or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › Truth v. Fact
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Truth v. Fact - Page 3

post #81 of 211
Chris,

the problem with arguing with people like you, Chris, is that you are inherently irrational.

For example, the denial of the Ark story is seen by you as just another belief system, as valid as your belief it did occur. Rubbish - my belief that it did not occur is based on simple logic and scientific reasoning. An earlier poster listed a number of logical reasons why it didn't happen, and I won't bother to repeat them.

I'm glad that you are a non-violent fundamentalist. Please stay that way.

David

PS I didn't understand your "hyperbole machine is in high gear today" comment. Am I wrong about the legislation? Or am I wrong to 'believe' that creationism is ridiculous and has no place in a modern society?
post #82 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
Chris,

the problem with arguing with people like you, Chris, is that you are inherently irrational.

For example, the denial of the Ark story is seen by you as just another belief system, as valid as your belief it did occur. Rubbish - my belief that it did not occur is based on simple logic and scientific reasoning. An earlier poster listed a number of logical reasons why it didn't happen, and I won't bother to repeat them.

I'm glad that you are a non-violent fundamentalist. Please stay that way.

David

PS I didn't understand your "hyperbole machine is in high gear today" comment. Am I wrong about the legislation? Or am I wrong to 'believe' that creationism is ridiculous and has no place in a modern society?

Well someone had to say it - you've hit the nail on the head.

The problem is that religion in general at this point in time (not necessarily historically) will always choose belief over science if the two conflict.

This is utterly ridiculous and laughable if only because God (if He exists) must exercise His action int he world through science. that is to say - if reason and scientific fact exist (they do) and if God exists (He may) then science is as much a creation of God's as anything else.

But literalists and fundies cannot accept this. To them science and rationalism is against their faith (understandably in many cases because their faith is irrational) but it wasn't always this way and it doesn't have to be now.

In medieval Islamic Spain Jews, Christians and Muslims worked jointly to translate and preserve Greek philosophical, medical and scientific writings - they worked on mapping the world and charting the sky in ways we still employ as well as laying the foundation of our mathematics. Islamic thinkers even posited a theory of evolution.

All this under the banner of religion. We have lost so much - all religion today is a pathetic shadow of what it was and still could be.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #83 of 211
I can't believe it.

I finish replying to Chris, and then pick up my paper to finish reading. And what do I read:

Last week in Texas George W Bush called for "intelligent design" to be taught in state schools so that "people can understand what the debate is about"!!!!

According to the article the majority of Americans believe in this view, which includes the belief that the earth is only 6000 years old.

You just can't make this stuff up..............the leader of the free world pushing this nonsense..........

Chris, I don't suppose you'd answer this - do you believe the earth is only about 6000 years old?

David
post #84 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I believe that the event [the story of Noah's Ark] is possible, though I do not pretend to comprehend all of the details (of course the Bible does not provide ALL of the details either). I certainly cannot prove that it did not happen.

I recognize the "far-fetchedness" that many people see. But...

far-fetched != impossible
improbable != impossible

Anyone's belief that it did not happen is based on faith as is my own belief that it did happen.

Steven Wright once said in one of his routines something like this: "I came home today, and everything in my house had been stolen and replaced by an exact replica."

Is what Wright joked about possible? Well, sure, it's possible. And if "exact" only has to mean "good enough so you won't ever know the difference", there's at least no violation of the laws of physics here, no need for the miraculous.

Yet would you submit that, on any given day, coming home, looking around your house, and seeing that everything appears as it usually does, that it's equally "based on faith" to decide that nothing has been stolen and replaced with an exact replica as it is to decide that everything has been stolen and replaced with an exact replica? Since both scenarios are "possible", in Chris Cuilla Land this would put both scenarios on some sort equal footing?

Let's put aside your strange usage of the word "faith", a usage which renders the word nearly without meaning or weight. Such a notion of "faith" clearly has no bearing on the general concept of sanity vs. insanity.

To suppose the nothing-stolen scenario, if one even bothers to have such a thought go through one's head, is what most of us would call "sane". On the other hand, to not only imagine, to not merely joke about, but in all seriousness and with great, unyielding conviction to insist upon the everything-stolen scenario -- that constitutes a state of mind well described as "insane".

Only the existence of a supportive culture which pats you on the back and gives you a cookie for believing in Noah's Ark gives more credence to the Ark than to Steven Wright's story. In all other ways, the story of Noah's Ark is much less believable than Wright's.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #85 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
the problem with arguing with people like you, Chris, is that you are inherently irrational.

It is good for you to begin on a positive and respect note.

Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
For example, the denial of the Ark story is seen by you as just another belief system, as valid as your belief it did occur. Rubbish - my belief that it did not occur is based on simple logic and scientific reasoning.

Prove it didn't. That list was merely a set of things that would have to happen for it to not be true, certainly no where in the vicinity of a proof that it could not.

Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
I'm glad that you are a non-violent fundamentalist.

Whatever you wish.

Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
Or am I wrong to 'believe' that creationism is ridiculous and has no place in a modern society?

I think that you are wrong.
post #86 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
do you believe the earth is only about 6000 years old?

I dont have a definitive opinion on the age of the earth.

Is this really what everyone thinks that all people that believe in creation think. That if you believe in creation you MUST believe that the earth is only 6000 years old?
post #87 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
science and rationalism is against their faith

That is not what I or most of the Christians that I know think.
post #88 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline

<snip crappy analogy>

Let's put aside your strange usage of the word "faith", a usage which renders the word nearly without meaning or weight.

I think that a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" will suffice.

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Only the existence of a supportive culture which pats you on the back and gives you a cookie for believing in Noah's Ark

That was funny. No, really. Very good.

Actually, you are close. At my church...we have a big sign requesting people to turn their brains off before entering. That is only for visitors of course. Once they get trained (Pavlov's dog style) in the cookie/pat on the back routine it isn't a problem. For the real stubborn ones, frontal lobotomies of course.
post #89 of 211
Chris,

you're priceless, you really are.

How can you say that

Quote:
uote:
Originally posted by segovius
science and rationalism is against their faith

originally quoted by Chris
That is not what I or most of the Christians that I know think.

and then suggest that the Ark really happened? Science and rationalism wouldn't support that for an instant.

Science and rationalism suggests that the earth is sevral billion years old, the universe approx 15billion, and that a 'big bang' created it. That does not square with you creationist world.

Or did you mean that you are happy to accept scietific principles where they don't conflict with the bible - to take an example, gravity. In the Garden of Eden an apple fell. So there was gravity back there, so...........ok, gravity os Ok as a scientific concept.

Actually, i am still struggling to understand how it is possible to believe in the literal truth of the ark. Have you any idea of how many species there are in the world?

David
post #90 of 211
<deleted.... decided not to get into this as I wont be able to get out!>
"The world is all that is the case"
~ Ludwig Wittgenstein
Reply
"The world is all that is the case"
~ Ludwig Wittgenstein
Reply
post #91 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
Science and rationalism suggests that the earth is sevral billion years old, the universe approx 15billion, and that a 'big bang' created it. That does not square with you creationist world.

First the age thing...as I said, I do not have a definitive opinion on it. I am willing to accept a gazillion year old thing. No problemo. Even a big bang. No problemo. At the core though, is question of whether everything has happened naturalistically or whether there is something/someone behind it all that has created to begin with. I believe the latter.

Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
and then suggest that the Ark really happened? Science and rationalism wouldn't support that for an instant.

Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
Actually, i am still struggling to understand how it is possible to believe in the literal truth of the ark.

Prove it didn't happen. Read the account. Read it carefully. Very carefully. Tell me how it is not only impossible, but also, please share the scientific evidence that directly contradicts it.

I'm sorry that my beliefs don't jibe with yours. And I also realize that you consider it irrational. But think carefully about what is being said. What science "suggests".
post #92 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I think that a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" will suffice.

What's with the ridiculous binary standards? "Proof" is matter of degree and quantity and quality, and when it comes to Noah's Ark being fable and not historical fact, there's plenty of proof, from biology and geology, establish a pattern of evidence utterly at odds the possibility that the story is true.

"But it's not impossible!" is a very, very weak response to the counter-evidence against your belief. What would be your standards of proof for someone claiming the the Flood and the Ark, in all of the associated particular and specific Biblical details, didn't happen?

Would a proof only suffice once you run out of suggested miracles, when you run out of your supply of "well, I don't knows, but I still believe it", when your imagination finally fails you and you can no longer freely concoct any excuse against any evidence you don't like, including things like the old John Birch society bit about fossils being planted by Satan?

The ability to dig your heels in and either shrug off what doesn't fit or concoct miracles and excuses with unbounded restraint is not only an incredibly poor way to judge the quality of a "proof", but it's the very kind of dysfunctional thinking I'm quite willing to call a form of insanity.

You're not even really going by your own definition of faith: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" when you say things like "Prove it didn't happen." You're making faith into "firm belief in something that can't be disproved" -- and that's quite another meaning.

Let's not pretend faith can't be misplaced. People put their faith in ideas and institutions and other people all the time, with bitter results. Some kinds of faith are unwarranted and unwise, and, yes, crazy. A simple faith in a God of some sort, which, while I don't find such faith very rational, isn't what I'd call crazy. A self-imposed need to combine that faith with belief in ridiculous cartoonish fables and to imagine such things as historical fact, with no cover other than "you can't prove it didn't happen!" -- that's where the insanity lies.

I get the impression that some people get a perverse form of satisfaction out of believing the most improbable, ridiculous things -- the harder to swallow, the better -- as if their willingness to shut down their brains or perform daring feats of stunning illogic without a net is their great offering to their god.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #93 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
I get the impression that some people get a perverse form of satisfaction out of believing the most improbable, ridiculous things -- the harder to swallow, the better -- as if their willingness to shut down their brains or perform daring feats of stunning illogic without a net is their great offering to their god.

Never a truer word said.... get this man a beverage!

However fruitless this thread is.... it's bloody entertaining!
"The world is all that is the case"
~ Ludwig Wittgenstein
Reply
"The world is all that is the case"
~ Ludwig Wittgenstein
Reply
post #94 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
What's with the ridiculous binary standards?

Well...I took it from the dictionary. Didn't make that up on my own. So...I guess that is where your problem is.

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
"Proof" is matter of degree and quantity and quality, and when it comes to Noah's Ark being fable and not historical fact, there's plenty of proof, from biology and geology, establish a pattern of evidence utterly at odds the possibility that the story is true.

Well, good...then you should have no trouble presenting it. Until you do, stop making making statements like "there's plenty of proof, from biology and geology, establish a pattern of evidence utterly at odds the possibility that the story is true".

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
"But it's not impossible!" is a very, very weak response to the counter-evidence against your belief.

But no one has presented any "counter evidence"...All I 've seen is stuff like "you must be a loony". Hardly evidence.

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
The ability to dig your heels in and either shrug off what doesn't fit

Well, when something that doesn't fit is actually persented...and the "you must be a loony" argumentation technique is set aside...then you might have a point.

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
I'm quite willing to call a form of insanity.

Of course you are.

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
You're not even really going by your own definition of faith: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" when you say things like "Prove it didn't happen." You're making faith into "firm belief in something that can't be disproved"

Wrong.

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Let's not pretend faith can't be misplaced.

I'm not.

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
People put their faith in ideas and institutions and other people all the time

I totally agree.

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
that's where the insanity lies.

Why of course.

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
I get the impression that some people get a perverse form of satisfaction out of believing the most improbable, ridiculous things -- the harder to swallow, the better -- as if their willingness to shut down their brains or perform daring feats of stunning illogic without a net

I think that you are absolutely correct.
post #95 of 211
Sadly, I became curious as to how many species there are. Scientists argue, but the different sources I looked at seem to come to a more or less similar set of numbers.

The animals that would need the Ark:

Mammals: 4200 (less a few swimming ones)
Reptiles: 6700 (less a few swimming ones)
Arachnids: 44,000 (I expect a few can swim)

The ones that don't need an Ark:

Birds: 9700 (because they can obviously keep on flying for as long as it takes for the waters to go down)
Insects: 1,000,000 (because they too can either fly or swim for the necessary time)
Molluscs: 80,000

Does the story discuss plants? There are around 250,000 different species of flowering plants. I dare say 40 days underwater wouldn't harm them, so that's not a problem.

For completeness, fish. About 21,000.

So ignoring insects (damn tricky things to catch, little and fiddly most of the time, Noah probably figured the ones God wanted to save that couldn't fly or swim could cling to the outside of the Ark), our friend Noah had to collect around 54,900 species, or 109,800 specimens.

I think we can safely ignore the question of food and sanitation.

Food was taken care by God - plenty of water around, and as long as Noah remembered to bring some bread some multiplying a thousand fold every few days would take care of that. The carnivores, obviously, went on vegetarian diets as they could see the big picture.

As for sanitation - a 'bucket and chuck it' approach would have been used.

So really, Chris is right after all. It is possible that an Ark occurred.

The conditions are there - a guy who could build a big boat. He had the time and inclination to collect 109,000 animals, he had the God link thing going which took care of the food and no inter species feeding went on.

Wait a minute - perhaps prior to the flood there were in fact 50,000 species of mammals, and Darwin's survival of the fittest theories actually related to a big bunfight on the ark, and not to an evolutionary process - it's all starting to fit.

\

David
post #96 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
Wait a minute - perhaps prior to the flood there were in fact 50,000 species of mammals, and Darwin's survival of the fittest theories actually related to a big bunfight on the ark, and not to an evolutionary process - it's all starting to fit.

\

David

But wait - there weren't two of every animal but seven (or is this just a contradiction?) - Genesis 7:2-3:

Quote:
You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; 3also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth."

So that more than triples the ark-space required as well as the workload with all that 'bucketing and chucking'.

According to this well researched and insightful article from the BBC there are some other problems also - even merely loading that number of animals would have taken 35 years and then of course, many would have died and needed to be replaced.

Also - where did Noah get all these animals? Did he discover America and Australia personally in the case of indigenous localised beasts such as the duck-billed platypus?

It is also doubtful whether a vessel 450 ft long would even be enough to house the requisite amount of livestock but even if so, studies have shown that such a length would not survive a regular storm, let alone a global deluge, and would split in the middle. that is of course if the technology existed to manufacture such a ship. Which it didn't.

The most interesting question here is, why, after thousands of years of human civilization, have we not outgrown primitive and backward superstitions and why do we cling to outmoded mythologies that say nothing to us about our present culture and capacities and even derive from cultures we not only do not understand but, in many cases, have no wish to.

The situation is almost pathological.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #97 of 211
Quote:
But wait - there weren't two of every animal but seven (or is this just a contradiction?) - Genesis 7:2-3:

Oops. My mistake. But damn, he talks of the birds too. They weren't expected to fly continuously.

Quote:
Did he discover America and Australia personally in the case of indigenous localised beasts such as the duck-billed platypus?

pity you used the duck billed platypus as your example, as that one wouldn't need an ark. Kind of demolishes your argument

Quote:
but even if so, studies have shown that such a length would not survive a regular storm,

sorry, but off-base again. God, after going through the aggro of getting Noah to work bl**dy hard to sort out the Ark, would not then give him a vessel endangering storm.


Quote:
The most interesting question here is, why, after thousands of years of human civilization, have we not outgrown primitive and backward superstitions and why do we cling to outmoded mythologies that say nothing to us about our present culture and capacities and even derive from cultures we not only do not understand but, in many cases, have no wish to.

Seriously, you ask a very valid question. And it is beyond me.

Chris got a little upset when I described him as irrational. But what other term is appropriate? Earlier on in the thread he accepts that some parts of the Bible are meant to be figurative. And yet Noah's Ark he accepts as being literal!

Come on Chris, be rational. There are plenty of stories in the Bible that one could accept as having occurred. Why pick one of the least likely and proclaim it as the truth?

David
post #98 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
But wait - there weren't two of every animal but seven (or is this just a contradiction?) - Genesis 7:2-3:

Quote:
You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; 3also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth."


Actually, I read that differently than you in a way much more damning to the ark theory. It seems to me that the passage reads that Noah was to take with him 7 pairs of each clean animal.
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell
Reply
post #99 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by audiopollution


Actually, I read that differently than you in a way much more damning to the ark theory. It seems to me that the passage reads that Noah was to take with him 7 pairs of each clean animal.

Yes, you're absolutely right - that doubles it again
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #100 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by audiopollution
Actually, I read that differently than you in a way much more damning to the ark theory. It seems to me that the passage reads that Noah was to take with him 7 pairs of each clean animal.

Damn good thing for Noah that elephants are classified as "unclean".
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #101 of 211
So, where have we got to, numerically wise?

I started with 109,000, and then it was pointed out clean animals come in 7 pairs, unclean only 2 pairs. Anyone know the split between clean and unclean? For arguments sake, lets say on average there were three pairs of animals.

So that's 327,000 animals on the ark.

But I now need to add in the birds.

9700*2*3 = 58,200 more.

OK, so now we have 385,200 animals.

Excluding insects.

Mmmmm.

I wonder if Chris would accept the above as any sort of proof his Ark didn't happen? Somehow, I doubt it.

David
post #102 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
But I now need to add in the birds.

9700*2*3 = 58,200 more.

Unfortunately, the bird calculation is more complex.

First you need to factor in flightless birds such as emus, cassowarys and the like - all relatively large specimens. We also need to consider dodos and others that are now extinct (similarly we may be a bit down on recently extinct mammals such as thylacines etc).

Then, we must also realise that most birds cannot fly indefinitely without rest and that some can only stay aloft for relatively short periods - therefore all these birds would need somewhere to alight and the ark would be the only possible place if everywhere else was under water.

Therefore the birds must be counted back in and also we must also realise that the ark must have had some built-in perch-like mechanism capable of accomodating all the circling birds when they got tired.

Clearly this would pose a problem for large birds of prey such as eagles, buzzards owls and perhaps vultures. Their numbers would not be limited by 2 or 7 and it is highly likely that the ark would be under siege from large squadrons of starving predators on the wing. Especially with all that live food on board.

I think we need ot consider the possibilities of some sort of primitive ark-to-bird missile system. At the very least, upward pointing cannon or perhaps, primitive ballista or trebuchet mechanisms. This would of course greatly add to the weight, space and displacement problems of the vessel.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #103 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
I started with 109,000, and then it was pointed out clean animals come in 7 pairs, unclean only 2 pairs. Anyone know the split between clean and unclean? For arguments sake, lets say on average there were three pairs of animals.

I think you can safely assume (as long as we're in the world of cartoon logic) that Noah decided anything even slightly unusual or unfamiliar looking was "unclean" -- keeping the list of "clean" animals down to around 50 or so.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #104 of 211
I think Chris sometimes gets himself into these arguments and then can't extract himself from these absurd positions. Maybe I'm naive, but I simply can't believe that he and dmz believe in the literal truth of a deluge that killed everything on the planet except what Noah brought with him on a boat. I haven't heard either of them directly say whether they think that really literally happened.

Chris? dmz?

Even if you accept the basic outline of the story as having some historical truth, isn't it possible that somebody built a boat and put his family and animals on it to escape some flooding, but that it didn't actually destroy the whole planet's animals? Or that maybe there was a great flood (like the Black Sea theory), passed down through oral history, but there was no guy on a boat?
post #105 of 211
Bottom of page 2 Chris wrote:

Quote:
Anyone's belief that it did not happen is based on faith as is my own belief that it did happen.

where "it" referred to the Ark. Seems to me a definite statement.

The birds are definitely an issue. Over 9000 species, of which most fly. So yes, millions of birds looking for a landing site would cause the ark a problem.

Mmmmmm.

Chris, the answer to this conundrum is.....?
post #106 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Anyone's belief that it did not happen is based on faith as is my own belief that it did happen.

reason and logical analysis != faith. In fact, logical analysis is the opposite of faith by definition: faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
post #107 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
Bottom of page 2 Chris wrote:



where "it" referred to the Ark. Seems to me a definite statement.

Well it still seems to me that he left some room for a folklorish interpretation rather than a literal one. Right? Please?
Quote:
The birds are definitely an issue. Over 9000 species, of which most fly. So yes, millions of birds looking for a landing site would cause the ark a problem.

Haha. This seems a lot like poking holes in episodes of Bugs Bunny. "Yeah right, how could he really get blown up by Acme TNT and live through it!"
post #108 of 211
Rather than me wasting...err..spending lots of time dissecting each individual post on this Noah, thing, I will simply refer any interested parties to some websites (quick summarized reads, so no excuses here) that have done some thinking and reasoning about this very question.

None (that I saw) of them (and nor do I) claim these things to be proof that Noah's story did happen...only fairly reasonable thinking/reasoning through the questions and issues to arrive at a point where it could have happened and is not merely in the realm of insanity.

So, have fun:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...i2/animals.asp

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c006.html

http://www.christianinformation.org/...e.asp?artID=71

Now, we have ventured WAY off topic (and I am surprised no one has been mod-slapped for it yet.) But, I will say this, as a gentle segue back to the original topic, there are "facts" that one can examine in relation to this Noah question. These "facts" are presented in some of the links above. Then there is "truth" derived, deductively from the facts. The truth may not be absolute in the "proven absolutely" sense of things...but it maybe a "supportable" or "reasonable" truth. The reasonablness will be dependent upon the reasonaleness/openness of the receiver though I suspect.

P.S. I don't know what dmz believes about this...he might even disagree with me. If he believes it is possible, I will assume that he's done some thinking/reading (and not assume he is an "illogical, nutjob loony" or some such) on the subject and (perhaps) has other references for you. That is up to him and I will not speak for him. He is free to call me a "loony nutjob" too (though dmz has been demonstrably more respectful than that, so I don't expect it.)
post #109 of 211
Don't underestimate the insects...

There are estimated to be 30 to 50 million species of insect

source 1 or source 2



And of course, the termites might have eaten the ark...
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
Reply
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
Reply
post #110 of 211
I didnt really want to click on Chriss links. It felt like someone pointing me to a website that proves a vegetarian diet is no good and the url is www .meatcouncilofuk .com or something.

But I did.

Now, the premise that Chris asked me to keep in mind was could the Ark story be true based on what we know about the physical world today? And these websites purportedly show that.

First off, I hadnt realized that Noah was 480 years old when he started building the ark, and this building process took 120 years. So based on what we know of the world today, that could not have happened. Unless, of course, when Noah was around 50 God looked ahead, decided hes be needed, so kept him alive for another 430 years in preparation for his big moment. Divine Intervention Required (DIR)

These websites suggest only around 36,000 animals were required (still a sizeable amount), and that if their average size was a rabbit, then they would all fit with room left over for food etc required for the 371 days afloat. How did they all congregate? Turns out Noah didnt do the work, they were guided there by God. DIR.

They suggest that Noah didnt necessarily feed them, as they may well have gone into hibernation mode to save strength, even those animals that dont normally hibernate. DIR.

So no, these websites do not in any way show that the Ark could have happened based on our physical world.

But hey, live and let live.

Chris, you didnt respond to what I thought was an interesting question to you since you do accept that there are bible passages that are meant to taken figuratively, why have you decided that this passage is meant to be taken literally?

But I do have a second question you wrote that 'there are "facts" that one can examine in relation to the Noah question'. What facts are there in this story? Certainly not that Noah was 480 when he started. Certainly not that he built an Ark. The only fact that I can discern is that a cubit was an historical measurement unit. Theres one serious journey from that single fact to an ark story.

Cheers,

David

PS hopefully the reason we havent been mod-slapped is that the thread has been most enjoyable and has remained civil.
post #111 of 211
Just to briefly amplify iMac David's comments - if we resort to DIR even just one time then it takes the discussion out of all logic.

DIR is the suspension of the laws of science - therefore there is no point whatsoever discussing. Likewise the sites Chris points to are hypocritical - all Christian literalist attempts at debate are. The only honest thing they could do would be to put one solitary page there that says something like:

Quote:
there is no need to discuss this rationally - God can do whatever he wants and no scientific laws apply to Him.

That would be more honest. Instead they want their cake and eat it - they want a transcendent God and a God susceptible to rational analysis - though of course this latter exists merely to 'prove' God to skeptics. If everyone was a literalist Christian then no science would be needed or employed.

But the main problem - and in is an enormous nail in the coffin - is a theological one not a rationalist one. The ludicrous nature of such beliefs are proved by theology and Scriptural analysis (ie reason) from the literalist's own perspective.

For example - the ark, Noah and the flood are all in the 'natural' order - ie non-miraculous. That is to say, God tells Noah that there will be a flood (natural) and advises Noah to build a boat (natural).

This is ok as far as it goes but when you introduce DIR at any point (as the literalists do from the very start in assuming God <i>ordered</i> a flood - this is not necessarily the case) then it makes all else nonsensical.

Why have DIR on board with the relation to the animals for example? Why does God not just say "Noah, there's going to be a flood but don't bother building a boat - I'll do some DIR".

Why not just do a DIR and actually <i>stop</i> the flood - you could still zap all the evildoers with a disease or the angel of death that God previously dispatched to kill the first borns - in fact, why bother with all that anyway? Why not just click your fingers and make everything allright?

You see, this is the massive problem they face - they cannot argue that God could do this because of it's implications. But if they argue that He doesn't then they are confirming He is not God - that He is limited - that there are things He is incapable of doing.

Of course, the literalist at this point backtrack about free-will of humans and such when really what they mean is that they cannot face the only options there are: God is limited and therefore not God, God chooses to kill people or (and this is my personal fave) God as they conceive Him does not exist.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #112 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
I didnt really want to click on Chriss links. It felt like someone pointing me to a website that proves a vegetarian diet is no good and the url is www .meatcouncilofuk .com or something.

Well, unfortunately, that would not have been a very effective argumentation technique. Taking that approach would have demonstrated to me that you weren't really serious. By that approach you would simpyl dimiss anything I would say just because I am a Christian and I believe the story.

Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
But I did.

Good for you.

Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
Now, the premise that Chris asked me to keep in mind was could the Ark story be true based on what we know about the physical world today?

Well, I'm pretty sure I simply asked if it was possible. It seems that you may have added the "based on what we know about the physical world today".

Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
First off, I hadnt realized that Noah was 480 years old when he started building the ark, and this building process took 120 years. So based on what we know of the world today, that could not have happened.

So, based on what we know and see here and now. But that really isn't evidence that it didn't happen.

Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
How did they all congregate? Turns out Noah didnt do the work, they were guided there by God. DIR.

I never claimed any differently.

Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
They suggest that Noah didnt necessarily feed them, as they may well have gone into hibernation mode to save strength, even those animals that dont normally hibernate. DIR.

This is a possible explanation, yes.

Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
So no, these websites do not in any way show that the Ark could have happened based on our physical world.

Well, I think you moved that goal line on me.

Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
since you do accept that there are bible passages that are meant to taken figuratively, why have you decided that this passage is meant to be taken literally?

Well, I begin with the assumption, based on the general nature of this part of the Bible as historical narrative. It might be allegorical or metaphorical in some way, I will give you that. But I would not automatically jump to that assumption.

Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
But I do have a second question you wrote that 'there are "facts" that one can examine in relation to the Noah question'. What facts are there in this story?

Actually, I was referring to the facts as presented in the links I posted...facts about species, "kinds", boat size, etc. Especially since that was the main line of argumentation that you were using to dispel the Ark story as unbelievable.
post #113 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Just to briefly amplify iMac David's comments - if we resort to DIR even just one time then it takes the discussion out of all logic.

Fair enough. However, faith can be defined (not MY definition) as "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". So...in the absense of proof that there wasn't devine intervention at some point, is also a faith choice.

Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Instead they want their cake and eat it - they want a transcendent God and a God susceptible to rational analysis - though of course this latter exists merely to 'prove' God to skeptics.

I'm not (and I did not see anything in those links) trying to "prove God". I don't believe that God can be "proven". However neither can "non-God". So back to square one...Faith.

Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
But the main problem - and in is an enormous nail in the coffin - is a theological one not a rationalist one. The ludicrous nature of such beliefs are proved by theology and Scriptural analysis (ie reason) from the literalist's own perspective.

Not really...see below...

Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
For example - the ark, Noah and the flood are all in the 'natural' order - ie non-miraculous. That is to say, God tells Noah that there will be a flood (natural) and advises Noah to build a boat (natural).

This is ok as far as it goes but when you introduce DIR at any point (as the literalists do from the very start in assuming God <i>ordered</i> a flood - this is not necessarily the case) then it makes all else nonsensical.

No one (me included) ever claimed that it was all "naturalistic" or all "devine intervention". God's narrative was, is and always is about His working with the world He's created. Sometimes choosing to suspend natural "laws"/forces, other times using or even amplifying them. This is not inconsistent or hypocritical or theologically weak...though I understand that you will find it so, and unbelievable to boot.

Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Why have DIR on board with the relation to the animals for example? Why does God not just say "Noah, there's going to be a flood but don't bother building a boat - I'll do some DIR".

Why not just do a DIR and actually <i>stop</i> the flood - you could still zap all the evildoers with a disease or the angel of death that God previously dispatched to kill the first borns - in fact, why bother with all that anyway? Why not just click your fingers and make everything allright?

This is the classic (and weak) "Well, if 'God' had really done it, he would have done it the way I think he would have done it" argument. Not even worth addressing.

So, I'm done with this. Happy to discuss fact/truth I guess. But this has run its course (way off course in fact). Fun exercise though I must admit. Good day.
post #114 of 211
Chris,

as you say, we are in a cul de sac. I think I have demonstrated that the Ark could not have occurred without divine intervention.

I agree I modified your question about the possibility of the Ark story, to add the bit about knowledge of today's world. But I had to, because it is not answerable unless I do.

To clarify:

Q from Chris: Is it possible the Ark story is a true story?

A from David: No it is not. Based on our knowledge of the way the world works, it is simply not possible to be a true story. Noahs age, the collection of animals, the water etc mean that it did not happen.

Response from Chris: Ah, but Divine Intervention removes all the obstacles - God kept Noah alive, God showed Noah how to build an Ark, God ensured the animals arrived at the Ark, slept for the days necessary, etc.

Final Response from David: Oh well, if God did do all that, then yes, it is possible.

So Chris, carry on believing, however nonsensical and irrational the thoughts are.

BTW, my meat council example was not irrelevant. If the websites you had posted us were a group of nautical engineers that considered the possibility, made up of Christians and non-christians, then there's half a chance it would have been read seriously.

But the website was headed something along the lines of 'defending genesis from day 1', so is hardly that serious.

Regards,

David
post #115 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
Chris,

as you say, we are in a cul de sac. I think I have demonstrated that the Ark could not have occurred without divine intervention.

I agree I modified your question about the possibility of the Ark story, to add the bit about knowledge of today's world. But I had to, because it is not answerable unless I do.

To clarify:

Q from Chris: Is it possible the Ark story is a true story?

A from David: No it is not. Based on our knowledge of the way the world works, it is simply not possible to be a true story. Noahs age, the collection of animals, the water etc mean that it did not happen.

Response from Chris: Ah, but Divine Intervention removes all the obstacles - God kept Noah alive, God showed Noah how to build an Ark, God ensured the animals arrived at the Ark, slept for the days necessary, etc.

Final Response from David: Oh well, if God did do all that, then yes, it is possible.

So Chris, carry on believing, however nonsensical and irrational the thoughts are.

BTW, my meat council example was not irrelevant. If the websites you had posted us were a group of nautical engineers that considered the possibility, made up of Christians and non-christians, then there's half a chance it would have been read seriously.

But the website was headed something along the lines of 'defending genesis from day 1', so is hardly that serious.

Regards,

David

Hehe -can we do the resurrection now ?

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #116 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
I think I have demonstrated that the Ark could not have occurred without divine intervention.

But that wasn't really the challenge...at least not the one that the Biblical story creates.

Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
But I had to, because it is not answerable unless I do.

Not really.

Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
So Chris, carry on believing, however nonsensical and irrational the thoughts are.

You call my thoughts "nonsensical and irrational" but fail to admit that your belief that either a) their is no God, and/or b) even if there is, he did not or would not have intervened in this event is a faith choice. Mine is too..but I am willing to admit it.

Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
BTW, my meat council example was not irrelevant. If the websites you had posted us were a group of nautical engineers that considered the possibility, made up of Christians and non-christians, then there's half a chance it would have been read seriously.

So...your implication is that because the source is who it is, their arguments are unreliable, weak or illogical. Then it will be no problem at all to dissect and refute them, so you can just skip the "well because it is from so-and-so" and go right to the dissection.
post #117 of 211
The question I would like to pose is this: why do some people conceive of God as a being who does not respect the very laws and institutions He created?

Ie: science, rationalism, reason and all other laws - if He wanted these laws disregarded then why make them?

It just doesn't make sense (bangs head on table).....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #118 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
The question I would like to pose is this: why do some people conceive of God as a being who does not respect the very laws and institutions He created?

Ie: science, rationalism, reason and all other laws - if He wanted these laws disregarded then why make them?

It just doesn't make sense (bangs head on table).....

Bang away my friend.

This is the classic (and weak) "Well, if 'God' had really done it, he would have done it the way I think he would have done it" argument. Not even worth addressing.
post #119 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Bang away my friend.

This is the classic (and weak) "Well, if 'God' had really done it, he would have done it the way I think he would have done it" argument. Not even worth addressing.

It wasn't my head I was banging

Btw, you do realise that the 'God does it my way' argument you so frequently (over) employ is actually the sole basis of your religious position don't you? Please say yes...it will be my own head otherwise.....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #120 of 211
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
It wasn't my head I was banging

Btw, you do realise that the 'God does it my way' argument you so frequently (over) employ is actually the sole basis of your religious position don't you? Please say yes...it will be my own head otherwise.....

Well...no...it's that God does it His way. Not mine. I have no such delusions in that regard.

Now, I guess you can bang away.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AppleOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › Truth v. Fact