Could Noah's Ark hold all the animals?

[El Zen]

But you do not believe that Mohammad is (was) the ulitmate prophet of god? That he existed is a historical fact and has nothing to with the mythology of the Qu'ran.

[Risso]

The thing with science is that it is ALWAYS questioning itself. Whether it's physics, or archaeology or any science. It just wants to find the truth, whatever it is. If science did prove that the earth was a few thousand years old, no true scientist would have a problem with that. The fact is though that the more evidence we obtain, the more and more certain we can be that evolution is how we came to be where we are today, and that creationism and earth being a few thousand years old are just absolute nonsense with no real science behind it whatsoever. Religious fundamentalists and creationist "scientists" start with what they beieve is the truth, and try desperately to bend the truth to make the facts fit their religious beliefs. Which is obviously a crazy way to go about things.

You see this is what does my head in...I don't know how many times I've posted that I do not beleive that the Earth is only a few thousand years old but time and time again I get lumped in with the Creationist Young Earthers.

The very first Scripture of the Bible states "In the beginning God created the heavens(the Universe) and the Earth".... which is a tiny miniscule pinprick in the vastness of that Universe. That could have taken billions of years.

Therefore next time I'm going to be lumped in with "all of the God botherers", please make sure you rubbish the opinions I hold.

Thanks!

Sorry Julie, even though I quoted your post I was just making a general point. I didn't intend to misrepresent your views and if that's how it came across I apologise.

[villanmike]

I had a couple of decent looking bird knocking on my door the other day preaching (they wanted to ask me 6 questions - God related).

So on that note, I decided to talk them them

They asked the first question. Do you beleive that God is watching you all the time?

I answered...Do you beleive that all the other God's from all the other religions are watching you all the time?

We never made it to question 2.

[chrisp65]

meh

[Xann]

*The one with the giraffe.

[Qwpzxjor1]

It all comes from Greek Mythology really.

The people and the time with imagination and story telling. The rest just repackaged it. And I'm not just taking about Christianity. All religions cross over at multiple points, most stories the same. The flood story is nothing new and exists in most religions.

[CrackpotForeigner]

There is more and more evidence coming to the fore of a global, highly advanced civilisation that suddenly came to an abrupt end.

With respect, I don't know which research you're quoting. As far as I'm aware there is evidence of DOZENS of civilisations (each with their own various gods - we're talking Pre-Darwin after all) coming to fairly abrupt ends, but hardly all at the same time. Civilisations, religions and species are all transient.

[DiegoD]

I hate to be 'that guy', but really, religion is just filling a need. A chemical imbalance if you will. Belief in something bigger than oneself releases chemicals that stop people from the otherwise inevitable malaise that comes with being alive and aware of ones own demise into nothingness.

I suspect most people have this, and whilst some make do with religious belief, others find comfort elsewhere or enjoy the malaise.

Like the chimps say, ooh ah aooh aoh ao hoao. or in english, 'this banana is nice, lets leave it at that.'

(disclaimer: pseudo-intellectualism may or may not be influenced by the previous nights heavy drinking)

I think its the other way around. I think non believers just chose the easier option as "I didnt see it" "I could never imagine it" "so I dont believe it"...Which I suppose is fine if they can offer another alternative to how we came to be about....But they cant.

Most 'non-believers' I know have come that conclusion after being exposed to various religions and deciding that evidence of evolution and other scientific theories do a better job of explaining the world and how we got here than religion.

Also if you honesty think that there are legitimate explanations as to how we came about then i suggest you start reading non religious websites or books.

[R.I.C.O.]

How old is Planet Earth SnC?

And I want your personal answer, not a cut and paste odyssey from some fundamentalist website which encourages its followers to troll message boards.

[steaknchips]

I hate to be 'that guy', but really, religion is just filling a need. A chemical imbalance if you will. Belief in something bigger than oneself releases chemicals that stop people from the otherwise inevitable malaise that comes with being alive and aware of ones own demise into nothingness.

I suspect most people have this, and whilst some make do with religious belief, others find comfort elsewhere or enjoy the malaise.

Like the chimps say, ooh ah aooh aoh ao hoao. or in english, 'this banana is nice, lets leave it at that.'

(disclaimer: pseudo-intellectualism may or may not be influenced by the previous nights heavy drinking)

I think its the other way around. I think non believers just chose the easier option as "I didnt see it" "I could never imagine it" "so I dont believe it"...Which I suppose is fine if they can offer another alternative to how we came to be about....But they cant.

Most 'non-believers' I know have come that conclusion after being exposed to various religions and deciding that evidence of evolution and other scientific theories do a better job of explaining the world and how we got here than religion.

Also if you honesty think that there are legitimate explanations as to how we came about then i suggest you start reading non religious websites or books.

Yes there are explanations but they contain flaws. You think you can just read about a miracle in the bible, then just dismiss it because to you, it seems unlikely to happen, its something you cant get your head around..It has no explanation other than a using God as an excuse..Yet you get the same miracles appearing when you go down the evolution road too, it is not without its flaws...When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to "happen" by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch..

Look at the information available in DNA..A pinhead of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4-gigabit hard drive..

No mutation that increases in genetic information have ever been found. To get from an amoeba to man would require a "massive" net increase in information. We only have evidence of preprogrammed variation and multiple copies of existing information..

Physics tells us that all systems can have a tendency to disorder but only at a an expense of greater disorder lost elsewhere...Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things or the information which builds them. Undirected energy would just speed up destruction.Yet, evolution is a building-up process, suggesting that things tend to become more complex and advanced over time. This is directly opposed to the law in physics.

Darwin said that one day we would find fossils that show the missing links in the transitional changes you would see as things evolve. As of yet we havnt found any..They all the same life form, non have been found going from one life form to another....Pictures of ape-to-human "missing links" are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists' already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived. The series of pictures or models that show progressive development from a little monkey to modern man are an insult to scientific research. These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be "reconstructed" a hundred different ways. The fact is, many supposed "ape-men" are very clearly apes. Evolutionists now admit that other so-called "ape-men" would be able to have children by modern humans, which makes them the same species as humans. The main species said to bridge this gap, Homo habilis, is thought by many to be a mixture of ape and human fossils. In other words, the "missing link" (in reality there would have to be millions of them) is still missing. The body hair and the blank expressions of sub-humans in these models doesn't come from the bones, but the assumptions of the artist. Virtually nothing can be determined about hair and the look in someone's eyes based on a few old bones.

Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life—Yet non believers believe that we came from raw material. Even evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it's given, non-life will not become alive.

[Risso]

**** hell, just about every bit of creationist fuckwittery and lack of understanding in one incredibly stupid post. I am so tired of reading nonsense about 'missing links' as it just shows a wilful desire to misrepresent facts. A simple Google of transitional species would put people right in a matter of minutes.

[regular_john]

I hate to be 'that guy', but really, religion is just filling a need. A chemical imbalance if you will. Belief in something bigger than oneself releases chemicals that stop people from the otherwise inevitable malaise that comes with being alive and aware of ones own demise into nothingness.

I suspect most people have this, and whilst some make do with religious belief, others find comfort elsewhere or enjoy the malaise.

Like the chimps say, ooh ah aooh aoh ao hoao. or in english, 'this banana is nice, lets leave it at that.'

(disclaimer: pseudo-intellectualism may or may not be influenced by the previous nights heavy drinking)

I think its the other way around. I think non believers just chose the easier option as "I didnt see it" "I could never imagine it" "so I dont believe it"...Which I suppose is fine if they can offer another alternative to how we came to be about....But they cant.

Most 'non-believers' I know have come that conclusion after being exposed to various religions and deciding that evidence of evolution and other scientific theories do a better job of explaining the world and how we got here than religion.

Also if you honesty think that there are legitimate explanations as to how we came about then i suggest you start reading non religious websites or books.

Yes there are explanations but they contain flaws. You think you can just read about a miracle in the bible, then just dismiss it because to you, it seems unlikely to happen, its something you cant get your head around..It has no explanation other than a using God as an excuse..Yet you get the same miracles appearing when you go down the evolution road too, it is not without its flaws...When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to "happen" by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch..

Look at the information available in DNA..A pinhead of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4-gigabit hard drive..

No mutation that increases in genetic information have ever been found. To get from an amoeba to man would require a "massive" net increase in information. We only have evidence of preprogrammed variation and multiple copies of existing information..

Physics tells us that all systems can have a tendency to disorder but only at a an expense of greater disorder lost elsewhere...Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things or the information which builds them. Undirected energy would just speed up destruction.Yet, evolution is a building-up process, suggesting that things tend to become more complex and advanced over time. This is directly opposed to the law in physics.

Darwin said that one day we would find fossils that show the missing links in the transitional changes you would see as things evolve. As of yet we havnt found any..They all the same life form, non have been found going from one life form to another....Pictures of ape-to-human "missing links" are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists' already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived. The series of pictures or models that show progressive development from a little monkey to modern man are an insult to scientific research. These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be "reconstructed" a hundred different ways. The fact is, many supposed "ape-men" are very clearly apes. Evolutionists now admit that other so-called "ape-men" would be able to have children by modern humans, which makes them the same species as humans. The main species said to bridge this gap, Homo habilis, is thought by many to be a mixture of ape and human fossils. In other words, the "missing link" (in reality there would have to be millions of them) is still missing. The body hair and the blank expressions of sub-humans in these models doesn't come from the bones, but the assumptions of the artist. Virtually nothing can be determined about hair and the look in someone's eyes based on a few old bones.

Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life—Yet non believers believe that we came from raw material. Even evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it's given, non-life will not become alive.

Congratulations! Your understanding of science is on a par with an eleven year old!

[steaknchips]

Good answer...It explains your theory in great detail. lol

Darwin expected, or rather hoped, that with technology a new means of finding fossils would arise that would fix this problem. Guess what? A century and a half later, evolutionists have only a small handful of very controversial, supposed missing links.

[Brumerican]

1. We have found many transistional fossils (google Tiktaalik for starters)

2. Life cannot come from non life ?....Bullshit . Biological entities are just a collection of non biological chemicals. We are made of atoms and you wouldn't say atoms are alive as such .

3. Life is too complex to have not had a creator ? ...More bullshit . If this is true then God would be the most complex entity of all, yet somehow is exempt from requiring a creator (who in turn would also require a creator etc etc) ..This is utter hypocrisy .

The evidence for natural selection is overwhelming....The evidence for supernatural deities is a big fat zero .

You have to be on the wind up SNC because no rational human can be that **** retarded surely ?

[legov]

I hate to be 'that guy', but really, religion is just filling a need. A chemical imbalance if you will. Belief in something bigger than oneself releases chemicals that stop people from the otherwise inevitable malaise that comes with being alive and aware of ones own demise into nothingness.

I suspect most people have this, and whilst some make do with religious belief, others find comfort elsewhere or enjoy the malaise.

Like the chimps say, ooh ah aooh aoh ao hoao. or in english, 'this banana is nice, lets leave it at that.'

(disclaimer: pseudo-intellectualism may or may not be influenced by the previous nights heavy drinking)

I think its the other way around. I think non believers just chose the easier option as "I didnt see it" "I could never imagine it" "so I dont believe it"...Which I suppose is fine if they can offer another alternative to how we came to be about....But they cant.

That is so wrong. That is just so unbelievably wrong. Goes to show how many Christians misunderstand atheists and agnostics.

[Brumerican]

SNC...You still haven't answered why you are not a Muslim or a Jew or a Hindu ?

You won't find the answer on a creationist website either as it will involve you thinking for yourself .

[steaknchips]

Brum,

The same reasons I dont believe in evolution..The bible is the only thing that makes sense.

[saturdaygig]

Brum,

The bible makes sense.

Craziest thing I ever heard

[steaknchips]

Does scientists' interpretation represent a case of following preconceived notions, while neglecting other more logical explanations that are actually supported by independent empirical evidence?

Caterpillars are crawling creatures that go through a stage called pupa, in which they undergo a complete metamorphosis and emerge as flying creatures. Tadpoles are aquatic, gill-breathing, legless creatures that develop lungs, legs, and other organs to roam on dry land. Some salamanders undergo a metamorphosis which also takes them from an aquatic environment to an air-breathing one.

Although these creatures undergo such drastic changes in only one generation, not one has, in the millions of known cases, ever evolved into anything beyond their usual, known final stage. There is obviously no random evolution going on here. A limited number of creatures apparently have the genetic blueprint for transforming into very specific new forms.

Ads by Google

There are humans with both male and female physical characteristics. Are males evolving into females, or vise versa? Of course not. These are simply anomalies, and don't seem to drastically effect the course of the species.

Then, of course, there are organisms, humans included, which are occasionally born diseased or deformed. They either die out or pass on their aberrations to offspring. Again, in the millions of known cases, they haven't been known to drastically change the course of a species.

The question now is, given the realities of biological aberrations and limited metamorphosis, have scientist considered these phenomena as possible explanations for Tiktaalik?

Have scientists considered perhaps even that there could have been a species that had some of the characteristics of both aquatic and dry-land creatures, and didn't necessarily evolve from or to any other creature?

The discovery of Tiktaalik has been widely reported on network television, in newspapers, in magazines, and on the internet, all claiming it to be proof of evolution. I have thus far not seen a single account of an evolutionist even listing other possibilities, let alone describe by what rationale or evidence explanations other than evolution were eliminated.

We have ample independent, modern-day evidence of several explanations for Tiktaalik. Yet, scientists decided on the one explanation for which there is no independent proof, evolution, and then have the temerity to claim that this PROVES evolution.

Throwing out an explanation and saying, go ahead disprove it, is easy. Coming up with several explanations and disproving them yourself one by one until you're left with the one you claim to believe, that's another story. What scientists have done is employed "used car salesmanship" to sell us "science;" they've told us "it's a great car," but neglected to tell us about the holes, cracks and leaks. Tiktaalik is proof of only one thing: the public can be subjected to some really bad science.

Perhaps these scientists should be working for General Motors -- a little slick salesmanship could do wonders for the auto industry.

Read more: http://www.articlesbase.com/science-articles/tiktaalik-scientists-insult-to-the-publics-intelligence-734131.html#ixzz1cpmDtZC1

Under Creative Commons License: Attribution No Derivatives

[usvilla]

as a child if my parents told me the moon was made of cheese

and then sent me every sunday to a place where they also told me that

i would probably still believe that the moon is in fact made of cheese

thankfully i was shown the options and allowed to form my own opinion