Could Noah's Ark hold all the animals?

[regular_john]

Steakandcheese and julie - you have both repeatedly displayed a total misunderstanding of evolution, the relevant evidence, and science in general. This should come as no surprise. Unfortunately creationist material is written exclusively by scientifically uneducated religious fundamentalists who adhere to dogma rather than rational thought or logic.

So, how about we take this thread in a different direction? In the spirit of education and enlightenment, how about you post the things that you don't understand and the scientists amongst us can try and help you out.

In order for this to work, there must be nothing other than clear, concise communication.

Some conditions for both sides:

1. No mockery at any point (I know I have been guilty of this)

2. No copy and pasting from websites

3. Links to relevant evidence are ok

4. Posts should be concise, no more than a couple of paragraphs. Long, drawn out posts are boring and hard to read

5. It's ok to not know something, or to not understand something, it doesn't automatically make you wrong.

I won't pretend to understand everything about evolution, but you must understand that just because I may not know something, it doesn't mean it is not known.

For the record, I hold a bachelors degree in chemistry and am currently training to be a doctor, so I have a decent grasp of science.

Deal?

edit: Obviously also include any objections you have to evolutionary theory and I'll try and explain things.

[mjmooney]

Wasting your time, mate. They don't WANT to know.

[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.

Copy and Paste from same website.

Again you need to start looking at other websites.

Look up project steve as a humorous example of how silly the scientific community think it is to argue against evolution.

[DiegoD]

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.

The problem is that many chose to misunderstand why people are non-religious because it conflicts with their belief system.

[Sie]

Brum,

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

Poe's law. Right here people.

[legov]

Every major culture has a flood legend.

Yes, and there's an interesting theory out there that posits that the Hebrew flood legend was derived from earlier Near Eastern flood legends - evidence for it isn't conclusive, but it is very interesting nonetheless, given the striking similarities between the biblical and Mesopotamian versions.

Doesn't mean a worldwide flood happened though - surely you know that ancient peoples weren't blessed with particularly expansive worldviews? I mean, back in the day the ancient Chinese thought China encompassed the entire world, the early Romans thought the same of the Mediterranean, the Aztecs, Sumerians etc etc etc - so a mere regional flood would be seen as a cataclysmic world event.

[steaknchips]

Steakandcheese and julie - you have both repeatedly displayed a total misunderstanding of evolution, the relevant evidence, and science in general. This should come as no surprise. Unfortunately creationist material is written exclusively by scientifically uneducated religious fundamentalists who adhere to dogma rather than rational thought or logic.

So, how about we take this thread in a different direction? In the spirit of education and enlightenment, how about you post the things that you don't understand and the scientists amongst us can try and help you out.

In order for this to work, there must be nothing other than clear, concise communication.

Some conditions for both sides:

1. No mockery at any point (I know I have been guilty of this)

2. No copy and pasting from websites

3. Links to relevant evidence are ok

4. Posts should be concise, no more than a couple of paragraphs. Long, drawn out posts are boring and hard to read

5. It's ok to not know something, or to not understand something, it doesn't automatically make you wrong.

I won't pretend to understand everything about evolution, but you must understand that just because I may not know something, it doesn't mean it is not known.

For the record, I hold a bachelors degree in chemistry and am currently training to be a doctor, so I have a decent grasp of science.

Deal?

edit: Obviously also include any objections you have to evolutionary theory and I'll try and explain things.

Heres my 1st link then...This guy has a Ph.D in geology..He has studied and investigated rock forms, life etc...Yet he finds more substance in the bible story of Noah's Ark than the evolution side.

http://creationwiki.org/Andrew_Snelling

Or one from Harvard, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Still going eh?

Load of shite. Lets move on.

[regular_john]

Heres my 1st link then...This guy has a Ph.D in geology..He has studied and investigated rock forms, life etc...Yet he finds more substance in the bible story of Noah's Ark than the evolution side.

http://creationwiki.org/Andrew_Snelling

Or one from Harvard, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise

I'm not sure what this proves? Obviously even a fine education isn't always enough to break the hold of religious dogmatism on a mind, in fact this can best be illustrated from one of Kurt Wise's own quotes:

...if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.

Does that sound like the kind of thing a rational human being would say? That he would turn away from evidence in favour of scripture? Surely if scripture were correct there'd be no need to turn away from evidence, as it would support the scripture.

I could easily counter your links by referring you to Project Steve , a list of scientists just by the name of Steve that think creationism is nonsense. The key point is that the number of supporters an argument holds makes no comment on whether it is true or not, so referencing two scientists who happen to be creationists adds nothing to your argument.

Also, if these men had any actual evidence to support their claims they could quite easily submit their findings for peer review. Any real evidence, and consequential accurate conclusions, would pass the peer review process and these men would be hailed as scientific revolutionaries and given the Nobel Prizes they deserve. That this has not occurred indicates that they don't actually have any evidence at all. Science doesn't repress information in the way that religion does, proof against evolution or the accepted age of the Earth would be welcomed with open arms by the scientific community.

[limpid]

Does that sound like the kind of thing a rational human being would say? That he would turn away from evidence in favour of scripture? Surely if scripture were correct there'd be no need to turn away from evidence, as it would support the scripture.

But the religious types can choose which bits of scripture to believe to suit their current argument. If you believe in a magic sky fairy, it is acceptable to believe that the bible is the literal word of their god and also ignore the bit where it states that the world was created in six days.

Normal people suffer from cognitive dissonance when they try to hold conflicting opinions and realise that both cannot be true. Rational people choose the argument supported by evidence.

[Risso]

The scary thing is that while we can all have a good laugh at steaknchips and his idiocy, people this stupid are in positions of power in the US and are intent on spreading their lies.

[Chindie]

Wasting your time, mate. They don't WANT to know.

That.

Don't bother regular_john, SNC is on the windup, or beyond help for the level of idiocy, which is well beyond pigshit thick.

Other botherers, been done by a few of us attempting to point out the reality of things, pointing out the sheer logical inconsistancy, the childishly simple things that aren't understood - they don't want to know, they like their fairytale rather too much for the crutch to be taken away.

[steaknchips]

Does that sound like the kind of thing a rational human being would say? That he would turn away from evidence in favour of scripture? Surely if scripture were correct there'd be no need to turn away from evidence, as it would support the scripture.

But the religious types can choose which bits of scripture to believe to suit their current argument. If you believe in a magic sky fairy, it is acceptable to believe that the bible is the literal word of their god and also ignore the bit where it states that the world was created in six days.

Normal people suffer from cognitive dissonance when they try to hold conflicting opinions and realise that both cannot be true. Rational people choose the argument supported by evidence.

The world created in 6 days is not ignored.

The word for day in Hebrew is yom..Now yom can mean any of the following;- light, a 24-hour period, time, a specific point of time, year.

The word yom is translated into day, season, time, ever, evermore, always, ago, age, years, in the bible..Because the Hebrew language dosnt contain as many words as the English language, so the word yom has been intrepreted to its closest meaning by the passage in the scripture.

A day, year, period of light, period of darkness etc during time of creation may not be a period of 24 hours as we see it today. He created light and called it day(this wasnt the Sun as it wasnt created yet), He created Darkness and called it night.

In revelation 23 it tells us that one day we will not need the Sun or moon as the glory of God will illuminate.

Also in 2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

[Chindie]

No-one **** cares.

[limpid]

Excellent, so according to the bible the world was created in 6 thousand years if you guess about someone's translations. This is supposed to be the word of god, why do you have to interpret it? And why is it interpreted differently now than it was 100 years ago or 1000 years ago? Did god change her mind?

[steaknchips]

Limpid,

The passage isnt saying a 1000 years in a literal sense..It is saying that, to God, a day is like a thousand years, because God is outside of time. God is not limited by natural processes and time as humans are. What may seem like a long time to us, or a short time, is nothing to God, either way.

[limpid]

So this is a bit that we have to take as not literally true, even though the whole book is the literal word of god? If that was what god meant, why didn't she say that?

When the scholar who was making up the story (as instructed by god), why did he decide that when god told him "a really long time" he should write it down as 6 days? He could have used "זמן רב" to indicate "a long time", or even "שש פעמים רב" to indicate 6 long times. He chose a word which translates as "day". Why would god let him make such a stupid mistake? Perhaps she isn't outside of time at all, or she'd have known about this stupid mistake.

Either your book is the word of god or it isn't. You aren't allowed to interpret it as you see fit otherwise you might as well be reading Peter Pan.

[robojoel]

Noah was 480 years old when he began the work :

My Dad is 65 and he is ****, he kindly built us a fence a couple of years ago but it took its toll, I honestly cant see Noah building a ship capable of carrying every species at his age to be honest.

If you include a sentence like this in your opening gambit, you cant expect anyone to take any further point you ever make seriously, never mind all the other ancient chinese-whisper superstition you include.

You know how some young kids believe in Santa because they have been told he exists and the events (presents appear on Christmas morning!) circumstantially back up there belief? and adults dont believe in Sanata because they are privy knowledge of how the presents got there factually based on documentable evidence?

You sound like a child

I really hope you are trying to wind people up :?

[steaknchips]

So this is a bit that we have to take as not literally true, even though the whole book is the literal word of god? If that was what god meant, why didn't she say that?

When the scholar who was making up the story (as instructed by god), why did he decide that when god told him "a really long time" he should write it down as 6 days? He could have used "זמן רב" to indicate "a long time", or even "שש פעמים רב" to indicate 6 long times. He chose a word which translates as "day". Why would god let him make such a stupid mistake? Perhaps she isn't outside of time at all, or she'd have known about this stupid mistake.

Either your book is the word of god or it isn't. You aren't allowed to interpret it as you see fit otherwise you might as well be reading Peter Pan.

Because you cannot understand one scripture without reading and understanding them all. Its like coming into the middle of a conversation listening to one sentence then trying to understand what the whole conversation was about...

[steaknchips]

Noah was 480 years old when he began the work :

My Dad is 65 and he is ****, he kindly built us a fence a couple of years ago but it took its toll, I honestly cant see Noah building a ship capable of carrying every species at his age to be honest.

If you include a sentence like this in your opening gambit, you cant expect anyone to take any further point you ever make seriously, never mind all the other ancient chinese-whisper superstition you include.

You know how some young kids believe in Santa because they have been told he exists and the events (presents appear on Christmas morning!) circumstantially back up there belief? and adults dont believe in Sanata because they are privy knowledge of how the presents got there factually based on documentable evidence?

You sound like a child

I really hope you are trying to wind people up :?

When God made Adam and Eve they were sinless and, basically, physically perfect. When sin entered the world there was an obviously harmful effect upon their bodies; they died. Genetically speaking, when they were first made their health was so good that their natural inclination was to live a long time. But since sin is in the world and it has an effect on people we get sick, grow old, and die...Noah would have been so close to the original genetic line of Adam and Eve, that his health was exceedingly great and so could live this long.

"My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years." Genesis 6:3.

It might be possible that God shortened the lifespan of man because of man's great wickedness. After all, the flood came soon after this statement of God and the lifespan of people drastically shortens after Noah's ark.