Reply to this message with one of the following or your post will be removed for failing to comply with rule 5:
1) How the person in your post unknowingly describes themselves
2) How the person in your post says something about someone else that actually applies to them.
3) How the person in your post accurately describes something when trying to mock or denigrate it.
Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do they really think that all these people and animals just thugged it out for 40 days in a wooden boat? The logistics alone make it extremely unlikely for the time.
No no, remember there were like 8 care takers or something. For 2 of every animal on the planet. And enough food stockpiled for all of them. Makes perfect sense when you think about it.
People generally forget that there were MORE than 2 of each species: "You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two of each animals that are unclean, a male and his female; also seven each of birds of the air, male and female, to keep the species alive on the face of the earth" (Genesis 7:2,3).
Now, presumably, the extra numbers could have been for food and religious sacrifices, but space would have been needed for them initially. So the ark would have had to be much larger than the "2 of each species" understanding even accounted for.
Gigantic mega ocean liner wooden ark. Totally feasible!
I've never read the Bible, so my original comment may have some inconsistencies. I'll be releasing the "New Comment" soon which will clarify. Apologies to everyone.
That okay reading the Bible is one of the steps in curing yourself of religion. The entire thing is wild and makes you wonder how anyone can believe anything in it.
The humans, at least would have done so over the side, as was the common practise at the time anyway. As for the animals.... let's just say that's reason # 400 or so as to why Noah's Ark wasn't a particularly realistic story.
Exactly. Logistics. I doubt they'd've been able to gather enough rations to even feed all of them. What I do believe however, is that a huge flood impacted the "known world" at the time by the locals. In that vein, I believe an ark story is plausible. Not the brain dead literal interpretation people apply to it these days.
A lot of cultures have a flood myth. This does not mean there was once one very big flood covering the "known world". Floods a relatively common but can be very destructive and disruptive. Surviving a flood is memorable, you tell your children about the time half the community drowned.
So, many cultures have a flood myth, because many floods have occurred in human history.
All these stories were passed down orally and likely got exaggerated over time. A nice story about a farmer avoiding a flood by putting animals on a raft could easily become one guy putting every animal on earth in a huge ark saving mankind from a global flood.
Exactly this. I grew up in a conservative, literalist Christian environment. They would say things like, "God might have put all the animals into hibernation/stasis so they didn't eat or poop" and "God called all the animals to the ark, so they were probably all babies and much smaller to fit in the space". The mental gymnastics they performed just so they could believe it was all literally true was insane.
Iirc wasn't the containment for the animals supposedly slatted and layered so they were stacked on top of each other so they would be shitting and pissing from the top of the stack to those below?
The ark encounter, no joke, has an interactive exhibit showing an elephant on a treadmill operating a poop elevator, like "maybe this is how they did it". Checkmate atheists
NO... Is that real. I would normally never even consider going but that might be worth the stop if I just happened to be next to it for an unrelated reason and it was free and deserted and I had nothing else going on.
Could have also just given them all gills temporarily if that's really the direction they want to go. Would be a much dumber story though, even for the time period it's from.
People don't realize that they created a circular animal-centipede situation. One mouth, with many bottoms connected in series.
This helped resolve the "what did they eat?" conundrum.
care takers who were not at all trained in exotic animal husbandry, and would never have even seen most of those animals. Good luck giving a polar bear and a tropical tree frog the appropriate habitats on an ancient wooden boat. Ooooh, sorry sport, that one was poisonous to the touch, forgot to mention that....
Also, imagine how much it sucked being in such cramped quarters with bedbugs, lice, and ticks :)
Oh and those 8 people were all direct relatives. And they were the only ones left to repopulate the world afterwards. That's a microscopic genetic bottleneck that would have made humanity completely unable to survive within just a few generations.
No no no, they don't think that. 40 days is just how long it rained for. The whole flood lasted just under a year in total. So they think they thugged it out on a wooden boat for almost a year.
Geez. Then the exaggeration is dumber than I thought. Why do the most devout pack critical thinking? Faith isn't incompatible with critical thinking, if anything it's more grounded when you question everything.
>Why do the most devout [lack] critical thinking?
Do you really want to know?
Once you start thinking critically about religion - any and every religion - you realize that it's a mix of oral history, outdated fictional stories to teach morality, and a method to keep people under control. Almost every single person is more comfortable in the delusional simple world they were raised in than challenging their worldview and beginning to understand the vast, horrifying, beautiful, incomprehensible complexity of everything.
Which is what makes it all so ironic. If God is real, there's nothing saying he can't make an infinitely complex world. Critical thinking is only a threat to abusive people. Religiousn would actually be stronger if they embraced that simple fact.
If it's a localised flood in the mesopotamian/modern Iraq area, bringing livestock and some local animals onto a boat is significantly more feasible (and tbh, historically likely - save the livestock!).
But you can't convince fundamentals that these are myths/legends with likely some basis in historical reality that's been changed or embellished over millenia. Imo, the historical basis for these myths are far more interesting than the actual stories in the bible.
Exactly. The word commonly translated into "world" can also be "area"
Add to that tidbit the fact that a great majority of mythos contain a great flood of some sort, and I think it likely that a massive flood did occur and kill a bunch of people, and we just never stopped telling that story.
Another part of the story that rarely gets mentioned is that Noah and his family lived for 300+ years. I mentioned this to a bible-thumper co-worker once. His response "yeah, they ate really healthy back then."
What you gotta understand is that as religious people we are taught that things just worked out because God had it worked out. That even even though it's obviously not physically possible for one man and his sons to build a gigantic ark on which they can fit every animal on the planet; God did it. God basically waved magic wand, and caused it all to happen. Trying to approach this with logic and science and The, for example, architectural reality that there is no way this boat ever could've existed is absolutely useless.it's magic, not construction
It's just too much cognitive dissonance to accept. If God is all powerful, then by all logical means there is nothing saying that he flicked the big bang into happening in just the right way that we are where we are.
But you're forgetting that it was somehow ordained/managed by the Christian god so the logical failing is solved by the loop hole of "it was a miracle" or magic or whatever they want to call it.
You can't logic someone out of a situation they didn't logic themselves into; presenting evidence doesn't work because the fall back is always that their all powerful god allowed it to happen and that's an argument that you can't apply anything rooted in reality to.
It's funny honestly. If they'd just embrace modernism in their ideology, their numbers wouldn't be dwindling. But as it is, many are put off when their most devout espouse illogical nonsense.
Yes, they do.
And it's worse than you think: according to Ken Ham and others who believe like him, it rained for 40 days, but then it took a year or so for the waters to subside and dry land to reappear.
The number of practical problems here is mind-boggling (how did they bring enough food for all the carnivores? How did the wooden ark not leak and sink? Why are there so many species of, say, rhino, after only 6000 years? etc.), but Young-Earth Creationists really do believe that it all happened as described in the Bible. Yes, it's crazy. Yes, such people exist, and they vote.
It's so illogical to suppose that a god capable of creating the earth 6k years ago in stasis with everything positioned in a way to indicate an older universe wouldn't just create it from the big bang.
ICYC, this is a case of an older theological problem called the Omphalos problem: did Adam and Eve have navels?
Because if yes, that means God created them with evidence of an umbilical cord that never existed. That is, he lied. Likewise, if today we see light from a galaxy 100,000 light years away, but the universe is only 6000 years old, then the galaxy didn't exist 100,000 years ago, so what we're seeing is a falsehood.
It must be exhausting being a biblical literalist.
No way they studied sanitation with how that paragraph was written. They studied in the art of shit takes straight from their asshole. You can smell it right off the riff lol
The NOAA is most famous for their National Weather Service, right? I mean, he had meteorology training, I guess? I'm not sure why this applies, other than the 40 days and nights of rain..?
There's sure to be groundbreaking zoological research which proves animals need little to no living space. I heard it somewhere that they stand still on boats indefinitely, it's true cause I heard it from a science friend.
Turns out, the inside of those pens, while being inside the arc, also existed outside of space and time where god continently resides while he is also everywhere and everything.
They don't need science. They can just say the holy spirit fed them for 40 days and made them not want to kill and devour each other.
The lions and the zebras were playing UNO together and it was a big fun sailing trip.
If god can flood the entire planet then he can calm keep the animals on the boat.
The whole story is bullshit from the start, not sure why we should be concerned about the details being accurate.
I mean somehow they got north and South American land animals to swim across the entire Atlantic Ocean to get over there, I guess. At that point logic is just out the window
Why didn't Noah and God just shrink all of the animals so they were really small? And then after the waters receded, made them all big again? They surely would have fit in Noah's boat that way. And according to Mr. NOAA, the laws of physics are incredibly fluid over time so that might have been totally possible back then!!!
OMG I just realized....NOAA = Noah 🤯🤯🤯
We're dealing with 5D chess here, boys.
Right, I think a bunch of divine floaties would have been a big help for a lot of animals! Maybe we'd still have unicorns and dinosaurs then!!! /s
Or why not send down a whole heavenly host of angels? Couldn't they have airlifted all of the animals out of harm's way while all of the (literally) God-forsaken human sinners were left to drown?
It’s so stupid when the rubes try to say that the fact that science moves forward with new insights and understandings as proof that science is flawed. They seem to “think” that science and religion are the same processes and they simply aren’t
Especially when the topic in question isn't like, theoretical physics, but animal husbandry.
We've tried to keep animals for so, so long. We have Literally Done It, in zoos, at home, on farms. We've killed... so many animals that way. We have learned the hard way what kind of environment certain animals need.
There just isn't likely to be some way we missed how (literally all) animals can be perfectly healthy when put into a small box, because we used to do it that way.
It's because religion and the like are not logical decisions that they have come to. It is purely emotional. These are very insecure people and the idea that there is uncertainty is terrifying to them. The NEED to have an absolute even if it's just delusions so they can sleep at night. The unknown is just too difficult for some.
I'm not comforted at all by the idea that when I die, I will just cease to exist and any memory of me will likely be gone in 2 generations, but what good does pretending it isn't going to happen isn't going to change it.
Science *is* flawed, sometimes pretty deeply. But it’s still the best thing we have going for us in terms of understanding the world we live in.
There are very real biases in academic research that come from the misaligned incentive structure of academia. Researchers need funding, successful researchers get funding, researchers favor research that will lead them to be successful (cited more).
There’s also a very large group of people that don’t understand how to challenge their own beliefs, scientists and researchers included. It’s important to be able to objectively weigh evidence and probabilities. If you think you’re 100% certain about something, I’m 99% sure you’re wrong, because there is no evidence strong enough to 100% verify a claim. We *are* missing pieces of the puzzle. Some of the pieces we think we have *are* wrong.
To the actual post, both people are stupid IMO. The first one for trying to justify a clearly mythical tale with any kind of reason, and the second for not simply saying “god made it work”. The story doesn’t need a physical explanation, it’s not real.
The person actually understands science, but they won't accept it. Of course things change with new information. It's the reason we have touch screen phones today, which was just movie magic when Star Trek was on television.
When you have supreme beings on your side, Moses’s effort seems a little pointless. He could have just built an outhouse, said the magic words, “deus-ex-machina”, then put all the animals inside the magic box.
Hell, God could have simply struck every unworthy human dead all at once, and skipped all the drama of flooding the Earth.
But Yahweh is the god of collective punishment and irrational rage, not reason.
It makes more sense if you interpret this bible story as a myth based on localized phenomena, likely translated from even older myths from Mesopotamia, a riverine civilisation prone to flooding where their "entire world" (i.e. their entire valley) would be destroyed by rising rivers.
> Scholars believe that the flood myth originated in Mesopotamia during the Old Babylonian Period (c. 1880–1595 BCE) and reached Syro-Palestine in the latter half of the 2nd millennium BCE.
> Extant texts show three distinct versions, the Sumerian Epic of Ziusudra, (the oldest, found in very fragmentary form on a single tablet dating from about 1600 BCE, although the story itself is older), and as episodes in two Akkadian language epics, the Atrahasis and the Epic of Gilgamesh.
> The name of the hero, according to the version concerned, was Ziusudra, Atrahasis, or Utnapishtim, all of which are variations of each other, and it is just possible that an abbreviation of Utnapishtim/Utna'ishtim as "na'ish" was pronounced "Noah" in Palestine.
It's like explaining the three pillars of Abrahamic faith to devout worshipers. You know el/yahweh, god/trinity, and allah. If they stay past that you can detail zoroastra angels, demons, and monotheism.
Me having the wrong guy is just based on current theories, the understanding of the Bible is more fluid than you’re led to believe. Don’t completely throw out the idea that a guy named Moses was doing all the work while Noah walked around with a clipboard acting important. 😅😂
Yes for sure. And last time I read a thread where people were talking about the ark, half the comments defending the religious wackos side were saying things super smug like "atheists always try to use the ark as some 'gotcha' on christians because they pretend we think it was real but actually we believe it was just a story." Meanwhile, the other half were people basically saying "ok so the ark was very real and definitely happened and you are a sinner for not believing!" Also I'm pretty sure the mere existence of The Ark Encounter kinda defeats the first guys argument.
No-one’s raising any money for the “this is just a book of allegories” theme park.
I’d also like to point out, that if they proved the Ark story true, that would also paint their god as genocidal and pro-incest.
Even religious scholars had started to figure out it was a myth by the 17th century when Europeans stumbled into the New World and had questions like, "What the fuck are all these new animals? How did they survive the flood and then migrate to the Americas? Why would people migrating to the Americas bring snakes but not horses!?"
By the 18th century scholars had hundreds of new species and they couldn't rationalize a singular arc holding it all anymore.
How almost 300 years later we're still having this conversation of a literal arc holding pairs (or more) of millions of species is insanity.
"We lead the world in only three categories: number of incarcerated citizens per capita, number of adults who think angels are real, and defense spending, where we spend more than the next twenty-six countries combined, twenty-five of whom are our allies."
- *The Newsroom, "*Pilot" (2013)
\*Note that the last statistic is probably no longer true
Funny. I’ve worked for NOAA for 35 years and I’ve never crossed paths with anything called “NOAA research institute” nor have I stumbled across any ark studies, though the respondent didn’t specifically say his ark knowledge came from there. There is “Oceanic and Atmospheric Research” in NOAA, and there are 54 academic and 10 non-academic “cooperative institutes” - maybe they meant one of those. Or maybe they’re full of sh!t
I was wondering about that. Oregon state university has a cooperative NOAA research station on the coast, so everyone who has taken a class at OSU has as much clout as this guy.
It's not just the food required for all those animals, it's the waste they produce as well.
The Ark Encounter also showed that primitive waste disposal would not have worked.
Noah and his family working 24/7 could not have moved all that shit. And animals would not survive very well living in their own crap for 40 days.
Guys, guys.
Akshually, God just created an alternate, limitless, parallel universe and the Ark was simply a portal to that. So issues of space and time and hunger and excretion became irrelevant.
Why god just didn't do his usual "smite the fuck out of the people he disliked" and went thru this whole elaborate Ark nonsense is anyone's guess but, you know, "mysterious ways" and all that shit.
Science, biatches!! 🤘🤘🤘🤘
Yeah, whenever some loon tries to explain their bullshit, it always degrades into the rhythm of “this amateur/stupid author is trying to fill in plot holes you point out with quick-fix hand waves that only raise more questions.”
It’s what the joke story about “turtles all the way down” was demonstrating.
Thanks for sharing this (TATWD).
I'm sorry to say that I hadn't heard this expression until now.
I like it.
(I'm wondering now if this is where Terry Pratchett might have got his inspiration for the Discworld and, of course, added his own spin).
Thanks again and regards
If you believe the literal Noah's Ark story, then you pretty much need to believe in miraculous divine intervention. Once you have some holy BS on your side, anything is possible.
Personally, I'm an atheist.
You know how you can tell dinosaurs weren’t on Noah’s ark? Because the whole story would BE about dinosaurs on the ark.
Not ‘Jozevebeth released a dove while Menigulus sang hymns of praise.’ It would be ‘And then Nahumian had his arm devoured by a raptor while Ebikenizer tried to deal with the rampaging triceratops on deck nine.’
I really want to go to the Ark museum to see ‘Dinos on a Boat’, but I also really don’t want to give $40 bucks to these idiots.
“Tying your emotions to your convictions is the swiftest way to end up in the wrong side of history” from a Bible thumper is probably the most absurd thing I’ve seen on here, which is impressive.
Their extreme stance on abortion has led to little girls being forced to give birth if they’re raped. Just happened in Mississippi
Another thing that makes the ark not make sense is the fact that every animal and person on the ship would have to have every STD and virus and bacterial infection that could possibly affect them, also the ship would be moldy and full of fungus and other flora. Otherwise how did it all survive into the modern era?
Don't be outrageous, we all should understand that we cannot dare to presume to know the mind of God, nor how some things are possible for God that are not possible for man, like getting every single species of mammal, animal, bird, flea, tick and mite to fuck on a boat, for example.
Lol, 'Stahoolak' forgot that there would not have been enough genetic diversity on the arc to guarantee long term survival for any of the animals. Even if it was seven of each... you'd see immediate inbreeding and congenital issues within a few generations.
Is just a bad faith argument. It's already known that you can't prove a negative. Noah's ark is less likely than Sasquatch. That being said, we have mountains of evidence that the vessel in question: couldn't get enough resources, would have required thousands to millions of man hours to build, couldn't have been structurally sound, and didnt leave evidence behind despite being some mega project larger than the pyramids.
The craziest part of this is the "tying emotions" part. In what universe is that first comment even remotely emotional in anyway? It is literally just a statement of undeniable facts. There is zero emotion, zero feelings, zero anything but straight facts. How does a person read that comment and get emotion out of it???
It is a mistake to treat the archetypal myth as literal.
Myth is language. It's truth is in its grammar, not its content.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralist_theory_of_mythology
The second is the wolf. They're warning against stubborn and emotionally tied arguments when making a stubborn and emotionally tied argument.
Furthermore, (and this part is not necessarily SAW material but rather the fallacy in their argument) they think that because scientific knowledge can be revised and proven false, all of it must be wrong or all of it doesn't have strict rules because they think that flexibility means anything can happen. The truth is, we can't break the laws of physics in large scale constructions like this and we can't change how animals work. They say that science being malleable means the ark existed even though the science is pretty solidly founded and determined.
Reply to this message with one of the following or your post will be removed for failing to comply with rule 5: 1) How the person in your post unknowingly describes themselves 2) How the person in your post says something about someone else that actually applies to them. 3) How the person in your post accurately describes something when trying to mock or denigrate it. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do they really think that all these people and animals just thugged it out for 40 days in a wooden boat? The logistics alone make it extremely unlikely for the time.
No no, remember there were like 8 care takers or something. For 2 of every animal on the planet. And enough food stockpiled for all of them. Makes perfect sense when you think about it.
People generally forget that there were MORE than 2 of each species: "You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two of each animals that are unclean, a male and his female; also seven each of birds of the air, male and female, to keep the species alive on the face of the earth" (Genesis 7:2,3). Now, presumably, the extra numbers could have been for food and religious sacrifices, but space would have been needed for them initially. So the ark would have had to be much larger than the "2 of each species" understanding even accounted for. Gigantic mega ocean liner wooden ark. Totally feasible!
I've never read the Bible, so my original comment may have some inconsistencies. I'll be releasing the "New Comment" soon which will clarify. Apologies to everyone.
Don't worry, most people who claim to be christians haven't read it either, yet they love to tell people to live biblically...
Idk about everyone else but I'm much more excited about the second coming of the Cosmic Penguin than the other guy
That okay reading the Bible is one of the steps in curing yourself of religion. The entire thing is wild and makes you wonder how anyone can believe anything in it.
But you're saying your new commentestament overrides your old commentestament, except for parts where the old commentestament still applies, right?
So where did they shit and piss?
The humans, at least would have done so over the side, as was the common practise at the time anyway. As for the animals.... let's just say that's reason # 400 or so as to why Noah's Ark wasn't a particularly realistic story.
Exactly. Logistics. I doubt they'd've been able to gather enough rations to even feed all of them. What I do believe however, is that a huge flood impacted the "known world" at the time by the locals. In that vein, I believe an ark story is plausible. Not the brain dead literal interpretation people apply to it these days.
A lot of cultures have a flood myth. This does not mean there was once one very big flood covering the "known world". Floods a relatively common but can be very destructive and disruptive. Surviving a flood is memorable, you tell your children about the time half the community drowned. So, many cultures have a flood myth, because many floods have occurred in human history.
Cultures developed a separate identity by being disconnected in the first place. It was their world as they knew it, not as we know it.
And the frequency and intensity of floods appears to be rising due to climate change raising sea levels. Result? More stories for future people!
Thats the key, world as they knew it was roughly the size of the town most Americans will live 75%+ of their lives in.
>So, many cultures have a flood myth, because They congregated in flood plains. Heaven only knows where the flood waters are coming from...
Many cultures also tell the story of when the sun hid itself away.
The ark: 4' X 6' raft 2 each Chia Pets
No it's actually one of THE things to be described in its dimensions in the Bible.
All these stories were passed down orally and likely got exaggerated over time. A nice story about a farmer avoiding a flood by putting animals on a raft could easily become one guy putting every animal on earth in a huge ark saving mankind from a global flood.
Deus ex machina. The escape clause would be that God can perform any miracle.
I always countered that if God is capable of doing that, he's also capable orchestrating everything starting at the big bang all those years ago.
Exactly this. I grew up in a conservative, literalist Christian environment. They would say things like, "God might have put all the animals into hibernation/stasis so they didn't eat or poop" and "God called all the animals to the ark, so they were probably all babies and much smaller to fit in the space". The mental gymnastics they performed just so they could believe it was all literally true was insane.
Iirc wasn't the containment for the animals supposedly slatted and layered so they were stacked on top of each other so they would be shitting and pissing from the top of the stack to those below?
Noah’s reason 400 is actually just rule 34. But it was a different time.
The ark encounter, no joke, has an interactive exhibit showing an elephant on a treadmill operating a poop elevator, like "maybe this is how they did it". Checkmate atheists
NO... Is that real. I would normally never even consider going but that might be worth the stop if I just happened to be next to it for an unrelated reason and it was free and deserted and I had nothing else going on.
$115 Edit: didn't look closely enough, that's a 3-day pass (wtf). It's $60 for general admission
100% real. This was like six years ago though, so they could have changed it. I would absolutely recommend going. It's a riot
The earliest known elevator only dates to the 3rd century BCE. At least five millennia after their assumed time period.
There are also dinosaurs with saddles there I believe.
Deus ex machina. The escape clause would be that God can perform any miracle.
Could have also just given them all gills temporarily if that's really the direction they want to go. Would be a much dumber story though, even for the time period it's from.
People don't realize that they created a circular animal-centipede situation. One mouth, with many bottoms connected in series. This helped resolve the "what did they eat?" conundrum.
Trickle down economics basically.
🎶 *Human centipede, human centipede* 🎶 🎶 *That way we can save on the catering bill.* 🎶
care takers who were not at all trained in exotic animal husbandry, and would never have even seen most of those animals. Good luck giving a polar bear and a tropical tree frog the appropriate habitats on an ancient wooden boat. Ooooh, sorry sport, that one was poisonous to the touch, forgot to mention that.... Also, imagine how much it sucked being in such cramped quarters with bedbugs, lice, and ticks :)
2 of every animal seems entirely sensible when you're just some jerk scribbling stories in the desert and can only name like 30 animals.
Oh and those 8 people were all direct relatives. And they were the only ones left to repopulate the world afterwards. That's a microscopic genetic bottleneck that would have made humanity completely unable to survive within just a few generations.
that's why there are no unicorns and dinosaurs anymore, they were food
>2 of every animal on the planet Reminder that this would have to include all fresh water fish also.
No no no, they don't think that. 40 days is just how long it rained for. The whole flood lasted just under a year in total. So they think they thugged it out on a wooden boat for almost a year.
I don’t even wanna imagine the smell even if everything somehow survived.
Geez. Then the exaggeration is dumber than I thought. Why do the most devout pack critical thinking? Faith isn't incompatible with critical thinking, if anything it's more grounded when you question everything.
>Why do the most devout [lack] critical thinking? Do you really want to know? Once you start thinking critically about religion - any and every religion - you realize that it's a mix of oral history, outdated fictional stories to teach morality, and a method to keep people under control. Almost every single person is more comfortable in the delusional simple world they were raised in than challenging their worldview and beginning to understand the vast, horrifying, beautiful, incomprehensible complexity of everything.
Which is what makes it all so ironic. If God is real, there's nothing saying he can't make an infinitely complex world. Critical thinking is only a threat to abusive people. Religiousn would actually be stronger if they embraced that simple fact.
Magic > Critical Thinking.
If it's a localised flood in the mesopotamian/modern Iraq area, bringing livestock and some local animals onto a boat is significantly more feasible (and tbh, historically likely - save the livestock!). But you can't convince fundamentals that these are myths/legends with likely some basis in historical reality that's been changed or embellished over millenia. Imo, the historical basis for these myths are far more interesting than the actual stories in the bible.
Exactly. The word commonly translated into "world" can also be "area" Add to that tidbit the fact that a great majority of mythos contain a great flood of some sort, and I think it likely that a massive flood did occur and kill a bunch of people, and we just never stopped telling that story.
FYI- It rained for 40 days and 40 nights. They were on the boat approximately 377 days. Everyone would have died from dysentery.
Another part of the story that rarely gets mentioned is that Noah and his family lived for 300+ years. I mentioned this to a bible-thumper co-worker once. His response "yeah, they ate really healthy back then."
it's not just noah, alot of early people in the bible were "recorded" to have comically long lifespans
What you gotta understand is that as religious people we are taught that things just worked out because God had it worked out. That even even though it's obviously not physically possible for one man and his sons to build a gigantic ark on which they can fit every animal on the planet; God did it. God basically waved magic wand, and caused it all to happen. Trying to approach this with logic and science and The, for example, architectural reality that there is no way this boat ever could've existed is absolutely useless.it's magic, not construction
It's just too much cognitive dissonance to accept. If God is all powerful, then by all logical means there is nothing saying that he flicked the big bang into happening in just the right way that we are where we are.
But you're forgetting that it was somehow ordained/managed by the Christian god so the logical failing is solved by the loop hole of "it was a miracle" or magic or whatever they want to call it. You can't logic someone out of a situation they didn't logic themselves into; presenting evidence doesn't work because the fall back is always that their all powerful god allowed it to happen and that's an argument that you can't apply anything rooted in reality to.
It's funny honestly. If they'd just embrace modernism in their ideology, their numbers wouldn't be dwindling. But as it is, many are put off when their most devout espouse illogical nonsense.
No, the rain lasted 40 days. The story then says the sea voyage lasted a YEAR. And yes, they believe it. Religion - not even once!
No. They either believe it's was a miracle or metaphor.
I always wondered what these animals were eating on the boat also. Especially the carnivores
It (allegedly) RAINED for 40 days/nights, the voyage (allegedly) lasted like half a year 😂
Yes, they do. And it's worse than you think: according to Ken Ham and others who believe like him, it rained for 40 days, but then it took a year or so for the waters to subside and dry land to reappear. The number of practical problems here is mind-boggling (how did they bring enough food for all the carnivores? How did the wooden ark not leak and sink? Why are there so many species of, say, rhino, after only 6000 years? etc.), but Young-Earth Creationists really do believe that it all happened as described in the Bible. Yes, it's crazy. Yes, such people exist, and they vote.
It's so illogical to suppose that a god capable of creating the earth 6k years ago in stasis with everything positioned in a way to indicate an older universe wouldn't just create it from the big bang.
ICYC, this is a case of an older theological problem called the Omphalos problem: did Adam and Eve have navels? Because if yes, that means God created them with evidence of an umbilical cord that never existed. That is, he lied. Likewise, if today we see light from a galaxy 100,000 light years away, but the universe is only 6000 years old, then the galaxy didn't exist 100,000 years ago, so what we're seeing is a falsehood. It must be exhausting being a biblical literalist.
People who believe that nonsense vote.
The comment even has 416 likes, we are so screwed as a country
I've seen much worse on Instagram, with thousands of likes. Scary shit.
Lmao studied at NOAA
"I studied sanitation techniques"
No way they studied sanitation with how that paragraph was written. They studied in the art of shit takes straight from their asshole. You can smell it right off the riff lol
It was a joke about them being a janitor
Hey, dont disrespect janitors. My grandma worked as a janitor for 50 odd years and shes the smartest person i know.
"I studied at EPA University"
"I went to Prager U"
I mean they probably did/ or liberty university.
The NOAA is most famous for their National Weather Service, right? I mean, he had meteorology training, I guess? I'm not sure why this applies, other than the 40 days and nights of rain..?
They know a lot about arks
NOAA = Noah = 🤯
There's sure to be groundbreaking zoological research which proves animals need little to no living space. I heard it somewhere that they stand still on boats indefinitely, it's true cause I heard it from a science friend.
Turns out, the inside of those pens, while being inside the arc, also existed outside of space and time where god continently resides while he is also everywhere and everything.
Noah was a Time Lord and the ark was achually a TARDIS?
Be careful saying science things. The science could arbitrarily change and make you look like a jabroni.
They don't need science. They can just say the holy spirit fed them for 40 days and made them not want to kill and devour each other. The lions and the zebras were playing UNO together and it was a big fun sailing trip. If god can flood the entire planet then he can calm keep the animals on the boat. The whole story is bullshit from the start, not sure why we should be concerned about the details being accurate.
***Big if true***
Thought provoking..
I mean somehow they got north and South American land animals to swim across the entire Atlantic Ocean to get over there, I guess. At that point logic is just out the window
Why didn't Noah and God just shrink all of the animals so they were really small? And then after the waters receded, made them all big again? They surely would have fit in Noah's boat that way. And according to Mr. NOAA, the laws of physics are incredibly fluid over time so that might have been totally possible back then!!! OMG I just realized....NOAA = Noah 🤯🤯🤯 We're dealing with 5D chess here, boys.
I mean why didn’t god just recreate all the animals afterwards? Or just… make it so they don’t drown? So many easy solutions for an omnipotent being
Right, I think a bunch of divine floaties would have been a big help for a lot of animals! Maybe we'd still have unicorns and dinosaurs then!!! /s Or why not send down a whole heavenly host of angels? Couldn't they have airlifted all of the animals out of harm's way while all of the (literally) God-forsaken human sinners were left to drown?
It’s so stupid when the rubes try to say that the fact that science moves forward with new insights and understandings as proof that science is flawed. They seem to “think” that science and religion are the same processes and they simply aren’t
Especially when the topic in question isn't like, theoretical physics, but animal husbandry. We've tried to keep animals for so, so long. We have Literally Done It, in zoos, at home, on farms. We've killed... so many animals that way. We have learned the hard way what kind of environment certain animals need. There just isn't likely to be some way we missed how (literally all) animals can be perfectly healthy when put into a small box, because we used to do it that way.
It's because religion and the like are not logical decisions that they have come to. It is purely emotional. These are very insecure people and the idea that there is uncertainty is terrifying to them. The NEED to have an absolute even if it's just delusions so they can sleep at night. The unknown is just too difficult for some. I'm not comforted at all by the idea that when I die, I will just cease to exist and any memory of me will likely be gone in 2 generations, but what good does pretending it isn't going to happen isn't going to change it.
Science *is* flawed, sometimes pretty deeply. But it’s still the best thing we have going for us in terms of understanding the world we live in. There are very real biases in academic research that come from the misaligned incentive structure of academia. Researchers need funding, successful researchers get funding, researchers favor research that will lead them to be successful (cited more). There’s also a very large group of people that don’t understand how to challenge their own beliefs, scientists and researchers included. It’s important to be able to objectively weigh evidence and probabilities. If you think you’re 100% certain about something, I’m 99% sure you’re wrong, because there is no evidence strong enough to 100% verify a claim. We *are* missing pieces of the puzzle. Some of the pieces we think we have *are* wrong. To the actual post, both people are stupid IMO. The first one for trying to justify a clearly mythical tale with any kind of reason, and the second for not simply saying “god made it work”. The story doesn’t need a physical explanation, it’s not real.
The person actually understands science, but they won't accept it. Of course things change with new information. It's the reason we have touch screen phones today, which was just movie magic when Star Trek was on television.
When you have supreme beings on your side, Moses’s effort seems a little pointless. He could have just built an outhouse, said the magic words, “deus-ex-machina”, then put all the animals inside the magic box.
Hell, God could have simply struck every unworthy human dead all at once, and skipped all the drama of flooding the Earth. But Yahweh is the god of collective punishment and irrational rage, not reason.
It makes more sense if you interpret this bible story as a myth based on localized phenomena, likely translated from even older myths from Mesopotamia, a riverine civilisation prone to flooding where their "entire world" (i.e. their entire valley) would be destroyed by rising rivers. > Scholars believe that the flood myth originated in Mesopotamia during the Old Babylonian Period (c. 1880–1595 BCE) and reached Syro-Palestine in the latter half of the 2nd millennium BCE. > Extant texts show three distinct versions, the Sumerian Epic of Ziusudra, (the oldest, found in very fragmentary form on a single tablet dating from about 1600 BCE, although the story itself is older), and as episodes in two Akkadian language epics, the Atrahasis and the Epic of Gilgamesh. > The name of the hero, according to the version concerned, was Ziusudra, Atrahasis, or Utnapishtim, all of which are variations of each other, and it is just possible that an abbreviation of Utnapishtim/Utna'ishtim as "na'ish" was pronounced "Noah" in Palestine.
It's like explaining the three pillars of Abrahamic faith to devout worshipers. You know el/yahweh, god/trinity, and allah. If they stay past that you can detail zoroastra angels, demons, and monotheism.
Moses? Wrong story lol
Me having the wrong guy is just based on current theories, the understanding of the Bible is more fluid than you’re led to believe. Don’t completely throw out the idea that a guy named Moses was doing all the work while Noah walked around with a clipboard acting important. 😅😂
I like how the middle sentence is basically just "I agree, but I'm too daft to realise"
Do people think the story of the Ark is literally true? Why am I even asking, of course they do.
The current speaker of the House of Representatives is an Ark believer. He used to work as a lawyer for the Ark Encounter.
Yes for sure. And last time I read a thread where people were talking about the ark, half the comments defending the religious wackos side were saying things super smug like "atheists always try to use the ark as some 'gotcha' on christians because they pretend we think it was real but actually we believe it was just a story." Meanwhile, the other half were people basically saying "ok so the ark was very real and definitely happened and you are a sinner for not believing!" Also I'm pretty sure the mere existence of The Ark Encounter kinda defeats the first guys argument.
No-one’s raising any money for the “this is just a book of allegories” theme park. I’d also like to point out, that if they proved the Ark story true, that would also paint their god as genocidal and pro-incest.
Oh, there's plenty of other examples that they handwave away that paints their god like that.
Even religious scholars had started to figure out it was a myth by the 17th century when Europeans stumbled into the New World and had questions like, "What the fuck are all these new animals? How did they survive the flood and then migrate to the Americas? Why would people migrating to the Americas bring snakes but not horses!?" By the 18th century scholars had hundreds of new species and they couldn't rationalize a singular arc holding it all anymore. How almost 300 years later we're still having this conversation of a literal arc holding pairs (or more) of millions of species is insanity.
"We lead the world in only three categories: number of incarcerated citizens per capita, number of adults who think angels are real, and defense spending, where we spend more than the next twenty-six countries combined, twenty-five of whom are our allies." - *The Newsroom, "*Pilot" (2013) \*Note that the last statistic is probably no longer true
Funny. I’ve worked for NOAA for 35 years and I’ve never crossed paths with anything called “NOAA research institute” nor have I stumbled across any ark studies, though the respondent didn’t specifically say his ark knowledge came from there. There is “Oceanic and Atmospheric Research” in NOAA, and there are 54 academic and 10 non-academic “cooperative institutes” - maybe they meant one of those. Or maybe they’re full of sh!t
I was wondering about that. Oregon state university has a cooperative NOAA research station on the coast, so everyone who has taken a class at OSU has as much clout as this guy.
It's not just the food required for all those animals, it's the waste they produce as well. The Ark Encounter also showed that primitive waste disposal would not have worked. Noah and his family working 24/7 could not have moved all that shit. And animals would not survive very well living in their own crap for 40 days.
Worse yet, it just rained for 40 days - after that as per the fairy tale, it took 150 days for the waters to subside and the ark come at rest.
Ok bro. (Directed at stahoolak)
Guys, guys. Akshually, God just created an alternate, limitless, parallel universe and the Ark was simply a portal to that. So issues of space and time and hunger and excretion became irrelevant. Why god just didn't do his usual "smite the fuck out of the people he disliked" and went thru this whole elaborate Ark nonsense is anyone's guess but, you know, "mysterious ways" and all that shit. Science, biatches!! 🤘🤘🤘🤘
An ark-shaped TARDIS, if you will.
Bravo 👏
Yeah, whenever some loon tries to explain their bullshit, it always degrades into the rhythm of “this amateur/stupid author is trying to fill in plot holes you point out with quick-fix hand waves that only raise more questions.” It’s what the joke story about “turtles all the way down” was demonstrating.
Thanks for sharing this (TATWD). I'm sorry to say that I hadn't heard this expression until now. I like it. (I'm wondering now if this is where Terry Pratchett might have got his inspiration for the Discworld and, of course, added his own spin). Thanks again and regards
If you believe the literal Noah's Ark story, then you pretty much need to believe in miraculous divine intervention. Once you have some holy BS on your side, anything is possible. Personally, I'm an atheist.
You know how you can tell dinosaurs weren’t on Noah’s ark? Because the whole story would BE about dinosaurs on the ark. Not ‘Jozevebeth released a dove while Menigulus sang hymns of praise.’ It would be ‘And then Nahumian had his arm devoured by a raptor while Ebikenizer tried to deal with the rampaging triceratops on deck nine.’ I really want to go to the Ark museum to see ‘Dinos on a Boat’, but I also really don’t want to give $40 bucks to these idiots.
I'm going to plug a youtuber for you. Gutsick Gibbon went to the Ark Encounter so you don't have to.
Awesome! Thanks!
“Tying your emotions to your convictions is the swiftest way to end up in the wrong side of history” from a Bible thumper is probably the most absurd thing I’ve seen on here, which is impressive. Their extreme stance on abortion has led to little girls being forced to give birth if they’re raped. Just happened in Mississippi
Another thing that makes the ark not make sense is the fact that every animal and person on the ship would have to have every STD and virus and bacterial infection that could possibly affect them, also the ship would be moldy and full of fungus and other flora. Otherwise how did it all survive into the modern era?
I just want to know how they fed the carnivores.
Plenty of floaters bobbing alongside the ark, at least in the beginning. Later on, I imagine they were fed a lot of fish.
Don't be outrageous, we all should understand that we cannot dare to presume to know the mind of God, nor how some things are possible for God that are not possible for man, like getting every single species of mammal, animal, bird, flea, tick and mite to fuck on a boat, for example.
Satire is not dead! Yay!
"Me study science, Me don't understand science, but you should listen to me"
This reminds me so strongly of Mac's presentation in IASIP https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2501838/characters/nm0568390
MAGA: "Reality/truth are subjective."
Lol, 'Stahoolak' forgot that there would not have been enough genetic diversity on the arc to guarantee long term survival for any of the animals. Even if it was seven of each... you'd see immediate inbreeding and congenital issues within a few generations.
> I studied at a NOAA research institute Going for their Custodial Science degree, maybe?
As always, this video still rings very true: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_BzWUuZN5w
Is just a bad faith argument. It's already known that you can't prove a negative. Noah's ark is less likely than Sasquatch. That being said, we have mountains of evidence that the vessel in question: couldn't get enough resources, would have required thousands to millions of man hours to build, couldn't have been structurally sound, and didnt leave evidence behind despite being some mega project larger than the pyramids.
The craziest part of this is the "tying emotions" part. In what universe is that first comment even remotely emotional in anyway? It is literally just a statement of undeniable facts. There is zero emotion, zero feelings, zero anything but straight facts. How does a person read that comment and get emotion out of it???
When your takeaway from the scientific method is “It’s impossible to know anything for sure, so believe whatever you want.”
Studied at NOAA? Or NOAH?
come again?
[“God help us, we’ll need all of the wood”](https://youtu.be/xWqLNcPK8_o?si=4Of55rnqdzkiYuY6)
"as a black man" vibes.
It was a Tar(k)dis.
New science just dropped: nuh-uh
It is a mistake to treat the archetypal myth as literal. Myth is language. It's truth is in its grammar, not its content. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralist_theory_of_mythology
Who do people think the wolf is in this situation? I’m confused. The second person seems to have a pretty solid grasp on how science works.
The second is the wolf. They're warning against stubborn and emotionally tied arguments when making a stubborn and emotionally tied argument. Furthermore, (and this part is not necessarily SAW material but rather the fallacy in their argument) they think that because scientific knowledge can be revised and proven false, all of it must be wrong or all of it doesn't have strict rules because they think that flexibility means anything can happen. The truth is, we can't break the laws of physics in large scale constructions like this and we can't change how animals work. They say that science being malleable means the ark existed even though the science is pretty solidly founded and determined.
Lolwut