Kevin's Watch

Lord Foul wrote:

Harbinger wrote:Here is an excellent video proving that Noah's Ark was large enough to accommodate all the animals:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz-W6nsBJPQ

And it had plenty of room for food! God's design was perfect and of course he knew the perfect 6:1 ratio of length x width for stability!

Now you can believe.

Wow. My atheism of 10 years is shot in one fell swoop.

Not to inject any seriousness at all, but the cubic feet means nothing cuz you can't stack the sheep like woodpiles, they have to stand on the floor. So the relevant area is less than 10% of what was claimed.
Half the ship is empty, so plenty of food room? really? Most creatures eat between 20 and 50 TIMES their body weight in food per year [big animals actually eat less per lb. on average...so most being sheep size or smaller actually increases the amount of food necessary.

Of course, they could do something like this to get more usable space: profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/71059_2602551781_1534328_n.jpg

I don't understand why this is still discussed as if it's possible. Yes, I know many of you (like Harb) are joking. But come on. It's not a matter of building a boat big enough for millions of species. There's not enough water on the planet to completely flood every last scrap of land. Even if both poles completely melted. Which we know is impossible, becuase the ice core samples we've taken go back 100s of 1000s of years (which invalidate the timing of the flood according to a literal interpretation of the Bible, which dates the earth around 6000 years old).

The flood didn't happen. We know for a fact that it didn't happen. The evidence is overwhelming and conclusive. Anyone who still believes a literal Noah's flood has happened simply is not educated in basic science and history, and frankly, I'm surprised that they read something as intellectual as Donaldson. This discussion is ridiculous.

Vraith wrote:Not to inject any seriousness at all, but the cubic feet means nothing cuz you can't stack the sheep like woodpiles,

In Shawn the Sheep (my kid's favorite TV show), they say you are wrong.

Zarathustra wrote:I don't understand why this is still discussed as if it's possible. Yes, I know many of you (like Harb) are joking. But come on. It's not a matter of building a boat big enough for millions of species. There's not enough water on the planet to completely flood every last scrap of land. Even if both poles completely melted. Which we know is impossible, becuase the ice core samples we've taken go back 100s of 1000s of years (which invalidate the timing of the flood according to a literal interpretation of the Bible, which dates the earth around 6000 years old).

The flood didn't happen. We know for a fact that it didn't happen. The evidence is overwhelming and conclusive. Anyone who still believes a literal Noah's flood has happened simply is not educated in basic science and history, and frankly, I'm surprised that they read something as intellectual as Donaldson. This discussion is ridiculous.

? I don't underhead the difference between what you mean? The bible is almost as old as the planet has been here? That has ALOT more credible than believing in science which was invented like one hundred years ago? Isn't THAT ridiculous?

babybottomfeeder wrote:

Zarathustra wrote:I don't understand why this is still discussed as if it's possible. Yes, I know many of you (like Harb) are joking. But come on. It's not a matter of building a boat big enough for millions of species. There's not enough water on the planet to completely flood every last scrap of land. Even if both poles completely melted. Which we know is impossible, becuase the ice core samples we've taken go back 100s of 1000s of years (which invalidate the timing of the flood according to a literal interpretation of the Bible, which dates the earth around 6000 years old).

The flood didn't happen. We know for a fact that it didn't happen. The evidence is overwhelming and conclusive. Anyone who still believes a literal Noah's flood has happened simply is not educated in basic science and history, and frankly, I'm surprised that they read something as intellectual as Donaldson. This discussion is ridiculous.

? I don't underhead the difference between what you mean? The bible is almost as old as the planet has been here? That has ALOT more credible than believing in science which was invented like one hundred years ago? Isn't THAT ridiculous?

Erm, no, the Christian Bible as we know it is less than two thousand years old, a tiny fraction fo the earth's age. And you could argue science has been around since humans began learning through cause and effect, trial and error. Hard science has certainly been around since at least the time of the Ancient Greeks. Long before Jesus and the Bible, anyway.

You're entitled to your own beliefs. You are not entitled to your own facts.

Cambo wrote:

babybottomfeeder wrote:

Zarathustra wrote:I don't understand why this is still discussed as if it's possible. Yes, I know many of you (like Harb) are joking. But come on. It's not a matter of building a boat big enough for millions of species. There's not enough water on the planet to completely flood every last scrap of land. Even if both poles completely melted. Which we know is impossible, becuase the ice core samples we've taken go back 100s of 1000s of years (which invalidate the timing of the flood according to a literal interpretation of the Bible, which dates the earth around 6000 years old).

The flood didn't happen. We know for a fact that it didn't happen. The evidence is overwhelming and conclusive. Anyone who still believes a literal Noah's flood has happened simply is not educated in basic science and history, and frankly, I'm surprised that they read something as intellectual as Donaldson. This discussion is ridiculous.

? I don't underhead the difference between what you mean? The bible is almost as old as the planet has been here? That has ALOT more credible than believing in science which was invented like one hundred years ago? Isn't THAT ridiculous?

Erm, no, the Christian Bible as we know it is less than two thousand years old, a tiny fraction fo the earth's age. And you could argue science has been around since humans began learning through cause and effect, trial and error. Hard science has certainly been around since at least the time of the Ancient Greeks. Long before Jesus and the Bible, anyway.

You're entitled to your own beliefs. You are not entitled to your own facts.

...getting technical Cambo...and by no means does my post confirm or deney my own beliefs on Noah's Ark...but; that story, the story of a massive Earth Cleansing Flood, predates Jesus's time.
IE: its not ONLY found in the Chirstian Bible.

Cambo wrote:You're entitled to your own beliefs. You are not entitled to your own facts.

Heh. Nicely said.


drew, you're right, of course. I imagine many, if not all, cultures have a "worldwide flood" in their religion/mythology/legends. Of course, nearly all cultures experience floods, and it doesn't take much of an imagination to come up with the idea of a flood everywhere. But was there actually a worldwide flood? It wouldn't take an omnipotent being to make enough water to flood the world, then remove all the excess. So did it happen? Are the world's cultures' worldwide flood stories all reporting the same, actual flood? I don't know if anybody's tried to date many of them, to see if they are all said to have taken place at the same time. And I don't know what evidence there is, or can be, for a worldwide flood.

Of course, I'm just playing Noah's advocate. I don't believe it happened.

I try to look for the deeper meanings behind most biblical stories.
I find them more enjoyable when looked at as Allegories

drew wrote:

Cambo wrote:

babybottomfeeder wrote:
? I don't underhead the difference between what you mean? The bible is almost as old as the planet has been here? That has ALOT more credible than believing in science which was invented like one hundred years ago? Isn't THAT ridiculous?

Erm, no, the Christian Bible as we know it is less than two thousand years old, a tiny fraction fo the earth's age. And you could argue science has been around since humans began learning through cause and effect, trial and error. Hard science has certainly been around since at least the time of the Ancient Greeks. Long before Jesus and the Bible, anyway.

You're entitled to your own beliefs. You are not entitled to your own facts.

...getting technical Cambo...and by no means does my post confirm or deney my own beliefs on Noah's Ark...but; that story, the story of a massive Earth Cleansing Flood, predates Jesus's time.
IE: its not ONLY found in the Chirstian Bible.

Which to me makes it even less valid to take the Bible literally.

What I was getting at, is that BBF said that the Bible is

almost as old as the planet has been here

and you said that its less than two thousand years old.

But the Noah's Ark story, is in the part of the bible thats MORE than two thousand years old.

Not that I think the book of Genesis is a great history book or anything; I'm just saying that, that story was being told LONG before they put the Gospels together.

drew wrote:What I was getting at, is that BBF said that the Bible is

almost as old as the planet has been here

and you said that its less than two thousand years old.

But the Noah's Ark story, is in the part of the bible thats MORE than two thousand years old.

Not that I think the book of Genesis is a great history book or anything; I'm just saying that, that story was being told LONG before they put the Gospels together.

Oh, ok, I gotcha. In that case I have to point out that humans themselves have only been around for a fraction of the time the Earth has.

Cambo wrote:
Oh, ok, I gotcha. In that case I have to point out that humans themselves have only been around for a fraction of the time the Earth has.

Well, yeah I guess. But we were created in the same week, so a few days isn't THAT much of a difference, when we're talking about 6000 years of history, right??


























...kidding.

I take it BBF is a young Earth Creationist? I'd love to know how they address the speed of light, interstellar and intergalactic distances, and the half lives of various radioactive materials that have lost their radioactivity and must, therefore, be more than 6000 years old.

SerScot wrote:I take it BBF is a young Earth Creationist? I'd love to know how they address the speed of light, interstellar and intergalactic distances, and the half lives of various radioactive materials that have lost their radioactivity and must, therefore, be more than 6000 years old.

The only person I know that believes young earth USED to say all that stuff was a trick by the Devil. But I argued with him a lot, and we eventually came up with something that's actually kinda fun to ponder [this was years ago, and I no longer remember if we entirely invented it, or if we took some pieces from other peeps ideas]: God made it all in 6 days 6k years ago, but he created it old. Yep. Strange as it sounds, 6000 years ago, he "made" a universe that was 15billion years old, in which life was created as if it had evolved over time.
.

Vraith,

Interesting idea and very difficult to refute. It's as though I came into existence as an almost 40 year old man with full memories of my earlier life, but, that I'm really only 3 days old and the universe itself is only 3 days old? Isn't that contradicted by the account of creation in Genesis? It speaks of a time when there were no animals and plants. Doesn't that imply that time was functioning normally and that in 2 24 hour days the Earth and Plants and animals came into being?

On the first day [6k years ago] god created light, and the 13billion years of the past that light "had existed."
On the third day, he makes land/vegetation and the billions of years of history it "had been" evolving. Same for sea creatures [day 5] and land animals and people [day 6]. He simply creates the past from nothing in the same way he created everything else from nothing. Unlike us, who have to have a hunk of marble to sculpt a statue out of, God is not bound by time, so when he needs to sculpt he creates at that moment the historical events in which the limestone had been metamorphized, cut into a block, and delivered to his studio.
Light is both particle AND wave, the earth is 6k and 5billion, the cat is both alive and dead, a train leaves NY heading west, another leaves L.A. heading east, and it will be an infinite amount of time before any adolescent gives a crap what the answer to that question is.

Running with that idea:

Suppose God suspened temporal laws (His laws, after all), while creating the Earth, so that he could take His time? All several billion years of it? So he got it done in seven days, but was working so fast that billions of years of effort went into the Creation?

Unsure if that's coherent....

Cambo,

Cambo wrote:Running with that idea:

Suppose God suspened temporal laws (His laws, after all), while creating the Earth, so that he could take His time? All several billion years of it? So he got it done in seven days, but was working so fast that billions of years of effort went into the Creation?

Unsure if that's coherent....

It's the "Spin" from Robert Charles Wilson's excellent book Spin.

This is also brought up in the Movie Inherit the Wind, when Henry Drummond shows Revered Brown a bit of rock that is ten million years old, and the Reverend says thats in possible, as the world is only four thousand years old.

Mr Drummond asks Rev Brown, how come the first day couldn't have been ten million years long.

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3203647199688562840#

My father (an Anglican minister) asked me the same question when I was young.

I'm not a Biblical literalist, so I have no trouble grasping the idea of a 'day' being symbolic of an era. I also do not have a blind and absolute faith in science. If, for example, there is ever any change in the rate of decay in radiocarbon dating, then all calculations are off. The further back the claims, the less real possibility of measuring and coordinating genuine knowledge. All becomes speculation.

As for stories like Noah's Ark, there are many intelligent Christian commentaries on it. The single biggest problem is the individual reading Biblical accounts "for himself" and making assumptions based on his own knowledge and lack thereof. Thus, young creationists can be wrong, and so can the atheist skeptics who scoff at them.

For myself, I have no trouble grasping that an author describing a worldwide flood could be describing the entire world - as far as he could tell or was concerned, or that an author describing the sun as "stopping" was describing what he was seeing in terms of his own understanding - and NOT that the sun actually "stopped". I can as easily imagine the miracle entailing a halting of the earth's rotation or other manner in which daylight was miraculously prolonged.