Why Do YOU Think People Believe in God?

[Miles]

.

.... Any god!

"Why do people believe in God? For most people in the world, the answer seems obvious: Because it’s self-evident that God exists. From the point of view of the believer, the really puzzling question is how anyone could not believe.

And yet, as University of California at Irvine psychologist Brett Mercier and his colleagues point out in a recent article, there was once a time in the prehistory of our species when nobody believed in a god of any sort. Our evolutionary ancestors were all atheists, but somewhere along the way they found religion. So we’re back to our original question: Why do people believe in God?"
source

So, why do you think people believe in god?


.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Miles in post #16]

Yes. While Wiki id not 'Authoritative' as is well -known, it is informative and useful and in the case of dispute there are other sources. To deny science because it can be found on Wiki is a really false argument.

I won't comment on the other accusations. It seems superfluous.

Well, you know, from the start we can assume the earliest humans...

Wasn’t that sort of my point? We can assume all kinds of things about per-historic people, but we know very little. Such assumptions are not inherently wrong, but drawing conclusions from our un-evidenced assumptions is, at best, confirmation bias.

However, this was only ever a side note. Even if we could answer the question conclusively, it would not be a significant reason why people do or do not believe in God.

Fair enough but there are reasons we make assumptions about the earliest humans, which we could look at if you wanted. But the point is that these assumptions form an evidence -based explanation and that deserved the credibility and not a faith -based claim that is little more that something that can't be entirely disproven.

[TRANSPONDER]

….it’s prehistoric, which means there are no records from that time. The earliest writings, and even earlier paintings, suggest religious belief. So as far back as we have records of any kind of human, there was religious belief of some kind. There is nothing other than assumption that there as a time when humans lacked religious belief.

We've got to be careful when examining artifacts for which nobody who made them is here to discuss them.

History is full of folks hypothesizing based on the cultural or, let's say anthropomorphological, understandings of their own eras.

In light of the hold religion has on so many folks today, it's not beyond possible they'd look at stuff through a, or their own, religious lens.

With that in mind, we can certainly consider that until our lineage was able to think "god", they weren't them too religious a bunch.

Yes.The evidence for rituals by the earliest people is significant. Also animistic religions can teach us a lot. When we get records we can see myth - making which get more sophisticated as philosophical thought gets dragged into it. But this is all a pseudoscience attached to the development of human thought.

[1213]

I believe Exodus happened, because it is more reasonable explanation for many things than that it would be just a made up story.

Like what "many things? <Plural>

For example for the Bible story. If it didn't happen, why would anyone make such story?

It also explains
1. what happened to Senmut, who apparently was Moses.
2. Rock of Horeb, near that split rock is also an altar that probably was build by Jews.
3. Big grave site close to Mt. Sinai (in the land of Midian). is also one thing that can be easily explained with the Exodus story.
4. There is an altar for Golden calf near Mt. Horeb.
5. Exodus is also good explanation for Ipuwer papyrus.
6. By what I know, the area of Mt. Sinai that is in Saudi Arabia, is surrounded by fence so that it can't be well studied.
7. Black top of the Mt. Sinai, apparently because "glory of the LORD abode upon" it.

I recommend to read The Exodus Case by Lennart Möller, if you are interested to see the images and more detailed and better written explanations of these.

Why not? If there can be 7,770,000 million animal species today why couldn't there have been 7,770,000 animal species three thousand years ago before the flood?

Species are nowadays defined very loosely.

There was probably less than 4000 animals.

And just where did you pluck this figure from, some pseudo-scientific creationist web site?

Ark included all land animals that could not have survived otherwise. This means there was birds, many reptilians and mammals. Plants can survive for example as seeds inside earth. Many insects can survive also in side earth, possibly in egg state. And there are also animals that could have survived in cavities inside earth. This limits much of the number of animals. By my information there are about 15500 species of mammals, reptilians and birds. And the current definition of species is not necessary correct. It is possible that during the ark time there was only about 460 species of those. At that time species could have been the same as nowadays family is in taxonomy. This means, ark had the ancestor of all modern bears, not all modern bears. Similarly as the ark had 8 people and all very different looking humans are offspring of those 8.

But for the sake of argument say there were only 2,000 species (accounting for the necessary males and females needed for reproduction) one still has to figure in all the plant species that needed saving. THEN one has to figure in all the food required to keep them alive for a year---An adult elephant can eat 4-5 bales of hay each day, or 8-10 bales for each breading pair. Multiply this by the 365 days they were aboard the ark and you're looking at 2,920 to 3,650 bales to see just two animals through the year.---think the ark had room to for the 3,000+ bales of hay? Plus, of course, the needed 50 -100 gallons of fresh water each day. To say nothing of all the food necessary to support all the animals while vegetation replanted itself and grew to harvesting size after the animals got off the boat. And what are you going to do with the carnivores aboard the boat? Open a can or two of cat food? Nope, the Noah story is simply too ludicrous.

Plants didn't need saving, because they can survive below the surface of earth.

And, if the animals were not fully grown, they didn't eat as much as you suggest. And maybe for example bears were in hibernation.

And fresh water, there was heavy rain many days, which would have provided most, if not all of the required water.

Carnivores could have eaten eggs and fast breeding small animals like rats. Also it is possible that they could have gotten fish.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to 1213 in post #23]

Not a hope.There is no credible case for Senmut, Imhotep or grand vizier Ay being 'Joseph'. Nor do any of those Jebl Laws 'Moses camp' artefacts stand up to scrutiny. The 'calf alter' is cropped to show one carving of a bull. There are other carvings showing they were rather about herdsmen and their animals. And on a pile of boulders, not an altar.

Ipuwer has often been put forward in popular literature as confirmation of the biblical account of the Exodus, most notably because of its statement that "the river is blood" and its frequent references to servants running away. This assertion has not gained acceptance among scholars. There are disparities between Ipuwer and the narrative in the Book of Exodus, such as that the papyrus describes the Asiatics as arriving in Egypt rather than leaving. (wiki) It is far too easy for Bible believers to try to link Bible this or that with anything that looks a bit similar.


The killer for the Ark is there was no food to eat when the flood waters went down.Nothing. Even if you argued that seeds could regrow you'd have to wait weeks before there was grass for the sheep to nibble and there's be nothing left for the cattle, never mind the carnivores,who'd have either eaten the others or starved. You either have to revert to a miracle, in which case the story thing is not necessary, or you have to concede that the Ark story fails, even if you wangle excuses to have all specie survive for a year on a floating zoo.

[Miles]

I believe Exodus happened, because it is more reasonable explanation for many things than that it would be just a made up story.

Like what "many things? <Plural>

For example for the Bible story. If it didn't happen, why would anyone make such story?

It also explains
1. what happened to Senmut, who apparently was Moses.
2. Rock of Horeb, near that split rock is also an altar that probably was build by Jews.
3. Big grave site close to Mt. Sinai (in the land of Midian). is also one thing that can be easily explained with the Exodus story.
4. There is an altar for Golden calf near Mt. Horeb.
5. Exodus is also good explanation for Ipuwer papyrus.
6. By what I know, the area of Mt. Sinai that is in Saudi Arabia, is surrounded by fence so that it can't be well studied.
7. Black top of the Mt. Sinai, apparently because "glory of the LORD abode upon" it.

I recommend to read The Exodus Case by Lennart Möller, if you are interested to see the images and more detailed and better written explanations of these.

Why not? If there can be 7,770,000 million animal species today why couldn't there have been 7,770,000 animal species three thousand years ago before the flood?

Species are nowadays defined very loosely.
There was probably less than 4000 animals.

And just where did you pluck this figure from? Some creationist web site I suspect.

Just to NOTE: Length of Noachian flood: "Scholars have long puzzled over the significance of the flood lasting one year and eleven days. [376 days]"
source

Ark included all land animals that could not have survived otherwise.

So which land animals could "have survived otherwise" for 376 days?

This means there was birds, many reptilians and mammals.

That what?

Plants can survive for example as seeds inside earth.

Seed And Seedling Survival In Flooded Conditions.
Seeds and seedlings, regardless of crop type, are living organisms and need oxygen to live and within 48 hours of being oxygen-deprived (estimate), chances of survival are limited. Most annual crops can withstand 24 to 48 hours in waterlogged conditions and up to 7 days.
source

And here you're looking at 376 days!!

Many insects can survive also in side earth, possibly in egg state.

But not under water in waterlogged soil for 376 days. No oxygen breathing land animal can. It's why they breathe oxygen in the first place; to survive.

And there are also animals that could have survived in cavities inside earth.

If some animals could get in the caves why couldn't the flood waters? It could, and would have.

This limits much of the number of animals.

Limits no such thing. All land life would have been killed. And wasn't this the reason for Noah having built the ark in the first place? It sure was: to save the many, many species from being killed off while all their kin died.

Genesis 6:13 ERV
13 So God said to Noah, “Everyone has filled the earth with anger and violence. So I will destroy all living things. I will remove them from the earth.

By my information there are about 15500 species of mammals, reptilians and birds.

And just what is the source of your information? I always try to remember to share mine, so how about returning the favor?

And the current definition of species is not necessary correct.

Actually, there are several variants, the most common "taking the form akin to that formulated by biologist Ernst Mayr. Mayr contends that a species is a 'reproductive isolated aggregate of populations, which can interbreed with one another because they share the same isolating mechanisms'"
Source: Mortenson, Philip this Is Not a Weasel New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2004. p 20. And no current variation of the definition would drop the number of 29,517 species of mammal, reptilian and bird species down to 15,500.

It is possible that during the ark time there was only about 460 species of those.

As long as you're simply guessing here, why not put the figure at a more manageable two dozen, 24?

At that time species could have been the same as nowadays family is in taxonomy.

"Since the number of taxa decreases with the genericity of the taxon, there are probably around 20,000 families, give or take a few thousand." Of course evolving 7,770,000 million animal species from only 156 mammal families, 92 reptile families, and 249 bird families would be a neigh impossible feat, but what the heck, it's all fiction anyway.
source

This means, ark had the ancestor of all modern bears, not all modern bears.

And just what form do you imagine this single ancestor of the eight bear species took?

..........................

But for the sake of argument say there were only 2,000 species (accounting for the necessary males and females needed for reproduction) one still has to figure in all the plant species that needed saving. THEN one has to figure in all the food required to keep them alive for a year---An adult elephant can eat 4-5 bales of hay each day, or 8-10 bales for each breading pair. Multiply this by the 365 days they were aboard the ark and you're looking at 2,920 to 3,650 bales to see just two animals through the year.---think the ark had room to for the 3,000+ bales of hay? Plus, of course, the needed 50 -100 gallons of fresh water each day. To say nothing of all the food necessary to support all the animals while vegetation replanted itself and grew to harvesting size after the animals got off the boat. And what are you going to do with the carnivores aboard the boat? Open a can or two of cat food? Nope, the Noah story is simply too ludicrous.

Plants didn't need saving, because they can survive below the surface of earth.

As I've pointed out, considering the flooded conditions, this is a ridiculous statement.

And, if the animals were not fully grown, they didn't eat as much as you suggest. And maybe for example bears were in hibernation.

"Bear Hibernation

How Long Do Bears Hibernate

Different species of bears hibernate for slightly different lengths of time, based mostly on their climate.

Black bears can hibernate for up to seven and a half months without drinking water, eating food or defecating.

Grizzly bears typically hibernate between five to seven months.

Mexican Black Bears usually do not hibernate at all or will hibernate for just a few weeks out of the year. Due to a warm environment, hibernation is not necessary for these bears.

Alaskan Brown Bears can hibernate from five to eight months. As Alaskan Brown Bears are found in a colder climate, they typically spend a long time in hibernation compared to other bear species.
source

And, of course, most animals don't hibernate at all

And fresh water, there was heavy rain many days, which would have provided most, if not all of the required water.

So you think that if all eight people aboard worked to feed 7,770,000 million animal species they would also have time to get them water? Not on your tintype m' lady. I'm taking a well deserved nap.

Carnivores could have eaten eggs and fast breeding small animals like rats.

So, who was breeding all these thousands of rats for each day's meal? In a word, the whole idea is ludicrous

Also it is possible that they could have gotten fish.

What fish? Just about every form of fish would have perished in the rain-diluted water. Are you not aware that, with extremely few exceptions, salt water fish cannot live in diluted water and that fresh water fish cannot live in salty water? The mix would kill them both, which is why Noah would have to have had great sea-water and fresh-water tanks aboard to save all the marine and fresh-water animals.


Don't you just love silly Bible stories? I do.

.

[onewithhim]

I believe Exodus happened, because it is more reasonable explanation for many things than that it would be just a made up story.

Like what "many things? <Plural>

For example for the Bible story. If it didn't happen, why would anyone make such story?

It also explains
1. what happened to Senmut, who apparently was Moses.
2. Rock of Horeb, near that split rock is also an altar that probably was build by Jews.
3. Big grave site close to Mt. Sinai (in the land of Midian). is also one thing that can be easily explained with the Exodus story.
4. There is an altar for Golden calf near Mt. Horeb.
5. Exodus is also good explanation for Ipuwer papyrus.
6. By what I know, the area of Mt. Sinai that is in Saudi Arabia, is surrounded by fence so that it can't be well studied.
7. Black top of the Mt. Sinai, apparently because "glory of the LORD abode upon" it.

I recommend to read The Exodus Case by Lennart Möller, if you are interested to see the images and more detailed and better written explanations of these.

Why not? If there can be 7,770,000 million animal species today why couldn't there have been 7,770,000 animal species three thousand years ago before the flood?

Species are nowadays defined very loosely.
There was probably less than 4000 animals.

And just where did you pluck this figure from? Some creationist web site I suspect.

Just to NOTE: Length of Noachian flood: "Scholars have long puzzled over the significance of the flood lasting one year and eleven days. [376 days]"
source

Ark included all land animals that could not have survived otherwise.

So which land animals could "have survived otherwise" for 376 days?

This means there was birds, many reptilians and mammals.

That what?

Plants can survive for example as seeds inside earth.

Seed And Seedling Survival In Flooded Conditions.
Seeds and seedlings, regardless of crop type, are living organisms and need oxygen to live and within 48 hours of being oxygen-deprived (estimate), chances of survival are limited. Most annual crops can withstand 24 to 48 hours in waterlogged conditions and up to 7 days.
source

And here you're looking at 376 days!!

Many insects can survive also in side earth, possibly in egg state.

But not under water in waterlogged soil for 376 days. No oxygen breathing land animal can. It's why they breathe oxygen in the first place; to survive.

And there are also animals that could have survived in cavities inside earth.

If some animals could get in the caves why couldn't the flood waters? It could, and would have.

This limits much of the number of animals.

Limits no such thing. All land life would have been killed. And wasn't this the reason for Noah having built the ark in the first place? It sure was: to save the many, many species from being killed off while all their kin died.

Genesis 6:13 ERV
13 So God said to Noah, “Everyone has filled the earth with anger and violence. So I will destroy all living things. I will remove them from the earth.

By my information there are about 15500 species of mammals, reptilians and birds.

And just what is the source of your information? I always try to remember to share mine, so how about returning the favor?

And the current definition of species is not necessary correct.

Actually, there are several variants, the most common "taking the form akin to that formulated by biologist Ernst Mayr. Mayr contends that a species is a 'reproductive isolated aggregate of populations, which can interbreed with one another because they share the same isolating mechanisms'"
Source: Mortenson, Philip this Is Not a Weasel New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2004. p 20. And no current variation of the definition would drop the number of 29,517 species of mammal, reptilian and bird species down to 15,500.

It is possible that during the ark time there was only about 460 species of those.

As long as you're simply guessing here, why not put the figure at a more manageable two dozen, 24?

At that time species could have been the same as nowadays family is in taxonomy.

"Since the number of taxa decreases with the genericity of the taxon, there are probably around 20,000 families, give or take a few thousand." Of course evolving 7,770,000 million animal species from only 156 mammal families, 92 reptile families, and 249 bird families would be a neigh impossible feat, but what the heck, it's all fiction anyway.
source

This means, ark had the ancestor of all modern bears, not all modern bears.

And just what form do you imagine this single ancestor of the eight bear species took?

..........................

But for the sake of argument say there were only 2,000 species (accounting for the necessary males and females needed for reproduction) one still has to figure in all the plant species that needed saving. THEN one has to figure in all the food required to keep them alive for a year---An adult elephant can eat 4-5 bales of hay each day, or 8-10 bales for each breading pair. Multiply this by the 365 days they were aboard the ark and you're looking at 2,920 to 3,650 bales to see just two animals through the year.---think the ark had room to for the 3,000+ bales of hay? Plus, of course, the needed 50 -100 gallons of fresh water each day. To say nothing of all the food necessary to support all the animals while vegetation replanted itself and grew to harvesting size after the animals got off the boat. And what are you going to do with the carnivores aboard the boat? Open a can or two of cat food? Nope, the Noah story is simply too ludicrous.

Plants didn't need saving, because they can survive below the surface of earth.

As I've pointed out, considering the flooded conditions, this is a ridiculous statement.

And, if the animals were not fully grown, they didn't eat as much as you suggest. And maybe for example bears were in hibernation.

"Bear Hibernation

How Long Do Bears Hibernate

Different species of bears hibernate for slightly different lengths of time, based mostly on their climate.

Black bears can hibernate for up to seven and a half months without drinking water, eating food or defecating.

Grizzly bears typically hibernate between five to seven months.

Mexican Black Bears usually do not hibernate at all or will hibernate for just a few weeks out of the year. Due to a warm environment, hibernation is not necessary for these bears.

Alaskan Brown Bears can hibernate from five to eight months. As Alaskan Brown Bears are found in a colder climate, they typically spend a long time in hibernation compared to other bear species.
source

And, of course, most animals don't hibernate at all

And fresh water, there was heavy rain many days, which would have provided most, if not all of the required water.

So you think that if all eight people aboard worked to feed 7,770,000 million animal species they would also have time to get them water? Not on your tintype m' lady. I'm taking a well deserved nap.

Carnivores could have eaten eggs and fast breeding small animals like rats.

So, who was breeding all these thousands of rats for each day's meal? In a word, the whole idea is ludicrous

Also it is possible that they could have gotten fish.

What fish? Just about every form of fish would have perished in the rain-diluted water. Are you not aware that, with extremely few exceptions, salt water fish cannot live in diluted water and that fresh water fish cannot live in salty water? The mix would kill them both, which is why Noah would have to have had great sea-water and fresh-water tanks aboard to save all the marine and fresh-water animals.


Don't you just love silly Bible stories? I do.

.

We'll see how silly the Bible is when Jesus comes back to get rid of wickedness. I think many people will be amazed.

[Miles]

I believe Exodus happened, because it is more reasonable explanation for many things than that it would be just a made up story.

Like what "many things? <Plural>

For example for the Bible story. If it didn't happen, why would anyone make such story?

It also explains
1. what happened to Senmut, who apparently was Moses.
2. Rock of Horeb, near that split rock is also an altar that probably was build by Jews.
3. Big grave site close to Mt. Sinai (in the land of Midian). is also one thing that can be easily explained with the Exodus story.
4. There is an altar for Golden calf near Mt. Horeb.
5. Exodus is also good explanation for Ipuwer papyrus.
6. By what I know, the area of Mt. Sinai that is in Saudi Arabia, is surrounded by fence so that it can't be well studied.
7. Black top of the Mt. Sinai, apparently because "glory of the LORD abode upon" it.

I recommend to read The Exodus Case by Lennart Möller, if you are interested to see the images and more detailed and better written explanations of these.

Why not? If there can be 7,770,000 million animal species today why couldn't there have been 7,770,000 animal species three thousand years ago before the flood?

Species are nowadays defined very loosely.
There was probably less than 4000 animals.

And just where did you pluck this figure from? Some creationist web site I suspect.

Just to NOTE: Length of Noachian flood: "Scholars have long puzzled over the significance of the flood lasting one year and eleven days. [376 days]"
source

Ark included all land animals that could not have survived otherwise.

So which land animals could "have survived otherwise" for 376 days?

This means there was birds, many reptilians and mammals.

That what?

Plants can survive for example as seeds inside earth.

Seed And Seedling Survival In Flooded Conditions.
Seeds and seedlings, regardless of crop type, are living organisms and need oxygen to live and within 48 hours of being oxygen-deprived (estimate), chances of survival are limited. Most annual crops can withstand 24 to 48 hours in waterlogged conditions and up to 7 days.
source

And here you're looking at 376 days!!

Many insects can survive also in side earth, possibly in egg state.

But not under water in waterlogged soil for 376 days. No oxygen breathing land animal can. It's why they breathe oxygen in the first place; to survive.

And there are also animals that could have survived in cavities inside earth.

If some animals could get in the caves why couldn't the flood waters? It could, and would have.

This limits much of the number of animals.

Limits no such thing. All land life would have been killed. And wasn't this the reason for Noah having built the ark in the first place? It sure was: to save the many, many species from being killed off while all their kin died.

Genesis 6:13 ERV
13 So God said to Noah, “Everyone has filled the earth with anger and violence. So I will destroy all living things. I will remove them from the earth.

By my information there are about 15500 species of mammals, reptilians and birds.

And just what is the source of your information? I always try to remember to share mine, so how about returning the favor?

And the current definition of species is not necessary correct.

Actually, there are several variants, the most common "taking the form akin to that formulated by biologist Ernst Mayr. Mayr contends that a species is a 'reproductive isolated aggregate of populations, which can interbreed with one another because they share the same isolating mechanisms'"
Source: Mortenson, Philip this Is Not a Weasel New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2004. p 20. And no current variation of the definition would drop the number of 29,517 species of mammal, reptilian and bird species down to 15,500.

It is possible that during the ark time there was only about 460 species of those.

As long as you're simply guessing here, why not put the figure at a more manageable two dozen, 24?

At that time species could have been the same as nowadays family is in taxonomy.

"Since the number of taxa decreases with the genericity of the taxon, there are probably around 20,000 families, give or take a few thousand." Of course evolving 7,770,000 million animal species from only 156 mammal families, 92 reptile families, and 249 bird families would be a neigh impossible feat, but what the heck, it's all fiction anyway.
source

This means, ark had the ancestor of all modern bears, not all modern bears.

And just what form do you imagine this single ancestor of the eight bear species took?

..........................

But for the sake of argument say there were only 2,000 species (accounting for the necessary males and females needed for reproduction) one still has to figure in all the plant species that needed saving. THEN one has to figure in all the food required to keep them alive for a year---An adult elephant can eat 4-5 bales of hay each day, or 8-10 bales for each breading pair. Multiply this by the 365 days they were aboard the ark and you're looking at 2,920 to 3,650 bales to see just two animals through the year.---think the ark had room to for the 3,000+ bales of hay? Plus, of course, the needed 50 -100 gallons of fresh water each day. To say nothing of all the food necessary to support all the animals while vegetation replanted itself and grew to harvesting size after the animals got off the boat. And what are you going to do with the carnivores aboard the boat? Open a can or two of cat food? Nope, the Noah story is simply too ludicrous.

Plants didn't need saving, because they can survive below the surface of earth.

As I've pointed out, considering the flooded conditions, this is a ridiculous statement.

And, if the animals were not fully grown, they didn't eat as much as you suggest. And maybe for example bears were in hibernation.

"Bear Hibernation

How Long Do Bears Hibernate

Different species of bears hibernate for slightly different lengths of time, based mostly on their climate.

Black bears can hibernate for up to seven and a half months without drinking water, eating food or defecating.

Grizzly bears typically hibernate between five to seven months.

Mexican Black Bears usually do not hibernate at all or will hibernate for just a few weeks out of the year. Due to a warm environment, hibernation is not necessary for these bears.

Alaskan Brown Bears can hibernate from five to eight months. As Alaskan Brown Bears are found in a colder climate, they typically spend a long time in hibernation compared to other bear species.
source

And, of course, most animals don't hibernate at all

And fresh water, there was heavy rain many days, which would have provided most, if not all of the required water.

So you think that if all eight people aboard worked to feed 7,770,000 million animal species they would also have time to get them water? Not on your tintype m' lady. I'm taking a well deserved nap.

Carnivores could have eaten eggs and fast breeding small animals like rats.

So, who was breeding all these thousands of rats for each day's meal? In a word, the whole idea is ludicrous

Also it is possible that they could have gotten fish.

What fish? Just about every form of fish would have perished in the rain-diluted water. Are you not aware that, with extremely few exceptions, salt water fish cannot live in diluted water and that fresh water fish cannot live in salty water? The mix would kill them both, which is why Noah would have to have had great sea-water and fresh-water tanks aboard to save all the marine and fresh-water animals.


Don't you just love silly Bible stories? I do.

.

We'll see how silly the Bible is when Jesus comes back to get rid of wickedness. I think many people will be amazed.

And I imagine you believe you have all your "i"s and "t"s dotted and crossed, don't you. He! He!
.

[brunumb]

We'll see how silly the Bible is when Jesus comes back to get rid of wickedness.

I can see how silly the Bible is right now, even with the tardy Jesus not having come back.

[1213]

But not under water in waterlogged soil for 376 days. No oxygen breathing land animal can. It's why they breathe oxygen in the first place; to survive.

It is possible that there were places were air pockets.

And there are also animals that could have survived in cavities inside earth.

If some animals could get in the caves why couldn't the flood waters? It could, and would have.

Earth can be dense enough to keep the air in place long enough.

This limits much of the number of animals.

Limits no such thing. All land life would have been killed. And wasn't this the reason for Noah having built the ark in the first place? It sure was: to save the many, many species from being killed off while all their kin died.

Bible tells all life on earth and earth means in the Bible dry land. This means, things in water, or below the surface of earth could have survived.

And behold, I, even I, am bringing a flood of waters on the earth in order to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life from under the heavens. Everything which is on the earth shall die.

Gen. 6:17

And God called the dry land, Earth. And He called the collection of the waters, Seas. And God saw that it was good.
Gen. 1:10

By my information there are about 15500 species of mammals, reptilians and birds.

And just what is the source of your information? I always try to remember to share mine, so how about returning the favor?

For my case the number of families is more important and that number is based on these:

”According to Mammal Species of the World, 5,416 species were identified in 2006. These were grouped into 1,229 genera, 153 families and 29 orders.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal 19.11.2022
194 bird families
https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luettelo_lintuheimoista 19.11.2022
30 Snake families
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake 19.11.2022
50 Reptilian families
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reptiles 19.11.2022

This means, ark had the ancestor of all modern bears, not all modern bears.

And just what form do you imagine this single ancestor of the eight bear species took?

That what is called Ursidae in this:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e3/e0/49 ... cbbe8e.jpg

And fresh water, there was heavy rain many days, which would have provided most, if not all of the required water.

So you think that if all eight people aboard worked to feed 7,770,000 million animal species they would also have time to get them water? Not on your tintype m' lady. I'm taking a well deserved nap.

If the ark was built in right way, the animals could drink without any help. And also the food could have been arranged so that not much work from the people was necessary.

Also it is possible that they could have gotten fish.

What fish? Just about every form of fish would have perished in the rain-diluted water. Are you not aware that, with extremely few exceptions, salt water fish cannot live in diluted water and that fresh water fish cannot live in salty water? The mix would kill them both, which is why Noah would have to have had great sea-water and fresh-water tanks aboard to save all the marine and fresh-water animals.

No reason to think fish could not survive. Many species can survive in brackish water, Baltic Sea is a proof for that. Baltic sea also shows that there can be different areas with different level of salinity. So, it is easily possible that there were different areas with different conditions so that many sea creatures could have survived.

[1213]

...The killer for the Ark is there was no food to eat when the flood waters went down.Nothing. Even if you argued that seeds could regrow you'd have to wait weeks before there was grass for the sheep to nibble and there's be nothing left for the cattle, never mind the carnivores,who'd have either eaten the others or starved. ...

Sorry, I have no reason to believe your claims.

Flood waters had been down some time, before ark found dry land. There could have been water plants exposed when the water went down. There was fish. And there was for example eggs and fast breeding animals. Simply no intelligent reason to accept your ultra pessimistic view.