Cool. That had absolutely nothing to do with the posts of yours I was quoting.
I care about these sorts of details because if the Bible is meant to be taken as a literal, historical, scientific truth, then we assume that there is literally history and science behind everything that's in the Bible, and therefore, there can be no anachronisms.
Big shot farmer had a boat. Some river is flooded and he puts all his lifestock on a boat. Flood goes away, he strands, lets the animals out, goes to a nearby bar which just opened after the flood and tells his account to the barkeep. The god he prayed to at the time is mentioned as having guarded him against the flood. The barkeep likes the story and tells it to his other customers, who get home and tell it to their family, who go to the market and tell it to some vendors. Some priest overhears and puts it in a sermon, emphasizing the role God must have played in saving this man.
After a couple of hundred years of spicing up the story, we got the story of Noah's ark.
Where did all the contradictory accounts come from?
...
It's that delusional.
And those civilizations all forgot the whole ... thing
The only explanation that we can truly derive from the story of Noah's ark is that it was meant to be a parable, because the story happening verbatim is impossible on several fronts.
Most of the province of BC where I live used to be on the bottom of the ocean, all of our fossils here are from marine species. What makes it even more interesting is that my province is also extremely mountainous, and way the hell up in the rockies there are some really cool sites where they dig out 1000s of fossils of marine animals. A people with no knowledge of tectonic plates and how mountains are created would easily become confused about that (though I don't know if the native americans ever found or had stories about fossils high up in the mountains). Here on the coast, the major island of Vancouver Island (FYI: the city of Vancouver which is on the mainland, they are just named after the same guy) also contains many fossils of marine life, but the island actually migrated up here from the south pacific so it has entirely different species in the fossil recordI just read on wikipedia that one explanation is marine fossils that exist in many places and there's another theory that it may have to do with tsunamis or great floods that occurred around the world in prehistoric times. Middle Easterners, Greeks, Chinese and Native Americans all have great flood myths. Dragons may have to do with fossils of dinosaurs.
Well, on that point - the only sensible point worth discussion IMO - what can we learn from this story?? What is the moral? "Don't be bad, or God may kill you"?I'm told that a lot of Jewish people used to believe this (or still do). The question of whether or not the stories were literal facts and scientifically true doesn't matter as much as the question "what does this story say about life and what can I learn from it?"
Well there is no need for the fish to be in the ark, since they live in water and it was only air breathing animals they needed to bring onto the ship. The amount of animals needed to be brought in is not that large and having juvenile animals means they are not fully grown and it is only after the time of being on the ark for 1 year. Have alook at this link to get a better answer on the issue at hand.
http://aufiles.creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter14.pdf
@CetlicEmpire. I think it is best not to use the word "microevolution", since it is not change that we are challenging, but the type of change is what is needed. Evolution states that due to gradual changes we have evolved from bacteria, but the problem with that is that we just do see any changes of the sort that are required for that to happen, that being, increase in useful and specific information. Any of the mutations we see happening now do not give hope to the situation, since the best case scenario seen is basically just change of diet for bacteria and not the mutational change needed to turn a microbe to a microbiologist, the field that was started by Pasteur, a creationist, I must add.
Is your criticism my story is not as plausible as a global flood story? Yeah, that's a riot. There have been plenty of floods where a farmer has put all his lifestock on a boat? Please do share with me the historical records of which you based this claim on. Or please read a post before feeling the need to start a post with: "the problem with the above".The problem with the above is that if some river floods, then why did they not just move from the place they were living? It is not that hard to do. There have been plenty of such floods happen through out history, but we don't see these floods becoming things of legend and myth if they happen everywhere, we would seee so many of such stories, but the ones we have are about a global flood.
Well, on that point - the only sensible point worth discussion IMO - what can we learn from this story?? What is the moral? "Don't be bad, or God may kill you"?
I'll agree that the story of Noah can at most be taken as a parable, but for what purpose?
Its not easy to just pick everything up and move, while the river's floods were what fertilized the soil and were an annual event a bad flood could wipe out everything, including any food stores. You also must remember that people back then had absolutely no idea how large the world actually was, so a huge flood one year that was bad enough to be retold (along with the influence of the river flooding every year anyway) could easily take on a larger than life image in the story. Oral traditions are only reliable for about 300 years before they become more myth than fact.The problem with the above is that if some river floods, then why did they not just move from the place they were living? It is not that hard to do. There have been plenty of such floods happen through out history, but we don't see these floods becoming things of legend and myth if they happen everywhere, we would seee so many of such stories, but the ones we have are about a global flood.
It wasn't just genocide of people (who's bad behaviour caused the flood) but the genocide of EVERY LIVING SPECIES just because some humans were misbehaving. Really it just makes yahweh look like a genocidal maniac mad with power.As an atheist, I can't speak for religious people. But it seems to be a story about the omnipotence of god, humans were evil enough to justify their genocide, and the promise god made not to destroy the world again with a flood.
It wasn't just genocide of people (who's bad behaviour caused the flood) but the genocide of EVERY LIVING SPECIES just because some humans were misbehaving. Really it just makes yahweh look like a genocidal maniac mad with power.
Right. It's been a while since Sunday school, but I believe that was the message that was emphasized.Didn't Noah also get heckled by people while he built his ark? Maybe it's something to do with following god's word despite public humiliation.
Omnipotent??It's odd how the omnipotent god couldn't just "poof" the bad people away...
Judges 1:19 (King James Version) said:And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
If you ever wondered what you need to defend yourself during the apocalypse.
Why is the salt sea so salty?
Lets pretend for a moment that this story is true.
What about the fish?
Are you people actually suggesting that a supreme deity capable of creating a deluge to cover the earth could not deal with such a minor inconvenience such as salinity factors and keep the fish alive? That is just laughable.