That's an incredibly optimistic view of your fellow man.

I made a picture of the aforementioned magical boat since the Freedom Ship couldn't illustrate how big it really was

(Picture not to scale)

And what did the carnivores eat?

And was the flood freshwater or saltwater? Either way, the ship needs a big aquarium.

Who feeds the animals? If there are 20 million species of animals (conservative estimate) each one needs feeding once during the 40 day journey (very conservative estimate) and there are 7 humans on the boat, they need to feed 1 animal each every second (without sleeping).

It's a logistical nightmare. Anyone who believes it to be true is plainly insane or stupid.

Not to mention all the evil aquatic animals there should be in the world:

Perhaps we should use our properly functioning cognitive faculties to arrive at truth?

Or we can just get angry at the people on the other side of the fence.

natural selection is awesome

This is why you're not meant to take the bible literally.

I assume it's based somewhat on a real event considering it's in the Qur'an and whatever the hell the Jewish holy book is called.

Yeah, the Epic of Gilgamesh mentions a flood catastrophe too, as does a lot of its contemporary (more or less) stories/myths/etc as well as preceding ones (some Sumerian myth I forgot ... might've just been the original version of Gilgamesh) and succeeding ones (Genesis, obviously, as well as others), so it would make sense that there was actually a flood of some sort that spanned at least the Mesopotamian and Egyptian areas. I think there's a Hindu flood myth too but I don't remember if that dates after that or not ... if it was after it, a likely explanation would be that the story just spread or something.

Of course its based on true events, if at least SOME of it. But these events are blown to mystical proportions.

I certainly wouldn't be surprised if a man named Noah tried to evade a local flood (see city-wide if not region-wide) and in a bout of folly believed he could save the animals.

Besides, a large portion of the world was not even known to exist at the time, let alone retrieve and save animals from other continents!

That's what I was thinking.

For all we know he was a pirate who took advantage of flood waters and stole livestock.

Whatever it is I don't think it's right to try and ridicule Anakin for whatever reasons.

Was in the middle of posting this.

The flood probably happened. There's geological evidence for it, I think. Noah probably happened in some form too, but the flood wasn't worldwide and it sure as hell didn't involve bundling up every animal on earth for the trip.

Anybody who thinks Noah's Ark is possible as it is popularly conceived is stupid. Absolutely stupid. It's mechanically and biologically impossible, and if God wanted to wipe out all of humanity except for a small population he'd probably do it the exact same way he's done it for the past 300 million years: a disease to which a small part of the population is immune.

How bad is it that the explanation in HALO 3 is more likely than this lump of crystallized idiocy?

I think given the age of the myth and the omission of the whole ark thing in older versiosn that Noah was just added into it at one point or another and it didn't have anything to do with a guy saving animals to begin with.

[Whoops Joncy cut in under Baconfish's post >_<]

Actually I think most people just don't care. The amount of jobs that evolution is directly relevant to is almost nil, and most people generally choose to spend their free time caring about something that actually impacts their lives in some way. The people who do care tend to be so horribly obnoxious about it that most people don't want to be identified with them by expressing an opinion.

Well to be honest, I think that if God wanted to destroy all of humanity except for a small number of them, through a flood, and since humanity was concentrated in a rather small portion of the world, that would appear large to them, he'd only have to flood that area.

I'd say that only the kinds of animals that would perish in this flood were the ones saved, and the rest of the world was unaffected.

However, even western cultures have tales of a great flood, perhaps descendants of Noah.

I just flooded my apartment. My cat built itself an ark but he refuses to save me.

The flood would have had to happen a REALLY REALLY long time ago for this to be true, since most of the world was populated far before history began [edit: Wiki says Paleolithic era, 75,000 to 50,000 BP] and by the time of the writings of flood myths (Gilgamesh, at least), established civilizations were already seated all over the world -- Mesopotamia, India, China, etc.

When did God flood the inhabited world, again?

Evidence of human activity in major geological regions (by years):

• Africa: 170,000 years ago
• Australia/Southeast Asia: 70,000
• Europe: 50,000
• Japan: 35,000
• North America: 30,000
• South America: 15,000
• Arctic: 7000

What are you saying here

All cultures have tales of a great flood. New Orleans has tales of a great flood and there even a bit with a guy in a boat saving animals. Floods can be immensely destructive and lethal and if someone's entire life is spent in one horrid barren peninsula I imagine it would be pretty easy to justify retelling your great great grandfather's shepherding story as an epic tale where the world ended.

But Pommy the world is only 6000 years old carbon dating is inaccurate :downs:

Ok I'm safe guys, I boarded the ark and overthrew the tyranical kitty captain. Now to get away from this flood...

This confuses me. Why do those who back events such as the "Great Flood" demand thorough evidence from anyone who provides a counter argument to the claim but the same people don't mind coming up with things on the spot?

And if God is this mysterious, omnipotent figure, why do some people know him so well to speak for Him despite acknowledging He works through "mysterious ways." I honestly haven't met a person who just says, "you know, I don't actually know what God really wants" or "not sure His true intentions." It's always been, "God did this because He ...." and "God felt that ...." for whatever action or event.

I'd like to seem some irrefutable evidence on this.

The citation for the facts that I posted was:



I don't have this book but if you or anyone can find the text of it, then we can talk about it without someone proclaiming "THAT IS FALSE YOU HAVE NO PROOF WE CANT KNOW THAT" without having read the material.

I'd like to see you get hit by a bus, will you go stand in traffic when Joncy lays a smackdown of knowledge all up in your grill?

Whats so wrong in trying to see the authenticity of his claims? This is the first time I've seen these claims, so I want to learn where they came from.

"Since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should not adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."

- Saint Thomas Aquinas

"Stick your fingers in your ears and go 'BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH,' whenever anyone questions your rationality or intelligence because you believe in the invisible man and his fantastic adventures.

- Saint Thomas Aquinas

Yeah, that was one of his lesser known and more controversial theological statements.

The first bit of evidence is what Pommy posted. Geneticists have traced markers in the Y chromosome and in mitrochondrial DNA, providing a fairly complete picture of human migration over hundreds of millennia.

The archaeological evidence is irrefutable as long as you're willing to accept the accuracy of carbon dating. The evidence for carbon dating's accuracy is taught in basic high school level physics so unfortunately you don't have the knowledge to actually refute the process which means I win.

You guys (who don't believe in God) realize that there are those people out there who still believe fully in a God of some form, or a higher being of some form, but do not totally follow everything the bible (a book written by MAN and rewritten several times over again by MAN)?

You're calling someone stupid because they believe in something that they cannot prove, but something that you cannot disprove either. Where is the logic in that?

I'm not saying Moses split the sea, nor did he load the boat with that many animals, and I will say that as far as my beliefs in something like that goes, it did not happen. But, did you ever stop and think, that maybe perhaps the bible is exaggerated truths? To make the stories seem larger than life? They've done scientific investigations which lend credence to the possibility that the "STORY OF MOSES" was in fact true, and he did create a boat and such during a flood and all the other details, but that the statistics and nuances about the story were exaggerated when written by man? For example, the flood obviously wasn't over the entire world, and could very well have been only in that known area of the world. Or, the amount of animals on the boat was largely (and obviously) exaggerated upwards from the original number?

It is entirely possible. And it has nothing to do with a God really, just an event happening or not, and whether or not the people that wrote it into the bible wrote it as truth, completely false, or exaggerated here and there in places.

Just something to think about before you go calling someone stupid because of their beliefs. Even if they seem unbelievable to you.




This is kind of what I was referring to before with the "Scientific research" being done. I cannot recall what show it was exactly, but the title was something like "The real NOahs Ark" and was on the Discovery channel a few months back. They took a look at the area around the mountains that Noah supposedly read the tablets from the 10 commandments, the sedament, etc and they did find that there was in fact a great flood and placed it between the timeframe of when the great flood was supposed to happen. However they also took a look at the rest of the world and found there was no such evidence, and thus God could not have "flooded the entire world" since the evidence would be everywhere, which it was not. They concluded that the story was exaggerated, but that this did not rule out the possibility of it happening altogether based off the other evidence supporting it that they found and instead suggested that the flood could have been one that was just in that area of the world.

Just a quick thought.

If the cientific method through which something is determined fact or false is by observation (seeing, touching, smelling, hearing, tasting), then how do we know evolution is a real process?

Have we ever seen evolution? Have we seen it working? Have we smelled it? Heard it? Tasted it? (the answer would be no to all of these, so thus we deduce we have not observed it)

What evidence, other than incomplete questionable fossils, which age were determined by questionable methods, known to have been wrong in the past, and could very well be wrong now, do we have of evolution?

Also, what evidence do we have of Jon'C's brain? Have we seen it? Touched it? Smelled it? Tasted it? Heard it?

I guess were just gonna have to settle on faith for that one. Just like evolution, a questionable/contreversal theory, which offers us no hope for the after life, present life or any other time frame in view.

Sounds like dedicating your time to a useless subject that is used to offend people instead of helping them.

plagiarism.

SF_Gold is paraphrasing a Chick tract quite handily, it's true.

Yes.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060714-evolution.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0601/p17s02-stss.html


And that's just two random examples lazily googled.
Theres more indepth and better examples that are often brought up and discussed.

but he posted as if it were his own argument

Deadman get prepared to hear some stupid things regarding so-called "micro" and "macro" evolution.

What I don't get is why non-evolutionist types are even coming into a thread celebrating Darwin's birthday *shrug*

to cause problems

or to remind us that He created Darwin.