Here’s the problem. You just can’t go around making calculations about the probable size of the Ark to “prove” that it was capable of floating the purported weight of all the animals, and then when someone points out some of the other logistical issues Noah would have to deal with suddenly revert to miraculous help involving animals in suspected animation or their food/water being provided (and waste disposed of) by miraculous means.
You can logically claim either scientific/logical support for all aspects of the Bible story of Noah, or you can claim that the whole thing was a miracle outside the normal bounds of science. You cannot, IMO, logically claim that science supports your position on aspect A of the issue and therefore the story true, while abandoning science and going to the unknowable powers of God on aspect B when you cannot support your position by science/logic.
Or, more accurately, you can claim anything you like. But you damage your own position when you mix science/logic and divine intervention as convenient to you in a single argument. Or at least that’s how it looks to me.
Well put.
Nice try but you don’t get to make the rules. For believers it is obvious God made the rules for us - He [who can create out of nothing and knows all things past, present, and future [b/c He also created time itself!]] can bend or break any rule He darn well pleases.
Also for all of us true believers it’s obvious that true science will agree completely with God’s infallible word.
But any true atheist will readily admit science does not, can not, and will not ever have an answer for everything.
Seeing as how these ‘sciencey’ answers still come from man it is also obvious that a good portion of them will continue to proven and dis-proven ad-nauseum.
Very.