Was the World Created in 6 Days...?

[Totenkopf]

The problem with your whole argument is that you're cherry picking. If the 6000 yr timeline were actually true, you can deus ex machina away all the other problems. If God is fact and not fiction, that explains everything. He willed it. Since you figure God/gods are unreal, it's largely irrelevant how it was done....b/c essentially it wasn't.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

To your point, why would it take an omnipotent being 6 million/billion years to create a universe? He/she/it is capable of kicking off the big bang with a thought, yet we need multiple generations of stars/novae in order to form heavy elements? What do we win by successfully shoe-horning actual science into a 2000 year (or more ala OT) old series of stories?

He is a fan of Rube Goldberg devices :P .

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle

He is a fan of Rube Goldberg devices :P .

That must be it.

I'm always amazed by the mental gymnastics that many people are willing to undergo in order to maintain an untenable position.

EDIT: *re-reads signature* Nevermind.

Better questions for this thread: Why did god need 6 days? Why did he need to rest on the 7th? Was he tired?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

After rethinking this thread some on a climbing trip, I've come to the new conclusion that the derailing into a scientific discussion was slightly uncalled for. I thought to myself, hey, if I made a thread asking how old the Earth and universe are according to science, and somebody popped up going "according to the Bible, for anyone out there willing to find real truth, it's 6000 years old", I'd be mildly annoyed .

Better questions for this thread: Why did god need 6 days? Why did he need to rest on the 7th? Was he tired?

While my open-minded, climbing-trip-in-idyllic-nature-induced peace of mind lasts ... if I was to create a whole universe, I'd spend a day sitting back admiring it, too. Then again, it does specifically say rest, and I don't know if his omnipotence was established yet by Genesis' time.

[M@RS]

Originally Posted by Achilles

Well there goes the argument for how noah managed to take care of all the animal waste.

Since you didn't like that example (either you missed the point or are purposely attempting to avoid it): were you aware that there are more than 350 species of squirrel? One boy, one girl means at least 700 squirrels were on the ark (assuming that "kind" = "species"). But squirrels are small and don't take up much room, right? I notice you didn't offer commentary on the deer. Those are pretty big last time I checked. Again, we know how big the ark was. How soon before we start running out of room?

Right. He took babies of every large animal (or probably every animal) they're smaller, they don't eat as much, and they don't leave as much waste (which might've been dumped in the sea, or put in a certain area until the ark was on dry land). So, if he took babies, he wouldn't run out of room.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

We're discussing Noah's Ark now? I must've missed that particular derail. Either way, as a Bible enthusiast, I find it a fascinating, if not deeply disturbing myth, but I don't believe it for a second, not only due to its many, many, many impossibilities, but also because it's obviously one of the many adaptations of the Babylonian epic of Gilgamesh. It has so many of the same features - a great flood, only a few humans surviving, those few humans living for a long time, and so on, that it's really hard to dismiss as a coincidence, especially seeing that the Israelites were slaves of the Babylonians for a time, and adopted Babylonian customs, ethics and laws during their stay. As an aside, the Babylonian ruler Hammurabi was also the source of the Jewish doctrine of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".

Other than its obvious source, though, the myth itself is simply impossible in so many ways, not only because of geological reasons but also due to the impossibility of caring for so many species, for so long. I'm a former animal shelter volunteer. We had a staff far larger than Noah's family, and cared for far less animals (mostly dogs and cats, but also some smaller specimen like rabbits and hedgehogs), and it was still tiring work. We had to feed the animals, care for them, take them for walks, give them medical care, etc. Our shelter, at any one time, had some young animals and some older ones. Trust me, reducing their age reduces somewhat the problem of space and habitat, but introduces several new ones. First and foremost, how are these young animals supposed to survive in the wild after having been raised by humans for their first month of existence? You try to raise a couple wolf pups for the first portion of their lives, for then to drop them off in a patch of woods utterly devastated by a massive, horrific doomsday flood, and see how they cope when they suddenly have to find their own food (what food? Don't ask me).

Look, M@RS, I realize you probably have a lot invested in the Bible, but there's just no way around the fact that the myth of Noah is fiction.

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by M@RS

He took babies of every large animal (or probably every animal)

Where does it say this? Chapter and verse please, otherwise I'll have no choice other than to assume that you're making this up.

Originally Posted by M@RS

So, if he took babies, he wouldn't run out of room.

Really? We haven't even established what "kind" means, so I cannot even begin to imagine how you came to this conclusion. What kind of babies? How many babies were there? How much space would they need? Do you even know how big the ark was?

Write back soon.

Also:
Noah's Flood - debunked (Part 1)
Noah's Flood - debunked (Part 2)

[M@RS]

Originally Posted by Achilles

Where does it say this? Chapter and verse please, otherwise I'll have no choice other than to assume that you're making this up.

I'd consider it more like speculation. Noah had to use common sense (and logic). If the adults are too big, then take the babies.

Originally Posted by Achilles

Really? We haven't even established what "kind" means, so I cannot even begin to imagine how you came to this conclusion. What kind of babies? How many babies were there? How much space would they need? Do you even know how big the ark was?

Write back soon.

Kind: a group united by common traits or interests

Species: a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name

Essentially the word "kind" and the word "species" are the same.

What kind of babies? Well, I'd say the "kind" where the adults were too big, or took up too much room. Who knows how many animals were there, but they all fit in the ark. I don't know how much space the babies would need, but they'd need less space than the adults. Yes I know how big the ark was, the Bible tells the dimensions.

Genesis 6:15 says that the Ark's dimensions were at least 135 meters long (300 cubits), 22.5 meters wide (50 cubits), and 13.5 meters high (30 cubits). That's about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. It could have been larger, because several larger-sized cubits were used. But the 45-centimeter (18-inch) cubit is long enough to show the size of the Ark.

[SkinWalker]

Originally Posted by M@RS

I'd consider it more like speculation. Noah had to use common sense (and logic). If the adults are too big, then take the babies.

Unless "Noah" was a myth, borrowed from an earlier civilization and greatly embellished for the Canaan/Israelite cults of the Bronze/Iron Age, for which there is far more evidence than such speculations.

Even if we were to entertain a speculation such as yours as a thought experiment, we would necessarily have to factor the growth rates of juvenile animals, the actual spaces they require (which are still not trivial), their feed, waste, and special needs (depending on their ages, some need special treatments to food that are provided by parents). Such a speculation quickly becomes illogical, unreasoned, and irrational. At this point, Occam's Razor takes over and the more parsimonious explanation of noachian myth takes over and we can dismiss literal interpretation of biblical stories as the poetry, stories, and propaganda of one culture emerging from another.

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by M@RS

Kind: a group united by common traits or interests

Species: a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name

Essentially the word "kind" and the word "species" are the same.

So you would like to put forth that "kind" should be interpreted as "species". I will accept that for the purpose of this conversation, however please remember that you cannot change your answer later.

Originally Posted by M@RS

Who knows how many animals were there, but they all fit in the ark.

How do you know?

Since you've opted to define "kind" as "species", you should know that there are more than a million species of animal. Since we "know" that there were two of each "kind" that means that we'd have more than 2 million animals (much closer to 2.5 million)...in a 450x75 foot area...with food...and waste. Even if we were to accept that some of these animals could swim or fly along side rather than take up space on-board, or that they were babies (even though your own source makes absolutely no mention of this whatsoever), were still talking about hundreds and hundreds of thousands of land animals (some of them quite large, even as babies) in an area smaller than a football field.

[Totenkopf]

^^see post #41.

Face it. As soon as you allow an all-powerful diety into the picture, all the "normal" rules no longer apply.

[SkinWalker]

Given that the source for this "all powerful deity" is flawed and unreliable (the Noachian flood myth is clearly plagiarized from much earlier Sumerian myths), we can discount the inclusion of such a mythical being. Thus, according to Totenkopf, we can discount the entire thing, yes?

[Totenkopf]

First, you already do. Second, since God is an integral part of the whole Noah's Ark story, the acceptance of Noah's Ark is an implicit acceptance of God. Once that's done, then all the objections to the story can be "rationalized" awy. However, you're doing it backward. The impracticality of Noah's Ark doesn't mean the non-existence of God, but the non-existence of God would render the whole account of Noah's Ark (if one wanted to be a biblical literalist) as fanciful as you claim. Not arguing either way for the existence of God here, Skin. Merely pointing out that the only way the Noah's Ark story could work (not as as piece of fiction, btw) is with the implicit understanding that an all powerful diety exists. Naturally, if you discount God, it would rationally follow that Noah's Ark is merely an allegory.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Second, since God is an integral part of the whole Noah's Ark story, the acceptance of Noah's Ark is an implicit acceptance of God.

Well, technically, you could say God is a metaphor, that the Flood happened through other supernatural means, and that Noah and his family were still warned somehow.

If you can remove God from the creation of a universe, surely a tiny little world-devastating flood can't be too much ?

[Totenkopf]

Originally Posted by DE

Well, technically, you could say God is a metaphor, that the Flood happened through other supernatural means, and that Noah and his family were still warned somehow.

If you can remove God from the creation of a universe, surely a tiny little world-devastating flood can't be too much ?

Not if you're looking at the Noah's Ark "myth" as being literal. Not sure what you're getting at with your last statement as it's implicit in my closing comment.

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle

Well, technically, you could say God is a metaphor, that the Flood happened through other supernatural means, and that Noah and his family were still warned somehow.

If you can remove God from the creation of a universe, surely a tiny little world-devastating flood can't be too much ?

Hey, DE, wouldn't the part that you quoted be false dichotomy?

Even if we were to find some supporting evidence for "Noah's flood", that isn't exactly evidence for god. It's evidence for a world-wide flood. Such evidence would similarly confirm dozens if not hundreds of other myths and act as "evidence" for those related deities as well.

[Totenkopf]

Originally Posted by achilles

Hey, DE, wouldn't the part that you quoted be false dichotomy?

Even if we were to find some supporting evidence for "Noah's flood", that isn't exactly evidence for god. It's evidence for a world-wide flood. Such evidence would similarly confirm dozens if not hundreds of other myths and act as "evidence" for those related deities as well.

Nope. The statement isn't about whether a flood took place or not. It's about whether the literal biblical account re such a calamity is true. The literal biblical account has God telling Noah to build the ark and by what dimensions. If there is no diety, then the literal biblical account would be a different story altogether (likely nonexistent). Even if you found a ship approximating the dimensions in that account, it would be tenuous proof at best that the Ark story was true. More like that someone built a huge ship 5-6000 yrs ago for reasons not totally clear. This really isn't rocket science, guys.

The impracticality of Noah's Ark doesn't mean the non-existence of God, but the non-existence of God would render the whole account of Noah's Ark (if one wanted to be a biblical literalist) as fanciful as you claim.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Even if you found a ship approximating the dimensions in that account, it would be tenuous proof at best that the Ark story was true.

Not that you could build and maintain a ship like that. Wooden ships have an inherent limit to how big you can make them, and the amount of leakage and other problems the Ark would suffer from would be catastrophic, hugely adding to the chores Noah's family would have to undergo. If the ship floated at all.

[Totenkopf]

Not that you could build and maintain a ship like that. Wooden ships have an inherent limit to how big you can make them, and the amount of leakage and other problems the Ark would suffer from would be catastrophic, hugely adding to the chores Noah's family would have to undergo. If the ship floated at all.

W/o a God in the picture, that would likely be correct. Afterall, assuming a mere man like Noah decided on his own that he should build such a huge ship...what was his workforce? 3 sons or duaghters and their spouses? Thus my last quote in the previous post.

Also..

Originally Posted by post#53

Not arguing either way for the existence of God here,