Noah Built a Boat?

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by CyberShy

One of the main requriements joining a religion is to stop thinking for yourself. If you start to ask questions about the fundament of the religion, then you are nothing than a heretic.

So far you're more describing the atheistic requierment... the ammount of BS and yelling one gets over him when he says he doesn't believe in evolution is huuuuuge.
In fact I 'm a christian and I do really not understand where you guys get that "If you 're a christian you should stop thinking" idea from. In fact we debate and think and talk a lot in our church about all possible subjects.

Most non-christian people I know know less about most stuff then most christian people I know. But oh well, I'll getting used to non-christians who're eager to make all kinds of assumptions about christians. Just blindfolded assumptions.

Kidnly dont put YOUR "faith"(sic:willfull ignorance) in my knowledge. Few people who understand evolution and think it is correct, defend it to the contrary of other scientific evidence. They defend it as the most likley truth.

This is in oposition to creationalists who KNOW the truth and want to believe that "truth".

If your going to use some minority idiots who defend evolution without using empirical evidence to represent all evolutionists, then I suppose its fair to use Jerry Falwell to represent all christians or better yet, the shah of Iran for all deists.

Only one group wants to find the actual answer and that aint deists.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Biology, theology and one I forgot about.
Boris: you make your good arguments look weak by writing lines like "10-1 it's a degree from a diploma mill or theology school and he works for some creationist/religious organization." about somebody you don't know.

It's a reasonable guess, as many Creationists have dubious credentials:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html

Dishonesty is rampant among Creationists, alas.

Further, Boris, I just gave a list of arguments I read somewhere long ago. I can't reply on your arguments since I have no knowledge about it.

Yup, because you're just repeating things without considering their true scientific ramifications. That's why Creationism is pseudoscience. They make up crap that's just science-sounding enough to convince ignorant dupes, but it doesn't hold up a bit to actual science.

You know these arguments exist. You know that there are arguments against your counter-arguments as well.

I know of no effective counterarguments to the problems posted for Flood geology. You can start with those six questions no Creationist can answer. I can't believe you'd say something so weak as this.

Of course it's easy to talk from a great height upon all 'creationists'. I feel little symphathy for your approach. My father always used to say that the person who yelled the loudest was most probably wrong. Unfortunately my sister and me found out that he was right most of the time.

Problem for you is, it's the Creationists who are yelling loudest. Science accepted an old-earth and evolution 100+ years ago and has never looked back. 99% of the world's scientists who study this material are probably wrong? Sorry, I don't buy it. The flood myth contradicts almost every established field of science--physics, geology, tectonics, biology, meterology, etc. Every single one of these fields overwhelmingly says no to it.

If your opinion is that good, don't spoil it by being an arrogant bastard.

Oh **** off, I don't think I was any more arrogant than you, and you've added a personal insult to boot, which I didn't. I attacked your arguments, not you/. Hypocrite.

Oh, I can add little more to my arguments. I forgot to mention that the authors of the book (if I'm correct there were more authors) claimed that before the flood the world was one landmass with one climate all over the world. This climate was a result of the big water holding ring around the world. The flood was such a cathastrophe that the landmasses started to move after it. The removal of all water from the ring around the world may be the reason for extinction of many life forms. ie. the dinosaurs.

This is the "vapor canopy" theory, and it's been shot down already. It's patently preposterous. The links I gave already addressed it. Did you bother to read them? No, of course not. You wouldn't be bothered to read something that refuted your argument, would you?

I'll quote it for you:

"Vapor canopy. This model, proposed by Whitcomb & Morris and others, proposes that much of the Flood water was suspended overhead until the 40 days of rain which caused the Flood. The following objections are covered in more detail by Brown.

-How was the water suspended, and what caused it to fall all at once when it did?
-If a canopy holding the equivalent to more than 40 feet of water were part of the atmosphere, it would raise the atmospheric pressure accordingly, raising oxygen and nitrogen levels to toxic levels.
-If the canopy began as vapor, any water from it would be superheated. This scenario essentially starts with most of the Flood waters boiled off. Noah and company would be poached. If the water began as ice in orbit, the gravitational potential energy would likewise raise the temperature past boiling.
-A canopy of any significant thickness would have blocked a great deal of light, lowering the temperature of the earth greatly before the Flood.
-Any water above the ozone layer would not be shielded from ultraviolet light, and the light would break apart the water molecules."

The Levithian is indeed an example of a dinosaur in the bible. if I'm correct the animal in the garden of eden was such a creature as well. A water dinosaur indeed.
There's a mention of a huge animal in isaiah or job as well that's being described as very huge, with a tail as long as a huge tree etc. The description is something that's really not some kind of animal we know about.

Fascinating just-so stories, but preposterous on many levels. First, dinosaurs and man have never coexisted, remember? Dinosaurs were extinct many millions of years before man. Of, I forgot, you don't accept science, so you don't believe that.

At any rate, the meaning behind Leviathan is a bit deeper than your superficial view of it reflects:

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Talk:Leviathan,_from_the_book_of_Job,_was_a_dinosaur

"Behemoth-Leviathan is a moral metaphor for God's direct creation of evil. It is adapted from the Babylonian myth of creation and the Canaanite myth of recreation and represents the structural evil that is part of the fabric of the creation of the world and human beings. The use of plural of fulness in connection with Leviathan suggests all the predators of the world, human and otherwise, are merely incarnations or exemplications of this one evil. Since the Book of Job (6th-5th centuries BC) postdates 1 Isaiah (8th century BC) where Leviathan is the centerpiece of an apocalyptic destruction and explanation of evil (Isaiah 25-29), its use in the Book of Job suggests there will be an end and explanation for the undeserved evil that God has sent into the world. See "Putting God on Trial- The Biblical Book of Job" (http://www.bookofjob.org)"

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH711_1.html

"The message of Job 41 is that part of nature is indomitable, that "no purpose of [God's] can be thwarted" (Job 42:2). That message would lose its meaning if Leviathan was an ordinary animal that humans would be able to kill. The larger message of Job is that God's ways cannot always be understood. That message is best served by leaving Leviathan mythical."

Behemoth:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH711.html

"The "tail like a cedar," which creationists think indicates a large dinosaur, is not even a real tail. "Tail" was used as a euphemism in the King James version. A more likely translation for the phrase is, "His penis stiffens like a cedar" (Mitchell 1987). The behemoth was probably a bull, and the cedar comparison referred to its virility."

Other claims to biblical dinosaurs are, as I said before, pretty thin. Do you know of any multi-headed, fire-breathing dinosaurs?

About micro-evolution in such a 'short' time.....
It's really funny that it's the evolutionist group who's always claiming that evolution will happen in a shorter period then creationists think, and now our roles have changed 180 degrees

Are you daft? Evolutionists have always argued that evolution is an incredibly slow process. Creationists just like to keep changing the goal posts to suit what they're arguing at the time. You can't have it both ways--either there isn't enough time for evolution to occur, rending your argument about the animals microevolving since the flood moot, or it occurs so fast by your model that there's no argument about there not being enough time for it. In short, it's the Creationists who flip-flop on this, not science.

[Vesayen]

The actuall meaning for Leviathon is FAR less complicated then the one you posted and far more amusing .

Leviathon is a derivation of some pagan deity and it is placed in the depths, which is supposed to be disrespectfull.

Basically its an insult to one specific pagan group.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by CyberShy
So far you're more describing the atheistic requierment... the ammount of BS and yelling one gets over him when he says he doesn't believe in evolution is huuuuuge.

Oh please. The amount of lies and distortions in the Creationist side is staggering:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-whoppers.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/misquotes.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-exposed.html

http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/

http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/

http://p092.ezboard.com/fcbbbfrm14.showMessage?topicID=34.topic

http://www.skepticfiles.org/moretext/c-lies.htm

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/creationist_lies_in_the_pioneer_press/

More hypocrisy.

[Vesayen]

Creationalists don't want the truth, they don't care about the pursuit of truth. They want what they believe to be right and when science shows it wrong, they grow silent or present ridiculous arguments about faith.

Your waisting your breath on him.

[Boris Godunov]

Probably, but it's not much effort to argue with him so far.

But you hit the nail on the head, and the Kansas school board "court" going on now proves that point ably. Not one--not one--of the Creationist witnesses who testified had read the existing science standards. Even at least one of the Creationist schoolboard members hadn't. Since the entire argument is about revising those standards, and the Creationist testimony was regarding which was better, those standards or new ones with Creationist bs in it, it's mindboggling that none of them had actually read the science standards. It just goes to show that they don't want to even read differing opinions, they're just interested in shoving their opinion down the throats of others in the schools.

[Vesayen]

It really is a shame so many deists reject science when by their own philosophy, G-D made science.... studying science, learning, reason.... brings you closer to you G-D.

What is more respectfull then trying to better understand the nature of G-Ds creation by intent study?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by CyberShy

One of the main requriements joining a religion is to stop thinking for yourself. If you start to ask questions about the fundament of the religion, then you are nothing than a heretic.

So far you're more describing the atheistic requierment... the ammount of BS and yelling one gets over him when he says he doesn't believe in evolution is huuuuuge.

No way. If you are able to make an alternative theory and can give reasonable evidence for it, then you are listened to (ok, those defending their own theory may have a hearing diability ), but if you make a theory where the proofs are in a book written some 2000 years ago, then of course you are looked upon with great suspicion - even redicule.

In fact I 'm a christian and I do really not understand where you guys get that "If you 're a christian you should stop thinking" idea from. In fact we debate and think and talk a lot in our church about all possible subjects.

You may discuss a lot of subjects, but when it comes to find evidence for them, you tend to find the answer in the bible/torah/you name the base of a religion and totally ignore any facts from the real world.

Most non-christian people I know know less about most stuff then most christian people I know. But oh well, I'll getting used to non-christians who're eager to make all kinds of assumptions about christians. Just blindfolded assumptions.

This is pure BS. Many religious people may "know" a lot, but their knowledge is based upon the base of their religion and not facts.

Just for the book, I don't "attack" you because you are christian, actually I don't care if people are religious or not, no matter what their religion is, it's their choice, but when they try to impose their worldview upon others and ignoring facts, then I tend to be pretty eager to show them their faults.

[Hueij]

Boris, no use to post those links, he is not going to read them

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Vesayen
It really is a shame so many deists reject science when by their own philosophy, G-D made science.... studying science, learning, reason.... brings you closer to you G-D.

Erm, I think you mean "theists," not "deists."

BlackCat: I know he won't read them, but they're fascinating links nonetheless. Hope others enjoy them and don't get too enraged by Creationist duplicity.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Vesayen
It really is a shame so many deists reject science when by their own philosophy, G-D made science.... studying science, learning, reason.... brings you closer to you G-D.

What is more respectfull then trying to better understand the nature of G-Ds creation by intent study?

Their big problem is when the results of science opposes their base of faith. No religious institution can survive for long if this base regularily are proven wrong.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
BlackCat: I know he won't read them, but they're fascinating links nonetheless. Hope others enjoy them and don't get too enraged by Creationist duplicity.

Not enough sleep I guess that you meant Hueij

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Their big problem is when the results of science opposes their base of faith. No religious institution can survive for long if this base regularily are proven wrong.

Judaism is one of the oldest religions in the world.

Learning that parts of a book are factually untrue does not undermine a religion.

Screw faith, its outdated and has been for hundreds of years.

[Hueij]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Their big problem is when the results of science opposes their base of faith. No religious institution can survive for long if this base regularily are proven wrong.

And this is what I don't understand. I am an atheist myself but I can easily understand how someone gets religious when seeing the beauty and wonders of the universe. Ever watched a new ant colony building a new nest? Ever seen those pictures taken by Hubble?

Just don't hit me on the head with the writings of a Middle Eastern nomadic tribe...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Not enough sleep I guess that you meant Hueij

Bah, you Eurocoms are all the same, anyway.