Noah's Ark vs running a zoo

[atheist buddy]

The directory of the Bronx Zoo shows that it takes 205 full time professionals to feed, manage and keep safe 650 species of animals. That's 650 out of 8.7 million species of animals and plants in existence.

By rough approximation, we could say that if it takes 205 people to manage 650 species, it would take 2.7 million people to manage all 8.7 million species in a megazoo hosting all known species.

Let's say it would take another million highly qualified professionals to build this megazoo, and another million to gather all the animals.

So, a total of 4.7 million trained experts to maintain and manage 8.7 million species in a man-made environment.

On average, approximately 1 person for every two species.

Assuming Noah had 19 people helping him, he would be operating on a ratio of 1 person for every 435,000 species.

In other words, if you believe in the story of Noah, you believe that a bronze age (600 year old drunk) was 217,500 times better at running a massive zoo than modern people are.

And did I mention this 8.7 million species zoo had to float on water during a massive storm?


In light of these simple empirical facts, can we agree that anybody who believes the story of Noah's Ark actually happened, is victim of such intense delusion that it borders on mental disability?

Why is a professed belief in a flat earth an instant disqualification from public office, or from getting a high level job, or from attaining any kind of social status, but professed belief in Noah's Ark put on a pedestal, and regarded as acceptable if not mainstream?

[ttruscott]

...

Are you saying that macroevolution is real and that new species emerged that didn't exist 6000 years ago? I mean, I agree with you (incidentally, it's a documented fact), but do you agree with this? Do you believe new species can emerge though macro-evolution?

...

Nope. No macro evolution, just, hang onto your hat, the finger of GOD. Yikes, I said it nowwwww... nut case alert!

What part of God's miracles in this story is NOT CONSISTENT with the whole message of the Bible? Should I care if they are not consistent with YOUR faith? I don't think so.

Peace, Ted

[Haven]

...

Are you saying that macroevolution is real and that new species emerged that didn't exist 6000 years ago? I mean, I agree with you (incidentally, it's a documented fact), but do you agree with this? Do you believe new species can emerge though macro-evolution?

...

Nope. No macro evolution, just, hang onto your hat, the finger of GOD. Yikes, I said it nowwwww... nut case alert!

What part of God's miracles in this story is NOT CONSISTENT with the whole message of the Bible? Should I care if they are not consistent with YOUR faith? I don't think so.

Peace, Ted

Yes, this is just another reason why the Ark myth, when interpreted literally, flies in the face of all reason, logic, and science. In light of this, creationists would be wise to do one of two things:

1. Simply say the Ark events were miraculous and God simply performed a number of miracles to get around the numerous biological, mathematical, and logical problems in the narrative, and then miraculously erased the evidence of the events after they occurred.

This would, of course, completely remove young-Earth creationism from scientific falsifiability, making it a position of pure faith -- but realistically, that's what it is now (there's not a shred of evidence supporting it and a mountain of evidence against it). Doing this would end the debate over the Ark, but it would, if nothing else, make creationism more intellectually honest.

2. Abandon belief in the Ark story and accept the relevant scientific facts.

I see you've taken option 1.

Also, acceptance of reality is not a "faith." Accepting what science has demonstrated to be true isn't faith, but rationality.

[ttruscott]

We don't believe in billions of years or 'goo to you' or 'molecules to man' because we feel the bible clearly doesn't indicate that creation was this way and because philosophically one can't reconcile billions of years of death with a loving God.

I agree with this, but that's a reason for rejecting theism, not science.

Point well made.It's a fact that there have been billions of years of death. Irrefutable.
A loving God is incompatible with reality, therefore the theist will reject reality.
If rejecting reality isn't the perfect definition of delusional, I don't know what is.

IF Christianity is truth then you are a blind man pontificating about what you cannot see... Hmmmm.... which should I chose to follow?

[ttruscott]

...

Also, acceptance of reality is not a "faith." Accepting what science has demonstrated to be true isn't faith, but rationality.

Just so, the blinders of the rational.

Can you prove that science can prove anything, any pro any con about spiritualism? No?

Gee whiz, then proof that God does not exist is a FAITH statement and hedging your bets by claiming you have not made up your mind yet is also a FAITH statement ! because there is no proof for either believing there is no GOD or that there may not be a GOD ...it is just your opinion about the evidence ! based upon hope which is the Christian definition of faith,

while rejecting part of that evidence suggests you are incapable of seeing the proof!

Peace, Ted

[higgy1911]

Doesn't matter who exists or not .

The whole ark story might be literally true.

But if we shouldn't destroy life without necessity then the flood/ark story describes an immoral being.

If killing on a whim is cool and righteous then the bible might be literally true.

[atheist buddy]

...

"Magic"

...

We are speaking about the Creator of the universe are we not? What part of miracle does not apply and should be reduced to (a pejorative) magic when we discuss the Creator of the universe?

What part of the Creator of the universe should be reduced to magic?

You are correct in inferring that I fully intend to comunicate my scorn for your belief system by use of the pejorative "magic".

You are entitled to your beliefs, of course, I am entitled to not respect them. I am entitled to find them dangerous, and to do everything in my power, within the law, the etiquette of civil society and the rules of this forum, to see the stain on humanity of such superstitious nonesense to be expunged permanently.

You do understand that by dissing my belief in miracles that you are trying to force your belief system on me with this kind of remark,

Nonsense. I am just pressing a sequence of keys on my computer. I am not forcing anything on you. Feel free not to read my posts. And if you do end up reading them and the concepts I present "force" you to rethink your beliefs, then my "forcing" you was well within my constitutional right of free speech.

I don't have to respect your beliefs. Do you understand? I just have to respect you as a human being. Your beliefs are no more and no less sacrosanct than my belief that your beliefs are fundamentally misguided.

You are part of the strongest majority group in the history of the human race. For most of the last 2000 years, expressing disagreement with your beliefs would be an automatic sentence to torture and death. Even right now, it's inconceivable for a leader of the free world to be elected if he doesn't subscribe to your beliefs. For Christians to play the "victim" card and say we are trying to force our belief system on you, is rather pathetic.

I'm only forcing something on you, in that I'm forcing you to not force your beliefs on me. Want to burn witches? No you cant. Want to kill gays? No you can't. Want to spread lies about condom and condemn millions in Africa to catching AIDS? No you can't. Want to force Christian prayer in public schools? No you can't. Want to increase abortion rates by teaching abstinence only programs? No you can't. Want to artificially introduce fiction into science classrooms? No you can't.

You can no longer dominate society. You are right in your feeling that control is slipping away from you with every generation. We're not forcing our beliefs on you. We're just forcing a social environment in which your beliefs face the same scrutiny that all other beliefs face.

You realize that your beliefs will not survive that scrutiny, and are scared. But that's your problem. Not mine.

[Let's]just discuss the pros and cons of the internal logic of my belief system

Internal consistency of a logical argument is utterly meaningless, if the premises are not themselves true.

Premise 1) All elephants can fly
Premise 2) Jay Leno is an elephant
Conclusion: Jay Leno can fly

Both the premises, and the conclusion of that logical argument are patently false, and yet the argument is internally logical.

IF all elephants flew and IF Jay Leno were an elephant, then it would absolutely follow logically that Jay Leno can fly.

The point is that IT'S NOT TRUE that elephants can fly, and IT'S NOT TRUE that Jay Leno is an elephant. Therefore the conclusion that Jay Leno can fly is meaningless, becuase it's based on utterly meaningless premises.

Your argument, while absolutely internally consistent, suffers from the same problem:

Premise 1) God exists and can do absolutely anthing
Premise 2) the Bible accurately describes God's actions
Conclusion: The story of Noah's Ark actually happened

That argument is abslutely internally logical. IF an omnipotent God exists, and IF the Bible is accurate, then Noah's Ark ahppened. IF.

The point is that there is no evidence that elephants can fly, that God exists, that Jay Leno is an elephant and that the Bible is accurate. Therefore the conclusions that Jay Leno can fly and that the Great Flood happened are totally meaningless.

If you wish to lend validity to the conclusion of a logical argument, you must first establish the truth of the premises of that argument.

If you can't do that, then you might as well be talking about flying elephants as far as I'm concerned, which incidentally, are no less absurd than the talking donkeys of the Bible.

[Wordleymaster1]

The directory of the Bronx Zoo shows that it takes 205 full time professionals to feed, manage and keep safe 650 species of animals. That's 650 out of 8.7 million species of animals and plants in existence.

By rough approximation, we could say that if it takes 205 people to manage 650 species, it would take 2.7 million people to manage all 8.7 million species in a megazoo hosting all known species.

Let's say it would take another million highly qualified professionals to build this megazoo, and another million to gather all the animals.

So, a total of 4.7 million trained experts to maintain and manage 8.7 million species in a man-made environment.

On average, approximately 1 person for every two species.

Assuming Noah had 19 people helping him, he would be operating on a ratio of 1 person for every 435,000 species.

In other words, if you believe in the story of Noah, you believe that a bronze age (600 year old drunk) was 217,500 times better at running a massive zoo than modern people are.

And did I mention this 8.7 million species zoo had to float on water during a massive storm?


In light of these simple empirical facts, can we agree that anybody who believes the story of Noah's Ark actually happened, is victim of such intense delusion that it borders on mental disability?

Why is a professed belief in a flat earth an instant disqualification from public office, or from getting a high level job, or from attaining any kind of social status, but professed belief in Noah's Ark put on a pedestal, and regarded as acceptable if not mainstream?

God is magic
God can do anything
The bigger question is why would God need Noah to save the animals at all? Can't God do it?

[Haven]

God is magic
God can do anything

I've certainly heard variations on this from several creationists (ranging from high school dropouts to science professors [!]). It's that kind of blithe, childlike reasoning and insouciant indifference to reality that makes me disdain creationism and religious fundamentalism in general. It's the sort of thing you'd expect to hear from a little kid talking about her imaginary friend or storybook hero, not an educated adult who has knowledge of how the world works.

This quote from Augustine of Hippo comes to mind:

Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, ... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do what we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

If you believe God gave you the capacity to reason, use it.

[Wordleymaster1]

God is magic
God can do anything

I've certainly heard variations on this from several creationists (ranging from high school dropouts to science professors [!]). It's that kind of blithe, childlike reasoning and insouciant indifference to reality that makes me disdain creationism and religious fundamentalism in general. It's the sort of thing you'd expect to hear from a little kid talking about her imaginary friend or storybook hero, not an educated adult who has knowledge of how the world works.

This quote from Augustine of Hippo comes to mind:

Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, ... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do what we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

If you believe God gave you the capacity to reason, use it.

Reason would indicate the Christain God isn't real; superstitious men wrote about a god that other men put together some of which contradicts itself that allows 'true believers' to create their own individual splinter of the same religion, not to mention how much of Christianity reflects other, older religions and how history has shown Christainity to annex other beliefs, all the while so many leaders of Christainity being less than Christian in their actions as well as Christianity changing over time.
Sounds reasonable to me

[atheist buddy]

The directory of the Bronx Zoo shows that it takes 205 full time professionals to feed, manage and keep safe 650 species of animals. That's 650 out of 8.7 million species of animals and plants in existence.

By rough approximation, we could say that if it takes 205 people to manage 650 species, it would take 2.7 million people to manage all 8.7 million species in a megazoo hosting all known species.

Let's say it would take another million highly qualified professionals to build this megazoo, and another million to gather all the animals.

So, a total of 4.7 million trained experts to maintain and manage 8.7 million species in a man-made environment.

On average, approximately 1 person for every two species.

Assuming Noah had 19 people helping him, he would be operating on a ratio of 1 person for every 435,000 species.

In other words, if you believe in the story of Noah, you believe that a bronze age (600 year old drunk) was 217,500 times better at running a massive zoo than modern people are.

And did I mention this 8.7 million species zoo had to float on water during a massive storm?


In light of these simple empirical facts, can we agree that anybody who believes the story of Noah's Ark actually happened, is victim of such intense delusion that it borders on mental disability?
5184859791 518 457 3465
Why is a professed belief in a flat earth an instant disqualification from public office, or from getting a high level job, or from attaining any kind of social status, but professed belief in Noah's Ark put on a pedestal, and regarded as acceptable if not mainstream?

God is magic
God can do anything
The bigger question is why would God need Noah to save the animals at all? Can't God do it?

God isn't only magic. He's also mysterious.

He can do anything, and he could do anything. It's impossible to understand him. He's utterly unpredictable in his omnipotent grandeur to feeble human minds.

Yet somehow Christian conservatives know that the creator of the universe doesn't want us to use condoms.

It doesn't even cross their minds that their certainty that God doesn't want us to use condoms could be a product of their feeble imperfect mind's inability to properly understand God's will that we use condoms as much as we want.