Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-26-2019 10:11 AM
21 online now:
JonF, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (2 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 852,050 Year: 7,086/19,786 Month: 1,627/1,581 Week: 6/443 Day: 6/34 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
22NextFF
Author Topic:   Fresh Problem with the Ark
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19845
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 1 of 328 (94708)
03-25-2004 1:48 PM


There is another problem with the ark that I have not seen addressed:

Clean fresh water for crew and animals.

All the water of the flood is salty to some extent (being a mixture of sea, lake, underground and rain water), and is filled with silt too (according to some versions anyway) -- NOT potable.

The rain only falls (consistently) for 40 d/n's and the ark floats for another 600 plus days before landing.

One of the leading problems to exploring the world in the age of sailing exploration was maintaining sufficient supply of fresh water.

Wheyah did that watah come from?

Enjoy.

This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-03-2005 19:56 AM


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Gary, posted 03-25-2004 3:42 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 03-25-2004 10:53 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 7 by Bill Birkeland, posted 03-25-2004 11:10 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 15 by 1.61803, posted 03-26-2004 3:21 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 39 by menny, posted 03-27-2004 10:03 PM RAZD has not yet responded
 Message 65 by CrackerJack, posted 04-30-2004 10:58 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 91 by simple, posted 06-24-2004 5:06 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 263 by TruthisLaw, posted 07-13-2004 7:28 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 283 by John Williams, posted 12-10-2004 4:21 AM RAZD has responded

Gary
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 328 (94746)
03-25-2004 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
03-25-2004 1:48 PM


Not that I beleive in the story of the Great Flood or anything, but wouldn't Noah bring along stuff to collect rainwater with?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2004 1:48 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2004 4:04 PM Gary has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19845
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 3 of 328 (94750)
03-25-2004 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Gary
03-25-2004 3:42 PM


after the rain
He also could store water in casks, urns etc initially, but the problem becomes keeping the water from going bad due to all those microbes they had no idea about. Same with rainwater collected during the first 40 days. Mixing new rainwater with old stored water would be instant contamination.

This adds massively to the storage requirements within the holds of the barge, but that is another problem.

Remember none of these sources are the quality we get from taps and that goes bad after a few days.

AND after the 40 days and until the end of the 600 plus days afloat there is no mention of further rain. Not even after they land on a mountain top.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Gary, posted 03-25-2004 3:42 PM Gary has not yet responded

Wertbag
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 328 (94801)
03-25-2004 7:03 PM


Not to mention the billions of dead animals and people floating in the flood, the waters would be completely polluted.
Also making any water catchers has to be able to take the amount of force being applied to it, this is not meant to be a gentle sprinking of water.
Then distribute the water from the barrels to the thousands of animals on a continuous basis, and do it with only a crew of 8.
Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2004 9:13 PM Wertbag has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19845
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 5 of 328 (94832)
03-25-2004 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Wertbag
03-25-2004 7:03 PM


drift
you are getting the drift of this problem all right.

turbid brackish water with rotten putrid corpses

then the sun comes out and you sit

for months, many months, with no fresh supply of water.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Wertbag, posted 03-25-2004 7:03 PM Wertbag has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by PecosGeorge, posted 06-14-2004 11:37 PM RAZD has responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 328 (94860)
03-25-2004 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
03-25-2004 1:48 PM


It is believed by many including myself that God caused the animals to be in a state of hybernation or semi hybernation where they would require little food and water. This makes sense as there would be little opportunity for exercise and likely little to no light in the storage areas. This was a miraculous thing that the designated species would all come to the ark in the first place and go in and the supernatural is certainly likely in the keeping of the animals until ready to disembark after the flood. the Bible does not tell how much it rained after the initial flood but there was likely occasional rain.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2004 1:48 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2004 11:16 PM Buzsaw has responded

Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 673 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 7 of 328 (94865)
03-25-2004 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
03-25-2004 1:48 PM


Using Scientific Naturalism to Explain Noah's Ark
Abbelever wrote:

"There is another problem with the ark that I have not seen addressed"

The fact of the matter is that there are many, many problems in ths details in how Young Earth creationists explain the story of the Noachian Flood and Noah's Ark. However, the fundamental problem with Young Earth creationists is that they use what the Intelligent Design proponents call "scientific naturalism" to validate the literal truth of this part of Genesis without resorting to miracles. This causes problems beacuse it put thems in damned if they do and damned if they don't.

They are damned if they don't because in arguing that it is possible to demonstrate that within the constraints of what is known about biology, chemistry, physics, etc. that the story of Noah's Ark was possibly without invoking any miracles, they are arguing that this part of Genesis is like any other scientific theory. As such, they are damned if they don't because if they can't show, within the contraints known scientific laws and natural processes that either Noah's Ark or the Noachoan Flood is feasible, this part of Genesis is refuted like any of innumerable theories and should be discarded as such.

On the other hand, Young earth creationists are equally damned is they are able to show that known physical processes and laws can be used to explain the Noachian Flood and Noah's Ark. If no miracles are required to explain the Noachian Flood or Noah's Ark, then they have removed any need for God to have intervened in any of this. They have removed God completely from this part of Genesis as everything can be explained without there being a God. To argue that Noah's Ark, the Noachian Flood, and Genesis in general can be explained using conventional scientific processes and laws is to argue that neither God nor miracles are needed to explain them.

In their rush to be "scientific" and "respectable" it seems like Young earth creationists overlook the primary point of the Noachian Flood and Noah's Ark is that neither can be explained by resorting only to "scientific materialism" / "scientific naturalism". The point of the story of Noachian Flood and the survival of Noah's Ark and its passengers is that they can only be explained by the supernatual, the direct intervention of God. If the Noachian Flood, Noah's Ark, and the rest of Genesis could explained by purely by known scientific laws and processes and processes, they would be as religiously meaningful and spiritual as the either theory of gravity or plate tectonics. For a literal interpretation of Genesis to have any religious significance, it must be only **explainable** in terms of divine intervention. It seems like with lines of arguments like catastrophic plate tectonics to explain Noah's Flood and Woodramppe's book on the feasibility of Noah's Ark, they are attempting a line of arguments that ultimately will divorce God and deny God any role in much of Genesis even if these arguments accepting a literal interpretaton of it.

Therefore, it seems to me that if Young Earth creationists want to retain the religious element along with a literal interpretation of Genesis in their explantions, they need to argue not only that events in Genesis, i.e. the Noachian Flood and Noah's Ark, are real, but also, they **can't** be explained using conventional / "naturalistic" / "materialistic" explanations. They have to argue that only direct divine intervention can explain Noah's Flood and the survival of the Ark within in it, which to me is the main point of invoking a literal interpretation of Genesis. It seems to me that Young Earth creationists are contradicting their own beliefs when they argue that Noah's Ark and the Noachian Flood can be explained by purely naturalistist means without invoking either miracles from or divine intervention of God.

Just Some Thoughts.

Bill

[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 03-25-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2004 1:48 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2004 11:23 PM Bill Birkeland has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19845
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 8 of 328 (94867)
03-25-2004 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Buzsaw
03-25-2004 10:53 PM


sorry, hypothesis not supported by actual biblical reference is not valid without it being naturally possible.

bringing the animals = mentioned = valid
hypbernation = not mentioned = not valid

what you believe is just rationalizations to attempt to reconcile the impossible with reality ... imao.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 03-25-2004 10:53 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Buzsaw, posted 03-25-2004 11:31 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 31 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-27-2004 5:14 PM RAZD has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19845
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 9 of 328 (94869)
03-25-2004 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Bill Birkeland
03-25-2004 11:10 PM


Re: Using Scientific Naturalism to Explain Noah's Ark
I agree to a point. Any supernatural action mentioned in the bible can be used for the creationist model of events. But relying on any other supernatural effect (not mentioned actions) invalidates the argument. It's like deciding what cards are wild after you've dealt the hand.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Bill Birkeland, posted 03-25-2004 11:10 PM Bill Birkeland has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 328 (94870)
03-25-2004 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by RAZD
03-25-2004 11:16 PM


sorry, hypothesis not supported by actual biblical reference is not valid without it being naturally possible.
bringing the animals = mentioned = valid
hypbernation = not mentioned = not valid

what you believe is just rationalizations to attempt to reconcile the impossible with reality ... imao.

Hey goofball, it's no different than what scientists and physicists do. They operate with a lot of suppositions. You apply a measure of common sense to what you have to work with. There's no particular reason for mention in the text as to the specifics of how the animals survived the trip. God doesn't always cater to the whims of the curious.

Btw bud, your avitar is real cool ( ), imo one of the best in town, though the motion ones are a bit distracting and maybe somewhat irritating to the nervous folk.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2004 11:16 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2004 12:36 AM Buzsaw has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19845
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 11 of 328 (94880)
03-26-2004 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Buzsaw
03-25-2004 11:31 PM


hibernation NOT
I know of no scientific hypothesis that depends on thousands of animals hibernating that are physically unable to hibernate naturally.

That is a hail mary rabbit out of the hat solution for which there is no valid reason.

You might just as well say that each animal was enclosed in a stasis cube 1" on a side and stacked in the corner of the bedroom, where Noah and his significant other do their math exercises and eat a lot of fruits.

Or mystically transported to another planet for the duration of the cruise.

it's no different than what scientists and physicists do. They operate with a lot of suppositions. You apply a measure of common sense to what you have to work with.

Each supposition based on observations and facts, unlike this fantasy. Suppositions that can also be tested by future observations.

It's only "no different" to those who do not understand the scientific process.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Buzsaw, posted 03-25-2004 11:31 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 03-26-2004 7:24 PM RAZD has responded

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 328 (94882)
03-26-2004 1:06 AM


Aren't we forgetting that God can do whatever he pleases? If he wants it to flood, it floods. But then, one must wonder why it was necessary for it to rain for 40 days when God could have twitched his nose like Samantha Stevens and produced a flood in about a nanosecond.

But I guess I'm forgetting that he wanted to kill everybody because he was angry. By letting it rain for 40 days, he made the death slower and more painful. God seems to delight in inflicting pain, doesn't he? Just ask the Amalekites.

Oh, wait, I forgot, God blotted out their memory, huh? But, gee, I sure seem to remember them from somewhere. Maybe God was just kidding. He's such a card.


Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2004 1:20 PM berberry has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19845
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 13 of 328 (94965)
03-26-2004 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by berberry
03-26-2004 1:06 AM


reducio ad absurdium
the fall back to "god can do whatever he pleases" means that nothing in the bible need to have occured ... or that the whole thing was made to appear that way last night. neither position adds knowledge.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by berberry, posted 03-26-2004 1:06 AM berberry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by berberry, posted 03-26-2004 2:52 PM RAZD has not yet responded

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 328 (94982)
03-26-2004 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by RAZD
03-26-2004 1:20 PM


Re: reducio ad absurdium
I realize that, Abby, but the flood myth depends on God's "magic" at every turn. From the boarding of the animals (tens of thousands per second), to the storing of fresh water, to the separation of predator from prey, to the problem of food storage, to the quantity of water required to flood the planet to the point that the Himalayas are covered (not enough water exists in the solar system as I understand it) to the nonsense about the olive branch; well, I could go on and on but I'm sure you get the point. Every aspect of this silly fiction requires the magic of God in order for it to work. I think the question of why God would bother at all with such a ridiculous endeavor is thus quite pertinent.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2004 1:20 PM RAZD has not yet responded

1.61803
Member
Posts: 2831
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 15 of 328 (94988)
03-26-2004 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
03-25-2004 1:48 PM


The Water was supplied by reverse osmosis
Aliens landed on Noah's ship and supplied him with the equipment to do reverse Osmosis to supply the organisms on the ship with fresh H2O.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2004 1:48 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2004 3:26 PM 1.61803 has not yet responded
 Message 23 by mf, posted 03-27-2004 10:42 AM 1.61803 has not yet responded
 Message 281 by Hmmm, posted 12-06-2004 7:36 PM 1.61803 has not yet responded

1
23456
...
22NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019