When Literalists have to literally lie to sell their literal truth (AKA Adventures in Ark-itecture)

[Sarpedon]

I find it so amusing that these people are so certain this thing happened, but they can't even identify which millenium it supposedly happened in.

Its like the Exodus. I ask them, "Which Pharaoh drowned in the Red Sea? What was his name?" And they can't answer.

And then they pretend that asking "when did this happen?" is somehow an unfair question:

Nope. Nice try.
You don't get to propose a debunking theory based on gaps in the biblical account and when I point out that the bible doesn't give sufficient age/date information to enable your counter-theory, you expect me to provide you the missing times and dates.

My debunking theory is that no flood ever happened as described, according to the geological evidence. And that the Ark was impossible to construct and fill, at ANY level of technology. Even today, we can't build a wooden ship that big that can survive those conditions and hold all those animals, much less the primitive conditions described in the bible.

You counter by saying "It did happen." And I ask, "When?" and you pretend that is an unreasonable question.

If I said "Aliens visited the earth." and you asked me "When? Where?" would you be satisfied if I said that those questions couldn't be answered?

If you say something happened, asking "When?" is always a fair question.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If I said "Aliens visited the earth." and you asked me "When? Where?" would you be satisfied if I said that those questions couldn't be answered?

Good point.

Would it be best to first establish the actual description of the type of aliens if we're to make provable evaluations to the first contact data. As it is mentioned in various cultures (Including Plato ) there were many aliens visiting during mans existence. Aliens for example that unfortunately visited ancient saints in biblical accounts, or show up in Aztec engravings. This is obviously being on a much smaller scale than, say "Independence Day." It wouldn't need that supposed type of cultural impact in the historical record says it rejects, but aliens nevertheless are important enough to be alter the course of history.

 

[funinspace]

Would it be best to first establish the actual description the type of flood if we're to make provable evaluations to the geological data. As it is mentioned in various cultures (Including Plato ) there were many floods during mans existence. Floods for example that unfortunately happened in New orleans or torrential rains in monsoons causing loss of life, animals and people and serious damage to environment and this is obviously being on a much smaller scale. It wouldn't need that supposed type of flood that geological records says it rejects, but a flood nevertheless big enough to be very destructive.

Uhhhmmm….just what do you think this thread has been about for the last 200 posts? This is about taking Genesis 6, 7, & 8 taken literally by the True Believers; with the below snippets for anyone who may just not know the story:

Ge 6:15 This is how you shall make it: the length of the ark three hundred [k]cubits, its breadth fifty [l]cubits, and its height thirty [m]cubits. 16 You shall make a [n]window for the ark, and finish it to a cubit from [o]the top; and set the door of the ark in the side of it; you shall make it with lower, second, and third decks. 17 Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish.

Ge 7:2 You shall take with you of every clean animal [c]by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; 3 also of the birds of the [d]sky, [e]by sevens, male and female, to keep [f]offspring alive on the face of all the earth.

17 Then the flood [n]came upon the earth for forty days, and the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth. 18 The water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth, and the ark [o]floated on the [p]surface of the water. 19 The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains [q]everywhere under the heavens were covered. 20 The water prevailed fifteen [r]cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. 21 All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; 22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died.

If you wanted to talk about some heavily redacted flood story, where most of the above is not true, you probably should have made that clear 10 days ago….as of course artic ice core samples wouldn’t be impacted by a seasonal flood in Mesopotamia. Southern Mesopotamia is a flood basin, like so many flat river plains, no surprise there... But then one wouldn’t need a massive cargo barge, nor to collect all the animals, nor a hundred other things this impossible tale requires.

 

[Learner]

My debunking theory is that no flood ever happened as described, according to the geological evidence. And that the Ark was impossible to construct and fill, at ANY level of technology. Even today, we can't build a wooden ship that big that can survive those conditions and hold all those animals, much less the primitive conditions described in the bible.

"No flood happened as described, according to the geological evidence." Well it is a safe theory, I mentioned something similar in my previous post only the desciption in the bible was just a flood not that there was a flood described as being so an so. Being so and so an assumption and then resulting in a conclusion only debunks a so and so type flood. A theory.

 

[Keith&Co.]

only the desciption in the bible was just a flood not that there was a flood described as being so an so.

But then you're not being a literalist. And your theory has no bearing on the window-dressing being propped up by the alleged literalists at the theme park.

 

[Learner]

Uhhhmmm….just what do you think this thread has been about for the last 200 posts? This is about taking Genesis 6, 7, & 8 taken literally by the True Believers; with the below snippets for anyone who may just not know the story:

No problem to taking it literally. Just not putting into account literally "proportionately big" is what I'm saying IMO .Ok lets not go back to big trees again.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

My debunking theory is that no flood ever happened as described, according to the geological evidence. And that the Ark was impossible to construct and fill, at ANY level of technology. Even today, we can't build a wooden ship that big that can survive those conditions and hold all those animals, much less the primitive conditions described in the bible.

"No flood happened as described, according to the geological evidence." Well it is a safe theory, I mentioned something similar in my previous post only the desciption in the bible was just a flood not that there was a flood described as being so an so. Being so and so an assumption and then resulting in a conclusion only debunks a so and so type flood. A theory.

What do you mean by "just a flood"? The only "being so and so" which is relevant to the description is that the flood was worldwide and all the people and animals which are alive today are descendants of a group which rode it out on a boat. All the rest are just trivial details which follow from that premise. The debunkings deal with that premise, in that all the things which must therefore follow from it are false.

 

[Learner]

But then you're not being a literalist. And your theory has no bearing on the window-dressing being propped up by the alleged literalists at the theme park.

Will have to get back on that Keith

 

[funinspace]

fuck the what?

"No flood happened as described, according to the geological evidence." Well it is a safe theory, I mentioned something similar in my previous post only the desciption in the bible was just a flood not that there was a flood described as being so an so. Being so and so an assumption and then resulting in a conclusion only debunks a so and so type flood. A theory.

What do you mean by "just a flood"? The only "being so and so" which is relevant to the description is that the flood was worldwide and all the people and animals which are alive today are descendants of a group which rode it out on a boat. All the rest are just trivial details which follow from that premise. The debunkings deal with that premise, in that all the things which must therefore follow from it are false.

Maybe its like "It's just a flesh wound!"....

 

[funinspace]

serious....no...maybe not even coherent

Nah, it is more like whether Darth Vader or Captain Kirk would win in a battle, when they are both suddenly transported to the surface of a rocky, barren planet. Meanwhile, the UFO (unidentified fucking objects) aliens are voting on who they can play with next....

So, you're not even trying to be serious, that's what you're saying. Okay.

Maybe I shouldn't have just finished watching Rob Zombie's video "Well, Everybody’s Fucking in a U.F.O"...

 

[skepticalbip]

Uhhhmmm….just what do you think this thread has been about for the last 200 posts? This is about taking Genesis 6, 7, & 8 taken literally by the True Believers; with the below snippets for anyone who may just not know the story:

No problem to taking it literally. Just not putting into account literally "proportionately big" is what I'm saying IMO .Ok lets not go back to big trees again.

Are you saying that the flood was much, much more local and smaller than the Bible story account. Could we then assume that the ark was "proportionately smaller" (maybe a rowboat), the number of animals "proportionately smaller" (maybe Noah's dogs), and the number of deaths "proportionately smaller" (maybe just a lot of those along the particular river that flooded)?

Now that sounds reasonable and is pretty much what atheists are saying.

 

[Sarpedon]

Ah, and now we have the usual "I wasn't really arguing that" phase of the argument, after having lost the main argument. Though this is one of the more brazen examples. I can barely believe that someone can be so mendacious as to go from arguing in favor of the existence of Noah's Ark to then baldly claiming that he was never claiming that there was a worldwide flood, only local flooding, and we are apparently idiots for arguing that there's no such things as floods.

First its the "IF I don't tell you when I propose that this happened, you can't disprove it." Then it goes to the "I don't believe the same thing as these others believe! You are oppressing me by treating me like I am a Young Earth-Creation-Syndicalist-Creationist!" Next we will ask him what he really believes, and he will say something to the effect that his beliefs are so vague as they cannot be rationally discussed.

These discussions are becoming drearily routine.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

No problem to taking it literally. Just not putting into account literally "proportionately big" is what I'm saying IMO .Ok lets not go back to big trees again.

Are you saying that the flood was much, much more local and smaller than the Bible story account. Could we then assume that the ark was "proportionately smaller" (maybe a rowboat), the number of animals "proportionately smaller" (maybe Noah's dogs), and the number of deaths "proportionately smaller" (maybe just a lot of those along the particular river that flooded)?

Now that sounds reasonable and is pretty much what atheists are saying.

Is it possible a little secular birdie told someone to do the math? 725 feet of rain a day - that's what the religious, worldwide flood nutter club claims happened - might make those seas a bit tough to weather, even with a magic boat.

 

[Learner]

only the desciption in the bible was just a flood not that there was a flood described as being so an so.

But then you're not being a literalist. And your theory has no bearing on the window-dressing being propped up by the alleged literalists at the theme park.

G'day Keith,

True, I was just being cocky (relating to an earlier post God forbid) . A bad habit I used to have against Christians when I was agniostic.

 

[Learner]

"No flood happened as described, according to the geological evidence." Well it is a safe theory, I mentioned something similar in my previous post only the desciption in the bible was just a flood not that there was a flood described as being so an so. Being so and so an assumption and then resulting in a conclusion only debunks a so and so type flood. A theory.

What do you mean by "just a flood"? The only "being so and so" which is relevant to the description is that the flood was worldwide and all the people and animals which are alive today are descendants of a group which rode it out on a boat. All the rest are just trivial details which follow from that premise. The debunkings deal with that premise, in that all the things which must therefore follow from it are false.

Acknowledged Tom, I will carry on a little more tactful .

 

[Learner]

No problem to taking it literally. Just not putting into account literally "proportionately big" is what I'm saying IMO .Ok lets not go back to big trees again.

Are you saying that the flood was much, much more local and smaller than the Bible story account. Could we then assume that the ark was "proportionately smaller" (maybe a rowboat), the number of animals "proportionately smaller" (maybe Noah's dogs), and the number of deaths "proportionately smaller" (maybe just a lot of those along the particular river that flooded)?

Now that sounds reasonable and is pretty much what atheists are saying.

Not at all , I mean't taking it literally I believe to account for..including.. 'proportionate to size' every component of the Ark.

 

[Learner]

Maybe I shouldn't have just finished watching Rob Zombie's video "Well, Everybody’s Fucking in a U.F.O"...

Someone told me on the forum not to watch too much TV or movies just recently. I gather being subconsciously influenced.

 

[Learner]

Ah, and now we have the usual "I wasn't really arguing that" phase of the argument, after having lost the main argument. Though this is one of the more brazen examples. I can barely believe that someone can be so mendacious as to go from arguing in favor of the existence of Noah's Ark to then baldly claiming that he was never claiming that there was a worldwide flood, only local flooding, and we are apparently idiots for arguing that there's no such things as floods.

First its the "IF I don't tell you when I propose that this happened, you can't disprove it." Then it goes to the "I don't believe the same thing as these others believe! You are oppressing me by treating me like I am a Young Earth-Creation-Syndicalist-Creationist!" Next we will ask him what he really believes, and he will say something to the effect that his beliefs are so vague as they cannot be rationally discussed.

These discussions are becoming drearily routine.

Not what I'm trying to do but understandable.

 

[funinspace]

A good a post as any for such nonsense...

Maybe I shouldn't have just finished watching Rob Zombie's video "Well, Everybody’s Fucking in a U.F.O"...

Someone told me on the forum not to watch too much TV or movies just recently. I gather being subconsciously influenced.

Well, it isn't either TV or a movie; It is a music vid.

And I thought I was being nonsensical...I have no idea what your views are of the fabled Deluge at this point...

 

[Sarpedon]

I've been a member here for a long time, and have had many of these discussions, and they do indeed tend to follow this or one of another common pattern.

If you want to be different, why don't you try making a thesis statement, which shall establish what you are arguing.

Example: The weight of evidence is overwhelmingly against the notion of Noah's Ark and a worldwide flood. Such an event would have left clear evidence, which is absent. Furthermore, the narrative shows such ignorance of facts, such as height of mountains, biological diversity, reproductive biology, meteorology, nautical engineering, structural mechanics, geology, logistics, animal behavior, history, etc, that it can safely be dismissed as pure fiction, rather than a narrative of actual events. The confusion, and downright evasiveness, of the adherents to the belief of these events as to their date and other practical considerations, reinforces the impression that this is a story, rather than history.

I can defend one or all of the points I make in the above statement.

I really was impressed that Lion introduced a point that no previous flood-believer in my experience did: that metal working existed before the flood and was lost afterwards. It is not a good point, as I pretty much have already explained that while technologies sometimes die out, they tend to be things like making a particular shade of blue glass, (or glassmaking in general) or complex mechanical computers, or the making of concrete. Not things that are of practical use every day: like ironworking. The most everyday practical technology that I know to have been lost and rediscovered, that of making concrete, is probably the best analogy to ironworking. However, while virtually every activity that humans do can benefit from metal tools, concrete is not significantly better than simpler materials in small-scale construction. During the dark ages, when the technology was lost, there was a generations-long hiatus in large scale building projects throughout the (formerly) Roman world. (and there is mounting evidence that the technology was not wholly lost) There was no such hiatus in demand for metalworking, thus concrete was lost, but metallurgy continued to advance. In order to imagine the loss of metalworking, one would have to imagine a generations long gap where metal tools would be considered a luxury, as Lion suggested. I just don't see it. I don't see any length of time where iron tools would not be needed, even in a community of 8 people. Indeed, the very shortage of labor in such a community would demand maximum efficiency and application of existing technology. They wouldn't go back to stone tools, because stone tools take a long time, great skill (which as metal workers they wouldn't have) and produce an inferior, shorter lived product than iron working. They simply couldn't afford to go backwards. I recall reading a theory that the Black Death in Europe was responsible for technological advances that led to the industrial revolution: Namely the Black Death produced a massive labor shortage, while leaving the economic structures largely intact, causing a need for the invention of labor-saving devices. Thus the concept that labor shortages increase, rather than decrease the need for technological advances. Nevertheless, it was a new point, and it showed more thoughtfulness than what I am accustomed to seeing. It provided me some diversion and challenge to counter.