Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-22-2015, 07:31 AM
 
Location: Florida
23,164 posts, read 26,118,923 times
Reputation: 27898

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40 View Post
After all, look how quickly atheists dismiss bible archaeology. You would simply claim that the stories were invented around the artifacts or discoveries. .
OMG, here we go again with the same old deliberately obtuse misrepresentations of something explained a zillion times.
Remind yourself, I say to myself, do not get sucked in , do not get sucked in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-22-2015, 11:17 AM
 
6,324 posts, read 4,307,929 times
Reputation: 4333
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA View Post
Well until modern times the Ark was the largest vessel ever built and the dimensions are classic and just what is needed.
Uh, no ... the ark would have to be a lot bigger than that. A lot bigger. So big, in fact ... well, let me give you a comparison.

The British ship-of-the-line HMS Victory was only 165 feet long and weighed in at roughly 3600 tons. It took 6,000 oak trees to build her. Yeah, count 'em, 6,000 trees.

The supposed Ark was almost 3x as long as the Victory and it would need to be heavily reinforced to hold the weight of thousands of animals and the food supply. Plus, it would have to be amazingly tall. The reason is that a heavy ship is buoyant only because of the air inside of it. If the weight of the ship overwhelms the ship's buoyancy (via some formula I don't feel like looking up), the ship sinks.

The taller the ship, the more "beam" it needs; the wider it has to be to avoid being too top heavy and capsizing. That means even MORE wood. We're talking, from a very basic extrapolation, at least 24,000 trees, but if you count the massive amount of width needed, not to mention the excess height to maintain buoyancy, I'd estimate the total to be closer to 50,000. That's almost an entire forest.

It's just nonsense. And I really can't understand why you folks keep clinging to this myth. There are at least 100 different reasons why the Ark story is ridiculous and yet you'll ignore each and every one in order to believe a rip-off of Gilgamesh is true -- but only the Hebrew version.

Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA View Post
Next the Ark did not even need to take mature animals on as they were in it for a year. So a pair of wolves could have produced all the dogs that now exist as all dogs are variations of a wolf.


Well, let's see, there are currently 339 different breeds of dogs that are officially recognized, which means a wolf would need to have a litter of different breeds of dogs just about once every day. Except, hmm, the gestation period of a wolf is roughly 72 days. Gee, uh ... something just doesn't add up.

And a single wolf popping out chihuahuas, saint bernards, great danes, beagles, shi'tzus, pit bulls, and all the rest, once per day every day for a year ... LOL! I just find that funny for some reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA View Post
Ditto every other kind. Noah did not need to take millions of animals on, just a pair (of unclean, as 7 of the clean were taken on) to allow for all the variety as we have today. The Ark was so big, enough food would be easy to take as they were all vegetarians then. It was also square as it did not need to be steered so it was VERY large and had 3 decks.
It would be puny by today's standards. Imagine if you took one of those massive 400,000 ton oil tankers and turned the holds into deck space. Yeah ... you could probably fit the Ark inside one of those babies. And you STILL wouldn't be able to cram 2 of every kind of animal AND their food supply into an Ark of even that size.

And yes, you would have to put millions of animals on it - two of every type. I'm not sure how you're avoiding that reality. The idea that you just have to take, say, a pair of lions and the female will start gestating uber-rapidly to pop out leopards and cheetahs and lynxes and ocelots and the several hundred house cat breeds, and on and on. Nonsense. You'd have to take two of each cat breeds because a lion mating with a lion isn't going to produce a maine coon. Sorry, no cigars for you.

Here is some info on it:

Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA View Post
In size the ark was 300 cubits long , 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. Conservatively calculating the cubit as 44.5 cm (17.5 in.) (some think the ancient cubit was nearer 56 or 61 cm), the ark measured 133.5 m by 22.3 m by 13.4 m (437 ft 6 in. × 72 ft 11 in. × 43 ft 9 in.), less than half the length of the ocean liner Queen Elizabeth 2. This proportion of length to width (6 to 1) is used by modern naval architects. This gave the ark approximately 40,000 cu m (1,400,000 cu ft) in gross volume. It is estimated that such a vessel would have a displacement nearly equal to that of the mighty 269-m (883 ft) Titanic of this 20th century. No cargo vessel of ancient times even slightly resembled the ark in its colossal size. Internally strengthened by adding two floors, the three decks thus provided gave a total of about 8,900 sq m (96,000 sq ft) of space.
So ... if there are 96,000 animals, each one gets 1 square foot of space. I bet the elephants feel reeeeeally comfortable in their 1'x1'x1' cubicle. And let's face it, there had to be a lot more than 96,000 animals considering that's actually only 48,000 different species.

I really don't know why anyone tries validating Noah's Ark these days. I mean, seriously ... it's just too easy to debunk.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2015, 11:38 AM
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
31,374 posts, read 20,091,717 times
Reputation: 14069
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina View Post
...snip...

I really don't know why anyone tries validating Noah's Ark these days. I mean, seriously ... it's just too easy to debunk.
I dunno why either. It's patently absurd.

But...the entertainment factor provided by the intellectual contortions required to "explain" it, is worth the price of admission.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2015, 04:23 PM
 
Location: Canada
135 posts, read 127,639 times
Reputation: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina View Post

The supposed Ark was almost 3x as long as the Victory and it would need to be heavily reinforced to hold the weight of thousands of animals and the food supply. Plus, it would have to be amazingly tall.
Not true. You just have to increase any single dimension of the vessel to achieve additional buoyancy. It doesn't matter though because he made it even easier to debunk by providing specific dimensions to the ark.

This goes back to the OP. The Bible is much better off being vague because when ridiculous claims attempt to introduce some level of detail they become even more clearly ridiculous such is the case with expatCA's explanation of the ark.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina View Post
The reason is that a heavy ship is buoyant only because of the air inside of it. If the weight of the ship overwhelms the ship's buoyancy (via some formula I don't feel like looking up), the ship sinks.
Ship weight = density of water x volume displaced

It's just density. Objects float once they displace an amount of water equal to the weight of the floating object. If the object displaces its weight in water before sinking then it is less dense than water. It's a pretty critical component of making a ship work which is why the claim that the ark displaces almost the same as the Titanic is ridiculous. Even with the dimensions he gave for a box it would still displace 10,000 cu m less than the Titanic when fully submerged. Supposedly Noah built a submarine.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina View Post
So ... if there are 96,000 animals, each one gets 1 square foot of space. I bet the elephants feel reeeeeally comfortable in their 1'x1'x1' cubicle. And let's face it, there had to be a lot more than 96,000 animals considering that's actually only 48,000 different species.

I really don't know why anyone tries validating Noah's Ark these days. I mean, seriously ... it's just too easy to debunk.
Something like the ark would really be a volume based design where available space would be the issue before weight. Especially when fitting 2 of every animal plus food into an area significantly smaller than the Wal-Mart down the street.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2015, 07:21 PM
 
Location: Salt Lake City
27,996 posts, read 29,823,150 times
Reputation: 13095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texan2008 View Post
I am an atheist for many reasons but one of the main reasons why I consider the Bible to be man made is the glaring lack of details in the Bible of what most Christians I assume would consider to be important events and places. God apparently in his infinite wisdom does not give us the exact locations in latitude and longitude of the Garden of Eden, where Noah's Ark landed, where Jesus was hung on a cross and where exactly is Jesus's tomb among other things. I for one don't believe any of it of course. If God could explain in more scientific / engineering details how all those animals fit on an ark and were kept alive, etc., I might be swayed in that direction. I could go on but I will let others write now.
You're right that the Bible does lack many, many details. But AFIK, the exact location in longitude and latitude of the Garden of Eden, as a example of the detail that it is lacking is really laughable. In what conceivable way could knowing that possibly make any difference to anyone? In over 6000 years, you couldn't possibly expect it to it look the way it did back when the events which supposedly transpired there happened.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2015, 10:24 PM
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
31,374 posts, read 20,091,717 times
Reputation: 14069
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur View Post
You're right that the Bible does lack many, many details. But AFIK, the exact location in longitude and latitude of the Garden of Eden, as a example of the detail that it is lacking is really laughable. In what conceivable way could knowing that possibly make any difference to anyone? In over 6000 years, you couldn't possibly expect it to it look the way it did back when the events which supposedly transpired there happened.
There has never been a more accurate metaphor for our mother planet. We have been given - by luck or design - a world which regularly creates and sustains wonders and has for billions of years.

We should be more appreciative.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2015, 11:57 PM
 
283 posts, read 326,568 times
Reputation: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40 View Post
Or maybe God in his infinite wisdom knew that including such detail would not sway the minds of those who chose to reject Him. After all, look how quickly atheists dismiss bible archaeology. You would simply claim that the stories were invented around the artifacts or discoveries. Also the Garden of Eden most certainly wouldn't exist anymore after sin brought death into this world and the Great Flood transformed it.


The Bible was written in way that it can hold spiritual truths that are relevant to all generations. The Bible never ages and that reason alone is just one to sway me towards God.
"God could have gave us very important details b-but uh, you wouldn't believe anyways so he didn't"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2015, 04:01 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,083 posts, read 20,582,163 times
Reputation: 5927
I have noted this argument that occasionally crops up "The lack of evidence is because you wouldn't believe it even if we had it".

This is false. The account of the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib is accepted because it is independently validated. It is probably true that, if we knew nothing of the Assyrians, we might - and correctly - (1) doubt its historicity until validated. What is interesting is that, while Sennacherib seems to have felt the need to put around a lot of propaganda claiming it as a great victory (though it might simply be that it was) the indications are that the campaign was successful (the Bible passes over the destruction of Lachish in a few lines) and the Jewish king Hezekiah had to submit and pay tribute, after which the Assyrian king seems to have taken his army to complete the campaign of bringing erring vassals into line and then taken a few years' rest.

So the point is that something verifiable is not ignored or denied but checked and validated and the doubts about the Bible come from that checking and validation. And thus we doubt the veracity of the claim of the miraculous defeat of the siege of Jerusalem, the exodus and conquest, the prophecies of Tyre, Daniel and Babylon, the Nativity, Jonah, the Flood, the resurrection..."and most of the rest of the book".

(1) which debunks the oft -heard 'Historians denied the existence of king David and the Hittites' argument. In fact, I never heard this supposed denial and I suspect that it is a back -engineered accusation derived from when the independent evidence was eventually found.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-21-2015 at 04:17 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2015, 09:31 AM
 
Location: In God's Hand
1,100 posts, read 793,409 times
Reputation: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina View Post
Yeah, I tend to agree. What might seem like a small thing to others can be a game-breaker for me. One such example is how the dreaded Pharaoh of Egypt is never identified despite his prominence and stature. Other kings and leaders are identified by name, but not Pharaoh.

The thing is, that is how fairy tales are written in order to keep them "timeless."
Are you still looking for answers or are you just sharing why you do not believe?

Genesis 47:11 And Joseph placed his father and his brethren, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had commanded.

Course, this reference is before the time of Moses.

It is important to point out that during this time, there were other leaders/rulers over cities thru out Egypt but during the famine crisis, the Pharaoh rose to "wealth" & power.

Seeing how Egyptian chronology has been made up from tatters & pieces, I would have to say that nothing is definitive yet; much like the evolution theory in science. One could see how Rameses could have risen to "wealth" & power; and seeing how Rameses II is "assumed" to be the prominent Pharoah for the time of Moses, it may be that Rameses II reign may be Biblically correct than where archeology has placed it.

Here is a news article at this link where scientists have found evidence that the Biblical plague really did happen.

Biblical plagues really happened say scientists - Telegraph

Here is another article about evidence found chariots in the Red Sea that testifies horse & human remains strewn about like battlefield wreckage.

Chariots in Red Sea: ‘Irrefutable evidence’

So... not really a fairy tale, now is it?

But like I said, if you are not really looking for the answers but just sharing excuses as to why you do not believe, well, allot of people can be skeptics and give "honest answers" that would appeal to many as striking the core or shall we say, a point for atheists, but more often times than not, they are not really looking for the truth, but just whatever validates their point of view.

Quote:
Another interesting detail issue is Heaven and Hell.

Hell is described in fairly good detail. The Bible doesn't go on and on about it, but you know what Hell is going to be like. Heaven, on the other hand, is vague and amorphous and lacks any real specifics. Sure, there is no pain, sickness, or death -- that sort of thing -- and you get some gold streets, but that's the imaginings of a primitive people.

Heaven's lack of detail is an important clue. If you're a human writing the Bible, it's super-easy to come up with a place where NO one would want to go. I've yet to meet anyone, for example, who loves being burnt alive and just can't wait to immolate himself with a can of gas and a pack of matches. Fire is a primal fear so everyone would be afraid of being burned. Heaven, on the other hand, would be too individualized. You can't describe Heaven in too much detail lest you risk describing a place where some folks wouldn't want to go.

Heaven is often a point of contention among atheists because there is the question of what is allowed in Heaven and how much of "me" will there be if I go there. Streets made of gold doesn't mean squat to me. But can I still listen to my 80's metal bands in Heaven? Or will I have to sit around for eternity listening to nothing but hymns? Those kinds of things are surprisingly important when you're talking about Heaven -- a longing for something you cannot do would make Heaven imperfect yet, to remove that longing so you adjust well to paradise is fundamentally altering who we are.

So Heaven is given very little coverage.
The motivation behind your point of view may be seen by you not wishing to lose your identity in Heaven so as to be free to listen to rock music, so naturally, those that would love the world and the things that are in the world, will not desire Heaven at all, even though the things they love will be gone in the after life anyway. If you can't take money with you to Heaven or Hell, then wishing to take your favorite rock music with you falls under that subject of futility and even the subject of poor excuses for not believing in Jesus Christ Whom has risen from the dead so that those that believe in Him, may have eternal life.

Hell doesn't really need as much description to deter sinners from wanting to go there and yet Heaven is something that is so desireable that words would fail because our present state of comprehension.

Quote:
One of the biggest clues to me, anyhow, is the extremely limited scope of God. Strange, I think, how God is only known in places where there are Hebrews. That's why I'm always calling the Biblegod a "desert tribal god" because that's all he ever was.

If Yahweh was ever meant to be MY God, then he wouldn't have simply followed the Hebrews around like a stray dog -- and then wait another thousand years to send us Jesus. If Yahweh loved us all, as we are so often reminded, then God would have been revealed to the entire world, not just to some upstart little tribe in the wastelands of the Middle East.
There are numerous flood legends all over the world in most cultures that it doesn't take that amount of the stretch of our imagination in applied hypothetical thinking that "if" there was a Biblical global flood with only eight survivors, then the descendents would be carrying the stories with them down thru history that would change over the course of time, skipping details or modifying them, but yet one can see by comparing all the flood legends together that you can see how the Biblical account has the accurate one since it can be seen in all of them, whereas not one of the deviating stories are not seen in all of them.

Flood Legends From Around the World

An ancient Chinese pictograph for boat is made up of 3 smaller pictographs; 8 mouths vessel. That is how many that were on the ark. If people realize that we are all related to Noah & his family, would we treat each other differently?

Point is: this God had judged the world and will judge it again with fire as per prophesy. God had chosen that "tribe" to be His people to make Himself known to the world. And in prophesy, this chosen people had rejected their Saviour which pretty much shows the Israelites were not the minds behind the Bible, but they will become His people again as promised in prophesy when they see their former crucified, but coming as the King of kings.

Zechariah 12:8 In that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them. 9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. 10And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn

John 19:37And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

So the real question is since God promised that all those that seek, shall find, why is it that you have not found Him yet? It is one thing to point out with honest skeptical questions about the Bible, but are you sharing that point of view as to explain why you are not looking any more to settle in your preferred belief which you started out with when you were looking, or are you seeing your shortsightedness of your search by this reply that maybe you need to look for those answers again in seeking the truth about God in finding God before it is too late?

2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

May God the Father reveal His Son to you so that you may believe in Him for eternal life, and lean on Him as your Good Shepherd to help you to follow Him in a world of lies & misinformation where even faith is hard to find in christian churches as prophesied it would be before the Bridegroom comes for the abiding bride.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2015, 11:44 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,083 posts, read 20,582,163 times
Reputation: 5927
If you were really looking for the evidence-based truth rather than anything that could be used to prop up your Biblefaith, you would see how the Chinese pictogram and indeed the flood legends are not so much evidence as wishful thinking that they were.

I have an idea there was a video on it. (1)

And by all means pray for Shirina and anyone else to suddenly be converted. Since prayer does not work, it makes no difference to us. And it will at least keep you out of mischief.

(1) Matt on the atheist experience got a call on this but clearly while he was familiar with the argument, he wasn't familiar with the ins and outs, though he correctly suggested that you can read things into Chinese characters that you want to find. Rational Wiki has a good article on the case for the Genesis story in Chinese characters. It is based on dissecting the character into its components and finding meanings that no Chinese would read.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-23-2015 at 12:24 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:06 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top