PDA

View Full Version : Which is more believable: God or Global Warming


Pages : 1 [2]

C-Mac
04-15-2006, 10:33 PM
The only problem with your theory there is Science deals with what is, not what might be

Hmmmm....now that right there is funny I dont care who you are! ROFL

Count Zarth
04-15-2006, 10:39 PM
Let's not forget the spread of disease in such close quarters...

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 10:40 PM
How would this discredit him and how could that take anything away from his stated facts?

Let me put this in terms we can both relate to.

Greg Robinson has empirically proven himself to be an incompetent in the planning of theory of, and executing the role of Defensive Coordinator.

Why would you then use Greg Robinson's ideas and defensive framework as an authority on the subject?

Same thing applies here.

That, and the fact that this "scientists" allegations of fossils turning up globally in the wrong places in simply not true. A few here and there, that are yet to be explained, certainly. To the level he (wishfully) describes? That dog simply does not hunt.

One other little problem with the ark myth. Two of any species is an insufficent gene pool to propagate a species. Nor were there enough humans on board to insure a broad enough gene pool (even in Arkansas).

C-Mac
04-15-2006, 10:51 PM
What, prithee, does this have to do with anything, unless you're suggesting that the Earth was "leveled out"?

For the flood to have happened, the pre-flood sea basins obviously would have to have been shallower, and the mountains lower than they are now. Is it not plausible or remotely possible?
“Where the mountains of the world now tower to dizzy heights, oceans and plains once, millions of years ago, stretched out in flat monotony. . . . The movements of the continental plates cause the land both to rear up to heights where only the hardiest of animals and plants can survive and, at the other extreme, to plunge and lie in hidden splendor deep beneath the surface of the sea.”
Since the mountains and sea basins rise and fall, it is apparent that at one time the mountains were not as high as they are now and the great sea basins were not as deep. You asked what happened to the floodwaters after the flood? Possibly some of it drained into the sea basins. Scientists believe that the continents rest on huge plates. Movement of these plates can cause changes in the level of the earth’s surface. In some places today, there are great underwater abysses more than six miles deep at the plate boundaries. It is quite likely then, perhaps triggered by the Flood itself, that the plates moved, the sea bottom sank, and the great trenches opened, allowing some of the water to drain off the land. Is it a fairytale...maybe, but it is theoretically possible.

C-Mac
04-15-2006, 10:59 PM
Let me put this in terms we can both relate to.

Greg Robinson has empirically proven himself to be an incompetent in the planning of theory of, and executing the role of Defensive Coordinator.

Why would you then use Greg Robinson's ideas and defensive framework as an authority on the subject?

Same thing applies here.

That, and the fact that this "scientists" allegations of fossils turning up globally in the wrong places in simply not true. A few here and there, that are yet to be explained, certainly. To the level he (wishfully) describes? That dog simply does not hunt.

One other little problem with the ark myth. Two of any species is an insufficent gene pool to propagate a species. Nor were there enough humans on board to insure a broad enough gene pool (even in Arkansas).
I could have went a lifetime with out ever hearing Greg Robinsons name again. :cuss:

"A few here and there, that are yet to be explained, certainly.
Naaah....I would just toss little facts like that aside when he's not looking.

Two of any species is an insufficent gene pool to propagate a species
Well I happen to know that the song goes "it takes two baaabby, it takes two....just me and you"

BucEyedPea
04-15-2006, 11:00 PM
I have a bunch of cool Santorini pics:

http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/8661/santorini1388bj.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
.....
http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/4504/santorini0878rn.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Very nice. Came out better n' mine. Digital camera?
Seh looks like she's on the ferry...is she?

I've got mine enlarged and mounted on my wall.

C-Mac
04-15-2006, 11:01 PM
Let's not forget the spread of disease in such close quarters...

I'm pretty sure that sex with animals was strickly forbidden.

Adept Havelock
04-15-2006, 11:04 PM
it is theoretically possible.

My last post for the evening. Given those conditions, It might be theoretically possible. That said, it would have had to occurred at best, tens of millions of years ago to allow time for the processes you discribed to take place. As Homo Sapiens Sapiens is only at best, 500,000 years old, that automatically discredits the idea of a bunch of Homo Sapiens took a white water ride with two of every other creature.

It also doesn't address the pesky fact that none of the species on the "ark" (including the alleged humans) would have had an insufficently large gene pool to propagate.

Clearly, One can lead a creationist to Science, but one cannot make him think.

Count Zarth
04-15-2006, 11:04 PM
I'm pretty sure that sex with animals was strickly forbidden.

Ticks, fleas....etc

Count Zarth
04-15-2006, 11:05 PM
Hell according to the bible, ticks and fleas should have been on the ark, right?

Bad situation...

C-Mac
04-15-2006, 11:17 PM
Let me suggest you're kidding yourself. OUTSIDE the context of it being in the Bible, and people believing it on faith alone, no sane person would ever believe this story.
A few specific concerns:
how many chickens and cows would you need to feed the rest? No critter can repopulate itself that fast.
Ummm.... I did mention the part of storing food also didnt I? According to the bible they had 40 to 50 years to prepare.
How long ago was this, in order for the "kinds" to segregate themselves into Great Danes to Boston Terriers and everything in between, etc., for all lifeforms?.
Wow, I must have read it all wrong because I thought thats what biology and science teaches. I assumed that with the surgence of genetic DNA information available now, the door for such thought might have been more readily opened.
Frankly, it's all quite absurd outside of believing it on faith. I don't want to mock you for believing it on faith, but believe me when I say that arguing that it can be believed without faith is time wasted by you. FWIW I felt the same as you. The Catholic religion I was raised in also taught that the flood was a myth, but when I was older and finally read what was in the Catholic bible, I found where Jesus is quoted as saying that the flood was an actual event. Good or bad, it did spark me to do more research.

C-Mac
04-15-2006, 11:22 PM
My last post for the evening. Given those conditions, It might be theoretically possible. That said, it would have had to occurred at best, tens of millions of years ago to allow time for the processes you discribed to take place. As Homo Sapiens Sapiens is only at best, 500,000 years old, that automatically discredits the idea of a bunch of Homo Sapiens took a white water ride with two of every other creature.

It also doesn't address the pesky fact that none of the species on the "ark" (including the alleged humans) would have had an insufficently large gene pool to propagate.

Clearly, One can lead a creationist to Science, but one cannot make him think.
Better hope that whatever method your using for dating doesnt mislead you, them there is some awfully big numbers..... thinking boy.
:D

Dave Lane
04-15-2006, 11:22 PM
Ummm.... I did mention the part of storing food also didnt I? According to the bible they had 40 to 50 years to prepare.

Wow, I must have read it all wrong because I thought thats what biology and science teaches. I assumed that with the surgence of genetic DNA information available now, the door for such thought might have been more readily opened.
FWIW I felt the same as you. The Catholic religion I was raised in also taught that the flood was a myth, but when I was older and finally read what was in the Catholic bible, I found where Jesus is quoted as saying that the flood was an actual event. Good or bad, it did spark me to do more research.


How can you call the garbage you spew research? I did some research once with peyote mushrooms and even then I couldn't let go of reality in the manner you have.

Dave

C-Mac
04-15-2006, 11:23 PM
Ticks, fleas....etc
"Wheres your sense of humor dirtbag?!"

Dave Lane
04-15-2006, 11:27 PM
Agnostic, but leaning as heavily as you can toward atheism within agnosticism.

I find the Bible utterly implausible in many respects, and organized religion to be, in nearly all instances, a farce. That alone doesn't denigrate God, however, it just denigrates organized religion and a book that one particular relgion wrote.

I can't say God doesn't exist, so I won't. But I will say that it seems really damn unlikely to me that God exists, or if he does, that he gives a rat's ass about us. I can't see why, within the context of the universe that we know we live in, we'd be remotely significant to him...


I agree completely though I WILL say that the god of the bible does not exist. There could well be a god of sorts somewhere but I am not egotistical enough to think I am his image and the center of the 100s of billions of other planets that are out there.

Dave

C-Mac
04-15-2006, 11:31 PM
How can you call the garbage you spew research? I did some research once with peyote mushrooms and even then I couldn't let go of reality in the manner you have.
Dave


Dave you are so right..dude!
Thanks again for sharing all the wonderful educational enlightenments.
:thumb:

C-Mac
04-15-2006, 11:38 PM
I agree completely though I WILL say that the god of the bible does not exist. There could well be a god of sorts somewhere but I am not egotistical enough to think I am his image and the center of the 100s of billions of other planets that are out there.
Dave
........but you are egotistcal enough to say, with authority may I add, that the god of the bible doesnt exist.
:hmmm:

Dave Lane
04-15-2006, 11:41 PM
Copied Flood Story

Sounds familiar? – Forewarned by the gods of an impending flood, Utnapishtim builds an ark to house all living things and sends out birds to look for dry land.
– Deluge Tablet, Gilgamesh (Sumeria/Iraq 2750 BC).


"Several versions of the Sumerian Flood story have been found over the years, all of them pre-dating the Bible… the flood story in the Bible is obviously a legend, and a borrowed and garbled one at that."
Magnus Magnusson (The Archaeology of the Bible Lands-BC, pp 21-23)

Dave Lane
04-15-2006, 11:47 PM
The saga of Noah's Ark, one of the Bible's most enduring stories, has always been the subject of a tantalizing debate. If scientists could prove the Great Flood theory, might not evidence of Noah's Ark have survived? With that thought in mind, researchers keep combing the mountains of Ararat searching for Noah's Ark. Many actually claim to have seen it. Still others claim to have relics from it. Incredibly, two different modern-day Ark hunters claim they have found it...in two separate places...seventeen miles apart.

The story of Noah and his Ark are recorded in Genesis, the first book of the Bible. It says that as God looked upon the earth, He saw only wickedness and corruption. Unhappy with the way mankind had turned out, He decided to destroy the earth. He went to a righteous man named Noah and ordered him to build an ark, "the length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits."

(A cubit has generally been described as the distance between the point of a man's elbow and the tip of his middle finger, which seems to have been standardized at 17.72 inches, although another common linear unit was the royal cubit at 20.72 inches.)

Noah was to populate the Ark with two of each animal on earth. It then rained forty days and forty nights, but the waters remained on the earth for more than a year. When the Great Flood finally receded, the Ark came to rest on the mountains of Uratu, today known at Ararat---and historians have been searching ever since for the Great Boat.

Contrary to popular belief, the Bible was not the originator of the story of Noah and the Great Flood. In ancient Babylonia---and even more ancient Sumeria---the same story was recorded thousands of years before the Bible was written. The Babylonian poem, The Epic of Gilgamesh, has Utnapishtim acting on the instructions of his god, Ea, and building an ark of "seven stories" with "nine chambers" in each story. Utnapishtim then went into the ark with his sons, and his wife, and his wife's sons, before the waters of the flood. "All that I had, I caused to be put on board, the seed of many kinds of living creatures. I brought into the ship my family and all my kindred, herds and flocks of the fields, wild beast of the fields...."

The earlier Sumerian epic recorded that the god, Eki, warned the hero, Ziusudra, that the gods were angry with the people of the earth and were planning to destroy it in a flood. Ziusudra wisely began to build his ark. This tale is somewhat different from the Babylonian and Biblical accounts in that Eki did not warn Ziusudra directly. Since it was forbidden by the other gods for Eki to warn any mortal of the impending disaster, Eki bent the rules a little bit. He ordered Ziusudra to a nearby wall and spoke as the wall:

"O Ziusudra, man of Shurrupak
Pull down your house,
And build a boat.
Disdain your kingdom,
Forsake your goods,
And save your life."

C-Mac
04-15-2006, 11:54 PM
The saga of Noah's Ark, one of the Bible's most enduring stories, has always been the subject of a tantalizing debate. If scientists could prove the Great Flood theory, might not evidence of Noah's Ark have survived? With that thought in mind, researchers keep combing the mountains of Ararat searching for Noah's Ark. Many actually claim to have seen it. Still others claim to have relics from it. Incredibly, two different modern-day Ark hunters claim they have found it...in two separate places...seventeen miles apart.

The story of Noah and his Ark are recorded in Genesis, the first book of the Bible. It says that as God looked upon the earth, He saw only wickedness and corruption. Unhappy with the way mankind had turned out, He decided to destroy the earth. He went to a righteous man named Noah and ordered him to build an ark, "the length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits."

(A cubit has generally been described as the distance between the point of a man's elbow and the tip of his middle finger, which seems to have been standardized at 17.72 inches, although another common linear unit was the royal cubit at 20.72 inches.)

Noah was to populate the Ark with two of each animal on earth. It then rained forty days and forty nights, but the waters remained on the earth for more than a year. When the Great Flood finally receded, the Ark came to rest on the mountains of Uratu, today known at Ararat---and historians have been searching ever since for the Great Boat.

Contrary to popular belief, the Bible was not the originator of the story of Noah and the Great Flood. In ancient Babylonia---and even more ancient Sumeria---the same story was recorded thousands of years before the Bible was written. The Babylonian poem, The Epic of Gilgamesh, has Utnapishtim acting on the instructions of his god, Ea, and building an ark of "seven stories" with "nine chambers" in each story. Utnapishtim then went into the ark with his sons, and his wife, and his wife's sons, before the waters of the flood. "All that I had, I caused to be put on board, the seed of many kinds of living creatures. I brought into the ship my family and all my kindred, herds and flocks of the fields, wild beast of the fields...."

The earlier Sumerian epic recorded that the god, Eki, warned the hero, Ziusudra, that the gods were angry with the people of the earth and were planning to destroy it in a flood. Ziusudra wisely began to build his ark. This tale is somewhat different from the Babylonian and Biblical accounts in that Eki did not warn Ziusudra directly. Since it was forbidden by the other gods for Eki to warn any mortal of the impending disaster, Eki bent the rules a little bit. He ordered Ziusudra to a nearby wall and spoke as the wall:

"O Ziusudra, man of Shurrupak
Pull down your house,
And build a boat.
Disdain your kingdom,
Forsake your goods,
And save your life."

The biblical flood was to have happened in 2370 B.C which was before the city of Babylon was even formed.

Dave Lane
04-15-2006, 11:56 PM
All I really need explained to me is how 300,000 species of beetles from around the world were sorted by sex and age (so they didn't die on board) along with all the various food sources they would need were stored with 1,000,000s of plants. You would need a fleet of arks to handle the weight of all these species. Did they have cages for each of the beetles so they didn't cross species? How do you control 300,000 beetles many of whom eat each other unless you do so?

How do 8 people feed and muck all the animals and plants of the ark? Including making sure all the beetles have the right food sources each day?

Another for instance, that there is no known wood called "gopher wood," which is what the Bible says Noah used in the construction of his boat. I don't believe it is possible for all the species of the world to be represented on the Great Boat---that there is no possible way for eight people to feed and care for that many animals for the length of time the Ark was afloat. The sheer numbers and weight alone would overwhelm a fleet of Arks.

Dave

Dave Lane
04-16-2006, 12:01 AM
The biblical flood was to have happened in 2370 B.C which was before the city of Babylon was even formed.


Heres a hint 2750 BCE > 2370 BCE for age.

Also where is your proof for any of this really and how on earth do you know it was 2370 BCE that this flood happened?

Dave

C-Mac
04-16-2006, 12:02 AM
All I really need explained to me is how 300,000 species of beetles from around the world were sorted by sex and age (so they didn't die on board) along with all the various food sources they would need were stored with 1,000,000s of plants. You would need a fleet of arks to handle the weight of all these species. Did they have cages for each of the beetles so they didn't cross species? How do you control 300,000 beetles many of whom eat each other unless you do so?

How do 8 people feed and muck all the animals and plants of the ark? Including making sure all the beetles have the right food sources each day?

Another for instance, that there is no known wood called "gopher wood," which is what the Bible says Noah used in the construction of his boat. I don't believe it is possible for all the species of the world to be represented on the Great Boat---that there is no possible way for eight people to feed and care for that many animals for the length of time the Ark was afloat. The sheer numbers and weight alone would overwhelm a fleet of Arks.Dave

All I need explained to me is how do the littlest of seeds turn into these gigantic trees?

Dave Lane
04-16-2006, 12:07 AM
You honestly think most Christians take those kinds of stories, literally?


I think most do

Dave

Dave Lane
04-16-2006, 12:08 AM
I have a bunch of cool Santorini pics:




I have a bunch to from when I went there. Did you make it there as well?

Dave

Dave Lane
04-16-2006, 12:12 AM
All I need explained to me is how do the littlest of seeds turn into these gigantic trees?


So you can't answer the question? Cool I understand, it is a pretty indefensible position. Sorry to force you to admit that but it must feel freeing.

Or maybe you are claiming Noah picked out eggs of 300,000 beetles by sex and age so they wouldn't hatch on the journey! Now thats the greatest story yet!

Dave

C-Mac
04-16-2006, 12:13 AM
Heres a hint 2750 BCE > 2370 BCE for age.

Also where is your proof for any of this really and how on earth do you know it was 2370 BCE that this flood happened?

Dave

BTW If you look at any modern translations of the bible, they call it cypress wood not gopher wood.

2370 BCE is obviusly using bible chronology while attaching it to known secular history. If you want me to walk you thru the biblical proof of the date, I would gladly do so, but what would be the point since you discredit the bible anyway?

Amnorix
04-16-2006, 12:20 AM
BTW If you look at any modern translations of the bible, they call it cypress wood not gopher wood.

2370 BCE is obviusly using bible chronology while attaching it to known secular history. If you want me to walk you thru the biblical proof of the date, I would gladly do so, but what would be the point since you discredit the bible anyway?

Query -- is this ~4,370 years ago? If so, that severely discredits the "kind" idea. Not enough time for the various iterations of species to have developed from your basic Dad and Mom Dog, etc. ad infinitum.

C-Mac
04-16-2006, 12:25 AM
So you can't answer the question? Cool I understand, it is a pretty indefensible position. Sorry to force you to admit that but it must feel freeing.

Or maybe you are claiming Noah picked out eggs of 300,000 beetles by sex and age so they wouldn't hatch on the journey! Now thats the greatest story yet!

Dave
No I'm claiming that with all the vast knowledge known to mankind, including yourself, no one can explain why it is that a seed even grows.

I had explained your question in theory in my previous posts on this thread. Have you ever actually read the flood account in the bible?
The bible said to "gather every sort of flesh", insects are not considered flesh by bible standards.

Dave Lane
04-16-2006, 12:26 AM
BTW If you look at any modern translations of the bible, they call it cypress wood not gopher wood.

2370 BCE is obviusly using bible chronology while attaching it to known secular history. If you want me to walk you thru the biblical proof of the date, I would gladly do so, but what would be the point since you discredit the bible anyway?


Biblical proof? Now theres an oxymoron ROFL

Apart from the bible show me any proof of any part of the fable of Noah.

Really you should pick your battles. Noah and Jonah are the most ridiculous of all the stories there are. Try to defend david and goliath or something thats more of a challenge.

Dave

Dave Lane
04-16-2006, 12:29 AM
With apologies to those who take their Bible seriously. This is not intended to be a piece of Biblical scholarship, but a piece mocking those who take the story of Noah and the ark literally, especially those who try to defend the literal story by scholarship or arkeological finds. (If I were to approach this subject as a scholar, I would trace the origin of the Biblical myth to its Sumerian/Akkadian/Babylonian origins. Read the Enuma Elish, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and Homer Smith's Man and His Gods.) Please don't tell me that insects weren't included because they breathe through tubes rather than nostrils or that since Noah only needed two of each type of animal he didn't need 2 donkeys, horses, and zebras, etc. Also, I realize that Noah's God is omnipotent, so Noah could accomplish any task as long as the Omnipotent One directs the show. No task would have been too difficult. And even though metallurgy was not being applied to shipbuilding in Noah's time the way it is with today's supertankers, I realize that despite the weird chronology used by literalists (creation in 4004 BCE), Noah must have lived in or after the Bronze Age and that his boat could have had a lot of metal in it. But I do not take the story literally, do not believe Noah was a real 600-year-old guy, and certainly do not believe he built a boat to hold animals while God flooded the world. It's a nice story for unsophisticated nomads of ancient times and for kids today, but excuse me if I can't take it seriously enough to be Biblical in my scholarship. Think about it. God is supposed to be perfect, yet he gets so angry with his creation he kills almost everybody and everything. Anger is an imperfection. We're supposed to be grateful he let a few folks live and they just happened to be his favorites, the ancestors of the chosen people, who just happened to compose and pass on the story.

Those of you who don't find Bible stories preposterous, but truthful will love the Creation Museum, where you can learn all about how Adam rode a dinosaur before he was kicked out of the Garden of Eden and how the Grand Canyon was formed by Noah's flood. One of the highlights of the museum will be a reconstruction of the interior of Noah's ark.

C-Mac
04-16-2006, 12:34 AM
Query -- is this ~4,370 years ago? If so, that severely discredits the "kind" idea. Not enough time for the various iterations of species to have developed from your basic Dad and Mom Dog, etc. ad infinitum.

Your basing this on what information? Have you ever heard of a Liger ?

InvisibleCloudBein
04-16-2006, 12:34 AM
Wow.

You will find that accross the board, the people who argue loudly and dismissively against most scientific theories or facts are almost always those who know very little about it. Evolution and Global warming are argued as political issues by those people, just like taxes or morals or government funding, things with two sides or shades of grey.

For scientists, they are scientific issues based on empirical evidence, not political points of view. A scientist feels no need to argue with someone who understands the issue either on a very superficial level ("The earth has always had periods of warming and cooling for millions of years, so global warming is a farce!") or who doesn't really understand it at all ("A single cell evolving into a human being is like tons of scrap in a junkyard randomly becoming a 747!"). For an evolutionary biologist to argue about creationism and a 8000 year old earth is like a mathematician arguing with someone who thinks algebra or calculus is a lie, a conspiracy by mathematicians, or some other kind of evil. What's the point?

Besides, like someone said, God and global warming/evolution aren't mutually exclusive, and in some ways makes God bigger and more powerful than the Bible does, IMO.

BTW, love the serious defense of Noah and his ark. Must have been an amazing boat. Great comedy.

InvisibleCloudBein
04-16-2006, 12:41 AM
And about the seeds, it has absolutely been explained how a seed becomes a tree. Take a plant biology class and you will get all the meticulous detail you need. It's logical and backed buy tons and tons of facts and evidence, thousands of different times.

C-Mac
04-16-2006, 12:47 AM
Wow.

You will find that accross the board, the people who argue loudly and dismissively against most scientific theories or facts are almost always those who know very little about it. Evolution and Global warming are argued as political issues by those people, just like taxes or morals or government funding, things with two sides or shades of grey.

For scientists, they are scientific issues based on empirical evidence, not political points of view. A scientist feels no need to argue with someone who understands the issue either on a very superficial level ("The earth has always had periods of warming and cooling for millions of years, so global warming is a farce!") or who doesn't really understand it at all ("A single cell evolving into a human being is like tons of scrap in a junkyard randomly becoming a 747!"). For an evolutionary biologist to argue about creationism and a 8000 year old earth is like a mathematician arguing with someone who thinks algebra or calculus is a lie, a conspiracy by mathematicians, or some other kind of evil. What's the point?

Besides, like someone said, God and global warming/evolution aren't mutually exclusive, and in some ways makes God bigger and more powerful than the Bible does, IMO.

BTW, love the serious defense of Noah and his ark. Must have been an amazing boat. Great comedy.

If it did exist, it most definitely would have been one of the most amazing ships ever built. If it was accurate to say that according to the bible that the earth was only 8000 years old....I'd laugh right along with you. The science I know is about trying to prove something or disprove something using plausible hypothesis or theories.

InvisibleCloudBein
04-16-2006, 01:05 AM
C-Mac,

I think science is about the quest for knowledge and truthful understanding of the world, universe, and the things in it. Individual experiments often have a hypothesis that is tested to either support or reject it. The 8000 years (maybe it should be 6000) was a reference to something I read once that if you traced the generations in the Bible back from Jesus to Adam you came up with sometime in 6006 BC (maybe it was 4004) for the 6 days when the Big Guy did his thing and then rested for a day.

C-Mac
04-16-2006, 01:15 AM
C-Mac,

I think science is about the quest for knowledge and truthful understanding of the world, universe, and the things in it. Individual experiments often have a hypothesis that is tested to either support or reject it. The 8000 years (maybe it should be 6000) was a reference to something I read once that if you traced the generations in the Bible back from Jesus to Adam you came up with sometime in 6006 BC (maybe it was 4004) for the 6 days when the Big Guy did his thing and then rested for a day.
My point was that the bible doesnt suggest a 8000 or 6000 year old planet, only religions do. The second scripture in Genesis states:
"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep"
Now who can say how long this could have been going on? Millions of years quite posssibly.

InvisibleCloudBein
04-16-2006, 01:42 AM
Okay, regardless, it seems highly improbable that the Noah's arc story is true (the understatement of the week). The water in the poles is wayyyy less than the amount of water needed to drown everything including the Himalayas, just to cite one problem. Plate tectonics is slow, the uplift of mountains and erosion of them happens over many millions of years, so in Noah's time all mountains would have been within a dozen feet or so of their current height. The water to needed to put everything underwater is like 3 or 5 X the total water in the oceans, and like 100 X the water in glaciers and the poles. I could go on and on but don't want to. It seems you have to buy into once one huge stretch of an assumption after the other (i.e. equating the differentiation of Garfield, cheetahs and Bengal tigers to the origin of the different breeds of a single species of dog and that it could all happen in 370 days, saying the mountains and oceans were drastically different then, attributing fossils found far from where the animals lived as support for the arK story, etc.) It's just so many reaches and weird assumptions, that's why I said "Great Comedy". The defense of the theory, with the statements made in complete seriousness, made me laugh. No offense.

htismaqe
04-16-2006, 04:36 AM
I still can't believe that people who line up on the side of "science" are arguing about plate techtonics and there not being enough water in the polar ice caps to flood the planet.

FYI, the ancient Israelites (or any other ancient civilization that believes there was a flood) didn't KNOW there was a planet. To them, the "world" was a few thousand square miles near the Tigris and Euprates...

C-Mac
04-16-2006, 06:58 AM
Okay, regardless, it seems highly improbable that the Noah's arc story is true (the understatement of the week). The water in the poles is wayyyy less than the amount of water needed to drown everything including the Himalayas, just to cite one problem. Plate tectonics is slow, the uplift of mountains and erosion of them happens over many millions of years, so in Noah's time all mountains would have been within a dozen feet or so of their current height. The water to needed to put everything underwater is like 3 or 5 X the total water in the oceans, and like 100 X the water in glaciers and the poles. I could go on and on but don't want to. It seems you have to buy into once one huge stretch of an assumption after the other (i.e. equating the differentiation of Garfield, cheetahs and Bengal tigers to the origin of the different breeds of a single species of dog and that it could all happen in 370 days, saying the mountains and oceans were drastically different then, attributing fossils found far from where the animals lived as support for the arK story, etc.) It's just so many reaches and weird assumptions, that's why I said "Great Comedy". The defense of the theory, with the statements made in complete seriousness, made me laugh. No offense.

That's cool. Couple of worthy notes though, there are still many unexplainable events and facts that could easily be explained with a global flood. It has an extremely far less range of reach and far less range of assumptiom than the scientifically accepted "theory of evolution". Therefore it cannot be the considered the "Greatest Comedy" when these two theory's are viewed in comparison.

Amnorix
04-16-2006, 08:52 AM
I still can't believe that people who line up on the side of "science" are arguing about plate techtonics and there not being enough water in the polar ice caps to flood the planet.

FYI, the ancient Israelites (or any other ancient civilization that believes there was a flood) didn't KNOW there was a planet. To them, the "world" was a few thousand square miles near the Tigris and Euprates...

I have no problem with a regional flood. That part is fne. I've still got issues with hte Ark and all that, however.

Dave Lane
04-16-2006, 09:05 AM
That's cool. Couple of worthy notes though, there are still many unexplainable events and facts that could easily be explained with a global flood. It has an extremely far less range of reach and far less range of assumptiom than the scientifically accepted "theory of evolution". Therefore it cannot be the considered the "Greatest Comedy" when these two theory's are viewed in comparison.


There are facts that substantiate evolution everywhere. Evolution is fact. Now explain about these unexplainable fossils dropped off by Noah after the ark came to rest?

Dave

Dave Lane
04-16-2006, 09:11 AM
I still can't believe that people who line up on the side of "science" are arguing about plate techtonics and there not being enough water in the polar ice caps to flood the planet.

FYI, the ancient Israelites (or any other ancient civilization that believes there was a flood) didn't KNOW there was a planet. To them, the "world" was a few thousand square miles near the Tigris and Euprates...


They are missing the point by arguing semantics instead of the fact that to flood that region alone to a depth ot 16800 feet is impossible. Drainage from the area would not allow it to happen period. Either the world flooded to that depth or nothng did. It couldn't possibly rain 16800 feet of rain in 40 days and that is without any drainage whatsoever. Plus it was almost a year that the earth was still covered. Impossible.

Dave

C-Mac
04-16-2006, 09:24 AM
There are facts that substantiate evolution everywhere. Evolution is fact. Now explain about these unexplainable fossils dropped off by Noah after the ark came to rest?

Dave

ROFL
Case closed! Wonder why it's so controversial then? :hmmm:

stevieray
04-16-2006, 09:29 AM
Dave

God is winning.

Dave Lane
04-16-2006, 09:29 AM
ROFL
Case closed! Wonder why it's so controversial then? :hmmm:


Its not.

Dave

Dave Lane
04-16-2006, 09:29 AM
Dave

God is winning.


ROFL

Nice Stevie!

Dave

stevieray
04-16-2006, 09:32 AM
Today is a Glorious day.

C-Mac
04-16-2006, 09:39 AM
Its not.

Dave

Hmmm...well then explain how this great rise in homosexuality among humans fits within your evolution ladder? If completely attained, the end result would remove the human species.

tiptap
04-16-2006, 09:42 AM
One can't have the world flooded by just rain. Most young world creationist realize that the rate of rain fall in 40 days to produce that much water would be like having an hydraulic pump pummeling the world all over. The ark wouldn't even survive that intense of rainfall. And if that mass of water had existed in the atmosphere then the weight represented by that mass of water would already put people under atmospheric pressures that exist under the depth of the oceans. No they have to get the water from geysers and underwater sources that squirt up as the earth collapses helping to form mountains and flooding the surface.

The question I always have is why we don't still have trilobytes. They were oceanic creatures. They like fish, whales, clams and coral should have survived but we don't have any. . . unicorns and dinosaurs on land maybe didn't make the boat but all of the diversity represented in the fossil record from the ocean should have.

Dave Lane
04-16-2006, 09:46 AM
Today is a Glorious day.


Yes it is I have risen!

Dave

ROFL

tiptap
04-16-2006, 09:47 AM
And C-man you mean to say insects didn't make it on the boat and yet they somehow survived the flood? How did that work? Without bees or some insects the pollination of plants can't take place. And on that score how did the diversity in plants survive the flood?

Dave Lane
04-16-2006, 09:51 AM
Tiptap

No offense here we basically agree this is impossible but getting caught up in the explanation of insignificant points blurs the answer to the main questions. Who cares about trilobites where did the water come from? and no 4000 years ago there was no difference in plate teutonics that could account for the oceans being shallower. Maybe 200 million years ago.

Dave

Dave Lane
04-16-2006, 09:53 AM
You would have had to had all living land plants and all insects as well. Immersion under water for a year would have killed them all.

Dave

C-Mac
04-16-2006, 10:01 AM
And C-man you mean to say insects didn't make it on the boat and yet they somehow survived the flood? How did that work? Without bees or some insects the pollination of plants can't take place. And on that score how did the diversity in plants survive the flood?

Why would that be an issue? Seeds and perennials can store in the ground for a year. Its not uncommon to see life pop out of the bottom of a lake bed. According to the bible, there was no request to gather the insects. Think of the 40 year span it took to build the 1.4 million cubic foot cargo ship. If the story were true, it would only be logical that they could have gathered themselves...they do on any project I'm working on.

htismaqe
04-16-2006, 10:15 AM
There are facts that substantiate evolution everywhere. Evolution is fact. Now explain about these unexplainable fossils dropped off by Noah after the ark came to rest?

Dave

Evolution is fact. ROFL

Dave Lane
04-16-2006, 10:16 AM
Are you seriously saying all insects of he world just "gathered" on the ark because it was there for 40 years?

Dave

htismaqe
04-16-2006, 10:17 AM
They are missing the point by arguing semantics instead of the fact that to flood that region alone to a depth ot 16800 feet is impossible. Drainage from the area would not allow it to happen period. Either the world flooded to that depth or nothng did. It couldn't possibly rain 16800 feet of rain in 40 days and that is without any drainage whatsoever. Plus it was almost a year that the earth was still covered. Impossible.

Dave

Who says it was rain? Read the earlier part of this thread. I have no problem with those who would like to discredit the historical accuracy of the Bible. But would you care to explain why nearly ALL ancient Mediterranean/Mesopotamian civilizations have a flood myth?

Dave Lane
04-16-2006, 10:17 AM
Evolution is fact. ROFL


Yes it is thanks for the agreement. I alway appreciate support.

Dave

Dave Lane
04-16-2006, 10:18 AM
Evolution is fact.


Yes it is thanks for the agreement. I always appreciate support.

Dave

htismaqe
04-16-2006, 10:21 AM
I'm gonna steer this thread off-course for a minute, but I really have to understand something.

Why is it so important for skeptical scientists to prove God doesn't exist? For those of you like Adept, or even Dave, why is it so important for you that God isn't part of the equation?

From my perspective of reading this thread, it seems to me that the idea of an all-powerful being represents a threat to your world view. Why else would you fight the idea so vehemently? After all, you choose to believe there is no God. However, your actions here would suggest quite the opposite.

Dave Lane
04-16-2006, 10:25 AM
Evolution is fact.


Yes it is thanks for the agreement. I always appreciate support.

Dave

stevieray
04-16-2006, 10:28 AM
I'm gonna steer this thread off-course for a minute, but I really have to understand something.

Why is it so important for skeptical scientists to prove God doesn't exist? For those of you like Adept, or even Dave, why is it so important for you that God isn't part of the equation?

From my perspective of reading this thread, it seems to me that the idea of an all-powerful being represents a threat to your world view. Why else would you fight the idea so vehemently? After all, you choose to believe there is no God. However, your actions here would suggest quite the opposite.

Exactly. I've said the same thing...they spend more time selling their brand of salvation than the believers do.

htismaqe
04-16-2006, 10:34 AM
Yes it is thanks for the agreement. I alway appreciate support.

Dave

Even the hardcore scientists here are gonna have a laugh at your expense.

Dave Lane
04-16-2006, 10:37 AM
I'm gonna steer this thread off-course for a minute, but I really have to understand something.

Why is it so important for skeptical scientists to prove God doesn't exist? For those of you like Adept, or even Dave, why is it so important for you that God isn't part of the equation?

From my perspective of reading this thread, it seems to me that the idea of an all-powerful being represents a threat to your world view. Why else would you fight the idea so vehemently? After all, you choose to believe there is no God. However, your actions here would suggest quite the opposite.


For me its much like the Matrix. There are all these people out there that are living and believing an obvious lie. Much like Morpheus I would like people to see the world for what it really is instead of rule filled cult full of fantasy and magic. It is so silly that we just hang on to some religion (and really its any of them) just because it is what we learned as a child.

The more you study it the more you read about religion historically and from reading the "bibles" of other religions the more you realize it is just stories trying to explain the unknowns of life. Mostly the big 3. Where did we come from, why are we here, and where are we going after we die?

Thats all religion is. A method of trying to understand these parts of life plus comfort that we will see our dead relatives / friends / pets again in a better place. It gives false hope to people of a "better" life if they just follow a parcel of rules laid out by others.

I really don't care that there are xtians. I really do resent people who argue for things as stupid as noahs ark and that evolution does not exist. Its insulting and utterly ridiculous when we can see it happen with germs in virtually real time.

Dave

Adept Havelock
04-16-2006, 10:37 AM
I'm gonna steer this thread off-course for a minute, but I really have to understand something.

Why is it so important for skeptical scientists to prove God doesn't exist? For those of you like Adept, or even Dave, why is it so important for you that God isn't part of the equation?

From my perspective of reading this thread, it seems to me that the idea of an all-powerful being represents a threat to your world view. Why else would you fight the idea so vehemently? After all, you choose to believe there is no God. However, your actions here would suggest quite the opposite.

You misunderstand me. I'm not trying to sell anything, nor "evangalizing" athiesm. I believe you are confusing me with Dave Lane and his "approach" to the issue. As I've said before, I am utterly indifferent if you personally choose to believe in God, Allah, Zeus, Odin, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I do take issue with misrepresentations of Science. In this thread, I've only refuted nonsenscial statements that pertain directly to Science, and on one occasion, shared a couple of quotes on the subject of religion with someone with a similar viewpoint.

My last comment on the subject (for now, as it is a beliver's holiday, and I wish to show some level of respect, though I personally do not believe):

There is no room for the "Supernatural" in Natural Science. Attempts to use Science to prove the Supernatural is the height of absurdity.

As I've said elsewhere in this thread: Science cannot "disprove" the existence of God, anymore than it can prove it. Science is based in large part on logic, and by the rules of logic, one cannot prove a negative. The statement "Prove something does not exist" is at best, a philosophical absurdity.

Does that answer your question?

Dave Lane
04-16-2006, 10:38 AM
Even the hardcore scientists here are gonna have a laugh at your expense.


Explain how evolution is NOT fact?

Dave

htismaqe
04-16-2006, 10:41 AM
Explain how evolution is NOT fact?

Dave

Ask Charles Darwin...

stevieray
04-16-2006, 10:42 AM
For me its much like the Matrix. There are all these people out there that are living and believing an obvious lie. Much like Morpheus I would like people to see the world for what it really is instead of rule filled cult full of fantasy and magic. It is so silly that we just hang on to some religion (and really its any of them) just because it is what we learned as a child.

The more you study it the more you read about religion historically and from reading the "bibles" of other religions the more you realize it is just stories trying to explain the unknowns of life. Mostly the big 3. Where did we come from, why are we here, and where are we going after we die?

Thats all religion is. A method of trying to understand these parts of life plus comfort that we will see our dead relatives / friends / pets again in a better place. It gives false hope to people of a "better" life if they just follow a parcel of rules laid out by others.

I really don't care that there are xtians. I really do resent people who argue for things as stupid as noahs ark and that evolution does not exist. Its insulting and utterly ridiculous when we can see it happen with germs in virtually real time.

Dave

There is no such thing as false hope.

htismaqe
04-16-2006, 10:43 AM
For me its much like the Matrix. There are all these people out there that are living and believing an obvious lie. Much like Morpheus I would like people to see the world for what it really is instead of rule filled cult full of fantasy and magic. It is so silly that we just hang on to some religion (and really its any of them) just because it is what we learned as a child.

The more you study it the more you read about religion historically and from reading the "bibles" of other religions the more you realize it is just stories trying to explain the unknowns of life. Mostly the big 3. Where did we come from, why are we here, and where are we going after we die?

Thats all religion is. A method of trying to understand these parts of life plus comfort that we will see our dead relatives / friends / pets again in a better place. It gives false hope to people of a "better" life if they just follow a parcel of rules laid out by others.

I really don't care that there are xtians. I really do resent people who argue for things as stupid as noahs ark and that evolution does not exist. Its insulting and utterly ridiculous when we can see it happen with germs in virtually real time.

Dave

That's just silly. For you to actually take offense at such things suggests an agenda other than simply "not believing".

Dave Lane
04-16-2006, 10:45 AM
There is no such thing as false hope.


When its not true then its false hope. But then again you have a point if it makes a person feel better whats the real harm?

Dave

Dave Lane
04-16-2006, 10:46 AM
That's just silly. For you to actually take offense at such things suggests an agenda other than simply "not believing".


Would you take offense if I said the Chiefs are a figment of your imagination and they don't exist?

Dave

Adept Havelock
04-16-2006, 10:47 AM
But then again you have a point if it makes a person feel better whats the real harm?

Dave


Bingo, Dave!

IMO, Religion has (like most things in this world) caused, and been used for, both good and ill.

Some choose to find comfort in Faith. Other's like myself prefer to take a skeptical approch. It's not necessarily a zero sum game. Two different lenses to view the world, that's all.

stevieray
04-16-2006, 10:47 AM
When its not true then its false hope. But then again you have a point if it makes a person feel better whats the real harm?

Dave

please show me the definiton of false hope.

htismaqe
04-16-2006, 10:48 AM
You misunderstand me. I'm not trying to sell anything, nor "evangalizing" athiesm. I believe you are confusing me with Dave Lane and his "approach" to the issue. As I've said before, I am utterly indifferent if you personally choose to believe in God, Allah, Zeus, Odin, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I do take issue with misrepresentations of Science. In this thread, I've only refuted nonsenscial statements that pertain directly to Science, and on one occasion, shared a couple of quotes on the subject of religion with someone with a similar viewpoint.

My last comment on the subject (for now, as it is a beliver's holiday, and I wish to show some level of respect, though I personally do not believe):

There is no room for the "Supernatural" in Natural Science. Attempts to use Science to prove the Supernatural is the height of absurdity.

As I've said elsewhere in this thread: Science cannot "disprove" the existence of God, anymore than it can prove it. Science is based in large part on logic, and by the rules of logic, one cannot prove a negative. The statement "Prove something does not exist" is at best, a philosophical absurdity.

Does that answer your question?

Yeah, you probably weren't the right person to pick on.

There just seems to be some here (and in the general public) that get offended at the NOTION that there's a God. Mind you, nobody is asking them to DO anything, like go to church or anything. Just the simple statement "I believe in Jesus Christ" starts them off on an anti-Christian rant.

And I don't understand it. After all, if one doesn't believe there is a God, why would one fight it so vehemently? Why wouldn't one just shrug it off and move on to something else?

Count Zarth
04-16-2006, 10:49 AM
please show me the definiton of false hope.

http://www.pantherfanz.net/PHOTOS/2004/2004_Chiefs/2004_Chiefs45.JPG

stevieray
04-16-2006, 10:50 AM
And I don't understand it. After all, if one doesn't believe there is a God, why would one fight it so vehemently? Why wouldn't one just shrug it off and move on to something else?

Pride.

htismaqe
04-16-2006, 10:50 AM
Would you take offense if I said the Chiefs are a figment of your imagination and they don't exist?

Dave

Certainly not. I'd think you were a complete moron, but I wouldn't take offense.

And I should remind you, nobody is telling you your scientific reality doesn't exist. It's you that's trying to disprove someone else's reality.

stevieray
04-16-2006, 10:50 AM
http://www.pantherfanz.net/PHOTOS/2004/2004_Chiefs/2004_Chiefs45.JPG

try again.

Dave Lane
04-16-2006, 10:51 AM
please show me the definiton of false hope.


Believing that something will come true that is not possible.

Dave

Dave Lane
04-16-2006, 10:52 AM
Stevie

I refuse to believe it all done on Photoshop!! ROFL

Dave

stevieray
04-16-2006, 10:53 AM
Believing that something will come true that is not possible.

Dave

try again. you are talking about believing, not hoping.

there is no such thing as false hope.

Dave Lane
04-16-2006, 10:55 AM
Parker,

I agree sometimes I become too zealous in my role of Morpheus from the Matrix. I just read the best book ever on the subject and maybe its coloring my view of the subject plus I've been home sick with the flu for the last week and a half so I've had more time and inclination to pursue these threads. I suppose the same thing could be said for the "believers" why do they care and argue for any of his?

Dave

Dave Lane
04-16-2006, 10:56 AM
try again. you are talking about believing, not hoping.

there is no such thing as false hope.


OK we'll compromise and call it false belief. That one OK?

Dave

htismaqe
04-16-2006, 10:57 AM
Believing that something will come true that is not possible.

Dave

The failure of a positive outcome to materialize at the end does not invalidate the journey.

htismaqe
04-16-2006, 10:58 AM
Parker,

I agree sometimes I become too zealous in my role of Morpheus from the Matrix. I just read the best book ever on the subject and maybe its coloring my view of the subject plus I've been home sick with the flu for the last week and a half so I've had more time and inclination to pursue these threads. I suppose the same thing could be said for the "believers" why do they care and argue for any of his?

Dave

Because it's the very foundation of the reason why they're here on this planet...

Adept Havelock
04-16-2006, 11:03 AM
Yeah, you probably weren't the right person to pick on.

It's OK, my good sir. I can't get too upset at anyone with a Terrance Stamp avatar, combined with that saying. :thumb:


There just seems to be some here (and in the general public) that get offended at the NOTION that there's a God. Mind you, nobody is asking them to DO anything, like go to church or anything. Just the simple statement "I believe in Jesus Christ" starts them off on an anti-Christian rant.

And I don't understand it. After all, if one doesn't believe there is a God, why would one fight it so vehemently? Why wouldn't one just shrug it off and move on to something else?

I find it a bit curious myself. I take umbrage with misrepresentations of Science, but that's just "my thing."

Ironically, I suspect that the motivation is similar to that of those of faith who for some reason feel a need to find "evidence" to reinforce their faith. (Creation "Science" for example). Not being in the head of those "offended" by the possibility of a creator, I can't really speak as an authority on the subject, it's JMO.

I hold a similar view of religion to, for example, Amnorix and Dave Lane and contrary to Mr. Kotter or Chief4ever (all of whom with I have had a number of interesting discussions on the subject). That said, DL feels a need to "promote" that viewpoint which I do not. I can't, and wouldn't speak to his motivations, but I think he explained why he feels that need a couple of times.

As for those that scream everytime the word "God" comes up, I find them as absurd as those who claim that religion is under some grave threat. Extremism on both sides of this issue is nothing new, in my experience. Both sides have plenty of those that want to play the victim card in order to further their own agendas.

Well, I'm off to spend a day with the family. Hope everyone has a nice holiday!

htismaqe
04-16-2006, 11:13 AM
I find it a bit curious myself. I take umbrage with misrepresentations of Science, but that's just "my thing."

Ironically, I suspect that the motivation is similar to that of those of faith who for some reason feel a need to find "evidence" to reinforce their faith. (Creation "Science" for example). Not being in the head of those "offended" by the possibility of a creator, I can't really speak as an authority on the subject, it's JMO.

I hold a similar view of religion to, for example, Amnorix and Dave Lane and contrary to Mr. Kotter or Chief4ever (all of whom with I have had a number of interesting discussions on the subject). That said, DL feels a need to "promote" that viewpoint which I do not. I can't, and wouldn't speak to his motivations, but I think he explained why he feels that need a couple of times.

As for those that scream everytime the word "God" comes up, I find them as absurd as those who claim that religion is under some grave threat. Extremism on both sides of this issue is nothing new, in my experience. Both sides have plenty of those that want to play the victim card in order to further their own agendas.

Well, I'm off to spend a day with the family. Hope everyone has a nice holiday!

I honestly don't understand Creation science. People who truly "believe" shouldn't need it.

In fact, even though I'm more of a skeptic myself, I would think that trying to discover the secrets of God through science flies in the face of faith and the intentions of Christianity as I understand them.

stevieray
04-16-2006, 11:27 AM
I honestly don't understand Creation science. People who truly "believe" shouldn't need it.




good point.

Science only goes so far, and then there's God.

Your life has to have purpose, or what is the use?

How many billions of people? Only eight blood types. 99/% of our DNA is identical, it's that one percent that makes us individuals.

C-Mac
04-16-2006, 11:30 AM
I honestly don't understand Creation science. People who truly "believe" shouldn't need it.

In fact, even though I'm more of a skeptic myself, I would think that trying to discover the secrets of God through science flies in the face of faith and the intentions of Christianity as I understand them.

Religion as a hole has many issues, so the only way that I could come to know the God of the bible was simply to read it myself. I really enjoy science and when applicable I used science to help me reinforce my understanding or realign my understanding, thus I found the bible is credible in many ways. Sure the flood can raise some scientific questions but even if they found the ark itself, it would not matter to someone like Dave who allows movies to mold their thinking and reasons on things in the manner he does.