A more plausible Noah’s Arks

[Willum]

What if Noah made many large circular arks, all over the world, instead of just one?
Building the arks would have involved traveling.
The animals on the arks Noah and family weren’t personally on were manned by enchanted apes and other capable animals or failing that, angels.
The penguins just had natural ice arks, and no worries at all.

What say you? Have I just sent logical thought back 1500 years, or what?

[Willum]

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #30]

Well okay, if it said "kopher" wood.
But it said "gopher" wood.
Unless your infallible Bible is wrong.

[Tcg]

You figure the gopher out? Do a little research? The Hebrew word for tar, pitch, is kopher. It's a cypress tree. The KJV simply transliterated the Hebrew.

I didn't say anything about gopher. Perhaps you need to do a little research into who did.

600 wasn't that old before the flood when the canopy covered the earth. Lifespan dramatically dropped afterwards.

I love this explanation. It of course doesn't account for the fact that Noah reportedly lived 350 years after the flood.

Imagine what that would do to the carbon dating.

I suppose I'll have to imagine given that you've not even included a hint as to what it would do.

The animals you refer to were for sacrifice.

Which doesn't explain why God changed the numbers at the last minute.


Tcg

[Difflugia]

Imagine what that would do to the carbon dating.

I suppose I'll have to imagine given that you've not even included a hint as to what it would do.

The source of ¹⁴C in the atmosphere comes primarily from high-energy cosmic rays hitting ¹⁴N atoms and changing protons to neutrons. A few thousand years ago, the argument goes, there was a vapor canopy thick enough to severely reduce the amount of ¹⁴C being added to the atmosphere.

All of the ¹⁴C calibration curves would be wrong in a way that scientists wouldn't notice because of their uniformitarian assumptions, therefore creationism.

[1213]

...Since the historical method is only able to justify belief in claims which have an "implicit" empirical basis, how do we determine if the things and events described in the Biblical explanation that don't have an implicit empirical basis actually existed in an external reality and not just in some ancient person's imagination?

Please show first one example of claim that has an "implicit" empirical basis?

[bluegreenearth]

Please show first one example of claim that has an "implicit" empirical basis?

The following claim has an implicit empirical basis regardless of whether it was actually true or not:

"Jesus wept." - John 11:35

[Willum]

This also explains why so many cultures on Earth have a flood myth.
There were not only multiple arks, but multiple "Noahs."

IF we modify the premise of the topic a bit to say;
Many circuloid arks (able to survive better).
Distributed all over the world.
Many people who built them.

This explains so many problems away.
Migration, and so on.

[Clownboat]

This also explains why so many cultures on Earth have a flood myth.
There were not only multiple arks, but multiple "Noahs."

IF we modify the premise of the topic a bit to say;
Many circuloid arks (able to survive better).
Distributed all over the world.
Many people who built them.

This explains so many problems away.
Migration, and so on.

Many Christians seem to prefer to forget about civilizations going on in the world and pretend that they all died off in a global flood. I must assume that most of these people don't understand the difference between fresh and saltwater fish either.

Aboriginals for example can forget their claimed heritage, I have a flood myth to protect.
Indigenous Australians have been on the land since the beginning. The earliest scientific evidence of Indigenous occupation dates back over 60,000 years.
https://ulurutoursaustralia.com.au/blog ... %20country.