Information icon.svg Voting is completed for the RationalWiki 2021 Moderator Election and the results are now posted.
Congratulations to the winners!

Talk:Noah's Ark

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon flood.svg

This global flood related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Silverbrain.png

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)



Oceans[edit]

Just like to point out that moose are actually pretty good at swimming. Obviously they couldn't cross oceans, but they wouldn't drown within minutes as asserted on this page -CR

Creationwiki view[edit]

It is said they think the Ark is '...under a mile of sedimentary rock...' Is this not logically implausible - or did the Ark get stuck in the mud, all the creatures ran off to solid ground/into the water and the boat sank down, or what? Anna Livia (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The logistics[edit]

How did Noah pay for all the resources required (and how come 'all and sundry' didn't ask him what he was doing and why - and building their own boats etc, and charging him excessive prices for the bits of wood they had left over)? Anna Livia (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Basically[edit]

'This boat doesn't float.' Anna Livia (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Mosaic law[edit]

Ancient people forgetting or otherwise losing some information, especially before the advent of writing in their culture, isn't really miraculous, it happened all the time. Doesn't make anything else in the story any more plausible, but rather tells about unfortunate wording of the argument.Arisano (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, so the edit we are talking about was:
".. either Noah used his own intuition to discern which animals were "clean", or Noah was revealed at least parts of the Mosaic law, which were then lost at some point after the Flood (admittedly, the latter at least sounds relatively plausible, even if it doesn't excuse anything else).
Your edit was the part in italics. I have two problems with it. 1. It suggests that it is "plausible" that Noah might have received some earlier divine revelation of parts of the Mosaic law. I dispute the plausibility of this claim in its entirety. 2. I simply don't understand your final comment: "... even if it doesn't excuse anything else". "Excuse" what exactly?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I said it is "plausible" that IF hypothetical Noah hypothetically had such knowledge (revelation or not - irrelevant in this matter), it could still be lost before the time of Moses (or whatever served as a foundation for Exodus narrative). Whether or not Noah actually existed and/or received said revelation is a separate question (and "yes" is very implausible answer for it). If the wording is unclear - ok, my bad, screwed it up. And while this particular point (unreliability of oral tradition) is plausible, everything else contested is still bullshit, no excuses.Arisano (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Sure it's plausible that information can be lost. Highly plausible in fact. What is not plausible is the speculation that it could have been previously gained by hitherto unknown divine revelation. And if are justified in saying that the information never existed in the first place - it's rather moot to speculate about how this non-existent information might have been lost. And I still don't understand what is not being "excused". Did you mean to write "even it this doesn't explain how the information might have existed in the first place"? Because that would at least have made some sense.
But I'm not attacking you on this. I undid your edit, told you I had done so on your talk page and told you you were welcome to bring it up here if you wished to defend it. It's how wikis work.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I often screw up word-choice. I meant "plausibility of losing said information does not make more plausible any other point in the narrative". As to being a moot point - so, bad wording? Because I get an impression that every part of non-italic statement is shot down, including this accidentally plausible one.Arisano (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
That would be true if the text itself did not go to say: "Of course, there's also the much more plausible explanation that the story was invented by a Jewish writer who was so accustomed to thinking about animals as clean or unclean that he did not spot this chronological inconsistency." So the existing text is obviously not making the "divine relation" argument as the most plausible one.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Nit-pick: more like "even if it doesn't posit actual existense of said information in the first place". The source of the information is technically irrelevant to this question.Arisano (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Calculations[edit]

If the engineering calculations took a lot of time, it doesn't follow that Noah and family drowned before finishing them. 120 years is a long time. 181.43.35.54 (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, certainly of all the vast number of things which show the utter silliness of the story it's probably one of the least important.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)