It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is evolution, not what some think

page: 22
12
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
[sarcasm]
Of course, Tim Minchin would know. He knows all things!
[/sarcasm]

For you - Dr. Tim Minchin.

Actually, yes, he does know things that he talks about. Listen whole song and tell me what part does not sound right for you. I really like to hear your comments.





originally posted by: chr0naut
The Bible contains poetry, history, law, songs, ceremonial procedures, moral dilemmas, prophecies, allegories, truths, witness statements, art, cryptography, cultural commentary and instruction. It is actually a library of writings that cover a significant portion of human history. Even if you were to disregard all the religious content, it is still one of the most important documents of the human race. Except for the Vedas, perhaps, there is no other single document that describes such a vast swathe of human experience and thought.


Apart from being collection of plagiarised stories, collection not verified folk tales and very questionable moral, bible contains violence, unmoral verses and very unscientific facts, that more then once we mentioned here... Bill the Science Guy comes to mind with 2 great lights in sky... will post a bit more in next paragraph...



originally posted by: chr0naut
Your equation of the Bible with fairy tales may indicate that your only exposure to it has been from a few Sunday School stories or online comments. If you read the actual document, cover to cover, you may have a different view.

But bible is, as we proved here over and over, collection of fairy tales, including virgin birth, walk on water, wine out of water, dragons, ... just to mention few, but also source of unjustice and very unmoral 'so called laws'...

Let's look at those 2 verses...

Exodus 21:7: “If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.

Exodus 35:2: “For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy day, a sabbath of complete rest to the LORD; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.

Be nice and explain poetic value of those 2 verses, or perhaps what moral story we should learn out of it...

BTW, you got it wrong - I never have been in Sunday church... Everything I know about religion I learned in college (religion class) and later by reading Bible and Qur'an. More I read, more I was awed that people COULD believe in stories that actually sound worst then Andersen's or Brother Grimm's fairy tales... Add to this that as a child I was introduced to science...




posted on Jun, 13 2014 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: [post=18029027]chr0naut[post]
The Britannica article maintains that one certainly could, though with great discomfort, survive in a whale's stomach. The report maintains that there would be sufficient air to breathe--air that is necessary for the whale to float. The temperature inside the whale would be great, but bearable at about 104 - 108 degrees F. There would be unpleasant contact with the whale's gastric juices, but these juices could not digest living matter.
Please, could you source this?

After some digging, it appears that it wasn't in the Encyclopedia itself but was in an article written in 1927 titled, “The Sign of the Prophet of Jonah and its Modern Confirmation” by Rev. Dr. Ambrose John Wilson D.D. that was referenced through the Encyclopedia Britannica research service. The particular quoted details were, in turn, re-quoted by George A. Boulenger, F.Z.S. (Director, London's Zoological Society's Aquarium), author of 126 peer reviewed articles on biology, who, it appears, had no reason to question Wilson's views on the possibility of survivability of a person inside a sperm whale.

So, my apologies for quoting a source without confirming it, and my sincere condolences for all those who are now unable to bear the sheer perplexities of life and go on with it all ( May you find sufficient towels about to staunch the flow of blood).




There was a report that a man named James Bartleby was swallowed by a whale off the Falklands and survived for two days but this is fiction.
I have heard someone say there was an account of a dog that was rescued alive from a whale but I have been unable to find a reference to it, so it is also probably fictional.
Why do you accept claims made 3000+ years ago of a human surviving for 3 days inside a whale, but not similar claims made more recently?
How were critical thinking skills applied?

In the case of the Bartleby story, the Captain of the boat in question, the whaler "The Star of the East", reported that he knew no such person as Bartleby and that they had never lost someone overboard during that time, that he could recall. There were other inconsistencies in the story, too.

The other account was completely unattributed, as I said previously, so I have discounted it as a potential proof that a human could survive inside a cetacean for a number of days. Not saying it didn't happen, just saying its evidential weight is poor.

But the story of Jonah is about a miracle, you'd hardly expect it to be classifiable as a miracle if the occurrence were commonplace. Science is useless in the evaluation of miracles but just because they are inexplicable, it does not follow that they didn't happen.

There are many scientifically inexplicable, miraculous events throughout human history that have been observed and recorded by many hundreds of reliable sources.

But if you only have a hammer, every problem you look at, looks like a nail, doesn't it?



edit on 13/6/2014 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 12:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: SuperFrog

As for fairy tales and nursery rhymes, weren't they created to scare children into behaving and so are used to "oppress" children? They are mostly violent and speak about fears. Why don't you bash Hans Christian Andersen for his evil oppression of the young, just like you are accusing the writers of the Bible of doing? Or perhaps it is a childish thing to say in the first place?

Anyway, this has gotten WAY off topic.


People aren't generally indoctrinated into the notion that fairy tales are real and required to believe them. There aren't educational institutions based on such, or teaching that trolls do inhabit under bridges or that witches with magical incantations are real and disprove science. People (sane ones at least) don't mobilise forces or create policy in telepathic consultation with Prince Charming. There aren't whole areas of pseudo academia devoted to Dopey and Grumpy etc.



How clever, but your post is off topic.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog




For you - Dr. Tim Minchin.


Have you seen this version:




posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 04:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

How clever, but your post is off topic.


The op was off topic (relative to the title).



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
After some digging, it appears that it wasn't in the Encyclopedia itself but was in an article written in 1927 titled, “The Sign of the Prophet of Jonah and its Modern Confirmation” by Rev. Dr. Ambrose John Wilson D.D. that was referenced through the Encyclopedia Britannica research service. The particular quoted details were, in turn, re-quoted by George A. Boulenger, F.Z.S. (Director, London's Zoological Society's Aquarium), author of 126 peer reviewed articles on biology, who, it appears, had no reason to question Wilson's views on the possibility of survivability of a person inside a sperm whale.


Then it appears you, apparently along with Boulenger and Jesus, accepted claims made for no good reason. There is no air or oxygen in any of a sperm whales multiple stomach chambers or the entirety of its digestive system, just methane (them being mammals and all).

At least Boulenger and the Jesus character in the bible had the excuse of being born in the middle of the 19th century and the start of the first century respectively...


So, my apologies for quoting a source without confirming it, and my sincere condolences for all those who are now unable to bear the sheer perplexities of life and go on with it all ( May you find sufficient towels about to staunch the flow of blood).


Very droll...

You made the mistake of making a claim online in an argument/discussion when you had not researched it at all, the honest thing to do here would be to admit your mistake, no?


But the story of Jonah is about a miracle, you'd hardly expect it to be classifiable as a miracle if the occurrence were commonplace.


Oh so finally we get to the meat of your entire position, magic.

Why bother attempting to make such claims within the scientific realm if you're going to arbitrarily invoke a magical conclusion?


Science is useless in the evaluation of miracles


Why? if something manifests itself within reality there's no reason why science, or any other method, could not 'evaluate' it. Or do you have information on miracles that nobody else does?


There are many scientifically inexplicable, miraculous events throughout human history that have been observed and recorded by many hundreds of reliable sources.


It is true that inexplicable events occur, but to invoke magic whenever we encounter something inexplicable or mysterious explains nothing other than a persons gullibility and credulity. Do we believe the thousands of people that claim they've been abducted by aliens?


But if you only have a hammer, every problem you look at, looks like a nail, doesn't it?


If you have nothing but a bible, everything looks like a miracle, doesn't it?



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut




But the story of Jonah is about a miracle, you'd hardly expect it to be classifiable as a miracle if the occurrence were commonplace. Science is useless in the evaluation of miracles but just because they are inexplicable, it does not follow that they didn't happen.


Like I said in an earlier post, once you say "God Did It and that is all there is to it" there is no longer any room for questioning.

You spent several hundred words responding to me saying that that is not what you meant to say; yet now you are emphasizing that that is exactly what you meant to say. As it turns out, I don't have a problem with you having conflicting opinions as long as you are not hypocritical about them and recognize them.

The Jonah and the Whale story IS an allegory. When it was fresh in the mind of the original author, however far back in the oral story telling that is (long before it was written down and found its way into the canonical texts), it was understood as an allegory. The bible authors didn't understand it as actual fact, but as allegory. To try to understand it as scientific fact, or even possibility, as you did above, is to completely miss the power of the allegorical tale.

When considered as observation of an historical event, Jonah and the Whale loses all impact, all power, all relevance, all usefulness - it is just too incredible to be taken seriously.

When considered as allegorical tale, communicating a message to the society in which it exists, it can have an important impact on the necessary education of the members of that society, reminding them of the beginnings of their society and the individuals relationship to the rest of the community.

Megilat Yonah- Book of Jonah by David Steinberg



The Book of Jonah has to be understood as a lesson in divine forgiveness and mercy. Jonah tried to escape his mission because he knew that God often relents after decreeing punishment. In the event, God renounced his punishment, after the repentance of the city, out of mercy for the inhabitants.

The Book of Jonah also stresses the need for people's acceptance of God's word. Jonah did not want to follow God's order but was prevailed upon to do so after having seen that he could not avoid doing so because God is master of the entire universe. Jonah did not want to accept God's world-order but was persuaded to do so after having seen that human life is impossible without god's mercy. The book begins and ends with the word of God.
...
The Book of Jonah uses allegory. For example, it is possible that Jonah (meaning "dove") represents Israel, the fish represents Babylon, the time in the fish the Babylonian exile and the expulsion of Jonah from the fish represents God's return of Israel to its own land in the late 6th century BCE.

From a critical perspective, it is clear that the Book of Jonah is non-historical and was written long after the period in which it was set. It is a serious moral-theological story told in an amusing folk-story way with references to the earlier books of the Bible.
...
When Jonah said "take my life from me," he felt that God had robbed his life of all meaning by showing mercy rather than blazing wrath to the Ninevites.
...
God answers Jonah by questioning whether he has reason to be angry. God probes to the heart of the matter: can one who has been the recipient of divine mercy begrudge it to others? This question, in the form of a rebuke, expresses the core of the religious message intended by the author.


Clearly, the issue of Jonah in the great fish is NOT the purpose of the story. It is color added to the story to hold the interest of the listener. As Stienberg says in his last paragraph the point of the story is "can one who has been the recipient of divine mercy begrudge it to others". This is a question that members of society must ask themselves every day: can I, as a recipient of my societies benefits ethically deny those benefits to others?

Insisting on viewing Jonah as an observation of an actual event completely prevents you from paying attention to the truth being communicated. The result of that dissonance, concentrating on the miracle rather than the message, is manifest in everyday life in America today. Objective fact shows that 14 of the 15 U.S. States most dependent on Federal assistance are controlled by conservatives that actively seek to deny similar benefits to their fellow Americans on ideological grounds. At the individual level people like people like Michelle Bachmann are beneficiaries of hundreds of thousands of dollars in Government handouts, yet consistently demonize their fellow citizens who cannot eat.

It is hypocrisy, and I believe an insult to G-d, whom you claim to have faith in, to hide the meaning of his Word behind irrelevant claims of literalness so that you can feel good about seeming to protect the Bible while all the time ignoring His message.

Defending the literalness of the Bible against objective fact is probably the biggest insult you can direct to G-d; it is hypocrisy and vanity of the highest order .



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 05:48 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

Since, at no stage did I say that say that the Jonah story was not allegorical, you appear to be railing against on a figment of your imagination.

Nor did I say that because Science was an inappropriate tool with which to evaluate miraculous events, that it was the end of human inquiry, critical thinking or exploration.

The toolbox has more than the 'hammer' of science. We could consider what the account tells us about the literature and cultures of a previous time. We could also dip into history to see what it is telling us in that regard. Or perhaps Philosophy, or Theology, or creative arts. Or perhaps we could look at ethical questions raised by it. As well, we could look at its religious significance and how it fits into existing religious frameworks.

The simple fact is that the failure of Science, in the situation where "God did it", is NOT the end of human inquiry, exploration and critical thinking.

You have totally demonstrated the validity of what I previously suggested, that holding to one particular mode of inquiry (in the previous instance, Evolutionary Theory), to the exclusion of all other possibilities, is demonstrably closed minded.

I am also at a loss as to why an Aussie talking to a Kiwi would give a damn about conservative US politics and think it pertinent in this discussion?


edit on 15/6/2014 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: chr0naut
After some digging, it appears that it wasn't in the Encyclopedia itself but was in an article written in 1927 titled, “The Sign of the Prophet of Jonah and its Modern Confirmation” by Rev. Dr. Ambrose John Wilson D.D. that was referenced through the Encyclopedia Britannica research service. The particular quoted details were, in turn, re-quoted by George A. Boulenger, F.Z.S. (Director, London's Zoological Society's Aquarium), author of 126 peer reviewed articles on biology, who, it appears, had no reason to question Wilson's views on the possibility of survivability of a person inside a sperm whale.

Then it appears you, apparently along with Boulenger and Jesus, accepted claims made for no good reason. There is no air or oxygen in any of a sperm whales multiple stomach chambers or the entirety of its digestive system, just methane (them being mammals and all).

At least Boulenger and the Jesus character in the bible had the excuse of being born in the middle of the 19th century and the start of the first century respectively...

So, my apologies for quoting a source without confirming it, and my sincere condolences for all those who are now unable to bear the sheer perplexities of life and go on with it all ( May you find sufficient towels about to staunch the flow of blood).

Very droll...
You made the mistake of making a claim online in an argument/discussion when you had not researched it at all, the honest thing to do here would be to admit your mistake, no?

But the story of Jonah is about a miracle, you'd hardly expect it to be classifiable as a miracle if the occurrence were commonplace.


Oh so finally we get to the meat of your entire position, magic.

Why bother attempting to make such claims within the scientific realm if you're going to arbitrarily invoke a magical conclusion?

Science is useless in the evaluation of miracles

Why? if something manifests itself within reality there's no reason why science, or any other method, could not 'evaluate' it. Or do you have information on miracles that nobody else does?

There are many scientifically inexplicable, miraculous events throughout human history that have been observed and recorded by many hundreds of reliable sources.

It is true that inexplicable events occur, but to invoke magic whenever we encounter something inexplicable or mysterious explains nothing other than a persons gullibility and credulity. Do we believe the thousands of people that claim they've been abducted by aliens?

But if you only have a hammer, every problem you look at, looks like a nail, doesn't it?

If you have nothing but a bible, everything looks like a miracle, doesn't it?

I did admit (in the very next post I did) that I initially did not research the link, several posts back, fully, and here I have admitted the admission. I also admit that I admit, that I admit it.
The horse is dead - stop beating it.

About a sperm whale, yes, they have multiple stomachs (four exactly) but the first stomach doesn't secrete any gastric juices, so it would neither dissolve living matter, nor would it generate methane. If the whale ate, say a seal, at the surface of the water, then it is likely the seal and an amount of air would enter the first stomach. The seal would also most likely still be alive as the sperm whale's teeth do not appear to be used in chewing their food. The first stomach is muscular and usually crushes the whale's prey. The whale also seals its gullet and blowhole on dives. This allows the air breathing mammal to extend the amount of time it is able to spend underwater. It is interesting to note that the sounds the whale produces are made in air, in its phonic lips, and it recycles that air to produce vocalizations even during deep dives. I.e: it carries and conserves air inside it when it dives. Also, the beaks of squid (its most common food source) are not digestible and so they accumulate in the second stomach. The normal way the Sperm Whale gets rid of this indigestible waste is to vomit it out. So all the mechanisms are actually in place that would make the Jonah story remotely possible and may explain why such a highly accredited Marine Biologist as Boulenger did not see it as impossible. If you doubt what I'm saying then look at the Sperm Whale reference on Wikipedia, at least.

Again, you assume the bipolar view that if Science cannot explain it, it must be magic. I assure you that there are many possibilities, both related and unrelated to those opposites.

Check back a few posts, your responses have not only been inaccurate, but also are mostly unreferenced (yet you demand that of me). I did make mistakes but also had the gumption to do the research and admit my omissions.


edit on 15/6/2014 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Great points! I think we should put your theory to the test. Lets go find a sperm whale and then we'll send you inside his belly and see how long you last. Science in action, followed by evolution in action. It's perfect!
edit on 15-6-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2014 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

Again, you assume the bipolar view that if Science cannot explain it, it must be magic. I assure you that there are many possibilities, both related and unrelated to those opposites.


Somehow common sense has become a casualty here. It is permissible to use this (somewhat erroneously named) ability.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 02:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut

Great points! I think we should put your theory to the test. Lets go find a sperm whale and then we'll send you inside his belly and see how long you last. Science in action, followed by evolution in action. It's perfect!


Yes, and we should test natural selection by predation on you, perhaps! Oh damn, that was already done to the Christians by you lot, back in the first century.

Centuwion, thwow him to the gwound, vewwy wuffly.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 06:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
Yes, and we should test natural selection by predation on you, perhaps! Oh damn, that was already done to the Christians by you lot, back in the first century.

Centuwion, thwow him to the gwound, vewwy wuffly.


Does this means you are not 'real' believer in Bible stories?

I mean, you could by yourself make me believe in story by proving it is possible...

ps. What are you saying was done by Christians last 2K years to non-believers... I did not get that part clearly...
edit on 16-6-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
I did admit (in the very next post I did) that I initially did not research the link, several posts back, fully, and here I have admitted the admission. I also admit that I admit, that I admit it.
The horse is dead - stop beating it.


I was actually referring to your claim that a human being could survive for at least 35 hours within a whales stomach chamber, which you seem unable to admit was utter hogwash....


About a sperm whale, yes, they have multiple stomachs (four exactly) but the first stomach doesn't secrete any gastric juices, so it would neither dissolve living matter, nor would it generate methane. If the whale ate, say a seal, at the surface of the water, then it is likely the seal and an amount of air would enter the first stomach. The seal would also most likely still be alive as the sperm whale's teeth do not appear to be used in chewing their food.


For seconds at the very most, there's no oxygen in a whales stomach....


The first stomach is muscular and usually crushes the whale's prey.


Yep


The whale also seals its gullet and blowhole on dives.This allows the air breathing mammal to extend the amount of time it is able to spend underwater. It is interesting to note that the sounds the whale produces are made in air, in its phonic lips, and it recycles that air to produce vocalizations even during deep dives. I.e: it carries and conserves air inside it when it dives.


Not in it's stomach it doesn't....


Also, the beaks of squid (its most common food source) are not digestible and so they accumulate in the second stomach. The normal way the Sperm Whale gets rid of this indigestible waste is to vomit it out. So all the mechanisms are actually in place that would make the Jonah story remotely possible and may explain why such a highly accredited Marine Biologist as Boulenger did not see it as impossible. If you doubt what I'm saying then look at the Sperm Whale reference on Wikipedia, at least.


You're claiming once again that theres reasons to believe in the tale of jonah surviving in a whales stomach for 35 hours (at least) and are asking this time for me to look at Wikipedia???

There are no mechanisms whereby a human could survive in a whales stomach.....at this point you're being incredibly dishonest.....

Boulenger was a zoologist that lived at the turn of the 20th century, he's accredited with naming many species mainly fish reptiles and amphibians. He was not an authority on cetaceans.....stop making that appeal.


Again, you assume the bipolar view that if Science cannot explain it, it must be magic. I assure you that there are many possibilities, both related and unrelated to those opposites.


You made the claim that it was a 'miracle'.......i.e. magic


Check back a few posts, your responses have not only been inaccurate, but also are mostly unreferenced (yet you demand that of me). I did make mistakes but also had the gumption to do the research and admit my omissions.


Show where I was inaccurate...

You made and continue to make a ridiculous claim, and you've only admitted that your claim of an article in Encyclopedia Britannica was fallacious after you were asked to source it.

Gumption? ha...



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut

Great points! I think we should put your theory to the test. Lets go find a sperm whale and then we'll send you inside his belly and see how long you last. Science in action, followed by evolution in action. It's perfect!


Sorry, why are you so pre occupied with a whale, the bible does not state the big fish that swallowed Jonah was a whale.

The bible states it was "a big fish", and animals in the ancient language were categorised differently as to today. Any creature living in the ocean was labelled as a "fish', I understand it doesnt make much sense in todays language but a better translation would be "a big marine creature".

Your sperm whale argument is invalid



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Ok, let's clarify: no human can survive within the belly of a fish or a whale.



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
Sorry, why are you so pre occupied with a whale, the bible does not state the big fish that swallowed Jonah was a whale.

The bible states it was "a big fish", and animals in the ancient language were categorised differently as to today. Any creature living in the ocean was labelled as a "fish', I understand it doesnt make much sense in todays language but a better translation would be "a big marine creature".

Your sperm whale argument is invalid


I know few more 'big fish' that could swallow a human, but mostly in pieces...

What is your guess, what big fish - would be?



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: borntowatch
Sorry, why are you so pre occupied with a whale, the bible does not state the big fish that swallowed Jonah was a whale.

The bible states it was "a big fish", and animals in the ancient language were categorised differently as to today. Any creature living in the ocean was labelled as a "fish', I understand it doesnt make much sense in todays language but a better translation would be "a big marine creature".

Your sperm whale argument is invalid


I know few more 'big fish' that could swallow a human, but mostly in pieces...

What is your guess, what big fish - would be?


My guess, a big marine creature
Possibly something unknown of today, I dont really know
The Kracken digital-art-gallery.com...

Thats just a guess, its possibly an allegory as well, not that that is my opinion



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: borntowatch

Ok, let's clarify: no human can survive within the belly of a fish or a whale.


Ok, let's clarify: no human can survive within the belly of a fish or whale that has been observed in this day and age.

Better



posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: borntowatch

Ok, let's clarify: no human can survive within the belly of a fish or a whale.


Ok, let's clarify: no human can survive within the belly of a fish or whale that has been observed in this day and age.

Better


No. No human can survive within the belly of a fish or a whale. There's no arguing with that.
edit on 16-6-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join