First you choose not to understand it and then you choose not to remember people have even tried to explain it to you. Man.
Breaktime's over for me too.
Its the old technique of appearing such an asshat, that we will all abandon the thread, and they will declare victory and they had us on the run because we refuse to talk to them.
First you choose not to understand it and then you choose not to remember people have even tried to explain it to you. Man.
Breaktime's over for me too.
You must be working late.
On the evolution thing, don't go there, it doesn't function, and this is getting more and more apparent as time goes by. But agian, no one wants to come out and admit they want it both ways when it comes to the numbers.
More on your Genesis thingy later. I'm still at work.
On the evolution thing, don't go there, it doesn't function, and this is getting more and more apparent as time goes by. But agian, no one wants to come out and admit they want it both ways when it comes to the numbers.
More on your Genesis thingy later. I'm still at work.
You must be working late.
On the creation story thing, don't go there, it doesn't function, and this has been quite apparent for six thousand years now. But again, no one wants to come out and admit they want it to be true when it clearly isn't.
More on your Evolution thingy later. I'm still at work.
Hassan i Sabbah I just did some reading in the bijou dmz library -- I don't think you can get much traction on this one. Apparently the Tigris and Euprates don't share the same source at all, although Pliny and one of Alexander's fabulous Admirals, among others, claim they both have been MASSIVELY SCREWED WITH by those living on their banks over the years. So I guess they could have intermigled and made little baby rivers. I'm sure there's a "big wet delta" joke in there somewhere.
It doesn't appear that these are the same two (four?) rivers that we know today, which would make sense. It wouldn't be underheard of to borrow the name of one memorable river to name another.
Hassan i Sabbah I just did some reading in the bijou dmz library -- I don't think you can get much traction on this one. Apparently the Tigris and Euprates don't share the same source at all,
no they don't that's the point it says they do in the bible and then they're described after the flood as if we still know that the same rivers flowed before the flood and oh what's the point
It does not in any way prove anything about the fundies view - even if false and untrue (which much of the Bible is unfortunately) it is still useful as a historical document. It can be true historically and false metaphysically and I think any rational person will recognise this.
That's my point. The guy who wrote Genesis was describing a real place. And post-Flood place.
In any event the human race had to start out loaded at the deep end of the gene pool. Otherwise, we would all be in trouble. Especially when evolution is asking for hundreds of thousands of years or procreation. The gene pool would have to endure introduced replication errors for all that time and would have to have a fairly robust and pristine set of "features" to start with. Skin color isn't a problem, you can see that today. As for the Ark, there have been a couple of feasability studies which are at least probable.
I don't think you guys are going to get much traction outside the starlight, KAr dating argument.
As for the Ark, there have been a couple of feasability studies which are at least probable.
Did the Ark work a bit like the TARDIS on Doctor Who?
I'm sure it was much easier to fit all of those pairs on animals on the tiny little Ark considering that evolution hadn't allowed for mutiple variations of each species yet.
In any event the human race had to start out loaded at the deep end of the gene pool. Otherwise, we would all be in trouble. Especially when evolution is asking for hundreds of thousands of years or procreation. The gene pool would have to endure introduced replication errors for all that time and would have to have a fairly robust and pristine set of "features" to start with. Skin color isn't a problem, you can see that today. As for the Ark, there have been a couple of feasability studies which are at least probable.
I don't think you guys are going to get much traction outside the starlight, KAr dating argument.
You don't understand the theory of evolution do you.
As for the ark, I have seen a feasability of structural integrity study which states it is physically impossible to build a structure to those dimensions out of wood and have it stay in one piece. Thats before you set it upon the high seas, with such turbulent forces that it flung America across the atlantic 3000 miles and built the himalayas. You really have to have your head screwed on totally backwards to believe such a thing is possible. Oh wait....I'm getting a revelation........God just told me thats not how it happened.
The Ark was did not simply consist of pieces of wood bolted together.
That's a tell-tale argument of someone who hasn't read the relevant text.
from the NIV
"So make yourself an ark of cypress [c] wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. 15 This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. [d] 16 Make a roof for it and finish [e] the ark to within 18 inches [f] of the top. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks."
Away for a few days on an impulsive trip to Oman; this thread has turned rather more acidic !
Excellent. The scientific community tend to be rather too polite. Vituperative comments are far more entertaining.
Will have a look at the historical accuracy of the bible links. i suspect that there may well be a lot of historical detail in there, it being the history of a people and their interpretation of the world. although i might examine some other sites without christian in the title as well for balance.
Good to see you back.
Quote:
the problem of course is the jump from 'history book' to 'definitive truth of the world and how everything ever happened'. historians get things wrong - both modern historians and blokes wandering round in the desert 4000 years ago. (er, sweeping generalizations, but you get my drift)
Good point. Especially in a society where we tend to regard the ancients as rather quaint and simplistic, it is very hard to attribute to them the sort of accuracy we would like. However, if the Bible really is something more than just a book of ancient texts, it should be reflected in it's accuracy in areas we can test.
Quote:
presumably the arguement is that the bible is a 'definitive truth of the world and how everything ever happened' because god 'made the bloke write down said definitive truth' just right.
You beat me to it. Actually, I believe that God protected the writings that best told the story, and then handed them to the Israelites, who, if you look back into history, were fanatical about keeping the documents unchanged and protected.
Quote:
um. too many assumptions for my taste. assume nothing often better.
Good idea. Check the bible out. See if the civilizations that the bible mentioned actually existed. Check out this country of "Ur" that Abraham is supposed to have come from. Stuff like that.
What I did, after I reached the conclusion that there had to be a Designer, based upon what I saw in nature, was to go and read all of the major holy books of different religions, like the Bhagavad Gita, the Koran, the Bible, etc.
Maybe it was my western bias, but only the Bible told a concise, and where it could be tested, completely accurate story.
I think many Christians, actually, treat God like an inscrutable "divine force". I tend to look at it; "If God wanted to tell the history of the world, how would he do it?".
Quote:
are there creationists etc who believe that the earth is in fact billions of years old? That a god started the universe off, and left it to it? whatever one's belief in the existence or not a god, this fits with what we know so far and in no way clashes with the bible (just that the bible does rather well at condensing billions of years of development into a few history pages )
Yes, many of them actually. I just read an article by a microbiologist who believes that God made the world work according to certain physical laws, that basically predestined it for evental concious life. I completely disagree with him on the scientific principles of his argument, but his belief is a pretty common one these days.
Heck, I would like to be a naturalist some days. Without God, we're basically intellegent animals. Why bother explaining God at all? I mean, if there is no divine personality to be accountable to, you can do whatever you want, right?
Quote:
or, is the key precept that humans exist, therefore god exists.
I find this all rather confusing.
No, not really. From where I am, I just look at the fundamental problems that science has trying to fit a naturalistic model into the constrainments of fact. (arguments like the thermodynamics of abiogenesis, irreducible complexity, the absense of macroevolution, etc.) However, if you have an axiom that a Designer made these objects, you are then obligated (at least I was) to do a little research into who this Designer might be.
A note to everybody bickering about the euphrates, and the other rivers.
Someone said that a flood as big as the one stated in the bible would (most likely) destroy any existing topography around which these rivers might have existed. (As well as destroying the garden of eden). Absolutely right.
What makes more sense is that as the earth was repopulated after the flood, the same (or similar) names would have been given to major rivers. Especially if the new river reminded the settlers of the old, pre-flood one. A similar analogy would be the tradition of naming cities in America after cities from the country of origin. I grew up just outside of "New London", as a matter of fact.
As for the Ark not holding enough animals, this is a very old argument, one big enough that it's had several books written about it. First, here's a synopsis of one, but the best I have found would be John Woodmorappe's "Noah's Ark: a feasibility study".
Segovius (incorrectly) states that the bible says five of each animal were taken on the ark. Only five of every "clean" animal were taken, i.e. those considered edible. This would (presumably) allow for a faster regeneration of basic herbivores like sheep, cattle, etc.
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
As for the ark, I have seen a feasability of structural integrity study which states it is physically impossible to build a structure to those dimensions out of wood and have it stay in one piece..
Comments
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
I've seen this explained to you dozens of times.
First you choose not to understand it and then you choose not to remember people have even tried to explain it to you. Man.
Breaktime's over for me too.
Its the old technique of appearing such an asshat, that we will all abandon the thread, and they will declare victory and they had us on the run because we refuse to talk to them.
Lets explain it again just for a fucking laugh, but no-one will read it anyway.
Post content and people might read it (Perhaps I don't count because I'm "on your side"?
Frank: where MarcUK is concerned, astrotheology is related to everything (somehow).
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
I've seen this explained to you dozens of times.
First you choose not to understand it and then you choose not to remember people have even tried to explain it to you. Man.
Breaktime's over for me too.
You must be working late.
On the evolution thing, don't go there, it doesn't function, and this is getting more and more apparent as time goes by. But agian, no one wants to come out and admit they want it both ways when it comes to the numbers.
More on your Genesis thingy later. I'm still at work.
Originally posted by dmz
You must be working late.
On the evolution thing, don't go there, it doesn't function, and this is getting more and more apparent as time goes by. But agian, no one wants to come out and admit they want it both ways when it comes to the numbers.
More on your Genesis thingy later. I'm still at work.
You must be working late.
On the creation story thing, don't go there, it doesn't function, and this has been quite apparent for six thousand years now. But again, no one wants to come out and admit they want it to be true when it clearly isn't.
More on your Evolution thingy later. I'm still at work.
It doesn't appear that these are the same two (four?) rivers that we know today, which would make sense. It wouldn't be underheard of to borrow the name of one memorable river to name another.
Originally posted by dmz
Hassan i Sabbah I just did some reading in the bijou dmz library -- I don't think you can get much traction on this one. Apparently the Tigris and Euprates don't share the same source at all,
no they don't that's the point it says they do in the bible and then they're described after the flood as if we still know that the same rivers flowed before the flood and oh what's the point
dean(scream);
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
....and oh what's the point
I agree. Is it Christmas yet?
Originally posted by segovius
This is all a bit disingenuous.
It does not in any way prove anything about the fundies view - even if false and untrue (which much of the Bible is unfortunately) it is still useful as a historical document. It can be true historically and false metaphysically and I think any rational person will recognise this.
That's my point. The guy who wrote Genesis was describing a real place. And post-Flood place.
The Flood's a load of crap, you see. How funny.
The Tigris and Euphrates don't start form the same source --- too much rumcake and brownies?
I don't think you guys are going to get much traction outside the starlight, KAr dating argument.
Originally posted by dmz
As for the Ark, there have been a couple of feasability studies which are at least probable.
Did the Ark work a bit like the TARDIS on Doctor Who?
I'm sure it was much easier to fit all of those pairs on animals on the tiny little Ark considering that evolution hadn't allowed for mutiple variations of each species yet.
Originally posted by dmz
In any event the human race had to start out loaded at the deep end of the gene pool. Otherwise, we would all be in trouble. Especially when evolution is asking for hundreds of thousands of years or procreation. The gene pool would have to endure introduced replication errors for all that time and would have to have a fairly robust and pristine set of "features" to start with. Skin color isn't a problem, you can see that today. As for the Ark, there have been a couple of feasability studies which are at least probable.
I don't think you guys are going to get much traction outside the starlight, KAr dating argument.
You don't understand the theory of evolution do you.
As for the ark, I have seen a feasability of structural integrity study which states it is physically impossible to build a structure to those dimensions out of wood and have it stay in one piece. Thats before you set it upon the high seas, with such turbulent forces that it flung America across the atlantic 3000 miles and built the himalayas. You really have to have your head screwed on totally backwards to believe such a thing is possible. Oh wait....I'm getting a revelation........God just told me thats not how it happened.
The Ark was did not simply consist of pieces of wood bolted together.
That's a tell-tale argument of someone who hasn't read the relevant text.
Sergovious: You lost me.
Originally posted by Frank777
Read the Genesis account, Marc.
The Ark was did not simply consist of pieces of wood bolted together.
That's a tell-tale argument of someone who hasn't read the relevant text.
from the NIV
"So make yourself an ark of cypress [c] wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. 15 This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. [d] 16 Make a roof for it and finish [e] the ark to within 18 inches [f] of the top. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks."
????????????????? great plan!
Tell me, were Kangaroos on the ark?
Originally posted by brandnewfatboy
Away for a few days on an impulsive trip to Oman; this thread has turned rather more acidic !
Excellent. The scientific community tend to be rather too polite. Vituperative comments are far more entertaining.
Will have a look at the historical accuracy of the bible links. i suspect that there may well be a lot of historical detail in there, it being the history of a people and their interpretation of the world. although i might examine some other sites without christian in the title as well for balance.
Good to see you back.
the problem of course is the jump from 'history book' to 'definitive truth of the world and how everything ever happened'. historians get things wrong - both modern historians and blokes wandering round in the desert 4000 years ago. (er, sweeping generalizations, but you get my drift)
Good point. Especially in a society where we tend to regard the ancients as rather quaint and simplistic, it is very hard to attribute to them the sort of accuracy we would like. However, if the Bible really is something more than just a book of ancient texts, it should be reflected in it's accuracy in areas we can test.
presumably the arguement is that the bible is a 'definitive truth of the world and how everything ever happened' because god 'made the bloke write down said definitive truth' just right.
You beat me to it. Actually, I believe that God protected the writings that best told the story, and then handed them to the Israelites, who, if you look back into history, were fanatical about keeping the documents unchanged and protected.
um. too many assumptions for my taste. assume nothing often better.
Good idea. Check the bible out. See if the civilizations that the bible mentioned actually existed. Check out this country of "Ur" that Abraham is supposed to have come from. Stuff like that.
What I did, after I reached the conclusion that there had to be a Designer, based upon what I saw in nature, was to go and read all of the major holy books of different religions, like the Bhagavad Gita, the Koran, the Bible, etc.
Maybe it was my western bias, but only the Bible told a concise, and where it could be tested, completely accurate story.
I think many Christians, actually, treat God like an inscrutable "divine force". I tend to look at it; "If God wanted to tell the history of the world, how would he do it?".
are there creationists etc who believe that the earth is in fact billions of years old? That a god started the universe off, and left it to it? whatever one's belief in the existence or not a god, this fits with what we know so far and in no way clashes with the bible (just that the bible does rather well at condensing billions of years of development into a few history pages )
Yes, many of them actually. I just read an article by a microbiologist who believes that God made the world work according to certain physical laws, that basically predestined it for evental concious life. I completely disagree with him on the scientific principles of his argument, but his belief is a pretty common one these days.
Heck, I would like to be a naturalist some days. Without God, we're basically intellegent animals. Why bother explaining God at all? I mean, if there is no divine personality to be accountable to, you can do whatever you want, right?
or, is the key precept that humans exist, therefore god exists.
I find this all rather confusing.
No, not really. From where I am, I just look at the fundamental problems that science has trying to fit a naturalistic model into the constrainments of fact. (arguments like the thermodynamics of abiogenesis, irreducible complexity, the absense of macroevolution, etc.) However, if you have an axiom that a Designer made these objects, you are then obligated (at least I was) to do a little research into who this Designer might be.
A note to everybody bickering about the euphrates, and the other rivers.
Someone said that a flood as big as the one stated in the bible would (most likely) destroy any existing topography around which these rivers might have existed. (As well as destroying the garden of eden). Absolutely right.
What makes more sense is that as the earth was repopulated after the flood, the same (or similar) names would have been given to major rivers. Especially if the new river reminded the settlers of the old, pre-flood one. A similar analogy would be the tradition of naming cities in America after cities from the country of origin. I grew up just outside of "New London", as a matter of fact.
As for the Ark not holding enough animals, this is a very old argument, one big enough that it's had several books written about it. First, here's a synopsis of one, but the best I have found would be John Woodmorappe's "Noah's Ark: a feasibility study".
Segovius (incorrectly) states that the bible says five of each animal were taken on the ark. Only five of every "clean" animal were taken, i.e. those considered edible. This would (presumably) allow for a faster regeneration of basic herbivores like sheep, cattle, etc.
Originally posted by MarcUK
As for the ark, I have seen a feasability of structural integrity study which states it is physically impossible to build a structure to those dimensions out of wood and have it stay in one piece..
Well, let's see it!
The ark is said to be covered in pitch (asphalt) on the inside and out.
That would make it waterproof and incredibly strong.
It's a little known fact that is often missed by people who casually dismiss the 'wooden' ark as unworkable.
Maybe a cool project would be for everyone in this thread to get together for a few weekends and build a replica ark?
I mean, really, how long could it take?
Edit: First line refers to Marc's post above, not Benzene's.