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

[_Drifting]

Subby and Nipper,

What century did the flood take place?

[_just me]

Sub and Nipper

Which of the two Flood versions recorded in the Bible are historically accurate? They can't both be.

Example: How many of each animal was brought aboard?

2 Of all the clean beasts, take yourself seven pairs, man and his woman; and of the beasts which are not clean, two, man and his woman.
3 Also of the birds of the heavens seven pairs, male and female, to keep alive seed on the face of the earth

or

19 And of all the living, of all flesh, you shall bring two to the ark to keep alive with you, they shall be male and female.
20 Of the birds according to their kind, and of the beasts according to their kind, and of all the creeping things of the earth according to their kind, two of each will come to you to keep alive.

Oh look! God kills everything (including fish) not on the ark:

4 For in seven more days I shall rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I shall wipe out all the substance that I have made from upon the face of the earth."

Noah to bring enough food for him AND the animals:

21 And you, take for yourself of all food which will be eaten and gather it to you, and it will be for you and for them for food.

[_subgenius]

Anyone else think it is funny,

Your first fallacy

that the guy whose whole premise begs the question of the existence of god, begs the question of the inerrancy of the Bible, points to the Bible as an authoritative source, and constantly diverts with irrelevant conclusions, wants to now point to "logical fallacies"?

If you will, please provide citation from our discussion of my "premise".
Your second fallacy

Sub, I am sorry but you don't know how logic works. Your whole argument is proof by verbosity. You will claim victory when we grow tired of the wall of crap you spew.

Your third fallacy

I concede no magic, only point that magic is the only solution to the problem that you create, and that said solution is proposed by you.

I have never stated how many animals were on the Ark, nor have i ever claimed that they needed to be fed, walked, or cleaned up after, you made that claim, then argued against it. I simply pointed out the obvious...that arguing about the animals on the Ark is a flawed argument with dire consequences to your already feeble position.
Your fourth fallacy

I am merely referencing to what you said. See the bolded part "God certainly has the power to accommodate the Ark passengers to whatever extent appropriate ". That was you. I say there is no ark, no flood and no intervening god. The logical inconsistencies that you point to are introduced by you, and/or nipper as you pull pseudo scientific answers out of your asses to support your thesis.

If you actually read my post, it is clear that "God certainly has the power" is a point one must concede in order to have the animals on the Ark in the first place. Just because you "bold" faced a part of the sentence does not make a point...it actually makes
Your fifth fallacy

You have already shown you do not understand basic math, do you now need to be schooled on logic?

Repeating it does not make it true, but i like your persistence...and besides.....class has just been dismissed.

[_subgenius]

Sub and Nipper

Which of the two Flood versions recorded in the Bible are historically accurate? They can't both be.

this does not conclude that "therefore neither of them are accurate".

[_Drifting]

Sub and Nipper

Which of the two Flood versions recorded in the Bible are historically accurate? They can't both be.

this does not conclude that "therefore neither of them are accurate".

I agree, which one is right then?

[_just me]

Sub and Nipper

Which of the two Flood versions recorded in the Bible are historically accurate? They can't both be.

this does not conclude that "therefore neither of them are accurate".

My question was which one is the historically accurate one. Answer?

[_SteelHead]

Sub,
The team arguing for divine intervention / deus ex machina forfeits the right to make appeals to logic or reason.

It is neither a concession nor a fallacy to point out the absurdity of the issues that emerge as a consequence of the narrative and supporting claims that you or nipper have made.

And no matter how you spin it, you failed so bad at the math that it hurts. Your understanding of volume and simple arithmetic hurts my mind.

[_PrickKicker]

If you are arguing about whether the animals could have been "hibernating" then you must have conceded that they were on the Ark, therefore you recognize that God certainly has the power to accommodate the Ark passengers to whatever extent appropriate.
If you are trying to argue that the Ark is unlikely because you can not "figure out" how the animals (however many) could have been supported then you suffer from basic flaws in logic:
Take your pick,
either is your Fail

[Guest]

Sorry sub, but magical solutions and logic don't mesh.

Oh my extraterrestrial elohim, how did I miss this gem?

If you are arguing about whether the animals could have been "hibernating" then you must have conceded that they were on the Ark, therefore you recognize that God certainly has the power to accommodate the Ark passengers to whatever extent appropriate. [magic]

Yes, subgenius, because steelhead showed you how ridiculous one small part of the overall narrative is he must be "conceding" that the overall narrative actually occurred (oh, and that god is magical…). Just like when me and my buddies sit around pointing out flaws in sci-fi movies…What we are really doing is “conceding” that the stories are real because we are chatting about the impossibilities of certain parts of the story…that’s some sound logic there!

If you are trying to argue that the Ark is unlikely because you can not "figure out" how the animals (however many) could have been supported then you suffer from basic flaws in logic:
Take your pick,

Please show us which logical flaw is applicable here. You have shown, repeatedly, that you don’t really understand basic logic and that you are gullible enough to actually believe in fairy tales/gremlins/etc. So please feel free to show us which fallacy he committed in showing you how unlikely the ark narrative is unless you believe in magic (which is what you claim above).

either is your Fail[since you can not figure out how god magicially made it happen, you fail]

I love how you actually committed the fallacy you are accusing steelhead of…either he figures out how god magically made it happen (like you have) or he “fails”…lol…you are a never-ending fountain of dim-wittedness....

[_schreech]

My question was which one is the historically accurate one. Answer?

Both, duh!!!...Its magic!