Noah's Ark an engineering masterpiece!

[Cmass]

What assumptions must be made. Part 1:

What scientific and engineering assumptions must we make about the story of Noah's Ark that would render the story a true fact?
* Can we make assumptions that are based soundly in science that could render the story plausible?
* What gaps in the story must we fill in?
* Christians, what assumptions have you made about the flood story that has kept it alive for you over the years?

We could discuss the science of the flood - but I think it would help to concentrate on one thing at a time: In this case the ship itself and it's ability to contain all the animals 2 by 2 and deal with waves and being shipwrecked on a mountain etc...

[Cathar1950]

This might be better in a different thread as it is not really addressing the OP directly but it does follow that last few threads in we might question the morality of such an act if it was intentional even if there were some supposed evil that most would find offensive even for a god or gods to react in a way that to most sensibilities would seem evil.
At face value it would seem like some kind of self-justifying excuse for an evil act and really would be beyond any moral understanding that does not amount to the divine command theory and there for suffers the charges of not being a morality at all. But I guess that should be the suffering of the dualist and believers in the absolute that is good or evil that is beyond what would call reasonable and resorts to experiences of revelation as excuses to justify any belief or action without relevancy.

[debase.ethos]

If one believes that Noah brought one of each "kind," or genus, one would have to believe in (re)speciation.
It would have to happen in a very short period of time to have resulted in the millions of species that we have today.

One could henpeck Noah's Ark to death, but this strikes me an outstanding problem for many fundamentalists.

[McCulloch]

If one believes that Noah brought one of each "kind," or genus, one would have to believe in (re)speciation.
It would have to happen in a very short period of time to have resulted in the millions of species that we have today.

One could henpeck Noah's Ark to death, but this strikes me an outstanding problem for many fundamentalists.

A literal belief in the ark story is easily defensible. Just keep the opponents guessing about what kind means without offering any helpful suggestions and advocate a rate of hyper-evolution that is completely unsupportable by any known biological science. I really do not see how anyone with a sound knowledge of the facts can honestly support a literal interpretation of the Noah's ark story.

[debase.ethos]

It must be fun, awarding your theory with evidence rather than awarding your evidence with theory.

[Cmass]

I don't subscribe to the literal interpretation of the Bible.

it is the responsibility of those who present the Bible as a work of historical fact

This is a more satisfactory qualification, than to assert that this is the belief of
Christians as a whole.

When I read someone's preamble and it includes some generalization of a group
that doesn't apply it tends to make their understanding of their own position seem
questionable. It may not be the case, but that is the initial perception.

Good point

Now, to your point of "owning it". I should own it because you posted a picture of a truly horrible event to further what in the context of the deaths of 100,000 people seems pretty trite? Really?

If you you claim the flood was a real event then you must own the story and the consequences of presenting it as such. If you do not see it as a real event then this does not apply to you.

Explain to me how this is appropriate?

It is dehumanizing, dangerous, offensive and disgusting to sanitize war by eliminating the people and their suffering

So is adding what amounts to a "humour" caption to a disaster photo.

I would hope that you saw both as offensive.

All that aside...I imagine the diffusion of bodies wouldn't have created a scene like the one pictured. That is to say, it wouldn't diminish the horror of such an event, but that's a huge volume/surface to spread out all those bodies. I do get your point, but I think you could have presented it in a manner that was more poignant, which could have made your point powerful, instead of snide.

I think it is a bit odd that on the one hand you offer to engage me concerning the distribution of rotting corpses and on the other you scorn me for presenting it.
This was planetary death - not just a few rotting corpses from a localized event. It would have included ALL living animals and plants of the planet dieing simultaneously - billions and billions of them floating around rotting in the wind. This is the necessary consequence of the story. If you don't believe the story then you can simply skip my descriptions.