Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
Prove them otherwise? That is very easy to do,
A few facts about Noah’s Ark:
• The ark as literally described in Genesis was much too small because the amount of water that it would be capable of displacing would weigh less that the animals on board making it impossible for the ark to float.
Assumption: Craig knows the animals and weights taken on the Ark.
Dismissed: That the Ark with or without too much weight was preserved in a way that must be categorized as a miracle.
Ignored: God said it happened... so however you want to explain it- It happened.
• The floor space on the ark was too small to hold any more than a tiny fraction of the cages that would be necessary to keep the animals in place (and from eating each other).
Assumes he knows the animals that went on board, that they were conscious, that God did not superintend their behavior so that they might be preserved, that adults were taken rather than infants or even eggs,...
Craig assumes numerous straw men to justify his denial of what God declared... and several times affirmed as a literal event.
• The amount of food required for the animals would weigh nearly as much as the animals and would require a vast amount of storage space.
Again, assumes that God didn't intervene... after He commanded Noah to build the Ark and told him how to stock it.
• Many of the animals aboard the ark would have required specific FRESH fruits, vegetables, leaves, grass, bark, roots, etc.
Depends on God's provision... a God that didn't let a jar run out of flour and turned a few fishes and loaves into enough to feed thousands.
Why are you so quick to dismiss God's ability to do make provision for what He said happened yet so quick to accept human speculations about natural history that even if proven possible can never be proven true?
• Most of the genetically discrete populations of fish (including many VERY large fish) would have to be taken aboard the ark and kept in tanks of water that met their very specific water chemistry needs in order to survive.
Assumes a whole bunch of things that discount both God's providential and sovereign control over the events surrounding the flood.
If you trust God then why do you always default to naturalism rather than His demonstrated ability to accomplish things above and beyond the bounds of nature?
• The weight of the water on the earth would have crushed to death any of the land plants that did not drown in the water.
Again full of assumptions... especially considering that the higher peaks were only 20 something feet below the water's surface.
• After 150 days when the water abated, there would be no vegetation on the earth for the herbivores to eat, and no meat for the carnivores to eat, therefore a vast mount of food would necessarily have been kept on the ark to sustain the animals AFTER the flood.
Which is probably why God kept them on the Ark until the bird brought back the olive branch, huh?
• Many of the herbivores would have had very specific dietary needs, including fresh fruits and berries that are produced only on MATURE plants. Therefore these mature plants would necessarily have been kept and maintained on the ark and subsequently planted in the ground after the flood.
Assumes modern species with modern limitations.
• The Animals could not all be released at once or in the same place because they would eat each other.
Assumes many unsubstantiated things while discounting God's ability, or even Noah's, to provide adequate separation.
• Collecting the animals from all over the earth would have been a physical impossibility no less impossible than Santa Clause delivering presents to every boy and girl on the night before Christmas.
a) God is fully capable of assembling any group of animals He chooses and b) only one of each kind was necessary to preserve the animals.
• After the flood, the animals could not be returned to their original habitat because all habitats would have been destroyed by the flood.
That is such a simple problem to solve that you'll be left to yourself.
• Many of the necessary habitats would take 50 years or more to be reestablished and their reestablishment would have required the effort of many thousands of persons.
Or one God... who created all of those "habitats" in 6 days previously.
• Until all the necessary habitats could be reestablished, the animals requiring these habitats would have to be kept and cared for by Noah and his family.
No... God can care for sparrows.
• There was not enough water to cover the entire earth, and even if there was, where did it go after the flood.
There is more than sufficient water right now to submerge all of the land masses.
• If the reported sightings of the Ark are correct, the Ark came to rest on a VERY high mountain on VERY rugged terrain from which the vast majority of the animals would not have been able descend.
Assumes identical weather conditions.
The story of Noah’s Ark can NOT be a literal account of an historic event.
No... rather it cannot be a historical event within the arbitrary parameters you cast over what God said He did... fully discountin His ability to do what He said and communicate it.
Indescribably huge miracles would have been necessary,
And just how small is this god you say couldn't do it?
and a literal interpretation of Genesis does not allow for these miracles because the whole point of the narrative is that through the natural means of an ark built by Noah and his family mankind and all the kinds of animals were saved from the water.
No it isn't. That once again is YOU reading YOUR "infallible" bias into the account.
Jesus walking on water is a literal narrative account that doesn't directly declare how He is doing it or even that it is a miracle. You simply know it is because people can't walk on water.
Noah's flood may or may not depend on miracles... but in no way are miracles disallowed by the text or the FACT that it is a narrative.
Your efforts to preserve your own biases against God's Word are nothing short of amazing some times.
