Noah's Ark found?

[dasmiller]

Such use of the passive is known (by me) as the "weaselly passive."

Hmm . . if it was just "Such use of the passive is known as 'weaselly passive'" then that would, in itself, be passive voice. But adding the 'by me' gives the sentence a parenthetical actor, so it's . . . passive aggressive voice?

 

[Lucian]

Hmm . . if it was just "Such use of the passive is known as 'weaselly passive'" then that would, in itself, be passive voice. But adding the 'by me' gives the sentence a parenthetical actor, so it's . . . passive aggressive voice?

Yup.

 

[Meadmaker]

Sorry about my delay in responding but the computer was acting up and placing letters at random locations whenever I typed. If we are to take the flood account as historical fact and leave out the supernatural, then an apeal to speciation is the only recourse. As far as I can recall that's the explanation I offerred.

Leave out the supernatural in a world wide flood? Even if somehow we could find a natural source for the water and somehow make it all fit within natural law, it would still be caused by divine punishment, which sounds awfully supernatural to me.

I like the "animals as DNA" theory better. It solves the problem quite nicely, and doesn't contradict the Bible. It also helps with the redistribution problem. The descendants of the sons of Noah might have carried the test tubes full of animals with them. They could then reestablish the organisms at the bottom of the food chain first before regenerating the carnivores.

Of course, the people of Noah's day would have no knowledge of in vitro fertilization. Come to think of it, they would have to have knowledge of how to actually grow animals in an artificial womb. However, surely God could provide the necessary technology. The Bible doesn't mention it because it was not an important part of the story. The critical feature of the story is that God destroyed most humans as part of divine punishment, but saved one family by putting them on a boat.

Clearly, it would be impossible for one family to roam the entire Earth finding two of every single species, bringing them back to that family's home and somehow sustaing them during the flood. Such a suggestion has so many flaws it is utterly ridiculous. Obviously, God provided assistance, and it seems logical that part of that assistance may have come in the form of some revealed technology. Of course, Noah and his descendants wouldn't have any comprehension of how that technology worked, but God could provide all of the instruction necessary, and they would faithfully follow the directions.

 

[MRC_Hans]

The basic kinds are not thought to have numbered into millions of species.

The 'basic kinds' is an arbitrary construct made by literal Bible believers to work around the impossibility of accomodating know species in an ark. The only workable definition for a 'kind' is "reduces the number of animals on the Ark to something remotely workable".

'Species' is also an arbitrary construct, but it has a definition that is based on biological facts.

Hans

 

[GlennB]

Lets see, leave out the supernatural, hmmm
In the days predating the building of the great cities of Mesopotamia, a guy named Noe was old and wise and paid attention to the environment. This man noticed that the river was behaving the same way as it did when another flood came long ago. He built a kind of raft, loaded it with food and animals that he raised, got his wife and sons on board and survived a local flood.

I once suggested this to a "floodist" and he told me not to be ridiculous

 

[MRC_Hans]

Lets see, leave out the supernatural, hmmm
In the days predating the building of the great cities of Mesopotamia, a guy named Noe was old and wise and paid attention to the environment. This man noticed that the river was behaving the same way as it did when another flood came long ago. He built a kind of raft, loaded it with food and animals that he raised, got his wife and sons on board and survived a local flood.
There you go, that about it, can we put the idiotic bible story to bed please?

Agreed.

Remember the Indian ocean Tsunami some years ago? Thousands and thousands of casualies, but on one small island, the folklore of a 'primitive' tribe said the equivalent of: "If ever the earth shakes and the ocean recedes, make for the hills, fast!". They did just that, and their casualties, in spite of their being right in the path of the tsunami, were .... one goat.

Legend material, in another era.

Hans

 

[Simon39759]

The basic kinds are not thought to have numbered into millions of species.

The problem with that particular bit of apologetic is that the conveniently vague and undefined term 'kind' is used elsewhere in the Bible.


For example:

And these you shall have in abomination among the birds, they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the osprey, the kite, the falcon according to its kind, every raven according to its kind, the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk according to its kind, the owl, the cormorant, the ibis, the water hen, the pelican, the carrion vulture, the stork, the heron according to its kind, the hoopoe, and the bat

So, the Raven birds, for example, constitute its own kind.
It also differentiate between Osprey; Kites and other hawks.

So the term seems to be elastic but somewhat similar to to scientific 'Genus'.
The problem for the flood apologetists there is, average, 10 species per genus.
So, a couple representing each kind would still constitute more than a couple hundred thousand animals... Considerable!

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Remember the Indian ocean Tsunami some years ago? Thousands and thousands of casualies, but on one small island, the folklore of a 'primitive' tribe said the equivalent of: "If ever the earth shakes and the ocean recedes, make for the hills, fast!". They did just that, and their casualties, in spite of their being right in the path of the tsunami, were .... one goat.

Legend material, in another era.

Not really advanced or legend material, to be honest, more like the lore every culture has to counter its region-specific threats. Simple knowledge can go a long way towards saving lives.

 

[I Ratant]

On the tops of the hills and mountains, one should expect to find fossil remains of all the animals that went uphill to the peaks.
And there has to be dinosaurs and mammals and birds and antelopes and rabbits and people all intermixed.
One might expect.

 

[Simon39759]

On the tops of the hills and mountains, one should expect to find fossil remains of all the animals that went uphill to the peaks.
And there has to be dinosaurs and mammals and birds and antelopes and rabbits and people all intermixed.
One might expect.

Actually, one would expect to find the ancient building and the heavy human artifacts that sunk faster right at the bottom of the flood sedimentation column... You know, the opposite of what you actually observe...

 

[154]

"But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.
For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,
and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be."

Jesus Christ

Matthew 24:37-39

 

[Complexity]

"But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.
For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,
and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be."

Jesus Christ

Matthew 24:37-39

How pathetic. Try using your own words. And don't quote the bibble at us - it is a very rude and discourteous thing to do.

Tres uncouth.

 

[154]

I know.

Kryptonite.

But skeptics quoting the parts they don't like is cool.

 

[kerikiwi]

I know.

Kryptonite.

But skeptics quoting the parts they don't like is cool.

Can you provide an example in this thread?
And also explain, in your own words, just what is the relevance of your biblical quote to the fact that the ark story is not literal?

 

[154]

Can you provide an example in this thread?
And also explain, in your own words, just what is the relevance of your biblical quote to the fact that the ark story is not literal?

"the fact that"

Please give me your best figurative and metaphorical understandings then...

 

[Lord Emsworth]

"the fact that"

Please give me your best figurative and metaphorical understandings then...

Try this

 

[kerikiwi]

"the fact that"

Please give me your best figurative and metaphorical understandings then...

I have no idea and I don't really care.
Now ,back to the questions you ignored...
An example of skeptics quoting biblical passages 'they don't like' in this thread.
And the relevance of your biblical quote to the fact that the ark story is not literal.

 

[dio]

"But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.
For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,
and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be."

Jesus Christ

Matthew 24:37-39

Ooooooh, I get it now.

So this is why the Noah story is so important. If the flood didn't happen, Jesus isn't coming.

That explains the fundies desperation and their willingness to being ridiculed for their phantasmagorical "explanations" for the flood that never was.

 

[Radrook]

You keep using the passive voice like this: things are thought or are believed to be thus. Who thinks or believes these things (or, if you prefer, by whom are these things thought or believed)? Your use of the passive makes it sound as if there is some sort of consensus, but relieves you of the obligation of explaining who actually holds such beliefs. Such use of the passive is known (by me) as the "weaselly passive."

By those who believe such things.

 

[kerikiwi]

I don't think there is enough concensus here to allow the use of 'we'.
So, do you, Radrook, take it as historical fact?
If so, why?

You seem to have overlooked this Radrook...
Any chance of an answer?