The "Religion" thread

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Oct 25 2009, 04:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

If the bible is true;

(1) How can we see galaxies that are millions of light years away? Surely their light wouldn't be here yet as the universe is not old enough?
(2) How will one third of the stars fall to the ground in the end of days? Surely the stars are larger than the Earth, and the first one that comes near our planet will vapourise it instantly.
(3) Do you believe the great flood occured
(4) Why did god create the earth and only turn on the lights the next day. Surely it would have been smarter to turn the lights on on day one, and work in better conditions. Not exactly scientific, but kinda stupid.[/b]

There's been this ongoing thing of we don't need to disproof your theory because of lack of proof + reason, well that's not only unscientific but also pretty darn easy now isn't it... I imagine the majority in scientists doesn't have that great a track record one man shouts the world is round the rest of Science say "It's Flat!". Don't drain out the blood to heal a person "Science screamed bleed him! bleed him!". Same goes for gravity, and even the four minute mile! Before there was proof people were talking about how the scientific view on these things were wrong and again science 'gently' (yea right, more like a school yard bully!) shouldered them of! Don't tell me now there was proof because at first there was none!

Then I want to mention Mother Theresa... and from there leave the ball in your camp because yes, surely she didn't give a rat's backside for any of those people but only did it because she was scared...

Then I want to mention that I loved going out to those settlements and feeding schemes, sometimes it was difficult, there were smells and dead animals and boils and puss on kids that are hugging you, but you have to look beyond that. The Bible gives us guidelines such as love the unlovely, not meaning do this or go to hell, but do this because these are the people God cares about!

(1) despite what we have been taught a few years ago in high school science, the speed of light is only a reasonably normal and stable environment, ever been out to the universe? no neither have i but your boys tell me it's pretty much not normal or stable... Both Switzerland and America have (in a lab) slowed down and sped up light.
(2) See this comes down to that old interpretation thing again, people think it's up to them to interpret the bible, it's not the Bible is a handbook to interpreting itself, The great Dragon (speaking of Lucifer), allready caused a third of the stars (speaking of the Angels) to fall... to earth... This is a theological and not Scientific question if you want more on it I have books, but I'm not wasting my time debating this as a Scientific Question!
(3) Fossilized Sea Shells on every major mountain series in the world, sediment layers, trees fossilized with their roots up!... yea I believe in a great flood and yes i've got an answer for the "animals in twosies" as well but please it's too damn long i type very slow!
(4) Not exactly scientific, just kinda stupid... (God is light, guess what there won't be a sun in heaven either, and there will be no night!)

Sorry if this seems a bit agro, but there are two science camps! and it's by terminology and not science that you try and sink your opponents!

 

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 12:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

(3) Fossilized Sea Shells on every major mountain series in the world, sediment layers, trees fossilized with their roots up!... yea I believe in a great flood and yes i've got an answer for the "animals in twosies" as well but please it's too damn long i type very slow![/b]

You mean it's not because all of the Earth's continents have at some time been underwater thanks to plate tectonics? Please do tell your answer to animal twosies...

 

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 26 2009, 01:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 12:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(3) Fossilized Sea Shells on every major mountain series in the world, sediment layers, trees fossilized with their roots up!... yea I believe in a great flood and yes i've got an answer for the "animals in twosies" as well but please it's too damn long i type very slow![/b]

You mean it's not because all of the Earth's continents have at some time been underwater thanks to plate tectonics? Please do tell your answer to animal twosies...
[/b][/quote]

No it's not, the movement of tectonic plates are supposed to have taken a little more than the time a egg takes to boil... all these things needed catastrophe not slow movements of Tectonic plates... a global flood seems like a good catastrophe!

Small Quote on well known dimensions for the Arc:

The displacement tonnage of the ark, which is the weight of water it would displace at a draught of 15 cubits, would be more than 22,000 tons. By comparison the U.S.S. Salem, a 716-foot-long heavy cruiser commissioned in 1949, has a displacement tonnage of 21,500 tons. The ark's gross tonnage which is a measure of cubic space (100 cubic feet is one gross ton) would be 15,100 tons. The ark's total volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet. This would equal the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars. The standard size for a stock car is 44 feet long and a volume of 2670 cubic feet. This would make a train more than 5 ½ miles long. The floor space for the ark would be over 101,000 square feet. This would be more floor space than 21 standard college basketball courts. By comparing the measurements of the ark it is easy to see that it would be comparable to today's ocean going vessels. It was probably the largest vessel of its type built until the late 1800's when metal ships were first constructed.

Also well documented: You could fit two (for 'unclean') and/or seven (for 'clean') of the last "five million" years known different "kinds" (lion and tiger is one kind of animal not true, the definition of the word varies but in truth doesn't matter. My personal definition is that a kind means animals that can be interbred... that part is opinion though.), into the capacity of the Arc with room to spare! Let's be clear, if the animal is not here today it either died in the flood or it was hunted to extinction afterwards. Yes I believe it was easy enough to take dinosaurs on the arc just don't take a bloody Brontosaurus, and take the juveniles, many juveniles in the animal kingdom get along without their mommies so this should not be a difficult thought for scientific minds! God told Noah he'll bring the Animals to the boat so if in the very long process of building the Arc the animals did not pitch, they died, or if you know biology, all reptiles can swim, maybe just maybe some animals survived the flood? i'm sure the fish did!

Another small Quote:
In reality only a small percentage of the animals would have to be taken on board the ark. The vast majority of the animals that inhabit the earth either live in water and/or do not have "the breath of life."

Now if I may ask did you have any problem with my other answers to your questions?

 

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 02:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 26 2009, 01:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 12:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(3) Fossilized Sea Shells on every major mountain series in the world, sediment layers, trees fossilized with their roots up!... yea I believe in a great flood and yes i've got an answer for the "animals in twosies" as well but please it's too damn long i type very slow![/b]

You mean it's not because all of the Earth's continents have at some time been underwater thanks to plate tectonics? Please do tell your answer to animal twosies...
[/b][/quote]

No it's not, the movement of tectonic plates are supposed to have taken a little more than the time a egg takes to boil... all these things needed catastrophe not slow movements of Tectonic plates... a global flood seems like a good catastrophe!

Small Quote on well known dimensions for the Arc:

The displacement tonnage of the ark, which is the weight of water it would displace at a draught of 15 cubits, would be more than 22,000 tons. By comparison the U.S.S. Salem, a 716-foot-long heavy cruiser commissioned in 1949, has a displacement tonnage of 21,500 tons. The ark's gross tonnage which is a measure of cubic space (100 cubic feet is one gross ton) would be 15,100 tons. The ark's total volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet. This would equal the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars. The standard size for a stock car is 44 feet long and a volume of 2670 cubic feet. This would make a train more than 5 ½ miles long. The floor space for the ark would be over 101,000 square feet. This would be more floor space than 21 standard college basketball courts. By comparing the measurements of the ark it is easy to see that it would be comparable to today's ocean going vessels. It was probably the largest vessel of its type built until the late 1800's when metal ships were first constructed.

Also well documented: You could fit two (for 'unclean') and/or seven (for 'clean') of the last "five million" years known different "kinds" (lion and tiger is one kind of animal not true, the definition of the word varies but in truth doesn't matter. My personal definition is that a kind means animals that can be interbred... that part is opinion though.), into the capacity of the Arc with room to spare! Let's be clear, if the animal is not here today it either died in the flood or it was hunted to extinction afterwards. Yes I believe it was easy enough to take dinosaurs on the arc just don't take a bloody Brontosaurus, and take the juveniles, many juveniles in the animal kingdom get along without their mommies so this should not be a difficult thought for scientific minds! God told Noah he'll bring the Animals to the boat so if in the very long process of building the Arc the animals did not pitch, they died, or if you know biology, all reptiles can swim, maybe just maybe some animals survived the flood? i'm sure the fish did!

Another small Quote:
In reality only a small percentage of the animals would have to be taken on board the ark. The vast majority of the animals that inhabit the earth either live in water and/or do not have "the breath of life."

Now if I may ask did you have any problem with my other answers to your questions?
[/b][/quote]

Fair enough you require a 'catastrophe' to replace a slow moving process such as plate tectonics if you believe the world is only 10,000 years old. It's not, it's billions of years old. There's been enough plate-shifting for all the continents to be spread out after Pangaea; for India to have slammed into Asia and made the Himalayas (highest mountains in the world)... and so many other things.

Also I don't see how quoting 'stats' about a made-up ship is going to make me believe in it. By the way, the first Zulus invented a plane that had a wingspan of 40 feet and a perspex windscreen.

And two by two is absolutely ridiculous. Even if you discount all the animals in the sea and all of the ones that haven't even been discovered today, there's no way they could have found and collected 2 of each animal and put them on an arc. How were a bunch of people in the Old World supposed to find animals like Jaguar and Puma and Tapir that are unique to the New World (which Europeans didn't reach until the 10th century)...

None of this adds up Jacovw. It may suit you to have 'faith' and believe in this because that's your prerogative. It may even be fun searching out every scientific theory and coming up with a Bible-inspired comeback. O'Rothlain's 'dragons are dinosaurs' was the most priceless so far. But please, I would have so much more respect for you and your views if you accepted they were difficult to prove and hence didn't bother trying.

 

[jawmalawm24]

I can't be stuffed reading through 6 pages of whatever so yeah. Umm I kinda use to be into the whole religion thing before the year 2000 but after that when things like 9-11 I just started to question everything. I use to be all spiritual and stuff ages ago but certain things that have happened in my life in the last 10 years of so just turned me into a realist.

I don't even know if I'm staying on topic but there's just so much crap happening the world today that we need to take different approaches towards it. Saying something is wrong in one whole culture maybe the opposite of another culture so there is and will never be a universal understanding of whats right or wrong. It sucks but it's true and we all just have to live with it.

That's my 5cents anyway I can't be bothered writing a story because I'm tired and it's 11:20pm here in New Zealand and I haven't whacked one out today so yeah I'm off to sleep peace and love peace and love.

 

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 26 2009, 11:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Fair enough you require a 'catastrophe' to replace a slow moving process such as plate tectonics if you believe the world is only 10,000 years old. It's not, it's billions of years old. There's been enough plate-shifting for all the continents to be spread out after Pangaea; for India to have slammed into Asia and made the Himalayas (highest mountains in the world)... and so many other things.

Also I don't see how quoting 'stats' about a made-up ship is going to make me believe in it. By the way, the first Zulus invented a plane that had a wingspan of 40 feet and a perspex windscreen.

And two by two is absolutely ridiculous. Even if you discount all the animals in the sea and all of the ones that haven't even been discovered today, there's no way they could have found and collected 2 of each animal and put them on an arc. How were a bunch of people in the Old World supposed to find animals like Jaguar and Puma and Tapir that are unique to the New World (which Europeans didn't reach until the 10th century)...

None of this adds up Jacovw. It may suit you to have 'faith' and believe in this because that's your prerogative. It may even be fun searching out every scientific theory and coming up with a Bible-inspired comeback. O'Rothlain's 'dragons are dinosaurs' was the most priceless so far. But please, I would have so much more respect for you and your views if you accepted they were difficult to prove and hence didn't bother trying.[/b]

Slow moving Tectonics would not cause enough disturbance to lump together whole fish and clam shells on the top of mountains... plates move true but too slowly to accomplish that! as the wash of or lowering of water level would be too gradual. Tectonic plates would form these mountains but would not account for the type of fossils. sorry if i did not make this clear.

These stats about a made up ship were
1. not to make you believe in it
2. to show that the whole thing was possible
3. was recorded in 5000+ year old texts that can be more credibly proven than the texts of Julius Caesars conquest of Gaul (fact!)

And as for Jaguars and pumas and lions and Tigers: does your own Theory not say that these all come from one Cat species, yes, we just claim it happened faster than what you say it did... Remember we are not talking about a chicken hatching the first monkey here, just some cats changing color and size as needed to survive. There is also the difference between Adaption and Evolution by the way...

Now I've given Science and Reason as explanations for just one account in the bible, there are others that are damn hard to explain, true... the biblical flood is not one of them though. My previous post already answered the new world old world animal thing and now i made it a little clearer. Just give me some reason and Science to refute my own, I'm not asking for respect as i found that in a discussion like this that flies out the window quickly anyway, and i have to wonder , about your last statement: would you really? Would you who can't see the use of believing the unseen really have more respect for someone who doesn't at least try to prove, what in reality, is a highly plausible Scientific theory?

Can you tell me the Evolutionary advantages to the development of:
Homosexuality
Men finding flowers pretty
Art
Rugby?

Are we not endlessly wasting time, and energy on these things that our less evolved "cousins" do not do?

 

[Charles]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 11:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Now I've given Science and Reason as explanations for just one account in the bible, there are others that are damn hard to explain, true...[/b]

Excuse me ? Where ? Care to provide any link ?

Another question for you.

What makes you think that the Bible is more true than, say, the Mayan Cosmogony. Or any other one, for that matter ...

 

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Charles @ Oct 26 2009, 12:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 11:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now I've given Science and Reason as explanations for just one account in the bible, there are others that are damn hard to explain, true...[/b]

Excuse me ? Where ? Care to provide any link ?

Another question for you.

What makes you think that the Bible is more true than, say, the Mayan Cosmogony. Or any other one, for that matter ...
[/b][/quote]

Read my last 2 posts o'm not keen on typing it all again

 

[feicarsinn]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 03:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 26 2009, 01:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 12:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(3) Fossilized Sea Shells on every major mountain series in the world, sediment layers, trees fossilized with their roots up!... yea I believe in a great flood and yes i've got an answer for the "animals in twosies" as well but please it's too damn long i type very slow![/b]

You mean it's not because all of the Earth's continents have at some time been underwater thanks to plate tectonics? Please do tell your answer to animal twosies...
[/b][/quote]

No it's not, the movement of tectonic plates are supposed to have taken a little more than the time a egg takes to boil... all these things needed catastrophe not slow movements of Tectonic plates... a global flood seems like a good catastrophe!

Small Quote on well known dimensions for the Arc:

The displacement tonnage of the ark, which is the weight of water it would displace at a draught of 15 cubits, would be more than 22,000 tons. By comparison the U.S.S. Salem, a 716-foot-long heavy cruiser commissioned in 1949, has a displacement tonnage of 21,500 tons. The ark's gross tonnage which is a measure of cubic space (100 cubic feet is one gross ton) would be 15,100 tons. The ark's total volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet. This would equal the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars. The standard size for a stock car is 44 feet long and a volume of 2670 cubic feet. This would make a train more than 5 ½ miles long. The floor space for the ark would be over 101,000 square feet. This would be more floor space than 21 standard college basketball courts. By comparing the measurements of the ark it is easy to see that it would be comparable to today's ocean going vessels. It was probably the largest vessel of its type built until the late 1800's when metal ships were first constructed.

Also well documented: You could fit two (for 'unclean') and/or seven (for 'clean') of the last "five million" years known different "kinds" (lion and tiger is one kind of animal not true, the definition of the word varies but in truth doesn't matter. My personal definition is that a kind means animals that can be interbred... that part is opinion though.), into the capacity of the Arc with room to spare! Let's be clear, if the animal is not here today it either died in the flood or it was hunted to extinction afterwards. Yes I believe it was easy enough to take dinosaurs on the arc just don't take a bloody Brontosaurus, and take the juveniles, many juveniles in the animal kingdom get along without their mommies so this should not be a difficult thought for scientific minds! God told Noah he'll bring the Animals to the boat so if in the very long process of building the Arc the animals did not pitch, they died, or if you know biology, all reptiles can swim, maybe just maybe some animals survived the flood? i'm sure the fish did!

Another small Quote:
In reality only a small percentage of the animals would have to be taken on board the ark. The vast majority of the animals that inhabit the earth either live in water and/or do not have "the breath of life."

Now if I may ask did you have any problem with my other answers to your questions?
[/b][/quote]
I have a question. How did Noah, Ham, Sham and Japeth build this massive boat in such a short space of time(a week according to the King James bible)? Also how did 4 men manage to gather all these animals together?

One other thing, how is it that Noah and co. all live to be hundreds and hundreds of years old and this is now impossible for us?

 

[Charles]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 01:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Charles @ Oct 26 2009, 12:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 11:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now I've given Science and Reason as explanations for just one account in the bible, there are others that are damn hard to explain, true...[/b]

Excuse me ? Where ? Care to provide any link ?

Another question for you.

What makes you think that the Bible is more true than, say, the Mayan Cosmogony. Or any other one, for that matter ...
[/b][/quote]

Read my last 2 posts o'm not keen on typing it all again
[/b][/quote]

What you posted are opinions. Not explanations, let alone scientifically proven facts.
It will take a little more than posts on an internet rugby forum to believe Noah's Ark story (which was poached from Babylonian cosmogony btw).

Back to square one for you boy.

 

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 10:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Slow moving Tectonics would not cause enough disturbance to lump together whole fish and clam shells on the top of mountains... plates move true but too slowly to accomplish that! as the wash of or lowering of water level would be too gradual. Tectonic plates would form these mountains but would not account for the type of fossils. sorry if i did not make this clear.

These stats about a made up ship were
1. not to make you believe in it
2. to show that the whole thing was possible
3. was recorded in 5000+ year old texts that can be more credibly proven than the texts of Julius Caesars conquest of Gaul (fact!)

And as for Jaguars and pumas and lions and Tigers: does your own Theory not say that these all come from one Cat species, yes, we just claim it happened faster than what you say it did... Remember we are not talking about a chicken hatching the first monkey here, just some cats changing color and size as needed to survive. There is also the difference between Adaption and Evolution by the way...

Now I've given Science and Reason as explanations for just one account in the bible, there are others that are damn hard to explain, true... the biblical flood is not one of them though. My previous post already answered the new world old world animal thing and now i made it a little clearer. Just give me some reason and Science to refute my own, I'm not asking for respect as i found that in a discussion like this that flies out the window quickly anyway, and i have to wonder , about your last statement: would you really? Would you who can't see the use of believing the unseen really have more respect for someone who doesn't at least try to prove, what in reality, is a highly plausible Scientific theory?

Can you tell me the Evolutionary advantages to the development of:
Homosexuality
Men finding flowers pretty
Art
Rugby?

Are we not endlessly wasting time, and energy on these things that our less evolved "cousins" do not do?[/b]

Erm, if a fish dies, falls to the seabed, fossilises over time and then over more time that same bit of seabed is forced upwards as a mountain range, yes I can see enough disturbance from plate tectonics.

I don't know what texts are 5000 years old that you're talking about, but I'll just say that describing something in immense detail does not make it real. And Julius Caesar is irrelevant to the discussion.

Ok, so all New World animals 'adapted' in the past 10,000 years... ok. They've not just changed physical attributes (as different races of human have), these animals have developed their genes so independently that they can no longer produce fertile offspring together. Is this really an adaptation?

Your theory is not highly plausible so I have no respect for you trying to prove it. And it is certainly not scientific.

Plus, what is the relevance of the last bit? Man has through his own endeavor created an environment where he can think outside the usual cycle of survival. This is called Civilisation. When man first began farming, and nurtured symbiotic relationships with herds, he reduced the struggle to find food. When he developed weapons and fire and was able to build basic structures, he reduced the struggle to ward off dangerous predators. These advances have developed so far down the line that today, many of us simply walk round the corner to the supermarket for food, and hardly need worry at all about predators. This gives us time to use the creative parts of our brain that would otherwise be reserved for survival. I don't see how this is a waste of time at all. What's more, homosexual behavoiur has been observed in other animals too.

 

[jacovw]

[/quote]

What you posted are opinions. Not explanations, let alone scientifically proven facts.
It will take a little more than posts on an internet rugby forum to believe Noah's Ark story (which was poached from Babylonian cosmogony btw).

Back to square one for you boy.
[/quote]

This is Scientific Method:

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.

You will also see that i call it a plausible scientific theory. Both Evolution and this flood theory have to stop at #3. from there it all becomes speculative. I am trying to show that it was possible.
So far on this thread I've seen a lot of people shooting down the proof, because they don't like the theory. Theory first then proof/disproof. That is Science now there are different kinds of proof, and i used two methods: Mathematic (dimensions and capacity of the ark = enough space), and Logic (Kind of Animals + Adaption = greater variety of animals today than what were on the Arc)
As for other Flood myths, they prove nothing but one thing that just about all people groups in the world had a story passed down to them from ages ago:
if we apply Logical Reasoning to this it's quite possible to believe they all came from one source! if that is true one of the stories has to be closest to the truth... i'm just picking the one I believe in!

 

[Charles]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 03:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

This is Scientific Method:

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.

You will also see that i call it a plausible scientific theory. Both Evolution and this flood theory have to stop at #3. from there it all becomes speculative. I am trying to show that it was possible.
So far on this thread I've seen a lot of people shooting down the proof, because they don't like the theory. Theory first then proof/disproof. That is Science now there are different kinds of proof, and i used two methods: Mathematic (dimensions and capacity of the ark = enough space), and Logic (Kind of Animals + Adaption = greater variety of animals today than what were on the Arc)
As for other Flood myths, they prove nothing but one thing that just about all people groups in the world had a story passed down to them from ages ago:
if we apply Logical Reasoning to this it's quite possible to believe they all came from one source! if that is true one of the stories has to be closest to the truth... i'm just picking the one I believe in![/b]

Ithink you missed the point. In a real scientific conduct, there is this thing called evidence. Which is conveniently absent if your scientific "theory". I ask again; do you have any factual evidence of the things you claim to be true. Not lines from a book, not a pseudo scientific reasoning; hard, concrete evidence, preferably backed up by a reliable source.

I think not

 

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 26 2009, 03:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Erm, if a fish dies, falls to the seabed, fossilises over time and then over more time that same bit of seabed is forced upwards as a mountain range, yes I can see enough disturbance from plate tectonics.

I don't know what texts are 5000 years old that you're talking about, but I'll just say that describing something in immense detail does not make it real. And Julius Caesar is irrelevant to the discussion.

Ok, so all New World animals 'adapted' in the past 10,000 years... ok. They've not just changed physical attributes (as different races of human have), these animals have developed their genes so independently that they can no longer produce fertile offspring together. Is this really an adaptation?

Your theory is not highly plausible so I have no respect for you trying to prove it. And it is certainly not scientific.

Plus, what is the relevance of the last bit? Man has through his own endeavor created an environment where he can think outside the usual cycle of survival. This is called Civilisation. When man first began farming, and nurtured symbiotic relationships with herds, he reduced the struggle to find food. When he developed weapons and fire and was able to build basic structures, he reduced the struggle to ward off dangerous predators. These advances have developed so far down the line that today, many of us simply walk round the corner to the supermarket for food, and hardly need worry at all about predators. This gives us time to use the creative parts of our brain that would otherwise be reserved for survival. I don't see how this is a waste of time at all. What's more, homosexual behavoiur has been observed in other animals too.[/b]

And over how long a time does this dead fish lie on the seabed (without rotting or being eaten) and fossilize?

One thing I have to apologize for is the age of the actual manuscripts, only the originals are dated as from the Time of the Exodus, obviously those are long gone but there are some pretty darn old copies. My Apologies!

I used Julius Caesar as an Example because the conquest of Gaul is well known fact and the records there of are excepted in all fields of science, yet the method of deducing the credibility of a written record show Julius Caesar's campaign as far inferior to the book of Genesis. (it's a method to show how close to the original manuscript the record is.) I'm not trying to drag him into this conversation... just a validation of accuracy!

Granted they have changed dramatically but only in some cases, lions and tigers can still interbreed. Jaguars Asian Panthers and Leopards can do the same. A wolf and any common house dog can do the same, and frequently do, and most of these would be fertile as well. Some foxes and Jackals can. Some parrots can. There are many that can and many that can't. some offspring are fertile some are not. It took man less than 90 years to breed a dog called a bull terrier (to get it to it's modern look), i think nature can do an even better job, when the necessity is there?

It's easy to say we don't need to use the survival instinct as much anymore, but there are really violent Cities with very poor people who still develop into great artist (never to receive a penny for their work)... they need their survival instinct badly, and quite often use it really well. So what if homosexuality's been observed in other animals how does it benefit us in the evolutionary process. Why is the one species that has evolved enough to prevent it, hellbent on destroying themselves. Why did I marry a women that wears glasses if she could pass those genes on to my children! She's damn Beautiful but isn't that a flaw. Why did she marry a man with Epilepsy? Why do we so often take so much care of those who will not be able to contribute to our gene pool!

That is the relevance of "the last bit"

 

[Steve-o]

Tigers forking lions... Well i'll be damned. Anyway did Noah's family perform incest after the great flood? Since they were the only people left..

 

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Charles @ Oct 26 2009, 04:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 03:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is Scientific Method:

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.

You will also see that i call it a plausible scientific theory. Both Evolution and this flood theory have to stop at #3. from there it all becomes speculative. I am trying to show that it was possible.
So far on this thread I've seen a lot of people shooting down the proof, because they don't like the theory. Theory first then proof/disproof. That is Science now there are different kinds of proof, and i used two methods: Mathematic (dimensions and capacity of the ark = enough space), and Logic (Kind of Animals + Adaption = greater variety of animals today than what were on the Arc)
As for other Flood myths, they prove nothing but one thing that just about all people groups in the world had a story passed down to them from ages ago:
if we apply Logical Reasoning to this it's quite possible to believe they all came from one source! if that is true one of the stories has to be closest to the truth... i'm just picking the one I believe in![/b]

Ithink you missed the point. In a real scientific conduct, there is this thing called evidence. Which is conveniently absent if your scientific "theory". I ask again; do you have any factual evidence of the things you claim to be true. Not lines from a book, not a pseudo scientific reasoning; hard, concrete evidence, preferably backed up by a reliable source.

I think not
[/b][/quote]

All Science starts with a theory... whether it's based on the known (written and long excepted) or the unknown (brand new) information.

My theory has been around a little longer than yours so let's play fair and before i go on trying to convince you that math and reason are forms of science, please use an equal or better argument to either disprove The flood, or prove what you believe.

and i'm not using lines from a book except where i quote it, or know it but are too lazy too type, in which case i quickly find it and copy/paste (this i did with the Scientific Method, a method that brought you many things that you are using at this very moment... #4 is where the evidence would come to play by the way, and I believe I did make a reference to the possibility of going further with either argument!)

 

[jacovw]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 26 2009, 04:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Tigers forking lions... Well i'll be damned. Anyway did Noah's family perform incest after the great flood? Since they were the only people left..[/b]

Yes they did, among cousins, as disgusting as that sounds to us it was common practice, (with for some reason far less dire results) until almost 1000 A.D.

Maybe it's got something to do with the genes getting weaker.

 

[Jer1cho]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Oct 26 2009, 05:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Tigers forking lions... Well i'll be damned. Anyway did Noah's family perform incest after the great flood? Since they were the only people left..[/b]

Not only incest, but they had to have one family member of every race on the planet! Unless the sun did some skin damage, and somewhere along the line one of the races squinted their eyes for a long time...

 

[gingergenius]

ahh but you see Jericho, people 'adapt' in a very short space of time.

 

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (feicarsinn @ Oct 26 2009, 07:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 03:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Oct 26 2009, 01:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jacovw @ Oct 26 2009, 12:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(3) Fossilized Sea Shells on every major mountain series in the world, sediment layers, trees fossilized with their roots up!... yea I believe in a great flood and yes i've got an answer for the "animals in twosies" as well but please it's too damn long i type very slow![/b]

You mean it's not because all of the Earth's continents have at some time been underwater thanks to plate tectonics? Please do tell your answer to animal twosies...
[/b][/quote]

No it's not, the movement of tectonic plates are supposed to have taken a little more than the time a egg takes to boil... all these things needed catastrophe not slow movements of Tectonic plates... a global flood seems like a good catastrophe!

Small Quote on well known dimensions for the Arc:

The displacement tonnage of the ark, which is the weight of water it would displace at a draught of 15 cubits, would be more than 22,000 tons. By comparison the U.S.S. Salem, a 716-foot-long heavy cruiser commissioned in 1949, has a displacement tonnage of 21,500 tons. The ark's gross tonnage which is a measure of cubic space (100 cubic feet is one gross ton) would be 15,100 tons. The ark's total volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet. This would equal the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars. The standard size for a stock car is 44 feet long and a volume of 2670 cubic feet. This would make a train more than 5 ½ miles long. The floor space for the ark would be over 101,000 square feet. This would be more floor space than 21 standard college basketball courts. By comparing the measurements of the ark it is easy to see that it would be comparable to today's ocean going vessels. It was probably the largest vessel of its type built until the late 1800's when metal ships were first constructed.

Also well documented: You could fit two (for 'unclean') and/or seven (for 'clean') of the last "five million" years known different "kinds" (lion and tiger is one kind of animal not true, the definition of the word varies but in truth doesn't matter. My personal definition is that a kind means animals that can be interbred... that part is opinion though.), into the capacity of the Arc with room to spare! Let's be clear, if the animal is not here today it either died in the flood or it was hunted to extinction afterwards. Yes I believe it was easy enough to take dinosaurs on the arc just don't take a bloody Brontosaurus, and take the juveniles, many juveniles in the animal kingdom get along without their mommies so this should not be a difficult thought for scientific minds! God told Noah he'll bring the Animals to the boat so if in the very long process of building the Arc the animals did not pitch, they died, or if you know biology, all reptiles can swim, maybe just maybe some animals survived the flood? i'm sure the fish did!

Another small Quote:
In reality only a small percentage of the animals would have to be taken on board the ark. The vast majority of the animals that inhabit the earth either live in water and/or do not have "the breath of life."

Now if I may ask did you have any problem with my other answers to your questions?
[/b][/quote]
I have a question. How did Noah, Ham, Sham and Japeth build this massive boat in such a short space of time(a week according to the King James bible)? Also how did 4 men manage to gather all these animals together?

One other thing, how is it that Noah and co. all live to be hundreds and hundreds of years old and this is now impossible for us?
[/b][/quote]
The Bible doesn't say it took them a week. In the Genesis acco
unt God gives Noah, and mankind, 120 years from His pronouncement of the flood to repent. So, maybe it took him a week, maybe it took him the full 120 years. The account from Judaism, Christianity and Islam also don't make Noah and his sons out to be the gatherer of the animals. This was done by God himself.
Maximum lifespan in humans is right around 120 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_life_span#In_humans) which is something God established in Genesis.
I think jakovw has brought up some very good points. The problem is discussing these points with people who aren't scientists. Until I see some credentials at the end of any of our names (including my own) I think we're going at this whole science approach half-cocked. I've yet to see any good links or references other than hearsay from the people saying that the Bible and Science don't line up. It is not us who are trying to discredit science, only saying that it does line up to God, becuase God is supernatural he can bend the laws of the natural world. You keep searching for complete natural answers, whereas we accept the supernatural. I accept that an all powerful being can manipulate space and time and do whatever the flip he wants. Whereas you lot wish to constrain a diety to fit in your understanding of the universe. We shall never agree.