How to refute the "Evidence" of the arc on Mt. Arrarat.
In one of my recent "debates" with my fundie xtian coworkers, they had mentioned the "remnants" of something on the top of Mt. Arrarat and said thats where the arc landed.
How does one refute the flood arguments and arc found arguments that they will be able to understand it?
How does one refute the flood arguments and arc found arguments that they will be able to understand it?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Nelson on -
booya!
Claim CH501:
We can expect to find Noah's ark on Mount Ararat.
Claim CH504.3:
Hardwicke Knight's wood from Ararat
Claim CH502.1:
The Ararat Anomoly
Claim CH505.2:
Turkish expedition on Ararat
Claim CH504.1:
Bryce's timber from Ararat
Claim CH504.2:
Navarra's wood from Ararat
Claim CH500:
Noah's Ark sightings
Claim CH505.7:
Ed Davis: Ark witness
Claim CH505.5:
Russian aviator Vladimir Roskovitsky and the ark
Claim CH505.8:
Ed Behling: Ark witness
-
Permalink Reply by Nelson on
-
also, there's no point in discussing the mating habits of Invisible Pink Unicorns before demonstrating that they exist. similarly, there's no point in discussing evidence of an ark until you can reasonably show that the ark story is even possible as given in Gen. accordingly, this will help.
-
Permalink Reply by Misty: Baytheist Living! on -
Here is some simple logic (though that isn't really a need for fundies, is it?)
1) Even if god did somehow gentle all the predators up so they wouldn't eat the prey animals on the ark (or in the way to it) how do you explain climate conditions that allowed heat-needing reptiles to live in the same environment as cold-needing penguins and other sensitive species (Lemme guess... god did that too?
2) How do you explain there being enough ROOM? (The dimensions for the ark are big, but not THAT big. Hell, reptiles and birds alone would take up all the room. Lemme guess, god did that, too?)
3) How do you explain the sea life that didn't go aboard surviving the extreme change in temperature, salinity and PH levels that would happen when enough fresh water to flood the entire world mixed with the ocean. I have a hard time using modern technology to keep my fish tank balanced without world wide floods throwing my chemicals off (Lemme guess... god did that...too?
4) How do you explain all the animals getting BACK to their home ecologies and multiplying from only two after a major ecological event. Remember, most of the plant life has drowned, turned to sludge and their very delicate ecosystems destroyed. If they even could have survived 40 days and 40 nights on a wooden boat, they would be in no state to make the march back home through various climates that would kill most in a few days, if not hours. (Lemme guess, god did that too?!)
Ok.. so what the fuck is the point in god going to the trouble if he could have just killed off who and what he wanted and left the others alive? Seems like a lot of showmanship for something that couldn't scientifically be possible anyway. If he was going to break the laws of biology, why bother with the boat in the first place? Why not just do some one time destruction/salvation miracle like the idea of the rapture?
Or maybe it's because some guy building a boat and saving all the animals was a perfectly logical explanation for a bunch of goat herders that didn't know any better. Now that we do have husbandry/biology/ecology studies and see this isn't physically possible, all the hoopla is utterly absurd!
-
Permalink Reply by James on -
Yet, if the entire Earth were enshrouded in cloud cover wouldn't the intensity of the sun be reduced, reducing the daylight level and making the stars and 'lesser light at night' pitch black instead? Additionally, heavy cloud cover tends to lower the surface temperature. But even considering a worldwide temperate Earth, that still doesn't explain away creatures whose require climate extremes. Same as telling an animal it's now OK to eat meat doesn't explain why the creatures digestive system is specialized to be carnivorous, others omnivores and others still herbivores. Well, that is unless they EVOLVED. :)
No mountains? Guess scientific dating and observable plate tectonics are just spreading lies again. :\
-
Permalink Reply by James on
-
Oh, I know you're just quoting the fundies. :) It is a rather sad fact that no matter how many times you refute them, they continue grasping at straws.
-
Permalink Reply by Dave G on -
It's really sad how these people assume that absolutely everything that anyone believes is just 'faith'. Fire will burn? Oh, you just have faith that fire is hot. People need oxygen to breathe? You just have faith that people have always needed oxygen to survive.
The active, willful desire to shut out knowledge in order to maintain a faltering belief system continuously bewilders me.
-
Permalink Reply by Jeremy Roney on -
That sounds remarkably similar to the FSM used his Great Noodly Appendage and made everything work the way we think it did, just because we think He did.
-
Permalink Reply by Misty: Baytheist Living! on
-
So let me get this straight...
There was at one point in time enough water in the atmosphere to entirely cover the earth, but enough sunlight got through to allow an awesome amount of plant life that fed not only all humans, but all animals as well. During this time there was no such thing as carnivores, mountains or temperature extremes?
Holy shit!? And I thought just believing in boat-faring animals was hard to swallow...
Religion is awesome :)
-
Permalink Reply by Dave G on
-
And all the water came from 'windows in the firmament '. There's also the slightly altered version where the 'canopy of water' (yes, this is supposed to be an actual hollow globe of water surrounding the earth) was actually made of ice. Completely transparent ice, which is why the sunlight could get through.
-
Permalink Reply by Laura on -
Wow, you know, I've always been so hung up on the impossibility of putting all of the planet's animals on one boat that it never occurred to me to think about where all the water came from and where it all went. How about that. Someone on this site also once pointed out that Noah sacrificed some animals to god after the flood as well. I had to go look that one up to see if it was really in the Bible, and sure enough, it was. Sucks for that species, huh?
-
Permalink Reply by noisician on -
I'm sure he just sacrificed some of the "clean animals" of which he had 7 or 14 of each type at the start anyway.
And don't you remember the childrens' song "Unicorn Song" by Shel Silverstein? The unicorns were playing silly games when the ark was being loaded, so never made it on board.
What's new today
Forum
What Is TPP? Biggest Global Threat to the Internet Since ACTA
Started by Morgan Matthew in Announcements. Last reply by Unseen 12 minutes ago. 9 Replies 2 Likes
Blog Posts
Salty Water = Proof for Creationism?
Posted by Teri G on May 24, 2013 at 2:29am 5 Comments 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
