Willful Blindness
Those who claim that building an ark as large as Noah’s ark is “impossible” are clearly unaware that building massive structures out of blocks weighing as much as 80 tons is also “impossible” by today’s standards.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Deep Thoughts 
How did Noah get around the world to collect all the animals from places not in his backyard?
Arguing if Noah and the flood makes sense isn’t worth the typing because the rest of the nonsense in that book is just as worthless.
For example and on the Noah subject; that book says he lived to 950 and he had his son’s son turned into a slave because his son saw him nude. Every word in that book is stupid. Go read Harry Potter, same difference.
There’s good reason to believe that lifespans were a lot longer in the past. An environment richer in oxygen (as proven by science) and air pressure is just one reason.
And if we are speaking of a time before The Flood, wouldn’t you expect a lot less water to be covering the earth? Wouldn’t that mean that mean that traveling around the “world” would be a lot EASIER?
“Arguing if Noah and the flood makes sense isn’t worth the typing because the rest of the nonsense in that book is just as worthless.”
Then why bother to pose your questions?
I’m making jokes and then seeing your responses. Even with less water, getting from Chicago to Belgium is going to take some time. Plus all the stopping to collect two animals.
On you aging and oxygen thought…you’re being dumb on purpose. The environment is getting worse yet until the present generation we have been living longer. If you believe 2,000 years ago man lived to 950 but with modern science we can only get to 100 on average I don’t even know what to say to you.
End of the day your little campfire tale means a lot inbreeding took place.
I will pray for you.
hahahaha. Fantastic.
I too hope you have a good day.
I don’t think the building of the ark is viewed of as impossible. I think the idea of a global flood is impossible. As is the idea that you can fit every species in the world on a single boat, no matter how large.
One theory is that just as there are many more dog breeds now than there was even centuries ago, there are many more species of animals today than there was thousands of years ago during Noah’s time. Thus, there would have been fewer kinds of animals to bring onto the ark. And if would were bringing different kinds of animals on the ark, you would not need to bring every breed of bird onto the ark, nor every breed of wolf, ox, etc–just one type representing the “kind” of animal in the world.
Someone asked where the whales would go on the ark. Why would whales be on the ark? They would remain where all aquatic animals remain during floods–in the water. As would all the insects and microorganisms.
“just one type representing the “kind” of animal in the world. ”
Unfortunately, this concept doesn’t account for the amount of time it would be necessary for such species to differentiate from their ‘kinds’. Nor does it explain things like, for example, where did marsupials come from and how did they get to Australia and nowhere else.
And you’ve still not addressed the complete absurdity and impossibility of a world-wide flood.
Marsupials are not only in Australia–they are in New Guinea and other nearby islands as well as in the Americas. Marsupial remains have been found in Antarctica and the oldest remains were discovered in China.
It is possible that before the Great Flood, all the different kinds of animals coexisted together as they shared the common expansive landmass of the earth. After the flood, rising waters in certain areas would have separated different animals (and would have drastically changed the environments that they lived in), which would lead to the separation of various species. The marsupial breeds seen in Australia today could have been those that successfully migrated to higher ground before being isolated by the rising waters.
“And you’ve still not addressed the complete absurdity and impossibility of a world-wide flood.”
There are many things that seem “impossible” or “absurd” because they have never been observed during our lifetimes, but that doesn’t mean that they could not have happened. As described, the Flood was not at all like the floods that we have observed. The Bible mentions the “fountains of the deep” opening up from deep under the ground and flooding the world–yet we have never observed such a phenomenon happening again during our lifetime. But ocean ridges–huge cleaves in the ocean floor–may be remaining vestiges of this historic event.
Well, if you evoke magic as your explanation, then anything is possible.
Then why worry about what people think is impossible, if you’re just going to posit that it happened magically?
What happened magically? Whether you believe that God created a worldwide flood or not, how would you definitively conclude that such an event was impossible and never happened? With or without God?
You (and/or likely make that you know) accept the theory that a meteor wiped out the dinosaurs–without any concrete evidence and without ever observing such a phenomenon happen in our lifetime–do you not? Why do you accept the idea that a “meteor” could have wiped out much of the life existing on earth, but automatically conclude that a worldwide flood is “absurd?”
“Whether you believe that God created a worldwide flood or not, how would you definitively conclude that such an event was impossible and never happened?”
The amount of water to cover the entire world is the issue. Unless it came from somewhere else and then disappeared to that same somewhere. In which case, the answer is ‘magic’.
“without any concrete evidence”
Like the crater and the KT boundary?
“but automatically conclude that a worldwide flood is “absurd?””
Because floods don’t work the way you or your scripture seem to think they do.
“The amount of water to cover the entire world is the issue. Unless it came from somewhere else and then disappeared to that same somewhere. In which case, the answer is ‘magic’.”
Who said that the water disappeared? Couldn’t our very oceans be the remaining evidence of this flood? Isn’t it possible that much of the earth’s habitable land is now under water because of this flood? Could this not explain underwater cities?
““without any concrete evidence”
Like the crater and the KT boundary?”
You have craters, I have ocean ridges. We are both drawing different conclusions based on what is observable in the world. How are your conclusions superior to mine?
Massive craters in our >observable world< are caused by weapons testing. If a technology existed in ancient times that could move 80-ton rock, then it is very possible that various other forms of technologies where also being used and tested–and leaving their mark on the earth. Perhaps that could explain the excessive amounts of iridium found at the KT boundary?
The point is that you are concluding (without any evidence) that natural phenomena can wipe out almost all life on earth–as long as it is not a FLOOD. Which I assume is because the Bible mentions it; and not men in white coats.
“Which I assume is because the Bible mentions it; and not men in white coats.”
No. Because the Bible says it covered the entire Earth. That is impossible based on the amount of water found on the Earth. Simple as that.
If our ocean floors used to be the “earth”, or the inhabited land, prior to the flood; then the flood waters did cover the entire earth. And still does.
No they don’t. They covered a portion significantly less than ‘all’, as the fact that there is land above water now shows.
If you’re trying to say that only a few thousand years ago, the ocean levels were so low as to have been at the current ocean floor, then you should have a nice long talk with the geologists. After they laugh at you.
“If you’re trying to say that only a few thousand years ago, the ocean levels were so low as to have been at the current ocean floor, then you should have a nice long talk with the geologists. After they laugh at you.”
I care not if the scoffers laugh–that is what they are supposed to do. Pangaea and the idea of idea of “continental drift”–as though the continents are like free-floating pieces of ice instead of simply landmasses that are above water is much more laughable to me. Yet geologists continue to spout this nonsense without a second thought.
The pre-Flood environment would have been radically different to today’s environment. I believe that it is plausible that the “waters above the firmament” (in the upper atmosphere) that existed in the past enabled us to thrive on earth with a lot less water covering the earth. And the “oceans of the deep” underground sustained all the vegetation that all life on earth depended on. Fossilized amber supports this assertion as scientists have discovered that the pre-Flood world used to be a lot richer in oxygen (50% more oxygen, according to Time Magazine)–this makes sense if there was a lot more H2O in the upper atmosphere. If the waters above flooded the earth during the Flood then, yes, we now depend upon the oceans and the water cycle for our survival. This was not the case in the past.
I cannot prove the above assertions and theories to be definitive scientific fact, but at least I admit it. We can only draw conclusions based on what is observable today. It’s about time that evolutionists admit the same.