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?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by atheist buddy]

I agree that the logistics certainly do not add up, along with several other problems with the ark myth.

But for reasons of civility, I would hesitate to characterize anyone who believes the story literally.

The story has meaning for those who take it literally, and/or for those who take it allegorically.

[atheist buddy]

[Replying to post 1 by atheist buddy]

I agree that the logistics certainly do not add up, along with several other problems with the ark myth.

But for reasons of civility, I would hesitate to characterize anyone who believes the story literally.

The story has meaning for those who take it literally, and/or for those who take it allegorically.

Ok, I too value civility, and in that spirit let me rephrase my position.

It's wrong to characterize any person who holds any belief as delusional, so I humbly retract that, but is there anything wrong with expressing an opinion that a belief itself is delusional? And does anybody contest the fact that literal belief in Noah's Ark is delusional?

I also ask myself this:
Would you have any hesitation to characterize as delusional anybody today, living in an industrialized country, who believed the world was flat?

Is literal belief in Noah's Ark any less absurd?

Why does society give such latitude to absurd beliefs, when they are part of a religion?

Why do people bend over backwards to "respect" religion beliefs that would be met with unrestrained laughter were they not part of a religious dogma?

In the marketplace of ideas, any given proposition should stand or fall on its own merit.

Doe sthe notion that the earth is flat stand on its own merits? No. That's why a flat-earther will be met with laughter anywhere he goes.

Does the story of Noah's Ark stand on its own merits? No. So why do we have to be "respectful" of this absurd story?

[Elijah John]

I'm not saying that every literalist position warrants respect and equal consideration, only the literalist themselves.

It ain't polite to point 'n laugh at folks, no matter how "deluded" we think their position is. (I'm not saying that is what you are doing) Far better here to show WHY you (we) think the position may be absurd.

And you did.

[Wootah]

Hi Atheist Buddy,

Have you read creation.com and seen any of their answers?

For instance you say that managing 8.7 million species is too many. Creations would agree. The creationists argue that it was two of every kind, so only two of the cat kind, and two of the dog kind and so on.

This seems to narrow the numbers down considerably.

It would appear from your question that you are not aware of basic creationist responses. creation.com is a great source to know what creationists think and then asking questions of more debatable value.

[Elijah John]

Hi Atheist Buddy,

Have you read creation.com and seen any of their answers?

For instance you say that managing 8.7 million species is too many. Creations would agree. The creationists argue that it was two of every kind, so only two of the cat kind, and two of the dog kind and so on.

This seems to narrow the numbers down considerably.

It would appear from your question that you are not aware of basic creationist responses. creation.com is a great source to know what creationists think and then asking questions of more debatable value.

Interesting, (if you do not mind me interjecting)are you saying that all the varied cat species evolved from the same basic cat genus? So there is a place for evolution in young earth, six day Creationism? I admit, I have not visited the web site.

[Wootah]

Creationists believe in variation within the species. But we accept the bible says that God created man as part of the creative process of Genesis. 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.

[atheist buddy]

Hi Atheist Buddy,

Have you read creation.com and seen any of their answers?

For instance you say that managing 8.7 million species is too many. Creations would agree. The creationists argue that it was two of every kind, so only two of the cat kind, and two of the dog kind and so on.

This seems to narrow the numbers down considerably.

It would appear from your question that you are not aware of basic creationist responses. creation.com is a great source to know what creationists think and then asking questions of more debatable value.

Actually no. There are 8.7 million species. That is, cat is one species, dog is one species, giraffe is one species, elephant is one species, hippopotamus is one species, etc.

Keep doing that 8.7 million times.

Nobody's saying that German Sheppard is one species, Bulldog is another species, Pitbull another species, etc. there are 8.7 million "kinds" of animals and plants. Period.

I'm sorry, are you saying that you think there's any validity whatsoever to a literal interpretation of the Noah's Ark story?

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Running an ark, or running a zoo?


When one believes a global flood has occurred, through some supernatural agent, running an ark is child's play.

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?

No.

The god concept is much less a delusion, and more a coping mechanism.

In "building out" the god concept, tales of the supernatural are how the unknown and unknowable may be considered. Where incredulity (or ignorance) is to prevent the adherent from functioning, the supernatural is used to provide some sense of 'knowing', in an otherwise 'unknowable' world.

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?

"Jesus loves me, yes I know, for the Bible tells me so."


It ain't near as much as God working in mysterious ways, as it is the concept. In this regard, my data suggests that professing Christinity is far more important than accepting individual, "tangential" claims thereof.

[atheist buddy]

Creationists believe in variation within the species. But we accept the bible says that God created man as part of the creative process of Genesis.

Right. Variation within the species. German Shephard to Rotweiler, to Doberman, to Chihuahua to Labrador, to Bulldog, to Collie, to Pitbull, etc, etc, etc.

Variation within the species. Nobody is saying that Noah would have brought two German Shephards, two Bulldogs, two Pitbulls, etc.

Just two dogs. Two cats, two elephants, two sequoia seeds, two whales, etc, times 8.7 million for every kind of living organism that wouldn't survive for 6 months submerged in fresh (non-salty) water.

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

But why do you take the Bible seriously? Who cares what the Bible says. Any 8 year old today knows more about morality, about the world in general, than any Bible author. Why do you listen to what bronze age shephards have to say, and pay no credence whatsoever to what people who can build planes, perform brian surgery and put a man on the moon? Couldn't it be that these kinds of people know a little more about the physical universe than people who thought the earth was flat and desease was caused by curses?

and because philosophically one can't reconcile billions of years of death with a loving God.

If death is bad and irreconciliable with a loving God, then billions of years of it are just as irreconciliable as 6000 years of it.

To say "God is loving, he wouldn't cause us to suffer and die for billions of years, he would only cause us to suffer and die for 6000 years" is absurd. It's like saying "Ted is a nice guy, he wouldn't rape 200 children, he would only rape 1".

If your starting premise is that death is incompatible with a loving God, then how many years of it, 6000 or billions, is completely irrelevant.

Your argument doesn't even begin to make any sense. Out of curiosity, is it something you put thought into it, or did you just come up with it on the spur of the moment?