Noah's Ark is Plagiarized. Here's how we know ...

[Czernobog]

The story as found in the Bible is straight forward and rather logical. Stores tend to go from straight forward and direct and morph into corrupted nonsense except for a few minor details here and there: Example of the straight forward: 8 people, whole world covered with water, God's judgement, and building of a boat and the saving of animals.

You do know that story, as you just described it, is an impossibility on multiple levels, right?

I do not see it any more impossible than building a ship out of reinforced concrete. And that certainly has been done. I note that there were cat kinds, dog kinds, cattle, horses and more than likely a very limited number of breeds. I see no reason that given the flatness of the original planet, that much of the water erupted from inside the planet and hit the planet in the form of comets, asteroids, and possibly a collapsing ice canopy/shield around the planet. The entire event seems more than scientifically possible --- it sounds highly probable.

First, as there were only "two of every kind", specifically for "repopulating" the planet, how do you suppose the animals were fed? Particularly the carnivores? Second, there is no evidence whatsoever that the earth, 6,000 years ago was "flat", and there is zero geological evidence of a global flood. Finally, there is the question of the Ark itself.

The Ark was, according to the Bible, 14 feet high, 450 feet long, and 75 feet wide, and in order for the Biblical account to be accurate, contained over 50,000 animals, 2 million insects, 7 people, a 600-year-oldman, and enough provisions for a year. Now, it may be difficult to comprehend what is wrong with this picture without a point of reference, so let's use the titanic, one of the largest ships ever built. It was 175 feet tall, 882 feet long, and 92 feet wide, and its full capacity was 3,547 people, and enough provisions for only a couple of weeks.

See the problem here?

The Titanic

The story as found in the Bible is straight forward and rather logical. Stores tend to go from straight forward and direct and morph into corrupted nonsense except for a few minor details here and there: Example of the straight forward: 8 people, whole world covered with water, God's judgement, and building of a boat and the saving of animals.

You do know that story, as you just described it, is an impossibility on multiple levels, right?

I do not see it any more impossible than building a ship out of reinforced concrete. And that certainly has been done. I note that there were cat kinds, dog kinds, cattle, horses and more than likely a very limited number of breeds. I see no reason that given the flatness of the original planet, that much of the water erupted from inside the planet and hit the planet in the form of comets, asteroids, and possibly a collapsing ice canopy/shield around the planet. The entire event seems more than scientifically possible --- it sounds highly probable.

First, as there were only "two of every kind", specifically for "repopulating" the planet, how do you suppose the animals were fed? Particularly the carnivores? Second, there is no evidence whatsoever that the earth, 6,000 years ago was "flat", and there is zero geological evidence of a global flood. Finally, there is the question of the Ark itself.

The Ark was, according to the Bible, 14 feet high, 450 feet long, and 75 feet wide, and in order for the Biblical account to be accurate, contained over 50,000 animals, 2 million insects, 7 people, a 600-year-oldman, and enough provisions for a year. Now, it may be difficult to comprehend what is wrong with this picture without a point of reference, so let's use the titanic, one of the largest ships ever built. It was 175 feet tall, 882 feet long, and 92 feet wide, and its full capacity was 3,547 people, and enough provisions for only a couple of weeks.

See the problem here?

Noah’s Ark was a massive ship, built at God’s command, that saved Noah, his family, and two of every kind of land animal from the global Flood that took place 4,350 years ago. It was 510 feet long, 85 feet wide, and 51 feet high and easily housed the several thousand animal kinds God brought to Noah.

The Titanic had fancy staterooms, luxurious accommodations, glamorous dinning rooms, loads of the latest equipment, tons of coal, and many tremendous boilers, and a very large engine... It was not made to preserve life. It was designed to transport it.

First of all, I don't know where you're getting your measurements from, because that's not the standard conversion of cubit to foot. Second, several thousand? Maybe. Still not near enough to account for the 8 million different species on this planet, and you still aren't accounting for provisions, nor are you accounting for how to keep the carnivores from eating...well...everyone.

 

[ding]

God I hate it when idiots do this.

Unbelievable.

 

[Czernobog]

God I hate it when idiots do this.

Unbelievable.

I find it ironic, considering, if my memory serves me, you were insisting in a discussion not long ago that no Christians take the Noah story literally. Well? Here's one that obviously does.

 

[LittleNipper]

The story as found in the Bible is straight forward and rather logical. Stores tend to go from straight forward and direct and morph into corrupted nonsense except for a few minor details here and there: Example of the straight forward: 8 people, whole world covered with water, God's judgement, and building of a boat and the saving of animals.

You do know that story, as you just described it, is an impossibility on multiple levels, right?

I do not see it any more impossible than building a ship out of reinforced concrete. And that certainly has been done. I note that there were cat kinds, dog kinds, cattle, horses and more than likely a very limited number of breeds. I see no reason that given the flatness of the original planet, that much of the water erupted from inside the planet and hit the planet in the form of comets, asteroids, and possibly a collapsing ice canopy/shield around the planet. The entire event seems more than scientifically possible --- it sounds highly probable.

First, as there were only "two of every kind", specifically for "repopulating" the planet, how do you suppose the animals were fed? Particularly the carnivores? Second, there is no evidence whatsoever that the earth, 6,000 years ago was "flat", and there is zero geological evidence of a global flood. Finally, there is the question of the Ark itself.

The Ark was, according to the Bible, 14 feet high, 450 feet long, and 75 feet wide, and in order for the Biblical account to be accurate, contained over 50,000 animals, 2 million insects, 7 people, a 600-year-oldman, and enough provisions for a year. Now, it may be difficult to comprehend what is wrong with this picture without a point of reference, so let's use the titanic, one of the largest ships ever built. It was 175 feet tall, 882 feet long, and 92 feet wide, and its full capacity was 3,547 people, and enough provisions for only a couple of weeks.

See the problem here?

The Titanic

The story as found in the Bible is straight forward and rather logical. Stores tend to go from straight forward and direct and morph into corrupted nonsense except for a few minor details here and there: Example of the straight forward: 8 people, whole world covered with water, God's judgement, and building of a boat and the saving of animals.

You do know that story, as you just described it, is an impossibility on multiple levels, right?

I do not see it any more impossible than building a ship out of reinforced concrete. And that certainly has been done. I note that there were cat kinds, dog kinds, cattle, horses and more than likely a very limited number of breeds. I see no reason that given the flatness of the original planet, that much of the water erupted from inside the planet and hit the planet in the form of comets, asteroids, and possibly a collapsing ice canopy/shield around the planet. The entire event seems more than scientifically possible --- it sounds highly probable.

First, as there were only "two of every kind", specifically for "repopulating" the planet, how do you suppose the animals were fed? Particularly the carnivores? Second, there is no evidence whatsoever that the earth, 6,000 years ago was "flat", and there is zero geological evidence of a global flood. Finally, there is the question of the Ark itself.

The Ark was, according to the Bible, 14 feet high, 450 feet long, and 75 feet wide, and in order for the Biblical account to be accurate, contained over 50,000 animals, 2 million insects, 7 people, a 600-year-oldman, and enough provisions for a year. Now, it may be difficult to comprehend what is wrong with this picture without a point of reference, so let's use the titanic, one of the largest ships ever built. It was 175 feet tall, 882 feet long, and 92 feet wide, and its full capacity was 3,547 people, and enough provisions for only a couple of weeks.

See the problem here?

Noah’s Ark was a massive ship, built at God’s command, that saved Noah, his family, and two of every kind of land animal from the global Flood that took place 4,350 years ago. It was 510 feet long, 85 feet wide, and 51 feet high and easily housed the several thousand animal kinds God brought to Noah.

The Titanic had fancy staterooms, luxurious accommodations, glamorous dinning rooms, loads of the latest equipment, tons of coal, and many tremendous boilers, and a very large engine... It was not made to preserve life. It was designed to transport it.

First of all, I don't know where you're getting your measurements from, because that's not the standard conversion of cubit to foot. Second, several thousand? Maybe. Still not near enough to account for the 8 million different species on this planet, and you still aren't accounting for provisions, nor are you accounting for how to keep the carnivores from eating...well...everyone.

You are counting every aquatic animal (none of which were on the ark), every breed of dog, cat, cow, horse, chicken, You are considering that a fly is the same as an elephant. Why would I care what your considerations of what a cubit is? You don't care one way or another (you don't wish to believe it anyway) and likely want to go for the smallest possible size to prove your point. You seem to ignore that the Chinese built very large wooden ships that are only just now coming to light complete with masts and sails that the ark obviously had no need for. There are not 8 million different species. I don't consider every toad or frog a species. I do believe that there has been a diversification due to environmental adaptation since the Flood. I however, do not see dogs evolving from whatever nor man evolving from whatever ------ and there is no proof of any such whatevers evolving into whatevers. I do see an explosion of variety after the FLOOD.

 

[ding]

God I hate it when idiots do this.

Unbelievable.

I find it ironic, considering, if my memory serves me, you were insisting in a discussion not long ago that no Christians take the Noah story literally. Well? Here's one that obviously does.

I was referring to you in my post.

 

[Czernobog]

You do know that story, as you just described it, is an impossibility on multiple levels, right?

I do not see it any more impossible than building a ship out of reinforced concrete. And that certainly has been done. I note that there were cat kinds, dog kinds, cattle, horses and more than likely a very limited number of breeds. I see no reason that given the flatness of the original planet, that much of the water erupted from inside the planet and hit the planet in the form of comets, asteroids, and possibly a collapsing ice canopy/shield around the planet. The entire event seems more than scientifically possible --- it sounds highly probable.

First, as there were only "two of every kind", specifically for "repopulating" the planet, how do you suppose the animals were fed? Particularly the carnivores? Second, there is no evidence whatsoever that the earth, 6,000 years ago was "flat", and there is zero geological evidence of a global flood. Finally, there is the question of the Ark itself.

The Ark was, according to the Bible, 14 feet high, 450 feet long, and 75 feet wide, and in order for the Biblical account to be accurate, contained over 50,000 animals, 2 million insects, 7 people, a 600-year-oldman, and enough provisions for a year. Now, it may be difficult to comprehend what is wrong with this picture without a point of reference, so let's use the titanic, one of the largest ships ever built. It was 175 feet tall, 882 feet long, and 92 feet wide, and its full capacity was 3,547 people, and enough provisions for only a couple of weeks.

See the problem here?

The Titanic

You do know that story, as you just described it, is an impossibility on multiple levels, right?

I do not see it any more impossible than building a ship out of reinforced concrete. And that certainly has been done. I note that there were cat kinds, dog kinds, cattle, horses and more than likely a very limited number of breeds. I see no reason that given the flatness of the original planet, that much of the water erupted from inside the planet and hit the planet in the form of comets, asteroids, and possibly a collapsing ice canopy/shield around the planet. The entire event seems more than scientifically possible --- it sounds highly probable.

First, as there were only "two of every kind", specifically for "repopulating" the planet, how do you suppose the animals were fed? Particularly the carnivores? Second, there is no evidence whatsoever that the earth, 6,000 years ago was "flat", and there is zero geological evidence of a global flood. Finally, there is the question of the Ark itself.

The Ark was, according to the Bible, 14 feet high, 450 feet long, and 75 feet wide, and in order for the Biblical account to be accurate, contained over 50,000 animals, 2 million insects, 7 people, a 600-year-oldman, and enough provisions for a year. Now, it may be difficult to comprehend what is wrong with this picture without a point of reference, so let's use the titanic, one of the largest ships ever built. It was 175 feet tall, 882 feet long, and 92 feet wide, and its full capacity was 3,547 people, and enough provisions for only a couple of weeks.

See the problem here?

Noah’s Ark was a massive ship, built at God’s command, that saved Noah, his family, and two of every kind of land animal from the global Flood that took place 4,350 years ago. It was 510 feet long, 85 feet wide, and 51 feet high and easily housed the several thousand animal kinds God brought to Noah.

The Titanic had fancy staterooms, luxurious accommodations, glamorous dinning rooms, loads of the latest equipment, tons of coal, and many tremendous boilers, and a very large engine... It was not made to preserve life. It was designed to transport it.

First of all, I don't know where you're getting your measurements from, because that's not the standard conversion of cubit to foot. Second, several thousand? Maybe. Still not near enough to account for the 8 million different species on this planet, and you still aren't accounting for provisions, nor are you accounting for how to keep the carnivores from eating...well...everyone.

You are counting every aquatic animal (none of which were on the ark), every breed of dog, cat, cow, horse, chicken, You are considering that a fly is the same as an elephant. Why would I care what your considerations of what a cubit is? You don't care one way or another (you don't wish to believe it anyway) and likely want to go for the smallest possible size to prove your point. You seem to ignore that the Chinese built very large wooden ships that are only just now coming to light complete with masts and sails that the ark obviously had no need for. There are not 8 million different species. I don't consider every toad or frog a species. I do believe that there has been a diversification due to environmental adaptation since the Flood. I however, do not see dogs evolving from whatever nor man evolving from whatever ------ and there is no proof of any such whatevers evolving into whatevers. I do see an explosion of variety after the FLOOD.

Okay. This is the point at which I am done. When you declare that evolution is not valid, you have decided to complete ignore science. Have fun with your magical thinking fantasies.

 

[Czernobog]

God I hate it when idiots do this.

Unbelievable.

I find it ironic, considering, if my memory serves me, you were insisting in a discussion not long ago that no Christians take the Noah story literally. Well? Here's one that obviously does.

I was referring to you in my post.

Hey. I'm responding to the absurdity of Littlenipper's literal interpretation of the Noah story, which is simply not possible.

 

[ding]

God I hate it when idiots do this.

Unbelievable.

I find it ironic, considering, if my memory serves me, you were insisting in a discussion not long ago that no Christians take the Noah story literally. Well? Here's one that obviously does.

I was referring to you in my post.

Hey. I'm responding to the absurdity of Littlenipper's literal interpretation of the Noah story, which is simply not possible.

No, you're not. You're trolling.

 

[Czernobog]

God I hate it when idiots do this.

Unbelievable.

I find it ironic, considering, if my memory serves me, you were insisting in a discussion not long ago that no Christians take the Noah story literally. Well? Here's one that obviously does.

I was referring to you in my post.

Hey. I'm responding to the absurdity of Littlenipper's literal interpretation of the Noah story, which is simply not possible.

No, you're not. You're trolling.

Actually, I was honestly responding to him. The one trolling would be the dickwad who just wants to attack the person engaging in discussion. that would be you. Do feel free to fuck off with your bullshit.

 

[ScienceRocks]

This is how silly it is to believe in the ark! One can NOT be logical or a thinking human being and still believe this.

 

[Kat]

This is how silly it is to believe in the ark! One can NOT be logical or a thinking human being and still believe this.

Right. You have to have Faith, a heart and soul first.......of which you have none.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'll stick with science as it is the one thing that humanity knows is true based on the evidence around him.

If you think I am a loon for this...Wow, I am right, this board is crazy.

 

[Kat]

I. LOVE. SCIENCE. It does not have to be one or the other, silly.

 

[LittleNipper]

God I hate it when idiots do this.

Unbelievable.

I find it ironic, considering, if my memory serves me, you were insisting in a discussion not long ago that no Christians take the Noah story literally. Well? Here's one that obviously does.

I was referring to you in my post.

Hey. I'm responding to the absurdity of Littlenipper's literal interpretation of the Noah story, which is simply not possible.

Well, you believe God is absurd, and we all know how wrong you are there.

 

[Taz]

Noah's Ark is Plagiarized. Here's how we know ...



The entire freaking thing was pieced together by abunch of other fairy tails thousands of years before.

Seriously, what fucking difference does it make in your life? you believe that your awareness is a random chance of atoms and molecules, just stay with that and we'll both be happy.

So how did Noah get kangaroos from Australia and back again?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Noah's Ark is Plagiarized. Here's how we know ...



The entire freaking thing was pieced together by abunch of other fairy tails thousands of years before.

Seriously, what fucking difference does it make in your life? you believe that your awareness is a random chance of atoms and molecules, just stay with that and we'll both be happy.

So how did Noah get kangaroos from Australia and back again?

Good, logical point. Perhaps Australia was spared from the flood

 

[ding]

I'll stick with science as it is the one thing that humanity knows is true based on the evidence around him.

If you think I am a loon for this...Wow, I am right, this board is crazy.

Yes, I think you are a loon for elevating science to a God especially since you reject it when it suits your purposes, Matthew.

 

[ding]

God I hate it when idiots do this.

Unbelievable.

I find it ironic, considering, if my memory serves me, you were insisting in a discussion not long ago that no Christians take the Noah story literally. Well? Here's one that obviously does.

I was referring to you in my post.

Hey. I'm responding to the absurdity of Littlenipper's literal interpretation of the Noah story, which is simply not possible.

No, you're not. You're trolling.

Actually, I was honestly responding to him. The one trolling would be the dickwad who just wants to attack the person engaging in discussion. that would be you. Do feel free to fuck off with your bullshit.

And I was honestly responding to your response. See how that works?

Do I need to pull up your old posts where you admit that you seek out believers to ridicule for your own pleasure?

 

[Czernobog]

I find it ironic, considering, if my memory serves me, you were insisting in a discussion not long ago that no Christians take the Noah story literally. Well? Here's one that obviously does.

I was referring to you in my post.

Hey. I'm responding to the absurdity of Littlenipper's literal interpretation of the Noah story, which is simply not possible.

No, you're not. You're trolling.

Actually, I was honestly responding to him. The one trolling would be the dickwad who just wants to attack the person engaging in discussion. that would be you. Do feel free to fuck off with your bullshit.

And I was honestly responding to your response. See how that works?

Do I need to pull up your old posts where you admit that you seek out believers to ridicule for your own pleasure?

My motives for posting is irrelevant. If my facts are incorrect, you should have no problem refuting them. However, since you clearly have no way of doing that, you have chosen, instead, to attempt to cast doubt on those facts, by attacking my character.

Do better...

 

[ding]

I was referring to you in my post.

Hey. I'm responding to the absurdity of Littlenipper's literal interpretation of the Noah story, which is simply not possible.

No, you're not. You're trolling.

Actually, I was honestly responding to him. The one trolling would be the dickwad who just wants to attack the person engaging in discussion. that would be you. Do feel free to fuck off with your bullshit.

And I was honestly responding to your response. See how that works?

Do I need to pull up your old posts where you admit that you seek out believers to ridicule for your own pleasure?

My motives for posting is irrelevant. If my facts are incorrect, you should have no problem refuting them. However, since you clearly have no way of doing that, you have chosen, instead, to attempt to cast doubt on those facts, by attacking my character.

Do better...

Your motive of subordinating religion is 100% relevant.

I don't find it surprising that a person practicing subversive behavior under the cover of deceit (i.e. motives aren't important) would take offense at the person pulling the curtain back.

It was entirely predictable.