Noah's Ark: The Flawed Literalist Interpretation

[Ifreann]

What would have happened to all the fish during the flood? How would freshwater fish manage to stay away from all the salt water, and vice versa? Were the fish on the Ark?

[Nationalist State of Knox]

2. There was no mention of gene pools in the OP. While the ark hardly needs more debunking, it is worth mentioning that with only two of each species, this hardly leaves enough to sustain a species and keep evolution going.

Good point.

[Tlik]

So I come here and I think "Ooh, this might be interesting. We might get to discuss where these sorts of creation myths come from, whether there was any historical evidence for a flooded mediteranian region, why there are so many cultures with very similar flood myths, all of that sort of stuff. I might even enjoy myself in a good discussion with wise people."

No. It's an OP attacking a weak position that is believed by a minority of people who only have any relevance on this site for two months in the year. It's well-crafted, and seems very well informed, but ultimately it's an easy stand to take, and not one that has taken a great deal of thought. It is not a discussion, it's a stance, and would go just as well on a multitude of blogs.

I mean, in fairness, it's a really good article, but isn't NSG about, you know, debate 'n' all?

It's a debate about whether the Global Flood actually happened.

As you can see, it didn't.

That's... that's not a debate.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

What would have happened to all the fish during the flood? How would freshwater fish manage to stay away from all the salt water, and vice versa? Were the fish on the Ark?

The ark had an aquarium. *nods*

I forget to mention that the floodwaters would have salinated the soil, making it useless for agriculture/plant survival.

[Big Jim P]

2. There was no mention of gene pools in the OP. While the ark hardly needs more debunking, it is worth mentioning that with only two of each species, this hardly leaves enough to sustain a species and keep evolution going.

Good point.

Not really. Biblical literalists are not likely to believe in evolution. See my earlier point about "idiots".

[Benuty]

The cookie is a lie.

Source?

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=the ... edIndex=62

[Nationalist State of Knox]

It's a debate about whether the Global Flood actually happened.

As you can see, it didn't.

That's... that's not a debate.

It's my position.

Good point.

Not really. Biblical literalists are not likely to believe in evolution. See my earlier point about "idiots".

Knowledge of genetic variation doesn't necessarily require a belief in evolution.

But yeah, idiots.

[Agritum]

That's... that's not a debate.

It's my position.

Not really. Biblical literalists are not likely to believe in evolution. See my earlier point about "idiots".

Knowledge of genetic variation doesn't necessarily require a belief in evolution.

But yeah, idiots.

Also, 8 people surviving.

If you are a Biblical literalist, you also have to believe that all of humanity descends from a small pool of 8 people. With all the incest of the matter, of course.

Deucalion and Pyrrha's story had much less plot holes.

[Ifreann]

What would have happened to all the fish during the flood? How would freshwater fish manage to stay away from all the salt water, and vice versa? Were the fish on the Ark?

The ark had an aquarium. *nods*

I forget to mention that the floodwaters would have salinated the soil, making it useless for agriculture/plant survival.

Not to mention the massive amounts that would just be washed away.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

It's my position.


Knowledge of genetic variation doesn't necessarily require a belief in evolution.

But yeah, idiots.

Also, 8 people surviving.

If you are a Biblical literalist, you also have to believe that all of humanity descends from a small pool of 8 people. With all the incest of the matter, of course.

Deucalion and Pyrrha's story had much less plot holes.

Wait, how does Adam and Eve tie into this then?

[Agritum]

Also, 8 people surviving.

If you are a Biblical literalist, you also have to believe that all of humanity descends from a small pool of 8 people. With all the incest of the matter, of course.

Deucalion and Pyrrha's story had much less plot holes.

Wait, how does Adam and Eve tie into this then?

That too. Plot holes man, plot holes.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Also, 8 people surviving.

If you are a Biblical literalist, you also have to believe that all of humanity descends from a small pool of 8 people. With all the incest of the matter, of course.

Deucalion and Pyrrha's story had much less plot holes.

Wait, how does Adam and Eve tie into this then?

I think literalists make up the excuse that God created more unmentioned people after the Fall.

[Farnhamia]

That would mean that Yahweh was a god who only had control over ancient Mesopotamia and its surroundings, wouldn't it? Now, that area was wetter in ancient times than it is now - the monsoon used to come farther north, for instance, and the Persian Gulf came farther inland, too - but it wasn't ever covered to the tops of the mountains. No, the flood myths we see around the world come from the time when the Ice melted and the sea level rose, driving people out of their coastal dwelling places. The Persian Gulf itself was dry at about 15 KYA, with a river running down the middle to the Arabian Sea, and it filled quickly, possibly at a rate of a kilometer of distance a year at times.

Didnt your friend sir woolley find that the flood did occur?

Sir Leonard did declare he had found evidence of The Flood but what he actually found was evidence of A flood. Hell, there were floods all the time in the Land of the Civilized Lords, there were two honkin' great rivers running right down the middle. All you needed was a bit more rain over the Zagros Mountains and you'd be making new houses, guaranteed.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Wait, how does Adam and Eve tie into this then?

That too. Plot holes man, plot holes.

If the Bible were a modern fantasy novel, I wouldn't even finish the first chapter.

[Jinwoy]

I read the entire thing, out loud, in a flawless Russian accent.
It was beautiful.

Nevertheless, I LOVE the OP.
It won't stop people from believe in the Genesis Flood Account because some people just have absolute blind faith, but it was a nice try.

[Agritum]

Wait, how does Adam and Eve tie into this then?

I think literalists make up the excuse that God created more unmentioned people after the Fall.

How can you call yourself a literalist if you make shit up?

[Big Jim P]

I think literalists make up the excuse that God created more unmentioned people after the Fall.

How can you call yourself a literalist if you make shit up?

Now we are expecting a lack of hypocrisy among the literalists? Holding them to an unreasonable standard there.

[Agritum]

How can you call yourself a literalist if you make shit up?

Now we are expecting a lack of hypocrisy among the literalists? Holding them to an unreasonable standard there.

Well, more like pointing it out. Helps in demolishing their case.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

I read the entire thing, out loud, in a flawless Russian accent.
It was beautiful.

Why didn't I think of that?

Nevertheless, I LOVE the OP.

I do, too.

It won't stop people from believe in the Genesis Flood Account because some people just have absolute blind faith, but it was a nice try.

It's the sad reality.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

I think literalists make up the excuse that God created more unmentioned people after the Fall.

How can you call yourself a literalist if you make shit up?

1. It's the only way to explain the origins of humanity from a non-incestuous Biblical perspective.
2. If it isn't mentioned, you can't disprove that it happened. *nods*

[Agritum]

How can you call yourself a literalist if you make shit up?

1. It's the only way to explain the origins of humanity from a non-incestuous Biblical perspective.
2. If it isn't mentioned, you can't disprove that it happened. *nods*

Indeed, indeed.

[Great Nepal]

Also, 8 people surviving.

If you are a Biblical literalist, you also have to believe that all of humanity descends from a small pool of 8 people. With all the incest of the matter, of course.

Deucalion and Pyrrha's story had much less plot holes.

Wait, how does Adam and Eve tie into this then?

Basically, there was lot of incest between brother/sisters after they were born from Adam and Eve. Then, God went on rampage and killed everyone but eight people so there was more incest.
Essentially, humanity was born out of two massive influx of incest... would go to show why world is fucked up.

[Gallup]

It was just a metaphor. Not everything in the bible was 100% literal.

That argument again?

"The Bible is the word of god and The Truth™! However, parts that would be too logically inconsistent or "embarassing" to be true are simply to be interpreted "methaphorically"."

Haha.

No.

They had to write it in a way to make sense to future generations. And the only way to make a big concept make sense for thousands of years is through a story.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Wait, how does Adam and Eve tie into this then?

Basically, there was lot of incest between brother/sisters after they were born from Adam and Eve. Then, God went on rampage and killed everyone but eight people so there was more incest.
Essentially, humanity was born out of two massive influx of incest... would go to show why world is fucked up.

Incest didn't have the same effect back in the old days. *nods*

[Nationalist State of Knox]

That argument again?

"The Bible is the word of god and The Truth™! However, parts that would be too logically inconsistent or "embarassing" to be true are simply to be interpreted "methaphorically"."

Haha.

No.

They had to write it in a way to make sense to future generations. And the only way to make a big concept make sense for thousands of years is through a story.

And what was the "big concept"?