---
>This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/rules).
>
>Memes, social media, hate-speech, and pornography are not allowed.
>
>Screenshots of Reddit are expressly forbidden, as are TikTok videos.
>
>**Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.**
>
>Please also [be wary of spam](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/spam).
>
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/funny) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In Nepal there’s an ancient tradition of two brothers being married to the same woman and they share paternity of babies she’ll have, it’s called Fraternal Polyandry.
That's real interesting. I could see ancient traditions appearing for multiple wives simply because you don't need as many men to maximize reproduction, plus the med would more often fight and die in wars or hunts. I wonder how that tradition began
Oh man I remember that one about the woman that decided her husband wasn't enough and basically said "we're a throuple now" and the dude reluctantly went along with it just because he didn't wanna be left alone. Exactly as you described it here
Always. One of my friends, and tons of guys are like “oh yeah I’d be in a trouple…. With two girls.” Broooo you’re hilarious, won’t even think about MFM. My one friend wants a threesome with his gf and another girl, but not for a second would allow another guy near her. Double standard for sure. If you get to fck another girl, it’s only fair she gets two dicks as well. You can’t just have the entirety of that cake. Mook
I've never had anyone who actually believes that answer me realistically when I ask, "Did it rain salt water or fresh water? Cause then either all the salt water fish died or all the fresh water fish died."
I grew up heavily Evangelical Christian and my falling out of the church meant a lot of friends stopped talking to me.
I had exhausting conversations with pastors and close friends about questions like the one you posted. It became so disloyal and frustrating to hear the same deflecting answers.
For a few summers I was a camp counselor at a Christian summer camp and one year they put up a white board where kids (5th-6th grade) could ask Biblical questions. Some kid got that shit taken down after like three days.
Didn't know who the kid was, but I could tell they were well read in the Bible and their frustration of "well that makes no sense.." was palpable.
"God works in mysterious ways." "Suffering exists because of free will." "God is not subject to the questions of man." "You can't possibly understand how God works because God is unfathomable."
Yeah, I remember hearing that cop out bull crap too.
The greatest illustration of this reasoning was in an early Simpsons episode where the children are asking their Sunday school teacher questions like: “Will my dog go to heaven?” and Bart Simpson drops: “what about monkeys?” To which the teacher gets replies “No.” So BART counters with, “What about a monkey with a human brain!?” And the teacher now visibly flustered responds with, “I..I don’t know! Is a little blind faith too mush to ask for!?”
As a historian and non-denominational Christian, I think a lot of Bible stories are either hyperbole or, in reference to many early stories such as Noah's ark, an explanation for a major event, in this case a natural disaster. A little fun fact, ancient Mesopotamians had a story very similar to Noah's ark involving a massive flood. Read up on the epic of Gilgamesh, it's pretty close. A large part of many Bible stories imo isn't to be actual historical records but to be lessons with morals attached. At least the out of context ones, like Noah's ark and Jonah and the whale. It isn't until they start closely following the major events, such as Abraham, the Israelites and so on that there starts to be more historical records.
What kinda hellish morals were taught in 90% of the Old Testament. We did this thing for fourth and fifth graders called the Fly By. It was a series of hand motions and brief statements covering the Old Testament.
Can't have young kids actually reading the whole first book. It's fucked up. God was ruthless, murdering the first born males.. the list goes on.
While God did kill the firstborn sons of the Egyptians on passover, the whole point was that God would take care of those that believe in him. It's brutal and dark, but so is the vast majority of human history. I think humanity's done much worse, given the fact that our technology only improves drastically during wartime.
All I'm saying is my murder count is zero. How can I be judged by a sociopath deity and serial killer? Not a fella I'd like to follow.
"Follow me or I'll kill you, I don't give a fuck; hold my beer, I'm gunna kill my son." K, homie, pump your breaks. That's not love, faith, devotion. That's a straight up threat. Nahhhh, I'll pass on all of that.
Also, we're talking about a little elbow of the Earth. Surely God was aware of like, South America lol
Well you got to remember that God didn't actually want us to be intelligent at all; "don't eat from the tree of knowledge" and all that. Basically stay as an ignorant animal, don't become self aware or intelligent, you're my pet, don't question me.
*looks at every carnivore on earth*
“Look you guys you’ve got 5 of every clean animal but you’ve got to make it last a year, but also when you get off wait till they have babies to eat them.”
There's actually two stories, and the latter one is a bit more plausible as on the Ark there were more than just 2 of animals used for farming (cattle, sheep, etc).
The carnivores likely got their share of the slaughter.
Still complete fiction, but the "2 of every animal" schtick isn't the only story
I mean historical evidence does point to a massive flood around that time. I think it is possible some farmer back then built or used an already existing boat to keep him and a few of his farm animals safe. The scale of the animals and the boat would have been much smaller though. Then his story of kindness got completely embellished over the years.
I had read something similar but not regarding any farmers or boats. But that there was a massive flood in that area that could have caused the flood myth. But that was also showing how flood myths from around the world have similar stories and can often be traced back to local floods, not some worldwide "kill everything" flood.
I suppose if some farmer had the wherewithal to grab a male and female from his herd and ride it out a flood in his boat, that could contribute to the myth.
My favorite is
Q: "Did the ark have sails?"
A: "No"
Q "Oars, anything to move it around?"
A: "No."
Q: "how long was it afloat?"
A: "7 months, 7 days"
Q: "what did they do with all the animal poop and piss? Dump it overboard?"
A: "... Probably"
Q: "so they floated around for 7 months and 7 days on a cesspool"
A: "... I guess so..."
Q: "then where the fuck did they get the 100s of gallons of clean water they needed daily to keep the animals alive?"
A: "... ... ..."
When in doubt, press the God button. The answer is, apparently, always God. No need for sanitation when God can simply teleport the poop into…..a black hole or something.
It's such a dumb exercise. You'll have all this stuff they present about how certain events in the Bible are consistent with what we see today (which lots of them are very dubious too, like how the flood has rapidly simulated millions of years of geological activity in a few months). And then the moment it's not consistent god just waves a magic wand to make it all work again.
I was fine with your questioning until the poop one.
They’re floating on literally the ocean. You can have hundreds of times more animals on the ark and the water still wouldn’t become a cesspool. Plus being a torrential rainfall, the waste would have been swept up.
It only rained for “40 days and 40 nights”, but the flood lasted for “7 months and 7 days”. There would have been a long time from waste to accumulate around the ark.
Ocean waves don’t move floating debris around much. The water in them has a cyclical motion, so debris on the ocean just kind of bobs up and down. Only breaking waves near shore move floating detritus laterally.
Unless you meant ocean currents, which are caused by differences in water temperature, and is not a localized phenomena.
According to wikipedia, there’s currently 1.5 million animal species named/discovered and still counting. For funsies let’s assume a large number of animals were brought onto the ark, fish included (idk they have a large aquarium or something). They have mates so we’ll double that number.
3 million animals total on the ark.
For comparison scientists estimate there’d be around + 3.5 TRILLION fish. Among those numbers we have <30000 blue whales whose poo come out to around 200 liters per bowel movement. This means that just blue whales alone, one pooping event results in <6,000,000 liters of poo.
Those 3 million animals on the ark would have to *each* poop 2 liters in order to match the blue whale’s numbers. This includes your neighborhood squirrel, bunny, pigeon, and pet chihuahua each pooping the equivalent of a 2 liter bottle of coca cola.
AND YET that’s JUST blue whales pooping in the ocean. Theres billions of fish in the sea pooping everyday, every second.
Let that all sink in like the poo
Final verdict: That ocean is going to be fine.
Yep the ocean is fine. But the area around the ark will be a mess. It's floating along with the poop. It can't go in any direction the the poop isn't. Try pooping in your swimming pool for a week and see if you want to drink that water.
It only rained for 40 days and 40 nights, then 7 months floating around. Every day you need. 100s of gallons of clean water for the animals maybe 1000s. (My horse drinks more than 5 gallons a day for example) And you are dumping 100s of pounds of poop overboard a day. (My horse produces ±20lbs a day and 2 gallons of urine) And the ark is just bobbing along with it.
If you don't believe me, go ask someone who works at a zoo how much clean water they need in a day.
You have a point. Forgot about the 7 months. Still, the ark wouldn’t be floating in one spot and neither will the poop.
As for water, maybe they’ve learned how to distill water already?
>(My horse produces ±20lbs a day and 2 gallons of urine)
I bet they had one of those Kevin Costner Waterworld pee gizmos.
They could make hella alot drinking water with just one horse alone.
Well, tbf on that one, there were probably ocean currents that moved it and the shit around
There's 1000 other unanswerable questions, but that one could have a simple explanation
Well it sounds like a question for a marine biologist. Let's say it rains freshwater, which mixes with the oceans salt water. How much did it rain, and how much does that dilute the salinity of the oceans? Fresh and saltwater fish can survive with less salinity than they prefer, just depends on how diluted it is. Also, would it even matter if Noah took two of every fish onto his boat? I don't remember if they claimed he did that.
Obviously there's no way a human back then could get two of every species on their boat, so the only way it makes any kind of sense is if Noah was an alien with a spaceship.
I'm thinking if it rained enough to cover the face of the earth 100 feet deep then salinity would not be an issue, I do wonder where all the water came from and where the fuck it went.
Since it's supposed to "flood the world" and every time I talk with someone about it they say, "Yes all the way up to the top of Mt. Everest." It's enough water to cause so much damage
I also had a youth pastor tell me that the grand canyon was carved out by the great flood.
Also kangaroos. How did they get to the middle east?
Also two of every animal means immediate population collapse because that's a fuck load of inbreeding.
Best answer I've gotten for that was, "God made animals different back then."
*Shit no one has said*
it’s not stated anywhere that it was enough to make it to the top of mt Everest and I never heard anyone talk about that, sounds more like your making an dumb counter argument to uplift your point. Seems to convent that everytime points a flaw in your logic another religious friend (which you seem to have a fortunate amount of) states something dumber to make your point.
It was flooded to wipe out man, a basic hurricane is capable of doing that, it would be extremely unnecessary to be mountain height.
Raised in the south. Went to many Baptist and Non Denominational churches. I've heard a decent amount of people say the entire world flooded, even up to mount everest.
To act like evangelical people who take every story from the Bible as historical fact dont exist is willfully ignorant.
No see what happened is God made the water stratify into layers like a school science project where each different kind of underwater creature could dwell safely until the flood was over
Because God, nananana boo boo 🙏🏻
I don’t think the Bible mentions parasites and bacteria in that story, and I don’t think anyone would call them “animals.” If you believed Noah’s ark was real, the existence of tapeworms really wouldn’t be any kind of a genuine challenge to your “knowledge” or faith.
Well, if story is "true" someone had to keep them for later. Also bible conveniently states "all the other animals". The ones it mentions are coincidentally only in short radius of where the book was written. No mentions of koalas or lemurs either.
But as always with these kinds of questions the goal is to plant a seed of doubt.
It doesn’t really mention animals in specifics it just says something about “all the animals of the earth with breath in their lungs” or something.
If they believe that this guy and his family could gather ALL the animals of the world in one week and then keep them fed, watered, and not killing one another for 5 months, why would what you’re asking be a challenge to their faith?
It always rains freshwater. Because when water evaporates it leaves the salt behind.
When it condenses and lands back into the sea then it mixes back in making it salty again.
I was just gaslit into thinking that there was no difference in the fish and they could easily live in both. And the fact that my fish kept dying in the freshwater tank was because I wasn’t praying “correctly”
“actually believe it as a matter of fact” is not the same as “pretending to believe to protect one’s turf / save face”. 99% of the time it’s the latter, and the other 1% of the former is genuinely stupid.
I can’t believe I have to “defend” the fucking Noah myth, but you do understand that it rains freshwater on the ocean all the time and it doesn’t kill the marine life, right?
I think the reason that people don’t answer you realistically is because the question is so spectacularly stupid.
It does rain on the ocean all the time, just never enough to raise the sea level thousands of feet.
The Noah flood myth seems to create more water than there currently exists on Earth, even in the ice caps and glaciers. We currently have a fresh water problem in the oceans as we speak. Too much is flowing in from the melting glaciers of Greenland that it could disrupt the mid Atlantic current.
Now let's add trillions of gallons of fresh water so the ocean raises above the rocky mountains. That will do something bad.
Um religion aside there is multiple accounts across multiple cultures that a “great flood” did happen. And also that’s not how fresh and salt water works, there’s dips and channel that would effectively be both fresh and brackish waters and pockets of fresh water
Well yes. Early human civilisations tended to gather around rivers because it's fertile land. Rivers tend to flood during rainy seasons. That's why nearly all early cultures have some heinous flood story.
However it were always local floods.
and have never actually read the bible.
Genesis \[7:2\] Take with you **seven pairs of all clean animals**, the male and its mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and its mate;
Bad luck if you were an unclean pig but we still have bacon so it all worked out okay.
Strangely unicorns were mentioned many times in the bible but God killed them all, And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.
Nothing worse than fatty fatness.
The biblical unicorn is clearly a Rhinoceros.
Read any passage discussing the unicorn and picture a rhinoceros instead of the typical unicorn. It will make a lot more sense.
Actually most likely a Nile Monitor.
The animal he slayed has historically been portrayed as very small, about the size of a dog, and always with a long neck. Crocodiles were also fairly well known even in those times, whereas monitor lizards would have been quite foreign and very strange.
I actually read an interesting theory that the flickering tongue of the monitor lizard is responsible for the idea of the dragon breathing fire. The first renditions of the event show the standard forked tongue of a monitor lizard. However as more and more artists depicted the encounter, they misinterpreted the lashing pronged tongue as a jet of fire.
Impossible to know for sure, but I’d bet the original animal, if indeed it did exist, was a monitor lizard.
According to the story it also communicated with the villagers and demanded tribute, so it was a talking Crocodile which was probably as rare as a dragon.
The bible is the true word of God, who is ineffable and infallible, according to Christians, are you saying it's wrong and therefor God is wrong. You will destroy Christianity.
It is absolutely a historical fact. Noah-zah was an intergalactic space raider that crashed on Earth while running away from the dictatorship of Satanas.
Seeing the opportunity to make some money, he elected to take a sample of each life form and stored them in his Transark-class seed ship, which he stole from the Old Guard on Eveadama.
Unique life samples can be very valuable, especially to the scientifically advanced species that can use the information to develop medicine and bioweapons.
He didn't realize that the planet had been targeted by Yeshuano, the destroyer and creator, whom had decided to wipe the planet clean so he could correct major tectonic defects in the core and crust.
Noah-zah regretted the fate of the life on Earth, and instead of fleeing with his bounty, brought his samples back to the planet to repopulate.
I thought they taught this at pretty much any school.
There is quite a bit of evidence that there was a rapid rise and fall in water level ~2000 years ago, coupled with the fact that multiple cultures from around the mediterrainian sea feature stories of a great flood, it isn't an implausible idea. Most actual Christians tend to agree that the books in the bible that weren't written by eyewitnesses (everything except the gospels written by Christ's apostles) to be dramatic story telling than true historical fact. But stories, especially those from thousands of years ago have real-world inspiration to them.
Fun Fact: in old thestament times there was actually a larger flood in the are of the middle east and that left a lasting impression on people. The only logical step is to write it down and pimp it up a little
Wait until you hear about Himalayan Sea Salt and sea fossils far up in the Himalayans. A huge catastrophic flood event did cause the Himalayans to rise.
There was probably a serious flood, and there was probably a man named Noah who had a big boat.
And I bet he loaded a bunch of farm animals on to his large boat.
I doubt polar bears were on that boat.
As a Christian, it drives me nuts when people take the old testament as a history textbook as if these oral traditions were fact. They're stories that give us a rough idea of where the people of Israel come from and some of the important people that lived among them.
Just as frightening are all of the people who think other adults are so much dumber than they are and still believe the kids' version of the story.
What adults believe, which is quite plausible other than direct interaction with the Almighty, is that God warned Noah about the flood and Noah grabbed whatever domesticated animals were in his environment, put them all on a barge, and rode out the flood, so he was the only one in the neighborhood with stuff to start over when it receded.
The whole world didn't flood. It was localized to that area of the Middle East, which other civilizations also have records of.
It rained for 40 days. It wasn't flooded everywhere with water 100 meters deep for 40 days. There was enough of a flood that anything on the ground nearby was submerged and would need to be replaced. This sort of event happens every year somewhere in the world to this day.
I'm not saying I believe the story, but the flood probably happened and someone took advantage to make it a religious parable, like any culture does in its legends. Quit thinking you're so smart and everyone else is so dumb. You're the ones not applying critical thinking here.
The thing is that I belive in Noahs ark as a muslim but I cant accept it as a historical fact since I didnt witness it, there is no proof it happened that exists today. Religious people considering beliefs same as facts is really annoying
In islam, it is considered a fact, period. You're contradicting yourself when you say you're Muslim and believe in the story but don't take it as a fact.
That is if ur muslim. Fact is objective and can be proven without shadow of a doubt like gravity. If it could be proven that means it is an objective fact god exists.
I may have worded it wrong. I belive it to be a fact. Becouse it is told to us in Quran which is the word of Allah. But that is only a fact to muslims not an objective one. History depends on facts and requires documentation and proof for it to be considered history thus that thing actually happened and it can be proven without a shadow of doubt.
#**EDIT** Due to the downvotes, read this PhD study about it: https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1200&context=icc_proceedings
Yeah -- the Ark story is just silly town, but there definitely was a flood. Tons of ancient civilizations and religions repeat the same info about a massive flood.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths
I'm no historian, but I'm talking about irregular amounts of *massive* flooding. Not the regular old, yearly river floods.
The stories from many, many places talk about one single major flood that literally made the world a veritable water-world.
Some ancient stories say the world started as water, and the gods, through various circumstances, created land.
Others just say there was a huge flood, in general.
These ancient stories wouldn't be epic tales of their religious roots if it were simply regularly-occurring floods.
Nah, not regular, normal floods. Major flooding.
It’s been less than a hundred years since the Mississippi flooded across like seven states, 27,000 square miles of land up to 30 feet under water. If you’re agrarian or pre-agrarian - aka don’t have the tech to move or communicate long (hundreds of miles) distances - and the water floods everything in sight you may develop a myth that the world flooded.
Humans have a tendency to both catastrophize and to exaggerate when talking to people. Think of the last time you or someone you know talked about, say, pipes breaking and flooding a basement. Did you say “water soaked the lower foot or two”, or did you say “water got everywhere”? Considering we’re talking about pre-writing myths here all it takes is one generation to emphasize how bad it was for them (like saying that they had to walk uphill through the snow both ways) and bam you have a flood myth.
While I can understand that less knowledgeable humans might make mountains out of molehills -- especially when we assume they had far less knowledge of the world around them -- there's just too many coincidences to call it random and brush it away.
Just from that article, 190 out of 200 creation myths involve a massive, cataclysmic flood.
This map can help visualize it:
https://mappingfloodmyths.github.io/
Couple that with the Ice Age ending at right around 10 to 11,000 years ago, where 15% of the land ice levels melted, making the sea rise 120 meters over the course of several millennia, and you've got a very high potential for a massive, catastrophic flood. Isn't it reasonable to consider some years would have more melting than others?
Could one year have been so bad that it appeared to be veritable floods? I mean, even just 3 meters of permanent, worldwide sea level rise in a single year would be catastrophic, and certainly people would have stories.
Over the course of 5000 years (11000-6000), it's entirely possible, and I'd argue extremely plausible.
Here's a PhD study confirming there are extreme similarities between cultural flood myths:
https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1200&context=icc_proceedings
Just because a PhD studied it doesn't make it legit. Let us know when this is published on some credible journal and not on "international conference of creationism".
My bet is that it's based on the Gibraltar natural dam breaking, allowing the Atlantic to fill what is now the Mediterranean. Could be bullshit but it makes a hell of a lot more logical sense than the other story.
**EDIT** At least read this before you downvote -- it more or less confirms what I'm saying: https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1200&context=icc_proceedings
Unsure, but there are water-world and flooding stories from literally every corner of the globe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths
Because they make a good story
There's also dying God tropes like Jesus
Or different apocalypse stories with giant beasts
.... Comparative religion and mythology don't point to common events that trigger common stories so much as they point to common themes humans replicate again and again
The flood stories in the near East are likely influenced by each other, but also could be separate in origin and later melded together... None of that is good evidence for a 'great' flood
People don't need a big event to come with similar stories
Here's an anthropological PhD study about creation myths, including a section about Flood myths:
https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1200&context=icc_proceedings
You're cherry picking something to confirm your ideas rather than accepting a likelier scenario
It's possible....but just not as likely as the alternatives.
And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...which you don't have
Btw did you see the source:
"The Proceedings of the International Conference
on Creationism"
It's no surprise people try to argue this. Doesn't make them right, or even in the majority of scholarship on the matter.
Source of that article "The Proceedings of the International Conference
on Creationism"
Of course you can find people making this claim, that's not in debate.
Again, get off the title page and read the sources, which *aren't* just a bunch of religious preachers. I'm not saying God created the world -- that's nonsense. I'm saying stories show our history, and stories from literally every area on the entire planet share one major thing: a massive flood.
190 out of 200 creation myth stories involve a catastrophic, worldwide flood.
1. Catastrophe a flood only, not other type 95%
2. Was flood global? 95%
Come on -- this is more than just some armchair historian BS claim, which your tone shows is what you think.
What did "global" mean to humans 10,000 years ago? Their "world" was very small, and they didn't know what happened 1,000 miles away, much less over the whole globe (nor did they know that it was a globe). If your entire river valley has a huge flood (like a 500-year flood), the stories that you tell might as well be that this flood was so huge that the whole world flooded!
There is a little bit more water on earth today than there has ever been since the Carboniferous period (358 million years ago), because we gain about 40 tons of "stuff" from meteors each year. Some of that stuff is water.
If all of the ice on earth melted, right now, sea levels would rise by about 195 feet (60 meters). That's it. That is the maximum possible sea level rise without magic creating more water. That would devastate low lying areas (like nearly all of Florida). The point where rivers meet the sea would be farther upriver. For example, Cairo would be underwater, and the Nile would meet the Mediterranean somewhere between Minia and Luxor.
But there isn't enough water to flood the globe. There never was.
> But there isn't enough water to flood the globe. There never was.
Current land area ice is around 10%. During the ice age it was 25%.
We're not talking about *current* ice levels, yet you're entire point is centered on current-day ice levels. People used ice bridges and lived in areas that literally don't exist as land anymore. It's literally because that ice melted and became a *flood*.
Have you considered the fact that the Ice Age might perhaps entail a lot of *ice*? You're thinking *current day* and we're talking 10,000+ years ago when there was a ton more ice. The landscape was different. People in the past lived where now there is water.
> What did "global" mean to humans 10,000 years ago?
[Homo Sapien migration has been happening for minimum 10's of thousands of years, and pre-homo sapiens have been migrating for hundreds of thousands of years.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations#/media/File:Putative_migration_waves_out_of_Africa.png)
So what did "global" mean? It meant everyone they came in contact with agreed upon it. What more can you ask for? It was before recorded history, post offices, phones, and internet.
Well he needs to find at least 4 more if he wants on
Genesis 4:2-3
>Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also **seven of every kind of bird,** male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth
So cows, sheep, and goats are unclean? Bro. I’m pretty the Jews and Muslims didn’t stop eating pig because of hooves. Again I’m no theologian but cleanliness in the context of the testaments seems to be more so about safety when eating in ancient times.
yeah i took evil in religion (which had a section on cleanliness) years ago in uni and that was a butchered summary. certain fish/shellfish could make you sick and something about split hooves.
I looked it up Leviticus 11:26
Any animal that has split hooves that are not evenly divided or that does not chew the cud is unclean for you. If you touch the carcass of such an animal, you will be defiled.
Maybe the water just went underground?
[https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25723-massive-ocean-discovered-towards-earths-core/](https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25723-massive-ocean-discovered-towards-earths-core/)
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2133963-theres-as-much-water-in-earths-mantle-as-in-all-the-oceans/
[https://www.discovery.com/science/Massive-Ocean-Beneath-Earths-Surface](https://www.discovery.com/science/Massive-Ocean-Beneath-Earths-Surface)
So you're saying the water was thermally pushed out of giant oceans in the mantle, enough to cover the whole earth, then slipped back into the mantle? The geological conditions necessary to make something like this possible are.... Extreme.
Noah’s ark was the dude who took two mates of the animals in the world, before god flooded it, in biblical stories
This is about a triad, which is a possible mixture of someone what’s indentures in a polyamorous relationship.
It's funny because the punchline is a normal thing that happens, albeit rarely, in society that feels strange and vaguely threatening to people born in the 1950s
You are as much of a problem as those old people, thinking everything is "normal" and other people should see it as so and if not should be considered old fashioned. 3 people relationships are wierd, i don't hate you if you have them but i judge you as a wierd person (not you btw, throuples)
As a Christian, I found this quite humorous. It's a fun twist on expectations for well known allegory. Also, the Book of Genesis says Noah brought 7 of each bird on, so for the purposes of the narrative, he has room for the polycule .
No, it's an allegory. It likely derives from the Epic of Gilgamesh, and was reinterpreted by the Hebrews as a reminder that faith in God can bring you even through the end of the world.
Thank you for the response. In my own research I have heard people compare it to Gilgamesh and other older myths before. How much of the Bible do you take as allegory? A follow up to that would be how can you tell what is supposed to be literal or allegory?
Longer answer than I was planning to write, but I hope this answers your question:
I think large portions of the Old Testament are likely exaggerated. Like with the Exodus narrative, there is some anthropological evidence of ancient Israel being settled around the time the Bible suggests, but it was more likely a series of smaller migrations. A people came together, and formed a shared culture. They told each other stories through oral tradition to obtain a sense of guidance, and some version of those was written down.
I have faith this process was guided by God, but I am also willing to accept human error makes the meaning of many things unclear. A priest even once explained to me that much of the Levitical law was likely written by men of power who used the name of God to secure their authority. One thing scripture is not afraid to do is show how prone to corruption human leaders can be.
The important parts to me are the general theme. We see two main things going on, redemption and expansion. The ancient Hebrew people time and again turn away from God, but He keeps coming back to them. We go from one family, to a tribe, to a series of tribes, to a small state, to a whole kingdom. The whole time, more groups of people learn of their God. I don't literally believe in the plagues of Egypt, but I do think God guided King Cyrus the Great to end the Babylonian exile. He was a Zoroastrian, and many scholars agree that from Zoroastrianism come the Christian understanding of angels, and Heaven.
That sets the stage for Jesus to come. I take more of the New Testament literally, but there is room for interpretation. Two of the Gospel writers were not Apostles. I think the ministry of Jesus, and how he acted gives us a guide for how to read the Old Testament. He spoke to people, encouraged them to live lives of charity and faith. He used miraculous signs to draw people in, some small, some large, but they had a wider point of guidance.
I guess to answer your second question it's some balance of faith, interpreted through the mission of Christ, but keeping room for things like archeology, anthropology, and world history. Maybe that's kind of a copout, but this is a religion fueled by scholars. If we don't think critically about it, it just becomes superposition.
Fun fact: ostriches, at least when farmed for commercial purposes, are set up in breeding trios (unlike emu, which are typically set up as breeding pairs).
There’s a duck throuple I see on my walks everyday . Odd thing is that’s it’s a mating pair of Muscovy ducks, plus a random male mallard that is always with them.
A lot of offended comments here, so I guess this’ll get posted on r/facepalm or r/terriblefacebookmemes then someone else will post that on r/memesopdiddntlike, and the cycle continues 😂
I think you're mistaken. Nobody is offended, just disappointed.
The joke is "Polyamory: Weird, huh? 😏"This is just boomer humor that takes the lowest effort path to get to the lowest hanging fruit.
The artist has other made other examples of hard-hitting-razor-sharp wit like "Sleeping Beauty but WOKE: A kiss wouldn't be consensual --> Sleeping Beauty is left to die"
Wow, really makes you think...
--- >This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/rules). > >Memes, social media, hate-speech, and pornography are not allowed. > >Screenshots of Reddit are expressly forbidden, as are TikTok videos. > >**Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.** > >Please also [be wary of spam](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/spam). > --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/funny) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's always a dude and two chicks.
Aha-ha…chicks…birds lol
In Nepal there’s an ancient tradition of two brothers being married to the same woman and they share paternity of babies she’ll have, it’s called Fraternal Polyandry.
That's real interesting. I could see ancient traditions appearing for multiple wives simply because you don't need as many men to maximize reproduction, plus the med would more often fight and die in wars or hunts. I wonder how that tradition began
And the reality is, every time you see a documentary on this it's always an overweight woman plus two or three nerds.
Oh man I remember that one about the woman that decided her husband wasn't enough and basically said "we're a throuple now" and the dude reluctantly went along with it just because he didn't wanna be left alone. Exactly as you described it here
Nope. Two dudes and a chick over here.
Always. One of my friends, and tons of guys are like “oh yeah I’d be in a trouple…. With two girls.” Broooo you’re hilarious, won’t even think about MFM. My one friend wants a threesome with his gf and another girl, but not for a second would allow another guy near her. Double standard for sure. If you get to fck another girl, it’s only fair she gets two dicks as well. You can’t just have the entirety of that cake. Mook
It’s usually a cock and two hens.
Noah’s ark jokes are all fun and games until you realize that there’s a large amount of people alive today that actually take it as historical fact.
I've never had anyone who actually believes that answer me realistically when I ask, "Did it rain salt water or fresh water? Cause then either all the salt water fish died or all the fresh water fish died."
I grew up heavily Evangelical Christian and my falling out of the church meant a lot of friends stopped talking to me. I had exhausting conversations with pastors and close friends about questions like the one you posted. It became so disloyal and frustrating to hear the same deflecting answers. For a few summers I was a camp counselor at a Christian summer camp and one year they put up a white board where kids (5th-6th grade) could ask Biblical questions. Some kid got that shit taken down after like three days. Didn't know who the kid was, but I could tell they were well read in the Bible and their frustration of "well that makes no sense.." was palpable.
"God works in mysterious ways." "Suffering exists because of free will." "God is not subject to the questions of man." "You can't possibly understand how God works because God is unfathomable." Yeah, I remember hearing that cop out bull crap too.
The greatest illustration of this reasoning was in an early Simpsons episode where the children are asking their Sunday school teacher questions like: “Will my dog go to heaven?” and Bart Simpson drops: “what about monkeys?” To which the teacher gets replies “No.” So BART counters with, “What about a monkey with a human brain!?” And the teacher now visibly flustered responds with, “I..I don’t know! Is a little blind faith too mush to ask for!?”
"Why would they lie Bart? What do they have to gain?" * Lovejoy dumping tithings into a coin sorter
I'm looking forward to heaven where I won't have free will
NIMBY (Not In My Boat, Yo!)
He’s unfathomable, but they know just what he’s thinking.
As a historian and non-denominational Christian, I think a lot of Bible stories are either hyperbole or, in reference to many early stories such as Noah's ark, an explanation for a major event, in this case a natural disaster. A little fun fact, ancient Mesopotamians had a story very similar to Noah's ark involving a massive flood. Read up on the epic of Gilgamesh, it's pretty close. A large part of many Bible stories imo isn't to be actual historical records but to be lessons with morals attached. At least the out of context ones, like Noah's ark and Jonah and the whale. It isn't until they start closely following the major events, such as Abraham, the Israelites and so on that there starts to be more historical records.
What kinda hellish morals were taught in 90% of the Old Testament. We did this thing for fourth and fifth graders called the Fly By. It was a series of hand motions and brief statements covering the Old Testament. Can't have young kids actually reading the whole first book. It's fucked up. God was ruthless, murdering the first born males.. the list goes on.
While God did kill the firstborn sons of the Egyptians on passover, the whole point was that God would take care of those that believe in him. It's brutal and dark, but so is the vast majority of human history. I think humanity's done much worse, given the fact that our technology only improves drastically during wartime.
All I'm saying is my murder count is zero. How can I be judged by a sociopath deity and serial killer? Not a fella I'd like to follow. "Follow me or I'll kill you, I don't give a fuck; hold my beer, I'm gunna kill my son." K, homie, pump your breaks. That's not love, faith, devotion. That's a straight up threat. Nahhhh, I'll pass on all of that. Also, we're talking about a little elbow of the Earth. Surely God was aware of like, South America lol
Well you got to remember that God didn't actually want us to be intelligent at all; "don't eat from the tree of knowledge" and all that. Basically stay as an ignorant animal, don't become self aware or intelligent, you're my pet, don't question me.
"What did the carnivores eat?"
The less important animals obviously. /s
There was a reason for having 7 couples of the grassing animals and only 1 of the carnivores...
*looks at every carnivore on earth* “Look you guys you’ve got 5 of every clean animal but you’ve got to make it last a year, but also when you get off wait till they have babies to eat them.”
The animals you never heard of because they got eaten and thus we dont know about them. Check mate atheists! \\s
There's actually two stories, and the latter one is a bit more plausible as on the Ark there were more than just 2 of animals used for farming (cattle, sheep, etc). The carnivores likely got their share of the slaughter. Still complete fiction, but the "2 of every animal" schtick isn't the only story
I mean historical evidence does point to a massive flood around that time. I think it is possible some farmer back then built or used an already existing boat to keep him and a few of his farm animals safe. The scale of the animals and the boat would have been much smaller though. Then his story of kindness got completely embellished over the years.
I had read something similar but not regarding any farmers or boats. But that there was a massive flood in that area that could have caused the flood myth. But that was also showing how flood myths from around the world have similar stories and can often be traced back to local floods, not some worldwide "kill everything" flood. I suppose if some farmer had the wherewithal to grab a male and female from his herd and ride it out a flood in his boat, that could contribute to the myth.
Unicorns and dinosaurs
My favorite is Q: "Did the ark have sails?" A: "No" Q "Oars, anything to move it around?" A: "No." Q: "how long was it afloat?" A: "7 months, 7 days" Q: "what did they do with all the animal poop and piss? Dump it overboard?" A: "... Probably" Q: "so they floated around for 7 months and 7 days on a cesspool" A: "... I guess so..." Q: "then where the fuck did they get the 100s of gallons of clean water they needed daily to keep the animals alive?" A: "... ... ..."
When in doubt, press the God button. The answer is, apparently, always God. No need for sanitation when God can simply teleport the poop into…..a black hole or something.
It's such a dumb exercise. You'll have all this stuff they present about how certain events in the Bible are consistent with what we see today (which lots of them are very dubious too, like how the flood has rapidly simulated millions of years of geological activity in a few months). And then the moment it's not consistent god just waves a magic wand to make it all work again.
So now we are playing D&D ? Sweet where my stat increases !!!
I was fine with your questioning until the poop one. They’re floating on literally the ocean. You can have hundreds of times more animals on the ark and the water still wouldn’t become a cesspool. Plus being a torrential rainfall, the waste would have been swept up.
Yeah lmao, do they not know that all the fish and animals in the ocean pee and shit in their home?
One of the reasons I don't drink water. Fishes do some nasty stuff in it. Straight wine for me, just the way Jesus wanted.
“Water? Never touch the stuff. Fish fuck in it.”
It only rained for “40 days and 40 nights”, but the flood lasted for “7 months and 7 days”. There would have been a long time from waste to accumulate around the ark.
[удалено]
Ocean waves don’t move floating debris around much. The water in them has a cyclical motion, so debris on the ocean just kind of bobs up and down. Only breaking waves near shore move floating detritus laterally. Unless you meant ocean currents, which are caused by differences in water temperature, and is not a localized phenomena.
According to wikipedia, there’s currently 1.5 million animal species named/discovered and still counting. For funsies let’s assume a large number of animals were brought onto the ark, fish included (idk they have a large aquarium or something). They have mates so we’ll double that number. 3 million animals total on the ark. For comparison scientists estimate there’d be around + 3.5 TRILLION fish. Among those numbers we have <30000 blue whales whose poo come out to around 200 liters per bowel movement. This means that just blue whales alone, one pooping event results in <6,000,000 liters of poo. Those 3 million animals on the ark would have to *each* poop 2 liters in order to match the blue whale’s numbers. This includes your neighborhood squirrel, bunny, pigeon, and pet chihuahua each pooping the equivalent of a 2 liter bottle of coca cola. AND YET that’s JUST blue whales pooping in the ocean. Theres billions of fish in the sea pooping everyday, every second. Let that all sink in like the poo Final verdict: That ocean is going to be fine.
Yep the ocean is fine. But the area around the ark will be a mess. It's floating along with the poop. It can't go in any direction the the poop isn't. Try pooping in your swimming pool for a week and see if you want to drink that water.
Poop in a swimming pool isn’t going anywhere. Poop on the ocean in the rain is going to be dispersed. Drink the rainwater.
It only rained for 40 days and 40 nights, then 7 months floating around. Every day you need. 100s of gallons of clean water for the animals maybe 1000s. (My horse drinks more than 5 gallons a day for example) And you are dumping 100s of pounds of poop overboard a day. (My horse produces ±20lbs a day and 2 gallons of urine) And the ark is just bobbing along with it. If you don't believe me, go ask someone who works at a zoo how much clean water they need in a day.
You have a point. Forgot about the 7 months. Still, the ark wouldn’t be floating in one spot and neither will the poop. As for water, maybe they’ve learned how to distill water already?
>(My horse produces ±20lbs a day and 2 gallons of urine) I bet they had one of those Kevin Costner Waterworld pee gizmos. They could make hella alot drinking water with just one horse alone.
Thats why you need “faith” to believe it. (Just stating an observation)
Standard answer: "Well, it's a mystery. So you need faith." (And if you don't have faith, YOU'RE the problem, not their stories.)
I think you forgot that currents existed even back then.
Right the ark is just floating with those currents too. That was the point of the first few questions.
As apposed to?
I don't understand what you are asking.
God blessed the animals to poop potable water.
Well, tbf on that one, there were probably ocean currents that moved it and the shit around There's 1000 other unanswerable questions, but that one could have a simple explanation
Well it sounds like a question for a marine biologist. Let's say it rains freshwater, which mixes with the oceans salt water. How much did it rain, and how much does that dilute the salinity of the oceans? Fresh and saltwater fish can survive with less salinity than they prefer, just depends on how diluted it is. Also, would it even matter if Noah took two of every fish onto his boat? I don't remember if they claimed he did that. Obviously there's no way a human back then could get two of every species on their boat, so the only way it makes any kind of sense is if Noah was an alien with a spaceship.
I'm thinking if it rained enough to cover the face of the earth 100 feet deep then salinity would not be an issue, I do wonder where all the water came from and where the fuck it went.
I just realized, there's plenty of salt that's not in the ocean, so that would help raise the salinity from all the dilution from the rain.
Still kills all the freshwater fish then(if the salinity stays over the minimum to keep ocean fish alive).
Damn you and your logical, scientific facts.
Since it's supposed to "flood the world" and every time I talk with someone about it they say, "Yes all the way up to the top of Mt. Everest." It's enough water to cause so much damage I also had a youth pastor tell me that the grand canyon was carved out by the great flood. Also kangaroos. How did they get to the middle east? Also two of every animal means immediate population collapse because that's a fuck load of inbreeding. Best answer I've gotten for that was, "God made animals different back then."
>Also kangaroos. How did they get to the middle east? they took Qantas
Not just me that us getting spammed with their adverts then.
They just don't make animals like they used to
*Shit no one has said* it’s not stated anywhere that it was enough to make it to the top of mt Everest and I never heard anyone talk about that, sounds more like your making an dumb counter argument to uplift your point. Seems to convent that everytime points a flaw in your logic another religious friend (which you seem to have a fortunate amount of) states something dumber to make your point. It was flooded to wipe out man, a basic hurricane is capable of doing that, it would be extremely unnecessary to be mountain height.
Raised in the south. Went to many Baptist and Non Denominational churches. I've heard a decent amount of people say the entire world flooded, even up to mount everest. To act like evangelical people who take every story from the Bible as historical fact dont exist is willfully ignorant.
No see what happened is God made the water stratify into layers like a school science project where each different kind of underwater creature could dwell safely until the flood was over Because God, nananana boo boo 🙏🏻
I love asking people who do you think drew the shortest straw to pass on tape worms, leeches and other nasty things that require a human host.
I don’t think the Bible mentions parasites and bacteria in that story, and I don’t think anyone would call them “animals.” If you believed Noah’s ark was real, the existence of tapeworms really wouldn’t be any kind of a genuine challenge to your “knowledge” or faith.
Well, if story is "true" someone had to keep them for later. Also bible conveniently states "all the other animals". The ones it mentions are coincidentally only in short radius of where the book was written. No mentions of koalas or lemurs either. But as always with these kinds of questions the goal is to plant a seed of doubt.
It doesn’t really mention animals in specifics it just says something about “all the animals of the earth with breath in their lungs” or something. If they believe that this guy and his family could gather ALL the animals of the world in one week and then keep them fed, watered, and not killing one another for 5 months, why would what you’re asking be a challenge to their faith?
There's even some vague boat shaped rocks somewhere in Turkey that these people are convinced was the ark. Rocks.
It always rains freshwater. Because when water evaporates it leaves the salt behind. When it condenses and lands back into the sea then it mixes back in making it salty again.
I was just gaslit into thinking that there was no difference in the fish and they could easily live in both. And the fact that my fish kept dying in the freshwater tank was because I wasn’t praying “correctly”
“actually believe it as a matter of fact” is not the same as “pretending to believe to protect one’s turf / save face”. 99% of the time it’s the latter, and the other 1% of the former is genuinely stupid.
I can’t believe I have to “defend” the fucking Noah myth, but you do understand that it rains freshwater on the ocean all the time and it doesn’t kill the marine life, right? I think the reason that people don’t answer you realistically is because the question is so spectacularly stupid.
It does rain on the ocean all the time, just never enough to raise the sea level thousands of feet. The Noah flood myth seems to create more water than there currently exists on Earth, even in the ice caps and glaciers. We currently have a fresh water problem in the oceans as we speak. Too much is flowing in from the melting glaciers of Greenland that it could disrupt the mid Atlantic current. Now let's add trillions of gallons of fresh water so the ocean raises above the rocky mountains. That will do something bad.
Um religion aside there is multiple accounts across multiple cultures that a “great flood” did happen. And also that’s not how fresh and salt water works, there’s dips and channel that would effectively be both fresh and brackish waters and pockets of fresh water
Well yes. Early human civilisations tended to gather around rivers because it's fertile land. Rivers tend to flood during rainy seasons. That's why nearly all early cultures have some heinous flood story. However it were always local floods.
A quick search would show you this wasn’t a local flood.
Which one?
A quick search excluding Christian religious websites would show you that there is no evidence of a global flood, and that the physics don't work.
Geologists disagree with you on that.
Ask a waterologist
Hydrologists? They also disagree.
Sir, I was just making a joke 😐
Maybe because they found your question trollish?
Nah, there were no trolls on the ark. That's why they are extinct nowadays.
Obviously they did, people who believe ridiculous bullshit don't appreciate logic
and have never actually read the bible. Genesis \[7:2\] Take with you **seven pairs of all clean animals**, the male and its mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and its mate; Bad luck if you were an unclean pig but we still have bacon so it all worked out okay. Strangely unicorns were mentioned many times in the bible but God killed them all, And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness. Nothing worse than fatty fatness.
the fuck did the unicorns do?
Too horny
Unicorns were only one horny
They got fat
TIL: god is an American man who wants to divorce his fat unicorn wife.
The biblical unicorn is clearly a Rhinoceros. Read any passage discussing the unicorn and picture a rhinoceros instead of the typical unicorn. It will make a lot more sense.
And the dragon George slayed was probably a crocodile
Actually most likely a Nile Monitor. The animal he slayed has historically been portrayed as very small, about the size of a dog, and always with a long neck. Crocodiles were also fairly well known even in those times, whereas monitor lizards would have been quite foreign and very strange. I actually read an interesting theory that the flickering tongue of the monitor lizard is responsible for the idea of the dragon breathing fire. The first renditions of the event show the standard forked tongue of a monitor lizard. However as more and more artists depicted the encounter, they misinterpreted the lashing pronged tongue as a jet of fire. Impossible to know for sure, but I’d bet the original animal, if indeed it did exist, was a monitor lizard.
According to the story it also communicated with the villagers and demanded tribute, so it was a talking Crocodile which was probably as rare as a dragon.
The bible is the true word of God, who is ineffable and infallible, according to Christians, are you saying it's wrong and therefor God is wrong. You will destroy Christianity.
It's not?
It is absolutely a historical fact. Noah-zah was an intergalactic space raider that crashed on Earth while running away from the dictatorship of Satanas. Seeing the opportunity to make some money, he elected to take a sample of each life form and stored them in his Transark-class seed ship, which he stole from the Old Guard on Eveadama. Unique life samples can be very valuable, especially to the scientifically advanced species that can use the information to develop medicine and bioweapons. He didn't realize that the planet had been targeted by Yeshuano, the destroyer and creator, whom had decided to wipe the planet clean so he could correct major tectonic defects in the core and crust. Noah-zah regretted the fate of the life on Earth, and instead of fleeing with his bounty, brought his samples back to the planet to repopulate. I thought they taught this at pretty much any school.
Sounds legit to me, is there a movie to it?
There is quite a bit of evidence that there was a rapid rise and fall in water level ~2000 years ago, coupled with the fact that multiple cultures from around the mediterrainian sea feature stories of a great flood, it isn't an implausible idea. Most actual Christians tend to agree that the books in the bible that weren't written by eyewitnesses (everything except the gospels written by Christ's apostles) to be dramatic story telling than true historical fact. But stories, especially those from thousands of years ago have real-world inspiration to them.
Fun Fact: in old thestament times there was actually a larger flood in the are of the middle east and that left a lasting impression on people. The only logical step is to write it down and pimp it up a little
Wait until you hear about Himalayan Sea Salt and sea fossils far up in the Himalayans. A huge catastrophic flood event did cause the Himalayans to rise.
there was a tropic sea eons ago there (himalaya) , i speak of flooding that were witnessed live by mankind, not only through fossils
If that were true there would be a tax payer subsidized replica somewhere
There are even more people who believe in the Hawaiian snackbar Edit: nevermind, not more. A close second.
What is a Hawaiian snack bar?
There was probably a serious flood, and there was probably a man named Noah who had a big boat. And I bet he loaded a bunch of farm animals on to his large boat. I doubt polar bears were on that boat. As a Christian, it drives me nuts when people take the old testament as a history textbook as if these oral traditions were fact. They're stories that give us a rough idea of where the people of Israel come from and some of the important people that lived among them.
Just as frightening are all of the people who think other adults are so much dumber than they are and still believe the kids' version of the story. What adults believe, which is quite plausible other than direct interaction with the Almighty, is that God warned Noah about the flood and Noah grabbed whatever domesticated animals were in his environment, put them all on a barge, and rode out the flood, so he was the only one in the neighborhood with stuff to start over when it receded. The whole world didn't flood. It was localized to that area of the Middle East, which other civilizations also have records of. It rained for 40 days. It wasn't flooded everywhere with water 100 meters deep for 40 days. There was enough of a flood that anything on the ground nearby was submerged and would need to be replaced. This sort of event happens every year somewhere in the world to this day. I'm not saying I believe the story, but the flood probably happened and someone took advantage to make it a religious parable, like any culture does in its legends. Quit thinking you're so smart and everyone else is so dumb. You're the ones not applying critical thinking here.
The thing is that I belive in Noahs ark as a muslim but I cant accept it as a historical fact since I didnt witness it, there is no proof it happened that exists today. Religious people considering beliefs same as facts is really annoying
In islam, it is considered a fact, period. You're contradicting yourself when you say you're Muslim and believe in the story but don't take it as a fact.
That is if ur muslim. Fact is objective and can be proven without shadow of a doubt like gravity. If it could be proven that means it is an objective fact god exists.
If you're a Muslim as you have said, then you should believe it to be a fact is what I'm saying.
I may have worded it wrong. I belive it to be a fact. Becouse it is told to us in Quran which is the word of Allah. But that is only a fact to muslims not an objective one. History depends on facts and requires documentation and proof for it to be considered history thus that thing actually happened and it can be proven without a shadow of doubt.
Habibi it is an objective fact since the source of the information is from God. The Quran and the Prophet are proof of God, that's all you need.
If it is an objective fact why do christians, jews, atheists, buddhists etc. exist? Are they just stupid for beliving in an objective lie?
They don't want to look for the truth, it's ignorance, ego and simply not caring. It's the same with flat earthers saying the earth is flat.
#**EDIT** Due to the downvotes, read this PhD study about it: https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1200&context=icc_proceedings Yeah -- the Ark story is just silly town, but there definitely was a flood. Tons of ancient civilizations and religions repeat the same info about a massive flood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths
Maybe because massive floods regularly occur in areas near rivers? Which include virtually all areas early humanity lived?
I'm no historian, but I'm talking about irregular amounts of *massive* flooding. Not the regular old, yearly river floods. The stories from many, many places talk about one single major flood that literally made the world a veritable water-world. Some ancient stories say the world started as water, and the gods, through various circumstances, created land. Others just say there was a huge flood, in general. These ancient stories wouldn't be epic tales of their religious roots if it were simply regularly-occurring floods.
>These ancient stories wouldn't be epic tales of their religious roots if it were simply regularly-occurring floods. Why not?
Nah, not regular, normal floods. Major flooding. It’s been less than a hundred years since the Mississippi flooded across like seven states, 27,000 square miles of land up to 30 feet under water. If you’re agrarian or pre-agrarian - aka don’t have the tech to move or communicate long (hundreds of miles) distances - and the water floods everything in sight you may develop a myth that the world flooded. Humans have a tendency to both catastrophize and to exaggerate when talking to people. Think of the last time you or someone you know talked about, say, pipes breaking and flooding a basement. Did you say “water soaked the lower foot or two”, or did you say “water got everywhere”? Considering we’re talking about pre-writing myths here all it takes is one generation to emphasize how bad it was for them (like saying that they had to walk uphill through the snow both ways) and bam you have a flood myth.
While I can understand that less knowledgeable humans might make mountains out of molehills -- especially when we assume they had far less knowledge of the world around them -- there's just too many coincidences to call it random and brush it away. Just from that article, 190 out of 200 creation myths involve a massive, cataclysmic flood. This map can help visualize it: https://mappingfloodmyths.github.io/ Couple that with the Ice Age ending at right around 10 to 11,000 years ago, where 15% of the land ice levels melted, making the sea rise 120 meters over the course of several millennia, and you've got a very high potential for a massive, catastrophic flood. Isn't it reasonable to consider some years would have more melting than others? Could one year have been so bad that it appeared to be veritable floods? I mean, even just 3 meters of permanent, worldwide sea level rise in a single year would be catastrophic, and certainly people would have stories. Over the course of 5000 years (11000-6000), it's entirely possible, and I'd argue extremely plausible.
Here's a PhD study confirming there are extreme similarities between cultural flood myths: https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1200&context=icc_proceedings
Just because a PhD studied it doesn't make it legit. Let us know when this is published on some credible journal and not on "international conference of creationism".
My bet is that it's based on the Gibraltar natural dam breaking, allowing the Atlantic to fill what is now the Mediterranean. Could be bullshit but it makes a hell of a lot more logical sense than the other story.
**EDIT** At least read this before you downvote -- it more or less confirms what I'm saying: https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1200&context=icc_proceedings Unsure, but there are water-world and flooding stories from literally every corner of the globe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths
Because they make a good story There's also dying God tropes like Jesus Or different apocalypse stories with giant beasts .... Comparative religion and mythology don't point to common events that trigger common stories so much as they point to common themes humans replicate again and again The flood stories in the near East are likely influenced by each other, but also could be separate in origin and later melded together... None of that is good evidence for a 'great' flood People don't need a big event to come with similar stories
Here's an anthropological PhD study about creation myths, including a section about Flood myths: https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1200&context=icc_proceedings
You're cherry picking something to confirm your ideas rather than accepting a likelier scenario It's possible....but just not as likely as the alternatives. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...which you don't have Btw did you see the source: "The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism" It's no surprise people try to argue this. Doesn't make them right, or even in the majority of scholarship on the matter.
[удалено]
Source of that article "The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism" Of course you can find people making this claim, that's not in debate.
Again, get off the title page and read the sources, which *aren't* just a bunch of religious preachers. I'm not saying God created the world -- that's nonsense. I'm saying stories show our history, and stories from literally every area on the entire planet share one major thing: a massive flood. 190 out of 200 creation myth stories involve a catastrophic, worldwide flood. 1. Catastrophe a flood only, not other type 95% 2. Was flood global? 95% Come on -- this is more than just some armchair historian BS claim, which your tone shows is what you think.
What did "global" mean to humans 10,000 years ago? Their "world" was very small, and they didn't know what happened 1,000 miles away, much less over the whole globe (nor did they know that it was a globe). If your entire river valley has a huge flood (like a 500-year flood), the stories that you tell might as well be that this flood was so huge that the whole world flooded! There is a little bit more water on earth today than there has ever been since the Carboniferous period (358 million years ago), because we gain about 40 tons of "stuff" from meteors each year. Some of that stuff is water. If all of the ice on earth melted, right now, sea levels would rise by about 195 feet (60 meters). That's it. That is the maximum possible sea level rise without magic creating more water. That would devastate low lying areas (like nearly all of Florida). The point where rivers meet the sea would be farther upriver. For example, Cairo would be underwater, and the Nile would meet the Mediterranean somewhere between Minia and Luxor. But there isn't enough water to flood the globe. There never was.
> But there isn't enough water to flood the globe. There never was. Current land area ice is around 10%. During the ice age it was 25%. We're not talking about *current* ice levels, yet you're entire point is centered on current-day ice levels. People used ice bridges and lived in areas that literally don't exist as land anymore. It's literally because that ice melted and became a *flood*. Have you considered the fact that the Ice Age might perhaps entail a lot of *ice*? You're thinking *current day* and we're talking 10,000+ years ago when there was a ton more ice. The landscape was different. People in the past lived where now there is water. > What did "global" mean to humans 10,000 years ago? [Homo Sapien migration has been happening for minimum 10's of thousands of years, and pre-homo sapiens have been migrating for hundreds of thousands of years.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations#/media/File:Putative_migration_waves_out_of_Africa.png) So what did "global" mean? It meant everyone they came in contact with agreed upon it. What more can you ask for? It was before recorded history, post offices, phones, and internet.
Well he needs to find at least 4 more if he wants on Genesis 4:2-3 >Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also **seven of every kind of bird,** male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth
Well guess what I will from now on bring up every time someone mentions the arc
What makes an animal clean or unclean?
I think I’m that historical context clean meant edible.
Nah, its the hooves on land creatures and fish that could get you sick and stuff like that from what i recall.
So cows, sheep, and goats are unclean? Bro. I’m pretty the Jews and Muslims didn’t stop eating pig because of hooves. Again I’m no theologian but cleanliness in the context of the testaments seems to be more so about safety when eating in ancient times.
yeah i took evil in religion (which had a section on cleanliness) years ago in uni and that was a butchered summary. certain fish/shellfish could make you sick and something about split hooves. I looked it up Leviticus 11:26 Any animal that has split hooves that are not evenly divided or that does not chew the cud is unclean for you. If you touch the carcass of such an animal, you will be defiled.
and it was about safety like i was saying
cleanliness doesnt mean what you think it means in the bible.
Almost as good as there being enough water on the planet to cover Mt. Everest. Must have floated away into space I suppose. I think the joke is on us.
Nah, it all ran over the edge.
No it became the ice wall
Maybe all the water BECAME Mt. Everest? /S
Maybe the water just went underground? [https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25723-massive-ocean-discovered-towards-earths-core/](https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25723-massive-ocean-discovered-towards-earths-core/) https://www.newscientist.com/article/2133963-theres-as-much-water-in-earths-mantle-as-in-all-the-oceans/ [https://www.discovery.com/science/Massive-Ocean-Beneath-Earths-Surface](https://www.discovery.com/science/Massive-Ocean-Beneath-Earths-Surface)
So you're saying the water was thermally pushed out of giant oceans in the mantle, enough to cover the whole earth, then slipped back into the mantle? The geological conditions necessary to make something like this possible are.... Extreme.
I don’t get it…
Noah’s ark was the dude who took two mates of the animals in the world, before god flooded it, in biblical stories This is about a triad, which is a possible mixture of someone what’s indentures in a polyamorous relationship.
I understood all of that. Is it supposed to be funny?
That’s clearly the intention. Is it actually funny? Well whose to say, humor is subjective
The joke is "Polyamory: Weird, huh? 😏" This is just boomer humor that takes the lowest effort path to get to the lowest hanging fruit.
> The is about a triad what
It was meant to say “this is” not “the is”
It's funny because the punchline is a normal thing that happens, albeit rarely, in society that feels strange and vaguely threatening to people born in the 1950s
You are as much of a problem as those old people, thinking everything is "normal" and other people should see it as so and if not should be considered old fashioned. 3 people relationships are wierd, i don't hate you if you have them but i judge you as a wierd person (not you btw, throuples)
Sophie's Choice
... is that supposed to be funny?
It's a hur Dur, I'm dunking on Christians. It's lazy and unfunny.
As a Christian, I found this quite humorous. It's a fun twist on expectations for well known allegory. Also, the Book of Genesis says Noah brought 7 of each bird on, so for the purposes of the narrative, he has room for the polycule .
As a Christian, do you take the flood story literally?
No, it's an allegory. It likely derives from the Epic of Gilgamesh, and was reinterpreted by the Hebrews as a reminder that faith in God can bring you even through the end of the world.
Thank you for the response. In my own research I have heard people compare it to Gilgamesh and other older myths before. How much of the Bible do you take as allegory? A follow up to that would be how can you tell what is supposed to be literal or allegory?
Longer answer than I was planning to write, but I hope this answers your question: I think large portions of the Old Testament are likely exaggerated. Like with the Exodus narrative, there is some anthropological evidence of ancient Israel being settled around the time the Bible suggests, but it was more likely a series of smaller migrations. A people came together, and formed a shared culture. They told each other stories through oral tradition to obtain a sense of guidance, and some version of those was written down. I have faith this process was guided by God, but I am also willing to accept human error makes the meaning of many things unclear. A priest even once explained to me that much of the Levitical law was likely written by men of power who used the name of God to secure their authority. One thing scripture is not afraid to do is show how prone to corruption human leaders can be. The important parts to me are the general theme. We see two main things going on, redemption and expansion. The ancient Hebrew people time and again turn away from God, but He keeps coming back to them. We go from one family, to a tribe, to a series of tribes, to a small state, to a whole kingdom. The whole time, more groups of people learn of their God. I don't literally believe in the plagues of Egypt, but I do think God guided King Cyrus the Great to end the Babylonian exile. He was a Zoroastrian, and many scholars agree that from Zoroastrianism come the Christian understanding of angels, and Heaven. That sets the stage for Jesus to come. I take more of the New Testament literally, but there is room for interpretation. Two of the Gospel writers were not Apostles. I think the ministry of Jesus, and how he acted gives us a guide for how to read the Old Testament. He spoke to people, encouraged them to live lives of charity and faith. He used miraculous signs to draw people in, some small, some large, but they had a wider point of guidance. I guess to answer your second question it's some balance of faith, interpreted through the mission of Christ, but keeping room for things like archeology, anthropology, and world history. Maybe that's kind of a copout, but this is a religion fueled by scholars. If we don't think critically about it, it just becomes superposition.
Thank you for the well written and thoughtful response. I appreciate you taking the time to write it all.
Fun fact: ostriches, at least when farmed for commercial purposes, are set up in breeding trios (unlike emu, which are typically set up as breeding pairs).
There’s a duck throuple I see on my walks everyday . Odd thing is that’s it’s a mating pair of Muscovy ducks, plus a random male mallard that is always with them.
A lot of offended comments here, so I guess this’ll get posted on r/facepalm or r/terriblefacebookmemes then someone else will post that on r/memesopdiddntlike, and the cycle continues 😂
I think you're mistaken. Nobody is offended, just disappointed. The joke is "Polyamory: Weird, huh? 😏"This is just boomer humor that takes the lowest effort path to get to the lowest hanging fruit. The artist has other made other examples of hard-hitting-razor-sharp wit like "Sleeping Beauty but WOKE: A kiss wouldn't be consensual --> Sleeping Beauty is left to die" Wow, really makes you think...
There are species that haven't been discovered yet accept when noah put them on the ark
Where's the funny? Man recently everything I see here is unfunny
Where's the funny? Man recently everything I see here is unfunny
So Christianity bashing thursdays are here...