Why I don't believe the story of the Great Flood...

[_subgenius]

If elephants were unclean then hay for seven male elephants would have been around 11-13% of the total storage area for the Ark. Which one do you want it to be?

an absurd position is what you are taking here:
1. If you are arguing the hay supply, then you must be accepting that God caused the flood, at which case He would have the ability to provide for the animals...feeding a crowd with seven fishes ring a bell?
2. To claim that the hay supply is a factor that proves the flood did not happen is illogical and unreasonable...at best it could only prove that elephants were not on the ark, thus calling into question where the elephants today originated from - which is a different topic that would neither confirm nor deny the flood.
3. arguing about poop and food is not only a distraction, but a sign that you have actually conceded the point that the flood actually happened. Now you are just arguing about whether the details about the ark are accurate. I could easily rebut with saying the dimensions have been incorrectly translated and that has no bearing on the story's occurrence.

[_SteelHead]

Sub,
They concede nothing and use the argument to show that the flood narrative only works via magic. At which point god is a jerk and a joker.

[_Bond James Bond]

If elephants were unclean then hay for seven male elephants would have been around 11-13% of the total storage area for the Ark. Which one do you want it to be?

an absurd position is what you are taking here:
1. If you are arguing the hay supply, then you must be accepting that God caused the flood, at which case He would have the ability to provide for the animals...feeding a crowd with seven fishes ring a bell?
2. To claim that the hay supply is a factor that proves the flood did not happen is illogical and unreasonable...at best it could only prove that elephants were not on the ark, thus calling into question where the elephants today originated from - which is a different topic that would neither confirm nor deny the flood.
3. arguing about poop and food is not only a distraction, but a sign that you have actually conceded the point that the flood actually happened. Now you are just arguing about whether the details about the ark are accurate. I could easily rebut with saying the dimensions have been incorrectly translated and that has no bearing on the story's occurrence.

According to LittleNipper's own link:

It is not necessary—or required by Scripture—to appeal to miracles for the provision and daily care of the animals on the Ark. Many solutions to seemingly insurmountable problems are rather straightforward.

by the way I'm not conceded the flood happened. Sure a local flood probably happened at some point that probably influenced Hebrew oral traditions (not unlike flood stories in every civilization of Mesopotamia) but a global flood is a stretch. To that end we have to look at all details including the Ark and the claims made about animal care. Does a building inspector not look at every light socket and faucet in an office building? Does he just take a look at it from his car and go "yep looks alright"? No I say! We must dig into every claim, look at it from all sides, including all the way down to the amount of feces created by the gigantic herbivores.

[_Bond James Bond]

3. arguing about poop and food is not only a distraction, but a sign that you have actually conceded the point that the flood actually happened. Now you are just arguing about whether the details about the ark are accurate. I could easily rebut with saying the dimensions have been incorrectly translated and that has no bearing on the story's occurrence.

How long is a cubit? Roughly. I gave 1.8 ft which I think is more than fair.

[_Themis]

by the way I'm not conceded the flood happened. Sure a local flood probably happened at some point that probably influenced Hebrew oral traditions (not unlike flood stories in every civilization of Mesopotamia) but a global flood is a stretch. To that end we have to look at all details including the Ark and the claims made about animal care. Does a building inspector not look at every light socket and faucet in an office building? Does he just take a look at it from his car and go "yep looks all right"? No I say! We must dig into every claim, look at it from all sides, including all the way down to the amount of feces created by the gigantic herbivores.

Subby should just say magic and be done with it. It makes no sense to argue facts when you will just go to magic when the facts get into the way. The real problem here in my opinion is the lack of evidence for a global flood, and the need for God to hide the evidence or use magic to bring it all back to how it was before the flood, humans and all. This really is just an excuse/apologetic driven by a need to believe a literal interpretation of the Bible. I am glad many Christians don't have this need.

[_schreech]

Subby should just say magic and be done with it. It makes no sense to argue facts when you will just go to magic when the facts get into the way. The real problem here in my opinion is the lack of evidence for a global flood, and the need for God to hide the evidence or use magic to bring it all back to how it was before the flood, humans and all. This really is just an excuse/apologetic driven by a need to believe a literal interpretation of the Bible. I am glad many Christians don't have this need.

So, the christian god could have just magically killed all the evil people and left the innocents alive rather than drowning everyone and everything except noah's family OR he could have magically recreated all the animals that died in the flood (much like he apparently created food for them on the ark) instead of forcing his small group of followers to live on an ark with 1000s of animals for 40 days cleaning up after them OR he could have had an army of orks invade and destroy the evil cities and then he could have given noah and his family magical swords to fight them off and save mankind - that would have really demonstrated elohims magical powers...making poop disappear seems pretty pathetic.

[_just me]

The earth had to be baptized!

[_SteelHead]

The earth had to be baptized!

I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know.

[_just me]

The earth had to be baptized!

I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know.

Old Testament Seminary Student Guide

The scriptures speak of two separate times when the Lord would cleanse the earth of wickedness. The first was at the time of Noah (see Genesis 6) and the second will be at the Second Coming. Joseph Smith—Matthew 1:41–43, in the Pearl of Great Price, tells ways those two time periods will be like each other. The biggest difference in the two periods is that the earth was cleansed by water in the days of Noah, and at the Second Coming it will be cleansed by fire. These two events are a type of how we are cleansed by the baptism of water and the baptism of fire—the cleansing of the soul that occurs when we truly receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

[_Sethbag]

Who among you, believes that God exists? Who among you believes that Jesus gave up His soul and then arose from the dead? To believe everything else in the Bible is so much easier... I really don't get the mis-application of man's logic. God makes the learning of men seem pathetically lacking. I know where I am going to place my faith, and it isn't among the pharisees and sadducees of todays scientific community.

This seems to be the crux of the whole argument. A person decides to have faith in something unlikely, and realizing that one has gone all in with that decision, has nothing to lose deciding to believe all the other ancillary things that they think follow from their initial decision.

The bottom line is that there is no evidence that The Flood happened. None. Nada. Zilch. Moreover, there is copious evidence, dare I say an entire world of evidence, that what actually happened during the time periods in question was something else entirely.

My summation, as imaginary dialogue:
There's no evidence that A happened. But, but, but, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

I'm not finished. There is evidence that B happened during the time period claimed for A, and B and A are mutually exclusive. But, but, uh, I have chosen to believe an unlikely proposition, and following from that, I choose to believe in A despite all the evidence against it. Faith is more important than facts and evidence, therefor I'm right and you're all wrong!