Noah's Ark, again
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-09-2013, 01:23 PM
Noah's Ark, again
OK, I know we had tons of shit about the absurdity of Noah's Ark, but, wait, there is more!

One question just came to me while I was watching how Richard Dawkins destroyed the idea of NA and I don't think I ever heard it before, or any kind of explanation for it.

What about all the fish, lizards, dolphins and all other aquatic creatures?

Let me specify... All the rivers and seas were mixed together and there was a great storm, a lot of rain... This would all change the properties of the aquatic environment that a certain species depended upon, so a lot of those species would be dead. Gone. In a giant genocide, along with all the other land creatures.

Did Noah had a bunch of gold-fish tanks that he just forgot to mention, or did nobody care about what happens to stupid fish (whales and dolphins as well)?

Big Grin

Chew on it, motherfuckers.

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Filox's post
06-09-2013, 01:50 PM
RE: Noah's Ark, again
Yep. Either the whole world was a salty sea or the rain covered the world in a low salinity ocean, the depth of the water would change massively, and many species would be entirely without a habitat. All the plants relying on photosynthesis would die, and either every salt-water species or fresh-water species would die.

The Ark would need the world's largest aquarium complex just to have two of each species that could not survive the changed conditions, which would probably be 99.99% of them.

The USS Nimitz would not be adequate for Noah's operation.

If something can be destroyed by the truth, it might be worth destroying.

[Image: ZcC2kGl.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 01:50 PM
RE: Noah's Ark, again
(06-09-2013 01:23 PM)Filox Wrote:  OK, I know we had tons of shit about the absurdity of Noah's Ark, but, wait, there is more!

One question just came to me while I was watching how Richard Dawkins destroyed the idea of NA and I don't think I ever heard it before, or any kind of explanation for it.

What about all the fish, lizards, dolphins and all other aquatic creatures?

Let me specify... All the rivers and seas were mixed together and there was a great storm, a lot of rain... This would all change the properties of the aquatic environment that a certain species depended upon, so a lot of those species would be dead. Gone. In a giant genocide, along with all the other land creatures.

Did Noah had a bunch of gold-fish tanks that he just forgot to mention, or did nobody care about what happens to stupid fish (whales and dolphins as well)?

Big Grin

Chew on it, motherfuckers.

The BBC had a series by Dawkins. I think it was called the Root of All Evil.

He went into faith schools and the Islamic one had this idea that the waters didn't
mix. So the salt and fresh water fish evidently stratified themselves and the arkonauts could get fresh water.Drinking Beverage

I'll try to find the link for you!

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 02:07 PM (This post was last modified: 06-09-2013 02:11 PM by PleaseJesus.)
RE: Noah's Ark, again
1) The topography in the pre-Noahic world was arguably far less striated. When water covered the tops of the mountains it wasn't that great a depth of water. 2) There was tremendous loss of life on land and sea alike--we see many species disappear in the Flood and immediate post-Flood world. There are great extinctions in the record, say scholars, just as they've certified explosions of new life in relatively shorter periods of time.

PS. You wrote there is tons of stuff about the absurdity of the ark, is there a thread somewhere here about the positives in the biblical ark record? The stability of the craft with those dimensions, etc? You know--a balanced view even if you find more details are con than pro.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 02:24 PM
RE: Noah's Ark, again
Quote:1) The topography in the pre-Noahic world was arguably far less striated.

Evidence, or are you just pulling stuff out of your ass?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
06-09-2013, 02:30 PM
RE: Noah's Ark, again
(06-09-2013 02:24 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote:1) The topography in the pre-Noahic world was arguably far less striated.

Evidence, or are you just pulling stuff out of your ass?

He's pulling stuff out of his arse...

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Sam's post
06-09-2013, 02:34 PM
RE: Noah's Ark, again
(06-09-2013 02:07 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  1) The topography in the pre-Noahic world was arguably far less striated. When water covered the tops of the mountains it wasn't that great a depth of water. 2) There was tremendous loss of life on land and sea alike--we see many species disappear in the Flood and immediate post-Flood world. There are great extinctions in the record, say scholars, just as they've certified explosions of new life in relatively shorter periods of time.

PS. You wrote there is tons of stuff about the absurdity of the ark, is there a thread somewhere here about the positives in the biblical ark record? The stability of the craft with those dimensions, etc? You know--a balanced view even if you find more details are con than pro.

Supposing it was possible for Noah to fit at least 2 of every living thing on his ark and keep them alive until the flood receded. How would any of these animals survive, after?

The waters would have washed away or killed all vegetation, and left the earth devoid of life. What would these animals eat?

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2013, 02:36 PM
RE: Noah's Ark, again
(06-09-2013 02:07 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  1) The topography in the pre-Noahic world was arguably far less striated. When water covered the tops of the mountains it wasn't that great a depth of water. 2) There was tremendous loss of life on land and sea alike--we see many species disappear in the Flood and immediate post-Flood world. There are great extinctions in the record, say scholars, just as they've certified explosions of new life in relatively shorter periods of time.

PS. You wrote there is tons of stuff about the absurdity of the ark, is there a thread somewhere here about the positives in the biblical ark record? The stability of the craft with those dimensions, etc? You know--a balanced view even if you find more details are con than pro.

Erm, no thread I know of...I don't plan to create a thread describing the viabilty of invisible purple leprechauns either.Drinking Beverage

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like KidCharlemagne1962's post
06-09-2013, 02:54 PM
RE: Noah's Ark, again
It's a miracle! The only possible explanation.

I'm not anti-social. I'm pro-solitude. Sleepy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Anjele's post
06-09-2013, 02:57 PM
RE: Noah's Ark, again
(06-09-2013 02:54 PM)Anjele Wrote:  It's a miracle! The only possible explanation.

The purple leprachauns were a miracle..or were they the byproduct of that acid I dropped before seeing them? I need to think this one through better.Drinking Beverage

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: