Personally, I've found it ineffective, (and well, tedious), to present arguments for atheism against theists, particularly Young Earth and literalists, in the traditional sense--Claim, reasons, and conclusion. Usually, the atheists' reasons cannot overcome the theists' faith in the counterargument. Rather I now often choose to place the theist on the horns of a dilemma. I don't now about you; but, I am amused at the logical contortions that some theists, particularly Biblical literalists, will perform to quell their cognitive dissonance. P.T. Barnum would be proud. The argument goes as follows:
Proposition 1.
God created the earth literally as the Bible says. Six days, life in its present form, etc. (Yes.)
Consequently, evolution is not real and untrue. (Yes)
Proposition 2.
The cataclysmic story of the Noah and the Flood is a factual account. (Yes.)
Reasoning...
In the story of the Flood, all the animals (2 by 2 for unclean, or 7 by 7 for clean) were saved. That means every species was on that ship (because their disbelief in evolution makes it so). The Bible gives clear measurements to the Ark's size. That ship could not hold that much biomass and still float.
OR
Secondly, let's consider the flora. If the entire earth is covered with water for 40 days, then every land plant would have died. Even aquatic plants would be annihilated. I over watered my ficus over a couple of weeks, and it's lifeless. At best, the phytoplankton might survive.
So they are left with a finite number of animal and plant species at the end of the flood. Then explain the diversity of life.
or the flood story is allegorical because evolution is untrue.
Suggestions/Comments welcome.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Some other more immediate and simple examples can help, too, when confronting a literal interpretation of Biblical scripture in the Christian tradition. The lack of vitamin C synthesis specifically in humans and only a few other creatures seems an odd direction for God's perfect creation. Why make it so man has to supplement his diet with ascorbic acid if there are many other examples of his supposed creation that don't have to deal with this fatal flaw? There's also the issue with wisdom teeth. Something that is completely nonexistent in some populations and universal in others. This very different development of our teeth that is in no way helpful to modern humans seems like another bizarre bit of this supposed perfect creation.
I haven't encountered many Christians who are adherents to the Young Earth ideas; however, I'm sure they're out there teaching their nonsense in sufficient numbers.
Good stuff.
I suppose the crew of the Ark kept rainwater to drink but when the rain stopped and they found land again did they have to wait for it to rain a second time so they could have fresh water apart from what was already on the ship? Maybe they just found a magical spring. They'd have to have some big water tanks on that ship to account for all those animals for any duration at all I would think. Why do we have to drink fresh water when +95% of the water on the planet contains too much sodium-chloride for consumption? Is that one of those sin things? We sin so we must search out fresh water sources in order to live, right? I better shut-up, I'll be here all day.
EDIT:
Of course that wouldn't actually work since all other land animals must search out fresh water as well. I guess that's just one of god's impressive puzzles to see if we are fit for the kingdom of heaven, unless of course you get it piped into your house or something crazy like that.
Water can be explained by every day rain.
The more contradiction part is what the hell did they eat?
And I'm not talking about the voyage, a lion needs at least 15-18 kg of meat a day to survive.
After the flood there isn't even a dam piece of wood or enough grass for the herbivores.
The average panda would eat the minimum of 8 kg of bamboo daily.
After such a flood, you would be lucky if you find enough grass, even worse trees or bamboo.
So you would end up with extremely hungry animals on an ark for a year and when they finally land, after all those 1/4 rations, they have to wait even more years for them to get back to full rations lol.
watch this for a laugh:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CccaGaKOlSI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I225Vcs3X0g
.
Well, in order to accept the logistics of everyday rain being abundant you would have to accept the logistics of dry land coming out of the water while it's raining. I suppose it isn't too difficult for some, but I can't do it.
yea, but water can be easily be taken from lakes, rivers and 5 minute raining every day.
The vanishing of all that water in such a short time is still a magic trick, no matter how much rain or lack of, can possibly explain how it disappeared.
Food is just impossible, since god killed the food chain itself with his wrath.
It just could not have happened the way it is described in the bible.
to the "young earthers" I ask on which day did god create the fossils? And why hide them? I have occasionally received the answer (not always in jest) that they were provided as something for scientists to do and prove that god's ways are not fathomable by man. If it makes sense to a "believer", God is wonderful, if it makes no sense to the believer, God works in mysterious ways. Can't debate that with reason, nor does pointing out the glaring inconsistencies, and obvious translational variations of the bible/koran provide fodder for debate. Most are "cherry pickers" of faith, ignoring what is difficult for them to reconcile with easily held bellief and accepting/defending that which is convenient. Sorry, this is my first post and I've just said what's been said here before. Just getting it off my chest.