Woodmorappe proving the Ark is possible.

[Dinwar]

But when Noah's Ark comes up, then everyone becomes a walking dictionary citing fact after fact indicating that without God's divine intervention no one could have met dietary needs, waste needs, breeding population needs, space needs, construction needs, joinery needs, etc. Yes! Without God's intervention, even the teeny-tiniest aspect of the Flood story is impossible. But if you are talking about a Being that created Heaven and Earth, then stopping animals from pooping is not that insurmountable of a task.

Jesus' resurectoin isn't a direct attack against my profession.

Deluge Geology isn't merely a Christian fancy. It was, at one point, a serious and supported scientific theory. Well, a component of a number of them, anyway. And back when it was seriously considered by the scientific community there was some evidence to support it, some rational for believing it. The problem is, the theory lost all credibility a few hundred years ago, and those who still cling to it are dragging my science back to its most primitive form. While they're at it, many of them lie about the research me and my coleagues do, and often about what I personally do (if you say "Transitional forms have never been found", you're calling me a liar, because I've found them; if you say that stratigraphy is false you're calling me a liar, because I use those principles constantly; if you call radiometric dating fictitious you're calling me a liar, because I use C14 and other dating methods quite frequently; etc).

Jesus rising from the dead? A cute story, with no real practical outcome anymore. The Flood? Now you're taking the food from my mouth and the roof out from over my wife's head.

The appropriate response to those chuckleheads is to say, "OK, build an ark. Either construct a wooden seagoing vessel with the ark's exact dimensions or construct a building of the ark's exact dimensions and put in all the animals and food that you would need."

Why do we seldom hear of anyone actually trying to the the latter?

We do. There were several threads on this. A Biblically accurate ark would be a death trap. It couldn't handle sea voyages--it'd break itself to pieces.

Presumably they could pack the dried meat, fish and fruit in salt to act as a desiccant, but what about the hay?

Not really. Salt was extremely valuable in the past. Our word "salary" comes from the Latin word for salt, and "isn't worth his salt" is still an insult. The Bible itself (Psalms) uses "salt for the Earth" to describe the chosen people, implying their value. Packing meat in salt would be like using gold as a means of food preservation, in terms of money.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Because Noah held the patent, and he built wooden boats, not buildings.

If he had applied for and gotten a patent, then 20 years later the published patent would have entered the public domain and everyone would have been able to refer to it and use it in their engineering.

People really need to take a few minutes to learn what patents, copyrights, and trademarks actually are.

 

[catsmate]

The minimum viable population to prevent extinction due to inbreeding for most species is far higher than two. The Ark would have needed to carry hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of large mammals alone.

Magic.

i wonder where he got the Cangoroos from.

Magic.

Does it cover the massive amounts of urine and feces and how noah dealt with it?

Or how he kept the predators from eating the smaller animals?

Magic and magic.

Waste chutes are fine. They can even vent below the water line, provided that their linings are all as strong and water-tight as the outer hull, up to the level of the gunwales. The receiving (top) end of the chute must therefore be as high as the gunwales, or else each chute becomes a very large leak when waves are encountered.

Easier to strap the animals into stalls set into the hull like the balconies on a cruise ship, with their rear ends suspended over the briny abyss. That would make all those kids' Noah's Ark toys a bit more fun and educational.

However -- does any part of scripture specifically rule out a catamaran design? With that configuration, the animals could be housed throughout the center span, with their nether ends positioned over holes opening directly upon the water.

Respectfully,
Myriad

I'm reminded of this book.

That's my question, why don't we see a genetic bottleneck in every extant species at about the same time in history?

No common bottleneck, no ark.

Magic.

 

[TimCallahan]

AvalonXQ:

Does this book deal with the problems I brought in the other thread on the flood regarding freshwater and marine organisms? They are, as I recall:

1) How did freshwater fish, snails, bivalves, crustaceans, etc. get to the ark in the first place?

2) Assuming the marine species were left in the oceans, how did they survive the dilution of the oceans' salinity during the rain?

3) After the flood subsided, how were the freshwater species dispersed throughout the world? they obviously couldn't walk across dry land. they also couldn't have swam through the saline oceans to get to the mouths of rivers.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Take a look at the amount of questioning of my intelligence, maturity, and honesty that has gone on just in the last two pages.

Why should I have to comb through taunts, denegration, and ridicule to get to actual arguments to address? Not to mention the Gish Gallop that comes from two dozen different posts making different arguments all at once.

And it's not like I can just find one or two posts making good points and address those -- any post I skip over, choose not to address, or fail to address in the way others feel I should is automatically the "killer argument" that "Avalon has no answer for."

It's not worth my time.

How about addressing one argument: the topic of this thread. Does Woodmorappe prove the Ark was possible? You've read the criticisms, you've at least seen links for critical reviews in the last thread, you have the book itself in front of you. What of it? What mysteries are contained therein? Does it satisfactorily answer how the Ark was seaworthy, how its cargo was cared for, how the animals repopulated the earth? Or does it prevaricate and dissemble, with a poop chute here and a water tank there, and bad geology scattered about?

The fact that you are already preparing to bail on this thread gives me a pretty good guess what the answer is, but corrections are always welcome.

 

[gnome]

Dear gnome,

(1) Because God is a God of emotion and symbolism. "Poofing" things carries very little symbolic weight. The tangible forces of nature being commanded by God creates an emotional effect that would otherwise be absent.

(2) What would the parable possibly mean, if it were truly just a parable?

Cpl Ferro

So, you're supposing here that he killed all the animals and flooded the land instead of "poofing" because he wanted to make a point to a family that wasn't giving him grief in the first place?

 

[aggle-rithm]

It's not worth my time.

Are you saying your beliefs are not worth defending?

Look, if you choose to adhere to your beliefs no matter what the evidence is, then that's your perogative. Just admit to it. Don't pretend that there's a rational basis for what you believe.

If there were a rational basis, then you would at least be able to offer an opinon on how to account for the rarity of marsupials in that area in the middle east from which you believe they all migrated a few thousand years ago.

 

[Beerina]

Given how much of the water covering the world is new, what happened to the saltwater fish is probably a bigger concern than freshwayer fish.

 

[Mudcat]

"Avalon has no answer for this."

Liberal snipping mine. This is all you need say, because there is no answer to explain the flood story. None, save magic. Admit to it or grow up, already.

Edited to add:
But hey, let's assume that all of this is true. An 'all knowing, wise, caring, and endless other ass kissing platitudes' god just up and notices that the world has become consumed with evil...

Well how stupid of him, why wasn't his eyes on the ball before? How did this sneak up on an all knowing and all seeing god?

This absolute moron whose hands our fate in and supposed to be all just decides that death is the only way to cleanse the world. Okay, I can go with that, sort of sounds like the start of your standard RPG.

But not only is this incompetent moron an incompetent moron instead of choosing a champion to fight for his cause, assemble the Master Sword, wear green, take directions from an annoying fairy, and cleanse the land of evil... This god decides everything must die... By drowning.

I'm sorry, is there some definition of justice in use here that I'm unfamiliar with?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Are you saying your beliefs are not worth defending?

I'm saying it's not worth being attacked.

Challenged, yes. Attacked, no.

I discuss things on here because I get something out of it. When the abuse gets too thick, what I get out isn't worth what I endure.

 

[Belz...]

Noah took 120 years. I have a feeling the theme park wants it done more quickly.

MAkes you wonder why he didn't just snap his fingers and make people die.

 

[tsig]

Are you saying your beliefs are not worth defending?

Look, if you choose to adhere to your beliefs no matter what the evidence is, then that's your perogative. Just admit to it. Don't pretend that there's a rational basis for what you believe.

If there were a rational basis, then you would at least be able to offer an opinon on how to account for the rarity of marsupials in that area in the middle east from which you believe they all migrated a few thousand years ago.

Christians used to face down lions now they run for the hills at a perceived rude comment on a message board.

They need better arguments or thicker skins.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I'm saying it's not worth being attacked.

Challenged, yes. Attacked, no.

Are you sure you're not confusing being challenged with being attacked?

You haven't responded to any of the points I've brought up, and I've tried hard not to make it personal.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I'm saying it's not worth being attacked.

Challenged, yes. Attacked, no.

I discuss things on here because I get something out of it. When the abuse gets too thick, what I get out isn't worth what I endure.

You'd endure less if you contributed more.

 

[AvalonXQ]

MAkes you wonder why he didn't just snap his fingers and make people die.

Well,

Why was the Ark needed at all if God could have judged and destroyed the world miraculously? To understand this question, note the impossibility of pinning God down to one modus operandi....
Saying, as Moore (1983, p. 37) does, that God "should" have just dispensed with the Ark (and taken Noah's family to heaven, destroyed the earth, and then replaced Noah's family on earth) is as foolish as it is presumptuous. Clearly, the fact that God chooses to work miraculously in one situation does not in any way prevent Him from working thorugh naturalistic means in other cases (in fact, in the vast majority of cases).

 

[aggle-rithm]

Christians used to face down lions now they run for the hills at a perceived rude comment on a message board.

As I've mentioned recently in another thread, there are countries TODAY where practicing Christianity can be a death sentence. Western Christians are mere dabblers compared to them.

 

[ddt]

Why should I have to comb through taunts, denegration, and ridicule to get to actual arguments to address? Not to mention the Gish Gallop that comes from two dozen different posts making different arguments all at once.

One nitpick about the wording "Gish Gallop": it's not. The "Gish Gallop" is a fast moving of the goal posts within a debate between two. Here, many different arguments are raised against the flood story by different people who have their different angle and point of interest to the question. And it's simply the fact that all of those questions must be answered in the affirmative for the flood story to be possible at all.

 

[tsig]

I'm saying it's not worth being attacked.

Challenged, yes. Attacked, no.

I discuss things on here because I get something out of it. When the abuse gets too thick, what I get out isn't worth what I endure.

2 Timothy
8 Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel, 9 for which I am suffering even to the point of being chained like a criminal. But God’s word is not chained. 10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.

Are you saying that we are beyond salvation?

 

[AvalonXQ]

You'd endure less if you contributed more.

I've never noticed a difference in the volume of attacks based on how much or how little I've contributed at any given time.

 

[AvalonXQ]

One nitpick about the wording "Gish Gallop": it's not. The "Gish Gallop" is a fast moving of the goal posts within a debate between two.

As I understand the term, a "Gish Gallop" is when so many different, wide-ranging topic or points are presented, that the responder cannot reasonably been expected to address all of them.
You're correct, though, that the term is usually used between two people in the context of a debate. I think it fits in this situation, though, where a bunch of different people dogpile different arguments many of which aren't even in the same general subject area as the others.