Why are you here? You said that the subject doesn't interest you. If you are here to try and get me to spit venom by insulting me then you have failed. You say your comments make me look ridiculous, hmmm well I hope you are proud. However, most of us are not here to ridicule eachother. Again, if you have nothing but insults and ridicule, please find somewhere else to vent your venom, go in peace.
God Bless
K, sweetpotato; don't know you so this is not directed at you; it is merely something I am noticing lately that if someone can give me the answer to this question, I will respectfully accept it and also no challenge you
I truly am up front telling everyone here that I am only asking because to me this makes no sense.
I thought that liberals, and democrats (to me, I always thought that people who were Democrats and people who are liberals both share this same quality) were those things for the following reasons.......
1) they felt that the conservatives and (perhaps) the Republicans were tight asses (my word--not yours), bigots, close minded, etc. and they wanted the views they shared among their own selves heard so that is why they are who they are
2) they were all about peace and love, tolerance in the differences that make us different and felt that the opposing mentioned above in #1 were the more aggressive group who wanted almost a dictatorship to have their own beliefs taken to the masses of people regardless of those people's views and ideas on them
3) were all for the different and the few; the gay people, those oppressed by pro-life groups, religion, government, etc and wanted to peacefully change this world by asking that we merely open our minds to the thoughts that we may find unfamilar.
so here is the question because you see I have made my point here on what I consider to be the origin of those who are unique (although I feel I am unique---my point is to ask this.....).......
why when a conservative person speaks of God that they believe in, or the morals they believe----even if it is done softly---do they badger the person? where is the love, cool to be different thing then?
again, I am NOT accusing any of you.......I am just asking if you ever have noticed this behavior at all among this subject.....
anyone care to enlighten me??
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
The Big Bang theory has lots of things worked out, or so it seems. There are, however, things we know very very little about. The early universe is one of them. We're nowhere near answering the questions concerning the beginning of the universe, or whether there was a beginning.
If there is one thing that the ‘Big Bang’ theory is clear about it is that the universe had a beginning. You can see this certainty in nearly all definitions of the ‘Big Bang’, whether Evolutionist:
The evidence you have offered has been discussed here (you have links with the evidence, I gave links that refuted and disproved that ID evidence). The evidence ID has offered has been discussed by scientists as well. [/COLLIN]
We have only touched on the evidence because you have stuck to your defence of naturalism. I don’t see any point arguing about the evidence if you are operating within a philosophy that explicitly rejects any evidence for design before we even begin. If you were to concede that, at least in principle, scientific evidence could support the concept of design, then we could discuss the evidence.
I did not refuse to watch expelled because I was afraid it would shake my beliefs system. I didn't watch it because Ben Stein showed that he was dishonest.
I think this is a poor excuse. I think Dawkins is prone to lying, and I gave you an example of this. Nevertheless I have read his books, I even watched his new documentary about Darwinism on TV last night. This is on top of a lifetime of Evolutionist indoctrination through the countless wildlife documentaries I have keenly watched in my life. Even if you despise pro-ID figures, refusing to read their books, or watch their documentaries does not give you a balanced view. I know you have said that you will read an ID book, maybe we should continue then. You have also said that you have watched some ID films, can I ask which ones?
Hi. These are good questions but surely it is not very wise to believe that, since your sunday school teacher did not have the answers, they do not exist. I have already adressed these questions in an earlier post. I will repost below:
Hi,
Thanks for thinking that our questions are good. But surely, dismissing what other people think and believe as not wise because it disagrees with your thoughts is, well, not wise. I thank you once again for re-addressing these questions that you were benevolent enough to answer earlier by reposting another babel filled wall of text.
Hi. These are good questions but surely it is not very wise to believe that, since your sunday school teacher did not have the answers, they do not exist. I have already adressed these questions in an earlier post. I will repost below:
Hi,
Thanks for thinking that our questions are good. But surely, dismissing what other people think and believe as not wise because it disagrees with your thoughts is, well, not wise. I thank you once again for re-addressing these questions that you were benevolent enough to answer earlier by reposting another babel filled wall of text.
Condescending enough for you yet??????
I know we have already covered this, and you are not asking me these questions, so sorry to jump in here,..........but please remember that the truth of faith is not to be condescending....
where's the love, people?
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
Hi. These are good questions but surely it is not very wise to believe that, since your sunday school teacher did not have the answers, they do not exist. I have already adressed these questions in an earlier post. I will repost below:
First of all, some of the Flood story involves God's direct intervention, which is unverifiable, the most significant of these aspects is God's control of the animals, the text says that God brought them to the ark and shut the door when they were all inside. He may well have also prevented them from attacking one another and quite possibly caused many to hibernate once on board, which would cut down food requirements and labour time quite significantly.
However, many aspects of the flood story are verifiable, such as the size of the Ark and the geological evidence of the flood etc. It is important to note that the ark was not a ship, it did not have to cut through the water, just float, so it would have a been a rectangular box, which is extremely stable and has much more room than a ship.
You may have heard the accepted theory that the continents were originally one land mass. well you probably didn't realise that was first proposed by a creationist, because it is implied in genesis. This means that none of the animals had to travel accross the oceans to get to the Ark. In the creationist model known as 'catastrophic plate tectonics', the supercontinent broke up during, and in the immediate aftermath of the flood. The idea that animals evolved in isolation on the continents is untrue. Many believe that Marsupials evolved in isolation in Australasia but marsupial opposums are found in the Americas and marsupial fossils are found on all continents, its just that they have survived in Australia and become extinct elsewhere.
Both creationist and evolutionist models therefore require that, over time, animals have been able to cross between the continents, either over land bridges, floating on mats of vegetation, or even aboard human vessels. Regarding species with specialist diets, this is a result of a thinning out of the gene pool as speciation has occurred. According to the Bible, God created distinct ‘kinds’, which have diversified into what we now call ‘species’ and ‘sub species’, ‘kind’ is therefore somewhere between ‘genus’ and ‘species’ but we cannot define it precisely because we were not there. One way of knowing which species came from an original ‘kind’ is whether or not they can reproduce. Lions and Tigers, for example, can produce Ligers, and Zebras and Donkeys can produce Zeedonks. This shows that they are from the same ‘kind’ since genesis says that animals reproduce ‘after their own kind’.
Subsequently, the amount of species required on the ark is much smaller than the amount of species and sub-species we have today and also those ancestors represented on the ark would have been much less specialized. To illustrate this, we all know that Great Danes and chiwawas are descendants of an original wolf/dog kind, by selective breeding we have been able to produce this variety in a very short time, however this has meant that modern species have lost their genetic variability, meaning that a chiwawa breeder could selectively breed his chiwawas with all his evolutionary fervour for infinite generations but he will NEVER get great danes again, the genetic potential simply isn’t there. The original kinds had the capacity to adapt to different situations, but this capacity is lost over time as the gene pool is thinned out by speciation.
Now, if we calculate the amount of ‘kinds’ needed to get todays animal kingdom, we find that they would only take up about half of the space on the ark, which would leave plenty of room for exercise areas. Although some of the fossils of T’rex’s and sauropods etc. are HUGE, these are fully grown adults that took a very log time to reach this size. All dinosaurs came from an egg not much bigger than a football and it is entirely logical that God would call juvenile representatives (like teenagers) to the ark. Also, aquatic animals and insects were not represenented on the ark, insects survived on floating mats of vegetation. The labor time required for the animals is also not as great as you might imagine, use of the rainwater (which there was no shortage of) in long troughs, and simple self-cleaning cages, make the care of the animals quite within the powers of the 8 people aboard the ark. All this has been calculated by John Woodmorappe in his published study ‘Noah’s Ark, a feasibility study’ but if you don’t want to get this, check out this link, which covers some more of your questions:
...
Work restrictions do not allow the downloading of files past the firewall...
If you are talking about the Pangean Super Continent... that break up was some 150 Million Years Ago. The formation of the Himalayas was about 30 Million Years Ago... and the earliest known Neanderthals appearing about 200,000 years ago. This would mean that Noah and the Ark occurred sometime in the middle Jurrassic Period... when Dinosaurs were the dominant creatures. This could explain how Kangaroos got from the Middle East to Austrailia... if kangaroos even existed 150 Million Years Ao.
And regarding the teen-aged T.Rex... what happened to them after the flood? And if the Great Flood was the cause of the mass extinction of the Dinosaurs.. that means Noah and his descendents survived the the catosthrophic event that occurred 65 Million Years Ago.
From the explanations that I was able get to at the website you referenced... it sounds more like someone trying to justify events that occur in a Natural Environment to fit the constraints of a story created by Man. It wasn't all that long ago when Man used to say that the Sun was drawn accross the sky by a chariot and the Earth was the center of the Solar System in order to fit religious constraints... until science proved otherwise.
The case provided... Great Danes, Chihuahuas being descendents of the first canine... it's called, Natural Selection. This is so a species can survive in different environments. Where a Chihuahua may have evolved to survive by eating the only available food source in the region... rodents in burrows. a Great Dane would surely perish. It is one of Darwin's main premises.
...
Do you at least acknowledge where the confusion sets in?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
The labor time required for the animals is also not as great as you might imagine, use of the rainwater (which there was no shortage of) in long troughs, and simple self-cleaning cages, make the care of the animals quite within the powers of the 8 people aboard the ark. All this has been calculated by John Woodmorappe in his published study ‘Noah’s Ark, a feasibility study’ but if you don’t want to get this, check out this link, which covers some more of your questions:
I will admit that you got me stumped; it seems that your big words and points you make get me lost.........(just more reason for me to once again take up reading something other than hope repair magazines and gardening mags as well.........) but since you are a fellow believer, I will say that your post inspired me to write this response.......
Could we be fair if we were to say that the same God we believe to be the ruler of this universe, is also the God that is responsible for our brains and so also our great advances in medicine, science, and that perhaps (like was already stated here) there is something to evolution that is tied into Him as well. The free will comes in to play when we say that we have messed up a lot of things, but that is not to credit nor discredit Him in any way.........we were given that and for us believers, we believe that either the factual story or the analogy (to be open minded and fair here; to say that I don't know if ALL THAT WAS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE IS TRUE either),that when Adam and Eve-- either as people or as an analogy (as I have stated already), were in the garden, we made a statement that in order to gain the knowledge we craved, we said we did not want to obey God and instead the apple that was to give us the knowledge God had, was eaten. We chose to give that up. And although I too have joked that Adam and Eve screwed things up for us big time, I too may have been the same in that garden.
And isn't it funny that we still say that those who believe are somehow more naive than those who do not; as if to say that the intelligent ones are the ones who have to figure everything out and the rest of us are naive.
And my proof in our lack of actual ability, whether believer or non believer, to truly do things on our own is that why are we still always so tired, so stressed, so disconnected, so depressed, so useless, so hopeless.....etc. when we have so many things in our lives that are suppose to make our lives easier............
I don't need to convince any one here to believe; I respect all of you. But just like George Carlin use to go on about in his stand up routines, we are so the way he said............
where have we truly advanced? personnally anyway.......
just a thought............
what do you think?
...
Darwin's theory attempts to explain the origin of Species (through scientific method)... not the Origin of Life.
For all we know... God created Life and Life evolved as Darwin explains. Since the God creating Life part cannot pass scientific methodology, it falls into the realm of Faith. Maybe Faith and Knowledge are products of Life as a human.
Instead of arguing which is right and who is wrong... maybe we should just simply see that Faith and Knowledge are incompatible and leave it at that.
..
As you stated... a personal choice.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
I agree... Like sharks that rely on their sense of smell to locate prey (the eyes are needed to scan a wide expanse of open ocean). Some reptiles and amphibians have moved their eyes to the top of the head because they are 'ambush' type predators, but they still focus on their prey using binocular vision.
All of this has transformed over the millions of years of evolution as different species sought survival in the wild.
And even us humans... we have remnants of a tail. If all species were created in tact... why does a human being (who walks upright) need a tail?
oh cosmo.. you know we needed that prehensile tail so we could swing from the trees.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Where there is arrogance, haughtiness and self righteousness - there is no room for love.
It is this voice and attitude, when used, that repulses both non believers and those of us trying to have faith.
yeah, really. and if the self rightous zealots who desire to spread the word so that we can win more people to God, go around bashing everyone else then why in the world would anyone at all want to be a believer. If we are so peaceful, then if we showed (not told) others our peace; peace in even the most difficult of times, then maybe someone might think we were on to something.
otherwise,given the tendency that we all can have to ridicule and belittle others, we are no better off than anyone else. where is our light of the world? right?
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
...
Darwin's theory attempts to explain the origin of Species (through scientific method)... not the Origin of Life.
For all we know... God created Life and Life evolved as Darwin explains. Since the God creating Life part cannot pass scientific methodology, it falls into the realm of Faith. Maybe Faith and Knowledge are products of Life as a human.
Instead of arguing which is right and who is wrong... maybe we should just simply see that Faith and Knowledge are incompatible and leave it at that.
..
As you stated... a personal choice.
I am so glad that there are two people here that do not meet on every level of this discussion but here it is, we have found a mutual place to meet and to say, "you may have something here. maybe we are BOTH right."
There are many mysteries to our lives and we may never know the correct answers, but in the meantime we should peacefully learn from each other. what do you say?
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
Hi. These are good questions but surely it is not very wise to believe that, since your sunday school teacher did not have the answers, they do not exist. I have already adressed these questions in an earlier post. I will repost below:
First of all, some of the Flood story involves God's direct intervention, which is unverifiable, the most significant of these aspects is God's control of the animals, the text says that God brought them to the ark and shut the door when they were all inside. He may well have also prevented them from attacking one another and quite possibly caused many to hibernate once on board, which would cut down food requirements and labour time quite significantly.
However, many aspects of the flood story are verifiable, such as the size of the Ark and the geological evidence of the flood etc. It is important to note that the ark was not a ship, it did not have to cut through the water, just float, so it would have a been a rectangular box, which is extremely stable and has much more room than a ship.
You may have heard the accepted theory that the continents were originally one land mass. well you probably didn't realise that was first proposed by a creationist, because it is implied in genesis. This means that none of the animals had to travel accross the oceans to get to the Ark. In the creationist model known as 'catastrophic plate tectonics', the supercontinent broke up during, and in the immediate aftermath of the flood. The idea that animals evolved in isolation on the continents is untrue. Many believe that Marsupials evolved in isolation in Australasia but marsupial opposums are found in the Americas and marsupial fossils are found on all continents, its just that they have survived in Australia and become extinct elsewhere.
Both creationist and evolutionist models therefore require that, over time, animals have been able to cross between the continents, either over land bridges, floating on mats of vegetation, or even aboard human vessels. Regarding species with specialist diets, this is a result of a thinning out of the gene pool as speciation has occurred. According to the Bible, God created distinct ‘kinds’, which have diversified into what we now call ‘species’ and ‘sub species’, ‘kind’ is therefore somewhere between ‘genus’ and ‘species’ but we cannot define it precisely because we were not there. One way of knowing which species came from an original ‘kind’ is whether or not they can reproduce. Lions and Tigers, for example, can produce Ligers, and Zebras and Donkeys can produce Zeedonks. This shows that they are from the same ‘kind’ since genesis says that animals reproduce ‘after their own kind’.
Subsequently, the amount of species required on the ark is much smaller than the amount of species and sub-species we have today and also those ancestors represented on the ark would have been much less specialized. To illustrate this, we all know that Great Danes and chiwawas are descendants of an original wolf/dog kind, by selective breeding we have been able to produce this variety in a very short time, however this has meant that modern species have lost their genetic variability, meaning that a chiwawa breeder could selectively breed his chiwawas with all his evolutionary fervour for infinite generations but he will NEVER get great danes again, the genetic potential simply isn’t there. The original kinds had the capacity to adapt to different situations, but this capacity is lost over time as the gene pool is thinned out by speciation.
Now, if we calculate the amount of ‘kinds’ needed to get todays animal kingdom, we find that they would only take up about half of the space on the ark, which would leave plenty of room for exercise areas. Although some of the fossils of T’rex’s and sauropods etc. are HUGE, these are fully grown adults that took a very log time to reach this size. All dinosaurs came from an egg not much bigger than a football and it is entirely logical that God would call juvenile representatives (like teenagers) to the ark. Also, aquatic animals and insects were not represenented on the ark, insects survived on floating mats of vegetation. The labor time required for the animals is also not as great as you might imagine, use of the rainwater (which there was no shortage of) in long troughs, and simple self-cleaning cages, make the care of the animals quite within the powers of the 8 people aboard the ark. All this has been calculated by John Woodmorappe in his published study ‘Noah’s Ark, a feasibility study’ but if you don’t want to get this, check out this link, which covers some more of your questions:
but tim wouldnt you expect a sunday school teacher to be familiar enough with the bible that she would be aware that in the story of noah and his ark, all God's intervention is mentioned?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
We have only touched on the evidence because you have stuck to your defence of naturalism. I don’t see any point arguing about the evidence if you are operating within a philosophy that explicitly rejects any evidence for design before we even begin. If you were to concede that, at least in principle, scientific evidence could support the concept of design, then we could discuss the evidence.
I don't think we'll get past this point. I have my reasons to defend naturalism, one reason is the fact that it's impossible to test god. You will not recognize this as a problem and you have not addressed that problem either (unless you've got a calculation ready that can predict god). So I also don't see any point arguing this any further.
I should point out, though, that some of the most common arguments ID makes have been disproved. I'm talking about irreducible complexity, for example. The ID movement has used the flagellum as an example of an irreducibly complex structure that "could not have been produced by evolution or by any natural process." But since they do exist, they must have been produced by something, viz. an intelligent designer.
Like I said, this has been disproved by several credible scientists; biochemists, biologists... (edit: note that they do not discuss a intelligent designer.)
Now, Tim, you have every right to dismiss their research because they operate within a philosophy that rejects divine causes. But you'd be a hypocrite if you if you didn't dismiss all of their research, then. It's the exact same science. It doesn't have anything to do with evolution or origins. It's biology, it's biochemistry, it's something you can take into a lab and study, today, just like you'd study a disease. In fact, biochemistry uses the same godless methods to study (infectious) disease or cardiovascular disease.
The same goes for ID claims about the immune system.
So, tell me, Tim, are you prepared to dismiss all biochemistry, molecular and cell biology?
I think this is a poor excuse. I think Dawkins is prone to lying, and I gave you an example of this. Nevertheless I have read his books, I even watched his new documentary about Darwinism on TV last night. This is on top of a lifetime of Evolutionist indoctrination through the countless wildlife documentaries I have keenly watched in my life. Even if you despise pro-ID figures, refusing to read their books, or watch their documentaries does not give you a balanced view. I know you have said that you will read an ID book, maybe we should continue then. You have also said that you have watched some ID films, can I ask which ones?
I must have missed Dawkins' lie.
I do not refuse to read their books nor watch their documentaries. I can't give you the names of the ID films and documentaries, because I don't remember. I don't "refuse" to look into ID. In fact, because of this thread I have again seen plenty of videos on ID, I've again read numerous ID website... It is my opinion that ID hasn't offered anything new since the last time I discussed ID with someone. Well, it did, there are more personal attacks and science is more attacked in general too. Frankly, ID seems to be more about gaining popularity and support, both political and non-political, rather than about science, which is no surprise really, the Discovery institute practically admits it. Even Behe said he was more interested in more "fruitful endeavors" than scientific tests.
The point is creationism, young earth creationism, ID... it hasn't changed. The name is a little different, some things were left out, some things were added. But the entire theory hinges upon god and that creates an impasse.
The supernatural can fill every gap imaginable. If you allow the supernatural into science every problem you have with the theory of evolution is fixed.
What you and ID are asking is to open up a succesful system that deliberately limits itself to the things it can investigate and study to a concept, the supernatural, over which we have no control, which we cannot test or predict and which cannot be understood.
So if you can tell me how you'd fix that problem, how you'd test god and how you'd predict god's actions, I might pick up an ID book more willingly. Until then, it's mostly a waste of time.
Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
The Universe has a beginning.
Therefore the Universe has a cause.
A cause cannot presuppose what it means to explain.
The Universe consists of time, matter/energy, and space.
Therefore the cause of the Universe is transcendent.
Matter/energy cannot be created by natural forces.
Matter/energy exists.
Therefore the cause of matter/energy was supernatural.
The Universe displays a high degree of order and complexity.
Only Intelligence has been observed to generate order and complexity.
Therefore the cause of the universe is intelligent.
Well, first I should say that perhaps you should read up on the M-theory. Very interesting stuff.
Logic tells us that if one of your premises is false, the truth of the conclusion cannot be garanteed. Logic also tells us that the reasoning itself can be false and thus the truth of the conclusion can also not be garanteed (fallacies and sophisms).
So according to the M-theory, your reasoning doesn't hold water. But even if we use the Big Bang theory, this reasoning has been answered already.
"Only Intelligence has been observed to generate order and complexity."
This argument is known as the Watchmaker analogy. Dawkins wrote a book about it called the Blind Watchmaker and explains how complexity can be produced. Furthermore, he also asks the question that begs an answer.
Is god not complex? God must have been created. If not, if god always is and always was; welcome to the M-theory!
So in order for this analogy to work, one must first ignore the idea that natural selection can cause complexity and order. There's really no sound reason why anyone would do that.
First of all, some of the Flood story involves God's direct intervention, which is unverifiable, the most significant of these aspects is God's control of the animals, the text says that God brought them to the ark and shut the door when they were all inside. He may well have also prevented them from attacking one another and quite possibly caused many to hibernate once on board, which would cut down food requirements and labour time quite significantly.
That's some hardcore science right there! See, this is the problem with allowing the supernatural. Everything becomes possible and there is no way to test it. So we're left with faith.
However, many aspects of the flood story are verifiable, such as the size of the Ark and the geological evidence of the flood etc. It is important to note that the ark was not a ship, it did not have to cut through the water, just float, so it would have a been a rectangular box, which is extremely stable and has much more room than a ship.
A rectangular wooden box is not stable, especially not if it has such a heavy load and it needs to "float" on water (no storms, eh?). Today wooden ships are not made, and if they are they are reinforced with metal.
Again, the geological evidence of the flood you claim you have has been disproved time and time again. On top of that there are so many questions the current global flood theory can't answer, that geology, geography, biology, paleantology etc. can answer. But feel free to provide your evidence. I can ask you the questions ID hasn't answered yet.
Subsequently, the amount of species required on the ark is much smaller than the amount of species and sub-species we have today and also those ancestors represented on the ark would have been much less specialized.
Now, if we calculate the amount of ‘kinds’ needed to get todays animal kingdom, we find that they would only take up about half of the space on the ark, which would leave plenty of room for exercise areas.
What about the logistics of it all?
Noah had one week to collect all these animals and board them. We're talking about millions of animals here. But for the sake of the argument, say the actually number was much smaller, it still causes major problems. To give you an idea; if there had only been 15764 animals (I think Woodmorappe claimed there were 16000 animals on board, right?), one animal had to be loaded onto the ark and secured in its cage every 38 seconds, without letup. I mean that's nearly impossible if you had a well organised team, but we're talking about a very small team here under the supervision of a geriatric leader. Noah was six hundred years old! edit: didn't he have to build the damn thing in those seven days too?
All dinosaurs came from an egg not much bigger than a football and it is entirely logical that God would call juvenile representatives (like teenagers) to the ark. Also, aquatic animals and insects were not represenented on the ark, insects survived on floating mats of vegetation.
Male and its mate. That's what god wanted, male and its mate, not juveniles. Male and female points to animals that were sexually mature. Moreover, it sort of makes sense right. Juvenile animals often don't have the skills to survive. But god fixed that, right?
Why are insects not on the ark? Do you have a sound reason for this?
"Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive."
Two of every kind of creature that moves along the ground. An insect is a creature, it moves along the ground. If there's something I missed or is it just your interpretation of the bible?
The labor time required for the animals is also not as great as you might imagine, use of the rainwater (which there was no shortage of) in long troughs, and simple self-cleaning cages, make the care of the animals quite within the powers of the 8 people aboard the ark. All this has been calculated by John Woodmorappe in his published study ‘Noah’s Ark, a feasibility study’ but if you don’t want to get this, check out this link, which covers some more of your questions:
Woodmorappe did his calculations using number that are linked to juvenile animals. The maximum load or weight of an animal is the total mass after one year.
Also, how did Noah get all the specific foods they need? Some plants just don’t grow where Noah lived. And some animals, of course, require fresh food. Noah would have had a very hard time to control pests and keep the food from rotting, especially with the humidity. There’s the feeding of the animals as well. Woodmorappe claims that eight people would be able to feed all animals, however, he forget a few details:
If Noah thought about pest control, he would have used containers. That takes extra time. Many animals would have to be hand-fed (it was his idea to bring juveniles). It is quite hard to feed all the animals in a wooden box with troughs. They are on water, water is not steady, the water would splash everywhere, wouldn't reach certain animals, or it would only reach them briefly. Simple self cleaning cages, perhaps a bit too simple, eh? The hoofed animals would have produced tons of manure daily. All the animals on the lowest deck could not have had simple simple self cleaning cages (the lowest deck, and possible the middle deck would have been below sea level).
And good to know the ark had plenty of room for exercise areas. Who co-ordinated that exactly? These are wild animals, not exactly very easy to handle. But good old, very old, Noah managed to do it perfectly.
The deeper you get into the story the more you need god to bail you out. Eventually, the only proof you have left is god.
And how exactly did the Flood occur without killing (boiling) Noah? The heat must have been intolerable? And how exactly did all the animals and people on board breathe? You know, with all that water in the atmosphere they could have easily drowned. And a huge vapour capony surely would have changed the pressure in the atmosphere, making breathing a lethal action as well.
Peace.
Perhaps it's time to be brave, tim, and follow the evidence where it leads.
And of course; even if you ignore all the scientific findings; the geological evidence, the biological evidence, the paleontologic evidence... There are still other questions, like, why the hell would a intelligent god, that created this world intelligently, that designed molecules, quarks and flagella (precision work, might I add) have to destroy everyone? Was each and every person wicked? Even the little babies he let drown? The old ladies? That's rather stupid, instead of intelligent. God takes people away every year, he takes them to "a better place" gently and silently, individually. But he needs a flood to rid the world of the wicked and despite his overwhelming love and forgiving power... he chose to kill all the innocent men, women and children too.
Well, you've got to give him credit, though. He sure rid the world of evil. We certainly didn't see anything like Sodom and Gomorrah after the flood...
Voltaire wrote something about this: The Deluge: A punishment inflicted on the human race by an all-knowing God, who, through not having foreseen the wickedness of men, repented of having made them, and drowned them once for all to make them better - an act which, as we all know, was accompanied by the greatest success.
Oh, and in my previous post I forgot to ask about the plants. What about the plants, tim?
Didn't I read somewhere that the ancient Hebrews thought plants weren't alive in the same sense animals are? That would explain it, wouldn't it. How could you explain the freshly plucked olive leaf otherwise? Here's a little experiment, take an olive seed and plant it in saline soil. See if it grows. Take an olive tree and cover it completely with (salt) water for a year, see if it still grows.
Even if god did want a flood, why the hell would he put Noah through all that trouble, anyway? He created all the animals in a day, people!
I am so glad that there are two people here that do not meet on every level of this discussion but here it is, we have found a mutual place to meet and to say, "you may have something here. maybe we are BOTH right."
There are many mysteries to our lives and we may never know the correct answers, but in the meantime we should peacefully learn from each other. what do you say?
...
You hit it right on the head, here:
"There are many mysteries to our lives and we may never know the correct answers..."
...
You are right, we don't know the true answers and probably never will... at least at this level of our existance.
The Red warning lights in my bullshit detection system go wild whenever I hear someone say they 'Already KNOW the truth'. The fact is... they BELIEVE they know the truth, through their FAITH in that belief. Faith is not knowledge... belief is not truth.
It does not mean that we shouldn't have both faith and knowledge... just accept that they are seperate entities unto themselves. Like a person who is stricken with an incureable disease KNOWS that death is at his doorstep... yet, he can have faith in the hope that a cure will be found... or a miracle will come... so he can see his little children grow up. There is nothing wrong with being human.
The only truth I know is that I do not know the truth. And neither does anyone else on the planet. But, it does not stop me from looking for it.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
You hit it right on the head, here:
"There are many mysteries to our lives and we may never know the correct answers..."
...
You are right, we don't know the true answers and probably never will... at least at this level of our existance.
The Red warning lights in my bullshit detection system go wild whenever I hear someone say they 'Already KNOW the truth'. The fact is... they BELIEVE they know the truth, through their FAITH in that belief. Faith is not knowledge... belief is not truth.
It does not mean that we shouldn't have both faith and knowledge... just accept that they are seperate entities unto themselves. Like a person who is stricken with an incureable disease KNOWS that death is at his doorstep... yet, he can have faith in the hope that a cure will be found... or a miracle will come... so he can see his little children grow up. There is nothing wrong with being human.
The only truth I know is that I do not know the truth. And neither does anyone else on the planet. But, it does not stop me from looking for it.
You are so awesome. I have had women in my Bible Study go off on me for my radical answers. I do not try to be shocking, I do not care to be confrontational, but if I am to answer a question, then I need to be honest or remain quit.
I mentioned this before, but I will brief this, and if anyone doesn't know what I mean then you can respond and I will gladly explain to you. one time, we had the Angelina Jolie/Brad Pitt Question. Then we had the salvation discussion. both times, the other women turned pale at my answers. The second time the woman went off on me. so loving ....
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
K, sweetpotato; don't know you so this is not directed at you; it is merely something I am noticing lately that if someone can give me the answer to this question, I will respectfully accept it and also no challenge you
I truly am up front telling everyone here that I am only asking because to me this makes no sense.
I thought that liberals, and democrats (to me, I always thought that people who were Democrats and people who are liberals both share this same quality) were those things for the following reasons.......
1) they felt that the conservatives and (perhaps) the Republicans were tight asses (my word--not yours), bigots, close minded, etc. and they wanted the views they shared among their own selves heard so that is why they are who they are
2) they were all about peace and love, tolerance in the differences that make us different and felt that the opposing mentioned above in #1 were the more aggressive group who wanted almost a dictatorship to have their own beliefs taken to the masses of people regardless of those people's views and ideas on them
3) were all for the different and the few; the gay people, those oppressed by pro-life groups, religion, government, etc and wanted to peacefully change this world by asking that we merely open our minds to the thoughts that we may find unfamilar.
so here is the question because you see I have made my point here on what I consider to be the origin of those who are unique (although I feel I am unique---my point is to ask this.....).......
why when a conservative person speaks of God that they believe in, or the morals they believe----even if it is done softly---do they badger the person? where is the love, cool to be different thing then?
again, I am NOT accusing any of you.......I am just asking if you ever have noticed this behavior at all among this subject.....
anyone care to enlighten me??
Its not democratic or republican thing.
Now the current republican goons use religion to further their agenda....but different from being a physical conservative/republican.
Now why is it that those that don't believe aren't warm to the idea of religion. Well I can't speak for all but thinking when some read stories of the bible we scratch our heads....as the stories sound utterly silly. Many haven't had god speak to them, they haven't seen visions and have yet to see a single "miracle". So when they're lives are inudated (sp?) by religion and its value system it can be taxing. God bless america, pledge of allegiance, moral laws etc etc...
Now we (again using "we" loosly) don't claim to have the answers...but the bible, christianity, its cruelty (intolerance) just make no sence and until we see something credible.......
Now the current republican goons use religion to further their agenda....but different from being a physical conservative/republican.
Now why is it that those that don't believe aren't warm to the idea of religion. Well I can't speak for all but thinking when some read stories of the bible we scratch our heads....as the stories sound utterly silly. Many haven't had god speak to them, they haven't seen visions and have yet to see a single "miracle". So when they're lives are inudated (sp?) by religion and its value system it can be taxing. God bless america, pledge of allegiance, moral laws etc etc...
Now we (again using "we" loosly) don't claim to have the answers...but the bible, christianity, its cruelty (intolerance) just make no sence and until we see something credible.......
yeah, well a long long time ago these guys decided to begin a new country to flee the oppression they were feeling from their government and it's rules against free worship, free speech, etc. it was a great idea until they invited those who disagreed with them, "shit, "they thought", "who invited them to our party?" An ugly woman who was dressed like a man, (and looked awfully a lot like the Queen of those days) laughed in her gin and murmured, "not so funny when your freedom of speech works against you..........."
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
...
You hit it right on the head, here:
"There are many mysteries to our lives and we may never know the correct answers..."
...
You are right, we don't know the true answers and probably never will... at least at this level of our existance.
The Red warning lights in my bullshit detection system go wild whenever I hear someone say they 'Already KNOW the truth'. The fact is... they BELIEVE they know the truth, through their FAITH in that belief. Faith is not knowledge... belief is not truth.
It does not mean that we shouldn't have both faith and knowledge... just accept that they are seperate entities unto themselves. Like a person who is stricken with an incureable disease KNOWS that death is at his doorstep... yet, he can have faith in the hope that a cure will be found... or a miracle will come... so he can see his little children grow up. There is nothing wrong with being human.
The only truth I know is that I do not know the truth. And neither does anyone else on the planet. But, it does not stop me from looking for it.
how about... and this is my personal philosophy, i believe God doesnt exist. and that is my truth. not anyone elses truth, my truth.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
yeah, well a long long time ago these guys decided to begin a new country to flee the oppression they were feeling from their government and it's rules against free worship, free speech, etc. it was a great idea until they invited those who disagreed with them, "shit, "they thought", "who invited them to our party?" An ugly woman who was dressed like a man, (and looked awfully a lot like the Queen of those days) laughed in her gin and murmured, "not so funny when your freedom of speech works against you..........."
"so here is the question because you see I have made my point here on what I consider to be the origin of those who are unique (although I feel I am unique---my point is to ask this.....).......
why when a conservative person speaks of God that they believe in, or the morals they believe----even if it is done softly---do they badger the person? where is the love, cool to be different thing then?
again, I am NOT accusing any of you.......I am just asking if you ever have noticed this behavior at all among this subject.....
anyone care to enlighten me??"
I've noticed it but It seems to me that whether you are a conservative, liberal, Christian or Atheist everyone seems to be in a sense badgering. Everyone wants you to go there way. Everyone wants freedom as long as you are agreeing with what their views of freedom are. You're cool to be different as long as different is like them. If you look at the fight about removing the "under God" from the pledge. Why can't the words that were written remain. If you don't want to say it don't. Don't keep people that do want to say it from being able to say it. That's not cool.
Hello Mr faded glory
No we dont have to agree, but the existence, or non-existence of God is a little more important than which flavor ice cream you favor dont you think?
Why is the existence, or non-existence, of God important?
I've noticed it but It seems to me that whether you are a conservative, liberal, Christian or Atheist everyone seems to be in a sense badgering. Everyone wants you to go there way. Everyone wants freedom as long as you are agreeing with what their views of freedom are. You're cool to be different as long as different is like them. If you look at the fight about removing the "under God" from the pledge. Why can't the words that were written remain. If you don't want to say it don't. Don't keep people that do want to say it from being able to say it. That's not cool.
No, I'm not a consevative
I'll keep prayin
That's cool to me
The original wording (1892) did not mention "under God". It was only added later (1954). Why can't the words that were written remain, indeed.
In 1955 Congress added the words "In God We Trust" on all paper money. Only a year later it replaced the official motto of the US (E Pluribus Unum).
So in order for this analogy to work, one must first ignore the idea that natural selection can cause complexity and order. There's really no sound reason why anyone would do that.
Hi Collin. The reason that you dont see any sound reason to doubt the ability of natural selection to produce order and complexity is because you have not read a single Intelligent Design book, or (as far as I can tell) documentary (except some utube clips). This is my challenge for you Collin, and everyone else on this thread who thinks they know what Intelligent Design is about but never goes to the sources:
Read 'Darwin on Trial' By Philip E. Johnson. This book is the main reason why the Intelligent Design movement exists and unless you read it you are in ignorance about this whole issue. You can get it on amazon for 99 cents.
My challenge is: Read the book, then come back and tell me there is no reason to doubt Darwinism. Go on, be brave.
Hi Collin. The reason that you dont see any sound reason to doubt the ability of natural selection to produce order and complexity is because you have not read a single Intelligent Design book, or (as far as I can tell) documentary (except some utube clips). This is my challenge for you Collin, and everyone else on this thread who thinks they know what Intelligent Design is about but never goes to the sources:
Read 'Darwin on Trial' By Philip E. Johnson. This book is the main reason why the Intelligent Design movement exists and unless you read it you are in ignorance about this whole issue. You can get it on amazon for 99 cents.
My challenge is: Read the book, then come back and tell me there is no reason to doubt Darwinism. Go on, be brave.
Hello Tim. I told you a couple of posts ago I did see several ID and creationism documentaries. If you don't believe me, that's fine.
Not only that but I read countless ID websites, most of the ones you posted a link to and several others as well. Many of these sites, and the documentaries put forth the same info as Johnson does in his book. In fact, they frequently refer to it or quote it or use the fact that the book was written as proof ID is right.
I've read a few of his papers (http://www.arn.org/authors/johnson_articles.html) and I can say I'm not impressed. He's certainly a good writer but makes many fundamental mistakes concerning evolution and basic reasoning, or he jumps to conclusion based on very little evidence, half the evidence. He doesn't offer much counter-evidence. He (deliberately) leaves out important pieces of information or represents as having minor importance. There are several claims he makes which have been rebunked. If you can show me where he addresses this evidence, please do.
And one thing I found particulary weird is, it seems Johnson restricts ID to god of the bible. A deist god is out of the question, it appears. Perhaps this shows his true motivation isn't finding evidence for an intelligent creator, but rather evidence of a christian god.
He claims evolution (which he defines rather narrowly and wrongly) is incompatible with god, because "science must assume the cosmos to be a closed system of material causes and effects that can never be influenced by anything outside of material nature--by God, for example."
This would work if the intelligent designer was a deist god (Deism is the belief that a supreme god exists and created the physical universe, but does not intervene in its normal operation.)
OMG I cant stand seeing this thread for another day on the board -for people arguing over God is absolutely fucking ridiculous!!!!!! There is nothing more destructive than people trying to argue the fact God is existent or non existent! Do yah all need me to quote some lyrics from John Lennon?
I've noticed it but It seems to me that whether you are a conservative, liberal, Christian or Atheist everyone seems to be in a sense badgering. Everyone wants you to go there way. Everyone wants freedom as long as you are agreeing with what their views of freedom are. You're cool to be different as long as different is like them. If you look at the fight about removing the "under God" from the pledge. Why can't the words that were written remain. If you don't want to say it don't. Don't keep people that do want to say it from being able to say it. That's not cool.
No, I'm not a consevative
I'll keep prayin
That's cool to me
__________________
"Can't you see the real me"
i dont want anyone to go my way. and i dont care that you(thats the collective you, of course) agree with my idea of freedom or not. all that matters to me is my opinion, if everyone elses opinion differs from mine to such an extent that compromise seems like a betrayal to me, then i wont do it. i will simply dismiss your opinion. why would i do this? cause i can and cause thats the beauty of freedom. its cool for you to be different just as it is for me. but dont make the mistake of thinking that i feel obliged to respect an opinion so diametrically opposed to my own that in it making zero sense to me it has become inconsequential to my own being. i dont.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Comments
K, sweetpotato; don't know you so this is not directed at you; it is merely something I am noticing lately that if someone can give me the answer to this question, I will respectfully accept it and also no challenge you
I truly am up front telling everyone here that I am only asking because to me this makes no sense.
I thought that liberals, and democrats (to me, I always thought that people who were Democrats and people who are liberals both share this same quality) were those things for the following reasons.......
1) they felt that the conservatives and (perhaps) the Republicans were tight asses (my word--not yours), bigots, close minded, etc. and they wanted the views they shared among their own selves heard so that is why they are who they are
2) they were all about peace and love, tolerance in the differences that make us different and felt that the opposing mentioned above in #1 were the more aggressive group who wanted almost a dictatorship to have their own beliefs taken to the masses of people regardless of those people's views and ideas on them
3) were all for the different and the few; the gay people, those oppressed by pro-life groups, religion, government, etc and wanted to peacefully change this world by asking that we merely open our minds to the thoughts that we may find unfamilar.
so here is the question because you see I have made my point here on what I consider to be the origin of those who are unique (although I feel I am unique---my point is to ask this.....).......
why when a conservative person speaks of God that they believe in, or the morals they believe----even if it is done softly---do they badger the person? where is the love, cool to be different thing then?
again, I am NOT accusing any of you.......I am just asking if you ever have noticed this behavior at all among this subject.....
anyone care to enlighten me??
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
If there is one thing that the ‘Big Bang’ theory is clear about it is that the universe had a beginning. You can see this certainty in nearly all definitions of the ‘Big Bang’, whether Evolutionist:
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
Or a bit more balanced:
http://library.thinkquest.org/28327/html/universe/cosmology/big_bang.html
I think this is a poor excuse. I think Dawkins is prone to lying, and I gave you an example of this. Nevertheless I have read his books, I even watched his new documentary about Darwinism on TV last night. This is on top of a lifetime of Evolutionist indoctrination through the countless wildlife documentaries I have keenly watched in my life. Even if you despise pro-ID figures, refusing to read their books, or watch their documentaries does not give you a balanced view. I know you have said that you will read an ID book, maybe we should continue then. You have also said that you have watched some ID films, can I ask which ones?
I know we have already covered this, and you are not asking me these questions, so sorry to jump in here,..........but please remember that the truth of faith is not to be condescending....
where's the love, people?
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
Where there is arrogance, haughtiness and self righteousness - there is no room for love.
It is this voice and attitude, when used, that repulses both non believers and those of us trying to have faith.
Work restrictions do not allow the downloading of files past the firewall...
If you are talking about the Pangean Super Continent... that break up was some 150 Million Years Ago. The formation of the Himalayas was about 30 Million Years Ago... and the earliest known Neanderthals appearing about 200,000 years ago. This would mean that Noah and the Ark occurred sometime in the middle Jurrassic Period... when Dinosaurs were the dominant creatures. This could explain how Kangaroos got from the Middle East to Austrailia... if kangaroos even existed 150 Million Years Ao.
And regarding the teen-aged T.Rex... what happened to them after the flood? And if the Great Flood was the cause of the mass extinction of the Dinosaurs.. that means Noah and his descendents survived the the catosthrophic event that occurred 65 Million Years Ago.
From the explanations that I was able get to at the website you referenced... it sounds more like someone trying to justify events that occur in a Natural Environment to fit the constraints of a story created by Man. It wasn't all that long ago when Man used to say that the Sun was drawn accross the sky by a chariot and the Earth was the center of the Solar System in order to fit religious constraints... until science proved otherwise.
The case provided... Great Danes, Chihuahuas being descendents of the first canine... it's called, Natural Selection. This is so a species can survive in different environments. Where a Chihuahua may have evolved to survive by eating the only available food source in the region... rodents in burrows. a Great Dane would surely perish. It is one of Darwin's main premises.
...
Do you at least acknowledge where the confusion sets in?
Hail, Hail!!!
RAOFL!!!! Simple self cleaning cages RAOLF!!! TimBO...your the best!
Darwin's theory attempts to explain the origin of Species (through scientific method)... not the Origin of Life.
For all we know... God created Life and Life evolved as Darwin explains. Since the God creating Life part cannot pass scientific methodology, it falls into the realm of Faith. Maybe Faith and Knowledge are products of Life as a human.
Instead of arguing which is right and who is wrong... maybe we should just simply see that Faith and Knowledge are incompatible and leave it at that.
..
As you stated... a personal choice.
Hail, Hail!!!
oh cosmo.. you know we needed that prehensile tail so we could swing from the trees.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
yeah, really. and if the self rightous zealots who desire to spread the word so that we can win more people to God, go around bashing everyone else then why in the world would anyone at all want to be a believer. If we are so peaceful, then if we showed (not told) others our peace; peace in even the most difficult of times, then maybe someone might think we were on to something.
otherwise,given the tendency that we all can have to ridicule and belittle others, we are no better off than anyone else. where is our light of the world? right?
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
I am so glad that there are two people here that do not meet on every level of this discussion but here it is, we have found a mutual place to meet and to say, "you may have something here. maybe we are BOTH right."
There are many mysteries to our lives and we may never know the correct answers, but in the meantime we should peacefully learn from each other. what do you say?
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
this reply sounds frightfully familiar.
but tim wouldnt you expect a sunday school teacher to be familiar enough with the bible that she would be aware that in the story of noah and his ark, all God's intervention is mentioned?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I don't think we'll get past this point. I have my reasons to defend naturalism, one reason is the fact that it's impossible to test god. You will not recognize this as a problem and you have not addressed that problem either (unless you've got a calculation ready that can predict god). So I also don't see any point arguing this any further.
I should point out, though, that some of the most common arguments ID makes have been disproved. I'm talking about irreducible complexity, for example. The ID movement has used the flagellum as an example of an irreducibly complex structure that "could not have been produced by evolution or by any natural process." But since they do exist, they must have been produced by something, viz. an intelligent designer.
Like I said, this has been disproved by several credible scientists; biochemists, biologists... (edit: note that they do not discuss a intelligent designer.)
Now, Tim, you have every right to dismiss their research because they operate within a philosophy that rejects divine causes. But you'd be a hypocrite if you if you didn't dismiss all of their research, then. It's the exact same science. It doesn't have anything to do with evolution or origins. It's biology, it's biochemistry, it's something you can take into a lab and study, today, just like you'd study a disease. In fact, biochemistry uses the same godless methods to study (infectious) disease or cardiovascular disease.
The same goes for ID claims about the immune system.
So, tell me, Tim, are you prepared to dismiss all biochemistry, molecular and cell biology?
I must have missed Dawkins' lie.
I do not refuse to read their books nor watch their documentaries. I can't give you the names of the ID films and documentaries, because I don't remember. I don't "refuse" to look into ID. In fact, because of this thread I have again seen plenty of videos on ID, I've again read numerous ID website... It is my opinion that ID hasn't offered anything new since the last time I discussed ID with someone. Well, it did, there are more personal attacks and science is more attacked in general too. Frankly, ID seems to be more about gaining popularity and support, both political and non-political, rather than about science, which is no surprise really, the Discovery institute practically admits it. Even Behe said he was more interested in more "fruitful endeavors" than scientific tests.
The point is creationism, young earth creationism, ID... it hasn't changed. The name is a little different, some things were left out, some things were added. But the entire theory hinges upon god and that creates an impasse.
The supernatural can fill every gap imaginable. If you allow the supernatural into science every problem you have with the theory of evolution is fixed.
What you and ID are asking is to open up a succesful system that deliberately limits itself to the things it can investigate and study to a concept, the supernatural, over which we have no control, which we cannot test or predict and which cannot be understood.
So if you can tell me how you'd fix that problem, how you'd test god and how you'd predict god's actions, I might pick up an ID book more willingly. Until then, it's mostly a waste of time.
naděje umírá poslední
Well, first I should say that perhaps you should read up on the M-theory. Very interesting stuff.
Logic tells us that if one of your premises is false, the truth of the conclusion cannot be garanteed. Logic also tells us that the reasoning itself can be false and thus the truth of the conclusion can also not be garanteed (fallacies and sophisms).
So according to the M-theory, your reasoning doesn't hold water. But even if we use the Big Bang theory, this reasoning has been answered already.
"Only Intelligence has been observed to generate order and complexity."
This argument is known as the Watchmaker analogy. Dawkins wrote a book about it called the Blind Watchmaker and explains how complexity can be produced. Furthermore, he also asks the question that begs an answer.
Is god not complex? God must have been created. If not, if god always is and always was; welcome to the M-theory!
So in order for this analogy to work, one must first ignore the idea that natural selection can cause complexity and order. There's really no sound reason why anyone would do that.
naděje umírá poslední
That's some hardcore science right there! See, this is the problem with allowing the supernatural. Everything becomes possible and there is no way to test it. So we're left with faith.
A rectangular wooden box is not stable, especially not if it has such a heavy load and it needs to "float" on water (no storms, eh?). Today wooden ships are not made, and if they are they are reinforced with metal.
Again, the geological evidence of the flood you claim you have has been disproved time and time again. On top of that there are so many questions the current global flood theory can't answer, that geology, geography, biology, paleantology etc. can answer. But feel free to provide your evidence. I can ask you the questions ID hasn't answered yet.
What about the logistics of it all?
Noah had one week to collect all these animals and board them. We're talking about millions of animals here. But for the sake of the argument, say the actually number was much smaller, it still causes major problems. To give you an idea; if there had only been 15764 animals (I think Woodmorappe claimed there were 16000 animals on board, right?), one animal had to be loaded onto the ark and secured in its cage every 38 seconds, without letup. I mean that's nearly impossible if you had a well organised team, but we're talking about a very small team here under the supervision of a geriatric leader. Noah was six hundred years old! edit: didn't he have to build the damn thing in those seven days too?
Male and its mate. That's what god wanted, male and its mate, not juveniles. Male and female points to animals that were sexually mature. Moreover, it sort of makes sense right. Juvenile animals often don't have the skills to survive. But god fixed that, right?
Why are insects not on the ark? Do you have a sound reason for this?
Two of every kind of creature that moves along the ground. An insect is a creature, it moves along the ground. If there's something I missed or is it just your interpretation of the bible?
Woodmorappe did his calculations using number that are linked to juvenile animals. The maximum load or weight of an animal is the total mass after one year.
Also, how did Noah get all the specific foods they need? Some plants just don’t grow where Noah lived. And some animals, of course, require fresh food. Noah would have had a very hard time to control pests and keep the food from rotting, especially with the humidity. There’s the feeding of the animals as well. Woodmorappe claims that eight people would be able to feed all animals, however, he forget a few details:
If Noah thought about pest control, he would have used containers. That takes extra time. Many animals would have to be hand-fed (it was his idea to bring juveniles). It is quite hard to feed all the animals in a wooden box with troughs. They are on water, water is not steady, the water would splash everywhere, wouldn't reach certain animals, or it would only reach them briefly. Simple self cleaning cages, perhaps a bit too simple, eh? The hoofed animals would have produced tons of manure daily. All the animals on the lowest deck could not have had simple simple self cleaning cages (the lowest deck, and possible the middle deck would have been below sea level).
And good to know the ark had plenty of room for exercise areas. Who co-ordinated that exactly? These are wild animals, not exactly very easy to handle. But good old, very old, Noah managed to do it perfectly.
The deeper you get into the story the more you need god to bail you out. Eventually, the only proof you have left is god.
And how exactly did the Flood occur without killing (boiling) Noah? The heat must have been intolerable? And how exactly did all the animals and people on board breathe? You know, with all that water in the atmosphere they could have easily drowned. And a huge vapour capony surely would have changed the pressure in the atmosphere, making breathing a lethal action as well.
Peace.
Perhaps it's time to be brave, tim, and follow the evidence where it leads.
naděje umírá poslední
Well, you've got to give him credit, though. He sure rid the world of evil. We certainly didn't see anything like Sodom and Gomorrah after the flood...
Voltaire wrote something about this:
The Deluge: A punishment inflicted on the human race by an all-knowing God, who, through not having foreseen the wickedness of men, repented of having made them, and drowned them once for all to make them better - an act which, as we all know, was accompanied by the greatest success.
Oh, and in my previous post I forgot to ask about the plants. What about the plants, tim?
Didn't I read somewhere that the ancient Hebrews thought plants weren't alive in the same sense animals are? That would explain it, wouldn't it. How could you explain the freshly plucked olive leaf otherwise? Here's a little experiment, take an olive seed and plant it in saline soil. See if it grows. Take an olive tree and cover it completely with (salt) water for a year, see if it still grows.
Even if god did want a flood, why the hell would he put Noah through all that trouble, anyway? He created all the animals in a day, people!
naděje umírá poslední
You hit it right on the head, here:
"There are many mysteries to our lives and we may never know the correct answers..."
...
You are right, we don't know the true answers and probably never will... at least at this level of our existance.
The Red warning lights in my bullshit detection system go wild whenever I hear someone say they 'Already KNOW the truth'. The fact is... they BELIEVE they know the truth, through their FAITH in that belief. Faith is not knowledge... belief is not truth.
It does not mean that we shouldn't have both faith and knowledge... just accept that they are seperate entities unto themselves. Like a person who is stricken with an incureable disease KNOWS that death is at his doorstep... yet, he can have faith in the hope that a cure will be found... or a miracle will come... so he can see his little children grow up. There is nothing wrong with being human.
The only truth I know is that I do not know the truth. And neither does anyone else on the planet. But, it does not stop me from looking for it.
Hail, Hail!!!
You are so awesome. I have had women in my Bible Study go off on me for my radical answers. I do not try to be shocking, I do not care to be confrontational, but if I am to answer a question, then I need to be honest or remain quit.
I mentioned this before, but I will brief this, and if anyone doesn't know what I mean then you can respond and I will gladly explain to you. one time, we had the Angelina Jolie/Brad Pitt Question. Then we had the salvation discussion. both times, the other women turned pale at my answers. The second time the woman went off on me. so loving ....
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
st. john's newfoundland, sept. 25/2005
Its not democratic or republican thing.
Now the current republican goons use religion to further their agenda....but different from being a physical conservative/republican.
Now why is it that those that don't believe aren't warm to the idea of religion. Well I can't speak for all but thinking when some read stories of the bible we scratch our heads....as the stories sound utterly silly. Many haven't had god speak to them, they haven't seen visions and have yet to see a single "miracle". So when they're lives are inudated (sp?) by religion and its value system it can be taxing. God bless america, pledge of allegiance, moral laws etc etc...
Now we (again using "we" loosly) don't claim to have the answers...but the bible, christianity, its cruelty (intolerance) just make no sence and until we see something credible.......
yeah, well a long long time ago these guys decided to begin a new country to flee the oppression they were feeling from their government and it's rules against free worship, free speech, etc. it was a great idea until they invited those who disagreed with them, "shit, "they thought", "who invited them to our party?" An ugly woman who was dressed like a man, (and looked awfully a lot like the Queen of those days) laughed in her gin and murmured, "not so funny when your freedom of speech works against you..........."
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
how about... and this is my personal philosophy, i believe God doesnt exist. and that is my truth. not anyone elses truth, my truth.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I've noticed it but It seems to me that whether you are a conservative, liberal, Christian or Atheist everyone seems to be in a sense badgering. Everyone wants you to go there way. Everyone wants freedom as long as you are agreeing with what their views of freedom are. You're cool to be different as long as different is like them. If you look at the fight about removing the "under God" from the pledge. Why can't the words that were written remain. If you don't want to say it don't. Don't keep people that do want to say it from being able to say it. That's not cool.
No, I'm not a consevative
I'll keep prayin
That's cool to me
__________________
"Can't you see the real me"
want to be enlightened"
Why is the existence, or non-existence, of God important?
The original wording (1892) did not mention "under God". It was only added later (1954). Why can't the words that were written remain, indeed.
In 1955 Congress added the words "In God We Trust" on all paper money. Only a year later it replaced the official motto of the US (E Pluribus Unum).
That's not cool. It promotes religion.
naděje umírá poslední
Hi Collin. The reason that you dont see any sound reason to doubt the ability of natural selection to produce order and complexity is because you have not read a single Intelligent Design book, or (as far as I can tell) documentary (except some utube clips). This is my challenge for you Collin, and everyone else on this thread who thinks they know what Intelligent Design is about but never goes to the sources:
Read 'Darwin on Trial' By Philip E. Johnson. This book is the main reason why the Intelligent Design movement exists and unless you read it you are in ignorance about this whole issue. You can get it on amazon for 99 cents.
My challenge is: Read the book, then come back and tell me there is no reason to doubt Darwinism. Go on, be brave.
Hello Tim. I told you a couple of posts ago I did see several ID and creationism documentaries. If you don't believe me, that's fine.
Not only that but I read countless ID websites, most of the ones you posted a link to and several others as well. Many of these sites, and the documentaries put forth the same info as Johnson does in his book. In fact, they frequently refer to it or quote it or use the fact that the book was written as proof ID is right.
I've read a few of his papers (http://www.arn.org/authors/johnson_articles.html) and I can say I'm not impressed. He's certainly a good writer but makes many fundamental mistakes concerning evolution and basic reasoning, or he jumps to conclusion based on very little evidence, half the evidence. He doesn't offer much counter-evidence. He (deliberately) leaves out important pieces of information or represents as having minor importance. There are several claims he makes which have been rebunked. If you can show me where he addresses this evidence, please do.
And one thing I found particulary weird is, it seems Johnson restricts ID to god of the bible. A deist god is out of the question, it appears. Perhaps this shows his true motivation isn't finding evidence for an intelligent creator, but rather evidence of a christian god.
He claims evolution (which he defines rather narrowly and wrongly) is incompatible with god, because "science must assume the cosmos to be a closed system of material causes and effects that can never be influenced by anything outside of material nature--by God, for example."
This would work if the intelligent designer was a deist god (Deism is the belief that a supreme god exists and created the physical universe, but does not intervene in its normal operation.)
Weird.
naděje umírá poslední
i dont want anyone to go my way. and i dont care that you(thats the collective you, of course) agree with my idea of freedom or not. all that matters to me is my opinion, if everyone elses opinion differs from mine to such an extent that compromise seems like a betrayal to me, then i wont do it. i will simply dismiss your opinion. why would i do this? cause i can and cause thats the beauty of freedom. its cool for you to be different just as it is for me. but dont make the mistake of thinking that i feel obliged to respect an opinion so diametrically opposed to my own that in it making zero sense to me it has become inconsequential to my own being. i dont.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say