BF2S Forums Noahs Ark

whittsend wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

So, were these civilizations too dumb to build/develop an accurate astronomical structure/calendar?  Astronomy played a much bigger role back then than today.  You don't need tools to measure when you can use the stars and math.  Did you ever use trig in your history classes?

Not sure how this affects the topic.  We were talking about Engineering, not Astronomy.

Moot point anyway.  As I said, an Ark on the mountainside only proves that an Ark, somehow, ended up on the mountainside.  It is a leap of faith to go from that to a flood, or God.

I was merely refuting your point that you said the egyptians couldn't have built the pyramids and thus concluded that noah couldn't have built the ark.  The astronomy part was to explain the reason for them building the structures.  I used stonehenge as another example that has 'us' baffled as to how they did it but that doesn't mean they didn't build it because 'they didn't have the tools to do it'.
Basically, i was saying your point was arguable.

Please don't come out with the God did it shit. The flood is just like many other questions that have been asked, how did dinosaurs get wiped out, where did the asteroid come from bla bla. You guys should turn more to the science side of things.

Religion is a funny thing, I don't really believe that if there is a God he would want you to wear a Special hat and be pissed if you didn't.
My sister said " I am distrustful of all Hat religions " Still when your child is ill , If that helps, you so be it. Read about Randell " Duke " Cunningham F4 being hit over North Vietnam by a Sam that knocked out his Hydraulic systems. Some times you find Religion really quick.
Also Its not like They are making you join their club, But if you want to join and dont like the rules... Make your own club.

now, one more thing...

" There is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government. There is nothing heroic about turning your back on America, or ignoring your own responsibilities.”

-President Bill Clinton

Is this supposed to be Funny? I cant tell? I know a lot of people think he was a good guy, but He can be quoted I saying " I loath and despise the military "
He visited The USSR at height of the cold War. He  wouldn't serve in Vietnam Because "he didn't believe in it " ( ps. That's not the deal in this Republic. .)
  Besides he sent plenty of soldiers into harms way for some pretty ill defined roles himself. It sure seemed like he " Despised and Loathed his country " to me.

So I ask you, were you trying to provide humor ?

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

I was merely refuting your point that you said the egyptians couldn't have built the pyramids and thus concluded that noah couldn't have built the ark.

I didn't say that, I was just noting that it has been said, and cited as evidence for the existence of aliens.  No need to refute the argument; I think that argument it is just as lame as saying a pile of wood on the side of a mountain prooves the flood.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-04-10 10:09:22)

JaMDuDe wrote:

Its a boat on top of a 15,000 foot mountain and it has a book written on how it got there. Its not like we dont know how it got there so we are saying it must have been God or sumthing.

If you say it is a boat because the bible says it happened that way, that is fine, but if it turns out to be an ancient fallen tree or something are going to admit the bible is now wrong? nope, and that is fine, that is why it is called faith.

the point is, it doesn't matter what it is up there, you are going to believe what you want regardless. There is no place in faith and religion for truth.

JaMDuDe wrote:

The bible is the truth, u dont need to believe it if u dont want to. Your too "blind" to see it.

LOL

JaMDuDe wrote:

Its a boat on top of a 15,000 foot mountain and it has a book written on how it got there. Its not like we dont know how it got there so we are saying it must have been God or sumthing.

That is a leap of faith, and that's fine.  Just understand that your conclusion has nothing to do with logic, and everything to do with your faith.

I know a lot of people who are better than me who are deeply religious, I just want to be a sinner. I just gotta steal and jump on as many babes as I can. IDKY

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

I remember looking at skeletons of all the different species of humans that we evolved from... oh wait!  There aren't any...  But I guess those liberals forgot to tell you that.  .

This has been the view of religion for millennia. If we can't explain how it happened, God must have done it. I believe someone else has pointed out that the chances of something being fossilized, and then our scientists coming across it today are astronomical. And yes, those 'liberals' did tell me, and I still find evolution to be more plausible than intelligent design.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

But you again misrepresent what I said... most are liberals that don't believe in the Christian God.  But then again, the truth is not what you're after...

Did I misread you? Was I in error? Lets check what you wrote here

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Actually, universities are quite liberal and most liberals don't believe in God

"Most liberals don't believe in God." Perhaps you should have been more specific.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

you'd make a good professor.

Why's that? Because I don't let my religious convictions cloud my judgement and my perception of reality? I agree.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

How did darwin explain how species get to those little islands in the pacific?

Why don't you read his work and find out? You might learn something.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

I guess if 350 years ago is a 'long time ago' then yes you are correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age

I'm not sure if you actually read that wikipedia article you linked, but the 'little ice age' is no comparison to 'THE ice age'. The little ice age caused abnormally cold winters, and caused glaciers and icepacks to advance slightly. THE ice age lasted thousands of years and effected most of the Earth. There's something of a difference there. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything anyway, there's still no way animals repopulated the Earth after the flood.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

So, the position of those opposing your view is laughable but the site that you have found is reasonable?  And Christians are called hypocrites... ??  I'm amazed at the fact that you avoid facts on the opposite side and claim you're honest.

Facts? I haven't seen any facts yet, just a bunch of rhetoric designed to reinforce religious convictions. I also never called all Christians hypocrites, I just think they're wrong (in the scientific, not philosophical sense).

And I never said viewpoints opposing my own are laughable, just that website and others like it. Others seem to agree with me.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

For salt to remain it would have to be replenished.  Water flows to the lowest point.  Rivers (eventually) flow into the ocean... the lowest point.  Amazing how science works.
http://www.abc.net.au/learn/silentflood/faqs.htm
This talks about salt on land in Australia vs New Zealand.  Very interesting.

From that article:

We think most of it has come in from wind blown accession from the oceans. Something like 20 to 200 kilograms per hectare per year. Because Australia wasn't swept clean by the ice sheets 10,000 years ago like in the northern hemisphere, we've had soils that have been accumulating salts for hundreds of thousands of years. If you do your sums you can soon account for a lot of the salt that's in the Australian landscape simply from wind blown accession from the oceans.

Yes, the salt in Australia is very interesting, but has nothing to do with this discussion. I'm referring to salt everywhere, or at least traces of it everywhere. If saltwater had truly covered the entire globe, then some of it should have been left on every land body. And no, the salt would not just have been deposited in the lowest areas, because some of the water would have evaporated and left the salt behind everywhere. I also find it amusing that the lack of evidence supporting your viewpoint in this case is meaningless, but we havent found a few fossilized remains and thus evolution is bunk. A nice double standard for you.

Finally, why are we even arguing about the science of the flood? If God really wanted to flood the Earth, he could damn well do so. He could have done so last week and subsequently erased all evidence of it along with our memories. He's all powerful, right? There seems to be this inexplicable urge to reconcile science and religion in a way that just doesn't work. You're not going to prove the Earth flooded a couple thousand years ago. The evidence is not there. You may say it is, but thus far all I've seen are links to psuedo-scientific religiously oriented sites with a vested interest in proving the bible is fact. In my mind, religion and science are like two different farm animals living on the same farm. The farm works fine the way it is. Why are you trying to mate the horse and cow?

I've got news for you guys:

I'm Jewish and Darwin rules!!!

(no, seriously, really, I am Jewish...)

Anyway, I'm a reform a Jew and a fundamentalist (Christian) at my school, says I'm going to Hell anyway, so why read the Bible?

Anyway, back to arguing.

The height of Mt. Everest is about 5.4 miles (call it 5). The flood supposedly covered all land!

The surface area of the earth (relative) times 5 miles is about 2 × 10^15 meters cubed. The volume of the earth is about 1x10^21 meters cubed. This is .0002% the earth. Not much, but at the scale of the Earth, if .0002% of the mass of the earth (5.9742 × 10^24 Kilos) suddenly was forced out of the ground (even though it supposedly rained) there are tremendous forces involved.

Number 2: How would Noah and the animals survive and repopulate when stuck on a mountain??

Could you give me the measurments for the ark? (A cubit is about 45.72 centimeters, or 18 inches

Big? I think not

Last edited by Daysniper (2006-04-13 06:23:16)

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

With that in mind, what are the chances of evolution?  And plausible?  Give me a break... you later refute your own point by saying God could have done it and erased all evidence yet call evolution more plausible than intelligent design?  Talk about double standards.

How is pointing out that God *could* do so refuting my point that evolution is more probable? As I've mentioned, I cannot prove that God does not exist, and so I must take into account that he might. So I have 2 facts: God might exist and God is all powerful, thus I cannot rule out anything. God could have created all life on Earth 6000 years ago and made up all this scientific evidence to the contrary, I dont know. But I doubt it. I find that a process of gradual change over a few billion years resulting in the species diversity we see today is more likely than 'God did it'.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Do you purposely lie or is it a gene?
"Show me a bleeding heart that believes in the Christian God."

Excuse me? What am I supposedly lying about? Are you saying that you did not, in fact, write "most universities are quite liberal and most liberals do not believe in God?" Perhaps you should go back and check page five of the religious thread, heres a link in case thats too complicated for you: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=18864&p=5 post #111.

I'll thank you not to call me a liar again without some damn good proof.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

No, because of your inability to acknowledge arguments from the opposite side.

So a good professor does not acknowledge arguments from both sides? I'm glad you're not in charge of our education system.

And I have acknowledged the arguments, and dismissed them. In the world I live in, the world of science, logic and reason, Noah did not stuff every species of animal on Earth (plus the dinosaurs, according to answersingenesis.com) into a wooden ship for 40 days. It didn't happen, because there is no evidence to support it, and it borders on the impossible. Now, if God does exist, then who knows. Maybe Noah's Ark is real and all this did happen, because if God does exist then my little world of science logic and reason is pretty meaningless; I believe my friends over at talkorigins.org sum it up pretty well:

Second, the whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that a global flood occurred 4000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

They were of course talking about Noah's Ark, but the same argument applies to intelligent design and creationism in general.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

What does 'no comparison' have to do with the fact that it happened and it had a significant impact of most of the northern hemisphere.  "there's still no way animals repopulated the Earth after the flood."  And you can claim this based on what scientific facts?

The ice age and the 'little ice age' are profoundly different. Besides which, you only brought it up because I was talking about land bridges, and the 'little ice age' was supposed to have enabled animals to migrate thousands of miles across ocean in order to repopulate remote continents and islands, and the fact remains that the little ice age (and other events like it) were not nearly large enough in scope to allow such events.

There is, quite literally, no way animals repupulated the Earth (in its entirety) after this supposed flood (again, barring supernatural interference). If we skip over the litany of scientific problems with the flood itself and getting all of these animals together in the first place aboard this ship, there is still the problem of inbreeding (there are only two of each animal, not much genetic diversity there), getting those animals to isolated islands (no, the little ice age did not allow this, even if there were ice bridges connecting every bit of land on Earth, slow moving land animals that are used to warm climates would have frozen to death on the way)... well, I could go on, but this feels kind of like trying to teach my dog algebra. Actually I'd probably have better luck with that.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Sure... so what you've posted is not rhetoric designed to A) reinforce the theory of evolution and B) prove Intelligent design wrong?  I guess you made a good point, no?

What I've posted is A:based on over a century of scientific research and observation that the vast majority of the scientific community agrees is most likely, and B: As I have stated several times before, Intelligent Design cannot be proved wrong any more than it can be proved right, because it is based on something that cannot be tested or measured by science, I.E God.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

But no one has ever sided with me... ever.  That's like saying "all my friends like me".

Have you considered that noone has sided with you because your argument is absurd? Or had that thought not occurred to you?

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Did you read the entire article? 

"New Zealand has no problems with salinity because its rivers take the salt off the land and back out to sea. Why doesn't that happen here?

"Australia is so different from any other land. Rivers normally build on high ground and run briskly down slopes and disappear into the sea. When rivers behave like that around the coastal parts of Australia any excess salts that get into river systems is carried back into the sea. However most of our major rivers rise on the western flanks of the Great Dividing Range and they don't run briskly down slopes and into the sea, they run into a very flat landscape. In the case of the Murray Darling it's our major river system and it travels mainly westward and then it has one very small exit to the sea. So you've got inward flowing rivers in a continent with a sunken centre. You end up with a very flat land, it gets flatter and flatter retaining its sediment and it becomes a land of flood plains and at the same time of course it is retaining its salt."

Looks like water does flow down and thus taking the salt with it.  Since the flood, has it ever rained?  And considering that there was enough water to cover the entire planet, don't you think the salinity would be diluted?

I know you think this is some kind of crushing blow to my argument, but that paragraph doesn't really say anything important. I bolded the pertinent information for you.

As for there being enough water to cover the entire planet, I believe we've already established that there is not, in fact, enough of it to do so (again, barring Godly intervention). You seem to have skipped over that minor detail.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

I find it 'laughable' that you said my viewpoint was a double standard yet claim humans evolved from a common ancestor with no evidence.

If you've been paying attention, I'm not the one claiming humans evolved from a common ancestor. I believe it was decades of established scientific research that did that, I just happen to agree. As for evidence, you seem to be ignoring DNA polymorphisms, genetic similarity with other animals (fruit flies share nearly 60% of their genes with humans), well, I could go on, but I don't feel like researching all of this just to have you ignore it like you have every other bit of evidence I've presented.

OK lets all get our heads out of our butts and look at this with out blind faith and use alittle realism. 

OK first of all, there is evidence that there was a flood a long time ago that could of overlapped with the time of noah.  The full extent is not know.  Now most of the bible is written concerning a specific geographic area. 

This in mind, it is safe to assume that 2 of every animal was 2 of every animal ingenious to the local habitat.  This would greatly reduce the number of animals. 

Next, all the land in the local area was covered.  So it would be safe to assume that the people of the time would assumethe entire world was covered. 

If you look at all the stories of the bible with a open and reasoning mind you can definately see how something similar could of happened.  Maybe not on the scale that it was recorded under because you have to remember that to these people many things seemed otherworldy and hence may have been embelished abit.

The sotry about the ark on Mt Ararat is nothing new and was supposedly discovered quite a few years ago but Turkey locked it down and refused to allow anyone in to look at it.

JaMDuDe wrote:

its around 15,000 feet up...hows that a local flood?

A water level of 5,000 meters...   Sorry to break it to you but if all ice on earth melted, the water level would only be 83 (+/- 5m)  meters higher.

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba282.html wrote:

If all the earth's frozen water melted, scientists say sea levels could rise about another 275 feet.

275 (ft) divided by 3.3 = 83 meters. Ergo, there no possibility of a 15,000 ft flood.

So you've got inward flowing rivers in a continent with a sunken centre. You end up with a very flat land, it gets flatter and flatter retaining its sediment and it becomes a land of flood plains and at the same time of course it is retaining its salt."

Looks like water does flow down and thus taking the salt with it.  Since the flood, has it ever rained?  And considering that there was enough water to cover the entire planet, don't you think the salinity would be diluted?

http://www.dnr.nsw.gov.au/salinity/basics/index.htm Talking about the salinity in East Coast Australia, you have to understand a majority of the problem is through improper management practices such as broad scale clearing of native vegetation for agricultural and urban development.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

So, when we 'evolved' how many humans evolved at the same time?  Did all the sudden 3 females and 3 males evolve?  Would be very coincidental for these humans to evolve from land animals into several humans at once and then turned around and populated the earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution  -  You might learn something.

Last edited by mcminty (2006-04-14 05:44:54)