Sunday, July 3, 2011

The Great Flood Makes Perfect Sense

10 comments:

Mormon411 said...

All one has to do is think...

luksky said...

This is a humorous approach to the reality of some of the stories that come out of the Bible. I bet there are many Christians that would still argue the validity of those stories no matter how riduculous they sound to normal intelligent people. I love the kind of leaf angel is wearing over his groin area..lol

C.C. said...

You are mean! There is little kids like me who can see that!

Tim Young said...

Interesting video. I wonder if it was made to argue against the biblical record of the Great Flood (which can be traced back through the lineage of Noah's son Shem) or one of the many other ancient Flood stories (which are traced back through the lines of Ham and Japheth). The latter stories are remarkably similar, even though they don't come from Hebrew (and therefore biblical) history. Still, there is enough difference to make it a question worth asking.

Also, I'm left wondering if focusing on the impossibilities of what I'll call the "animal dynamics" of the story isn't somewhat of a cheap way to ignore the purpose behind the story - that if there is a "god" out there, he could can, and apparently does, control the forces of nature for his purposes; in this case, judgment against man. It seems like it'd be a much more powerful argument against the story to make a case against that point than just the animals.

EriK said...

Have you read the Noah's Ark: A Case Study by John Woodmorappe? Or The Genesis Flood (1961) or Earth's Catastrophic Past(2010)? Because it's explained very clearly in there. Excerpts may be found on some websites if you look for them.

It really would be naive to just assume that it couldn't have happened.

Answer these questions:
How many animals were on the Ark?
How big was the Ark?
How big was the average animal on the ark?
How many different kinds of animals were present on the Ark?
How much space did all the animals take up?

Do you expect me to believe that an ark which size you do not know could not hold an amount of animals you do not know, which would take up a space you do not know the dimensions of?

Mormon411 said...

Yes, I actually do. The Bible gives very specific instructions to Noah on how big the Ark was supposed to be. Even if it was as big as the Titanic, (which it wasn't) there is no possible way for two of every species and enough food to support them for a year could fit.

I have a great idea... how about you stop defending nonsense and join us in the land of the thinking?

And I don't care to read the references you provided becauset they are just more idiots defending nonsense.

Twin-Daddy said...

I almost responded to EriK, I'm glad I waited for Mormon411 to do it better than I ever could have!

Latinstudy said...

So, my assumption is that your assumption (according to your last comment on here) that there must have been, according to the Christian tradition, one pair of labradoodles on the ark?

Just wondering.

Mormon411 said...

Dogs have an interesting evolutionary story. All dogs are descended from wolves and early man domesticated them for several reasons, including security. If you lived in a small group with no permanant structures, wouldn't you want a warning system if an unfriendly came around? The many dog breeds that we know today have all come about by selective breeding by humans. I can only speculate as to whether or not there might have been different dog breeds on the ark.

EriK said...

Your response to me is just like the typical response of those mormons you keep ranting about. I notice that you didn't bother trying to answer the simple questions I gave you, but went ahead and assumed that there wasn't enough space anyway.