I was looking up Creationism on Wikipedia and found this in the article about Young Earth Creationism:

I knew that most Americans are Christians, but I had no idea that this mind-blowingly inane point of view was held by such a huge portion - in fact a majority - of Christians in the US. Do these people interpret the the entire bible in a literal fashion? This further section of the article would seem to indicate so.

So, if my premise that these same 44% of people who believe man is less than 10,000 years old also hold a literal interpretation of the bible, That leads us to a problem which appears insurmountable. That is the problem of explaining away Noah's Ark. Here are some of the many aspects of the story that render it a logical impossibility:

*The ship was far too big to last for two weeks in the middle of a stormy ocean with rain pouring down incessantly. It would have suffered from leaking and warping among other things.
*There is no way the Ark could have held every single species of the animal kingdom.
*How were all the animals gathered anyway, or did they travel on their own?
*Once the flood ended, how did the animals return to their natural habitats, given that the earth was barren and ravaged by the flood?
*What could the animals eat during the flood and after its conclusion? Surely not each other, but yet carnivores can only eat other animals.

These are just a few of the logical and logistical problems with the story of the ark, but in my estimation they are insurmountable. I have yet to see any specific answers to these problems, but one quote in the article is quite damning to the literalist point of view.

How can different literalists have varying answers? If you start making your own interpretations for the sake of convenience, that's no longer literalist, that's figurative interpretation, and that is why biblical literalism is such an impossibility, because the bible doesn't have all the answers, even if all the answers it dioes have are somehow all accurate. Using a literal interpretation of the bible until it falls apart logically, and then deviating to one's own arbitrary interpretations, is completely dishonest, and I think it would make ay sane person's head explode.

However if there are agreed-upon answers by Young Earth Creationists to the questions I have posed, and the many others about the story of the ark that I have let alone for now, I would like to hear them, most likely so that I may revel in their absurdity and ludicrosity, but possibly so that I may learn something more about howpeople think within the grossly distorted paradigm of biblical literalism.

i do not remember them asking my opinion.

So, OP, you see what the problem is?

I'm sorry, do I need to ask permission before I can question the almighty Bible? I've already given up on trying to persuade those whose stance on religion I disagree with. I've taken the opposite approach, in that I'm trying to let them persuade me. Give me some reasons why I should accept this part of the bible literally in light of the questions I've posed. I'm giving proponents of this view an opportunity to persuade me to see things their way. Have at it.

glad to see you have an open mind.

as far as the last question, i do not know that any of the christians on this site believe the earth is 10,000 years old.

biblically speaking, i do not think it makes any difference either way. as far as Noah's arch, i have no problem believing it was literal to some extent.

If I didn't have an open mind, I wouldn't have continued that sentence with the caveat that I may possibly learn something about how people think within the paradigm of biblical literalism. I would have categorically expected to laugh at whatever answers I got. Of course, I am realistic, and based on other rationalizations made by bible literalists, it is hard for me to set my expectations too high, but I am hoping to be surprised.

"Literal to some extent" is a contradiction. It's like being a little pregnant. Literal means, as it was wirtten in the literature. What you are positing is that the story is allegorical, like how the book Animal Farm is an allegory of Russian Communism and the overthrow of the Czar. This is a far less radical view, in my opinion, than the view that the bible should be taken literally. You aren't left having to defend a ship that was too large to be structurally sound and yet not nearly big enough to hold every single animal species that has ever existed.

Do you think that if people disagree about a proposition the proposition is necessarily false?

Its a sad cult of the stupid in the USA. There as a big danger of infection of the rest of the world via cultural imperialism but I suspect that's diminishing.

Its partly due to the tremendous sucess of the USA economy which means even those with stupid beliefs thrive and don't get forced to confront reality. It's a also in part a Golgafrincham B-Ark phenomena (advanced students only)

I have a suspicion that the number is actually not quite that high, depending on the wording of the question, but it's still an alarmingly high number. Fortunately, the US stands alone in this particular stupidity in the Western world. Unfortunately, a few of those people have incredibly powerful postings in media, business, and government.

It's ridiculous, but if you live in this country it's not too surprising. We just came dangerously close to electing one of that 44% group as our next vice president. And I'm not even that sure that our current president doesn't belong in it. I'm looking forward to the next 4 years when it comes to science and education. We might even progress to the point where we as a country accept evolution!. Wouldn't that be nice?

Not saying i disagree with you, but you realize that if the God of the bible is all-knowing, all-powerful, AND intervening, then all of your points don't matter.

I do agree many of my countrymen are terribly ignorant folks, though there are many in every country in which I have been a guest (which I merrily concede is only 10% of the countries though). Don't you find ours has recently been more like two countries one red one blue though? Don't you think it is more of the A-ark folks that do the bulk of the cultural imperialism. Secondarily aren't you sure that it is diminished, and if not why in the world not?
Not for nothing, where are you from? I was guessing limey.

PS Thanks for all the fish! 42

PSS what is that avatar from?

My point was, parts of the story that weren't sufficiently addressed in the bible, were being disputed by people who claim the bible is indisputable. So the notion that the bible is indisputable truth can be disproven by their own actions.

But the bible doesn't make any references to God using his powers to solve any of the problems I mentioned in the account of Noah's ark. To argue that God magically gave food to all the animals and kept them from eating each other and immediately made the earth fertile again after the flood, etcetera, would be to make a non-literal interpretation of the bible, which the literalists say you can't do. If the bible had simpy made a reference, even a very general one, to God's use of divine power to recreate the ecosystem and make the boat hold up, etcetera, then there would be a case for a literal interpretation of that part of the bible (albeit a shaky one unless there was much more detail).

Stupid people exist everywhere, its been the abality of them to thrive despite being stupid that distinguishes the USA in recent years.

Fairly sure its been diminished massively by the Bush years.

Cultural imperalism gives the rest of us whatever you lot have and if you lot elect morons, believe silly stuff and love piss-poor food/beer then that's the culture you spread. Its because of the success of the clever people (and historical good fortune) but we get it all. [Just for the silly people, I'm generally very pro-USA]

Limey though it should be lemony

PSS its Muralitheran, Sri_Lankan spin bowler (cricket - see the life the universe and everything)

When I was a religious wackadoo myself I had an idea of the term "kind" used in the story as allowing room for the specific if not general evolution. For example all horses come form the ones that still had paws, all dogs were still wolves, etc. Of course it doesn't work because even with this definition the dimensions of the boat still would not contain two of a kind of the genetic diversity that we have. Don't forget they carried more than two each of the animals used for food!! Plus, there were people to include the children that got Noah drunk and had sex with him after they got off the incest "Love Boat"! The Bible is so so not for kids. LOL

I used to rail that the cultural imperialism thing was just crying xenophobic French people before I lived in Europe, and it REALLY is true. My favorite thing I have ever seen televised was a story on French TV about the McDonald's in Paris is the busiest restaurant in France. They pinned this poor guy to give a comment and he was trying to crawl away like he was caught coming out of a whorehouse and his wife was going to see. All of a sudden the guy stands up straight and says to the reporter " look a-hole I love our culture and I am as French as any man, but I don't have all f-ing day to get lunch I have work to do and a life to live" I laughed until I almost wet myself!!!! I can attest that you can listen to the radio and run it all the way across the dial and only hear American songs...true. That said I think cultural change is certain in every culture, and as in that McD's example it isn't always bad...you know? I don't think those people are being influenced by the country music listening religious right from our country though...agreed?

We do have very good beer and food here, it just isn't exported..LOL

Lime, lemon as long as it is before Black Friday though I was only a "tot" myself...LOL

I should have seen the judge right behind the guys head, I am such a dolt! Aussie's got the ashes...LOL Sri Lanka has always had good bowling. That makes for a pretty tough test!

So you are claiming that truth is impossible if even one person questions it?

No, it might still be true, but it is certainly open to debate. It is unknown what the truth is. I am not categorically denying the possibility that the bible's literal account is true, although I do find it highly unlukely. The literalists on the other hand say that the bible is the absolute truth AND that there is no room for interpretation or disagreement. However their OWN disagreements prove that this latter part is not the case.

Anyone who believes the earth is 10000 year old or less is either uneducated, mentally disturbed or dumb, there are no other options available to choose from.

It doesn't matter if you turn the debate to "absolutism". I can't with absolute certainty (philosophically speaking) say that a 20 ton dinosaur isn't waiting to jump me in the parking lot to steal my VISA-card. But believing that one does requires me to belong to atleast one of three aforementioned categories.

Hmmm the real question is how does someone else's beliefs put you on tilit?

religion is teh ghey

That would imply a universe of impeccable design.

tilts bad but so many stupid people having so much power is distrurbing.

DS has suggested intelligent people's votes should count more, good idea?

impeachable as well.