (like we've found) could be possible.

I don't know. They don't know. And despite what you think, you most certainly do not know either.
Click to expand...

Pre-Flood? Could you explain why you think the Flood happened?

As for that "pre-flood environment" theory you posted up, did you get it from here?
http://creation.com/the-pre-flood-flood-boundary-at-the-base-of-the-earths-transition-zone
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom