Something funny
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-01-2012, 08:35 AM
RE: Something funny
(16-01-2012 08:27 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(15-01-2012 06:28 PM)Alaskan Atheist Wrote:  I just have a quick question(s) regarding the Noah's Ark story...

How did God kill the sea creatures by a flood? If anything, he just gave them more room to live... He drowned fish? Also - what about the salt-water fish and the fresh-water fish? How'd Noah get those onto the Ark so that the water was sectioned off for each habitat? How'd he account for the food chain? Surely the owl would totally dominate all the mice?

Fish weren't on the ark. Brackish water (via the flood) would kill both saltwater and freshwater fish. However, this would present a problem with the conclusion of a world-wide flood; which is why I think it was local.

The assumption is that God closed the mouths of the predators on the ark like He did in Daniel.

Closed the mouths and asses Wink

Don't know why you don't just say "the whole story's a metaphor (for what I have no clue) and we don't expect it to have any reality except maybe as oral tradition recording an event such as the flooding of the black sea".

If it walks like a tribal creation myth, quacks like a tribal creation myth and looks like a tribal creation myth, you insist it's a literal-truth duck?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2012, 08:45 AM
RE: Something funny
(16-01-2012 08:35 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(16-01-2012 08:27 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(15-01-2012 06:28 PM)Alaskan Atheist Wrote:  I just have a quick question(s) regarding the Noah's Ark story...

How did God kill the sea creatures by a flood? If anything, he just gave them more room to live... He drowned fish? Also - what about the salt-water fish and the fresh-water fish? How'd Noah get those onto the Ark so that the water was sectioned off for each habitat? How'd he account for the food chain? Surely the owl would totally dominate all the mice?

Fish weren't on the ark. Brackish water (via the flood) would kill both saltwater and freshwater fish. However, this would present a problem with the conclusion of a world-wide flood; which is why I think it was local.

The assumption is that God closed the mouths of the predators on the ark like He did in Daniel.

Closed the mouths and asses Wink

Don't know why you don't just say "the whole story's a metaphor (for what I have no clue) and we don't expect it to have any reality except maybe as oral tradition recording an event such as the flooding of the black sea".

If it walks like a tribal creation myth, quacks like a tribal creation myth and looks like a tribal creation myth, you insist it's a literal-truth duck?

Because there isn't anything in the text that suggests that. It was written as a literal story.

I actually have high standards when it comes to what I think is literal in the Bible and what isn't.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2012, 09:09 AM
RE: Something funny
(16-01-2012 08:45 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(16-01-2012 08:35 AM)morondog Wrote:  If it walks like a tribal creation myth, quacks like a tribal creation myth and looks like a tribal creation myth, you insist it's a literal-truth duck?

Because there isn't anything in the text that suggests that. It was written as a literal story.

I actually have high standards when it comes to what I think is literal in the Bible and what isn't.

I get that. You believe that the Bible story of the flood is *intended* to be taken literally. Fundies say "if in Bible then true". You say "if in Bible *and* intended to be taken literally then true".

I don't dispute the "intended literally" I dispute the "true"...

On top of that, in order to get around the obvious contradictions implied by the Bible account and reality you find yourself making more and more wild hypotheses of your own "the flood was local" etc... "God magically sealed the animals mouths and gave them all constipation".

I know you've hashed over this 1000 times and I don't intend to rehash... just... surely this whole deal gives you a very uncomfortable feeling?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2012, 09:52 AM
RE: Something funny
(16-01-2012 09:09 AM)morondog Wrote:  On top of that, in order to get around the obvious contradictions implied by the Bible account and reality you find yourself making more and more wild hypotheses of your own "the flood was local" etc... "God magically sealed the animals mouths and gave them all constipation".

Wait a sec... now, these aren't "my hypotheses"; rather, they are commonly held beliefs amongst theologians. The local flood theory has been around forever because of the translation of the word for "earth".

The "God sealed their mouths" theory is also pretty common because of what He did with Daniel.

Also, I think that if they just had local animals, then it wouldn't be impossible for them to dispose of the waste.

Quote:I know you've hashed over this 1000 times and I don't intend to rehash... just... surely this whole deal gives you a very uncomfortable feeling?

No, because realistically, it's all very plausible; likewise, it fits scripturally and theologically without doing gymnastics.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2012, 10:12 AM
RE: Something funny
(16-01-2012 08:27 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  ... Brackish water (via the flood) would kill both saltwater and freshwater fish.

No, it wouldn't. You really need to learn some science before making pronouncements on reality.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2012, 10:18 AM
RE: Something funny
(16-01-2012 10:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-01-2012 08:27 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  ... Brackish water (via the flood) would kill both saltwater and freshwater fish.

No, it wouldn't. You really need to learn some science before making pronouncements on reality.

Oh, I must have read wrong then.

I know that brackish would kill freshwater fish, so I'm assuming this is directed toward the saltwater fish. They can survive brackish waters?

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2012, 05:15 PM
RE: Something funny
(16-01-2012 10:18 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(16-01-2012 10:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-01-2012 08:27 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  ... Brackish water (via the flood) would kill both saltwater and freshwater fish.

No, it wouldn't. You really need to learn some science before making pronouncements on reality.

Oh, I must have read wrong then.

I know that brackish would kill freshwater fish, so I'm assuming this is directed toward the saltwater fish. They can survive brackish waters?

The brackish would kill both fresh or salt water fish in varying degrees.

Very few couldn't take it at all, most could take it for a while, and for some it's not a problem (think salmon). The salt content in estuaries varies with the tides, and there are lots of fish in them.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2012, 05:25 PM
RE: Something funny
Lakes Maurepas and Ponchatrain are brackish and have fresh and saltwater species. Sand sharks have been found as far up as Tickfaw and Amite rivers.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: