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.

 

A question to those who believe in the ark and flood story

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


reply to post by rhinoceros
 



i'm done with this, either you two don't want to or are unable to grasp the subtle nature of the concept of a fluid understanding of the universe.

it's like trying to explain the dangers of marrying your sister to a redneck, he gets it, he just doesn't care.



[edit on 29/4/09 by pieman]




posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


OR, you're just making stuff up and have talked yourself into a corner. If there was an OTB officer nearby, I'd lay a few dollars.

How to stump a theist: Define "God", please.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
i've heard of that experiment, it's interesting and it certainly shows mutation but the question is, can those e-coli be described as anything other than e-coli? are they a different species or just a mutated line? i'm not sure these e-coli can be classed as evolved, as such.

it is an interesting experiment, i'll give you that, but it doesn't move evolution out of the realms of theory just yet.


I'm not sure how to put microbes into species. We should agree with that before we decide if this is a new species or subspecies or something else. Evolved they have thou, that much is certain. All species evolve all the time. There is none which is static.


Originally posted by pieman
observable-not really, kinda, it might be evolution, perhaps, not as darwin described but sort of.

This is evolution exactly like Darwin put it. This population started from one individual and it multiplied as much as resources allowed. Not all individuals were same as mutations occur a lot more often (per bp) in Bacteria than in humans. So at any given time you had the fittest of the fittest doing the multiplying. Then this one guy adopted to making use of citrus. Soon after everybody was making use of it (all the other lineages ended). It's survival of the fittest.


Originally posted by pieman
those are not predictions as i would describe them, 1 is an observation, 2 is an educated guess. if evolution is chaotic it isn't really predictable, by it's nature.

1. Is not an observation since there are certainly a lot of fossils still to be discovered. My prediction is that none of them will be 500 million year old rabbits.
2. Same than above

I can make one more prediction. If we start burning coal like we did during the industrial revolution almost all moth will be dark colored in a few generations.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


how to stump anyone, define reality.
define god or prove god, a definition is easy, proof is impossible.

i just can't help myself



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


how to stump anyone, define reality.
define god or prove god, a definition is easy, proof is impossible.

i just can't help myself


However, rational people don't worship reality (irrational people DO worship reality TV, apparently) nor do they kill people in the name of reality.

I guess you won't be giving us that "easy" definition, then?



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 



Science says five miles of water would be needed to cover the surface of the Earth. Can you tell me what part of science would explain where that came from and where it went?


That five miles is assuming that the Earth is always been as it is today. Many creationists don't believe that the Earth was the same topographically back than as it is today. In other words, before the flood, the world was essentially flat. The Bible says that the water was 15 cubits above the highest peak. That's about 270 inches.

All the water came from the firmament that surrounded the Earth and from the "waters below" as the Bible calls it. It evaporated and most likely difused into outer space or was left in the atmosphere.


Still haven't heard from the people who believe about where the food for the animals came from.

Logically speaking, Noah collected the food from the Earth. That's where it came from.


190 days in the boat, then time needed for the land to recover and greenery to sprout to feed the herbivores. Time needed for the herbivores to repopulate enough for the carnivores to survive. And, of course, the humans needed to eat.

Before the flood, everything was herbivore. I would argue that the animals that came out of the Ark weren't carnivorous yet. So, everything ate plants. You're not going to like this but, what is stopping God from supernaturally providing for his creation for when they came out of the Ark? Just as he created the plants to start with, he completely could've just spoken a word and plants appeared. That aside, I think that the Bible account actually says that the Ark wasn't opened until the Earth had completely dried out, so until they left, everything would've just eaten the food that Noah had gathered for the journey. During that time, the Earth replenished itself.

reply to post by moocowman
 



Kinda mad thinking I know but there again not much madder than believing that a man could live inside the belly of a whale or that 2 (maybe 7 lol) of every species of animal on earth could be loaded onto a wooden boat.


There are many who believe that Jonah actually died in the whale and then God resurrected him when the whale spat him out. This makes sense because Jesus, in the Gospels, says that he would only give them the sign of Jonah--which ended up being him dying and then three days later rising back to life.

When the math is done, Noah brought 9 of each clean animal on the Ark. It escapes me at the moment how many unclean, but I know that it was fewer. Two of each animal was to further that species after the flood. The others were for sacrifices. Every animal on Earth could be loaded on because the Ark was extremely large. More than three football fields long, in fact.

The number of animals to load on it probably was reletively small back then compared to today because today we see more of the genetic variations showing through, which probably wouldn't have shown through as much. So, you'd only a handful of the species of butterflies that we have today present on the Ark, because, genetically, the different variations hadn't come through and become dominant in a subset of the butterfly population.

Someone asked earlier how Noah could have built the Ark in six months with it being only he and his six sons. I'll tell you that he didn't. It took him 120 years to build the Ark.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 


"That five miles is assuming that the Earth is always been as it is today. Many creationists don't believe that the Earth was the same topographically back than as it is today. In other words, before the flood, the world was essentially flat. The Bible says that the water was 15 cubits above the highest peak. That's about 270 inches."

Hovindized responses? Love that! So, the whole topography of the world changed? Really? You know that the rationalization in your response are rather obvious?



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
Before the flood, everything was herbivore. I would argue that the animals that came out of the Ark weren't carnivorous yet. So, everything ate plants.


Surely you aren't implying that they evolved?



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 





The number of animals to load on it probably was reletively small back then compared to today because today we see more of the genetic variations showing through, which probably wouldn't have shown through as much


Sorry dude but your rally grasping at straws there, more and more species havin being going extinct for thousands of years.

You have said the ark would have been bigger then a couple of foot ball fields, well the bad news is that some oil tankers are much bigger than this and could certainly not accommodate 2-9 of every species of animal on earth.

As far as Jonah goes well , alluding to him dying and then coming back to life is really stretching it dropping critical thinking for wishful thinking and supernatural magic.

The bibles are riddled with contradictions and errors my friend, if you want to take them literally then fair enough but your arguments do stretch credulity to the very limits.

In relation to the flood myth, well, there has never been a flood that has covered the highest mountains on earth, you only have to go to the Himalayas and look.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 


personally i think we hunted and ate them

gen 9:2

And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.

gen 9:3

Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

david



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by drevill
 


"And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered."

Is that referring to humans or Predator?


Seriously, I think the guy that wrote that never met a badger. And if he ever met a tiger, it was AFTER he wrote the above. (Great white sharks! I forgot el tiburon!



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 



So, the whole topography of the world changed? Really?


Why is this so hard to believe? After all, modern science believes in the continental drift theory, which changes the topography, Mount Everest being the best example. Geologists would say that it hasn't always been there.

Millions of gallons of water coming up from the ground and falling from the sky could totally knock the land around, cause upheavals, and make the world as we know it today.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by drevill
 


I agree that humans later hunted some animals and they probably became extinct. I don't think that was the first generation that came after the flood though because it's apparent that after the flood was the first time that people were allowed to eat meat and they probably wouldn't have wanted to because it's something they were't used to.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 



Sorry dude but your rally grasping at straws there, more and more species havin being going extinct for thousands of years.

The fact that species have been disappearing for thousands of years doesn't dispprove the notion that at the time of the flood, there could've been less variation amongst the animals that were around.


You have said the ark would have been bigger then a couple of foot ball fields, well the bad news is that some oil tankers are much bigger than this and could certainly not accommodate 2-9 of every species of animal on earth.

The dimensions of the Ark are as follows [in feet with a cubit equaling 18 inches]: 450x75x45. That gives the Ark a volume of 1,518,750 cubic feet and a floor space of 100,000 feet squared or so. That's a ton of space and since, most likely, there weren't as many variations amongst the animals as there are today, the Ark had ample room. It's been suggested that only 50,000 animals were brought onto the Ark due to this and other factors.


The bibles are riddled with contradictions and errors my friend, if you want to take them literally then fair enough but your arguments do stretch credulity to the very limits.

The "contradictions" in the Bible can easily be rectified if one takes the time to sit down and study them and Scripture as a whole. But, most people that aren't Christian don't take the time to do this and just rehash the learned phrase, "there are contradictions riddled throughout the pages of the Bible", not even knowing what one possible one is.

Believing evolution is more credulous than a belief in Creationism as the evidence to support it is lacking and there's no evidence that it happened, or is happening today.


In relation to the flood myth, well, there has never been a flood that has covered the highest mountains on earth, you only have to go to the Himalayas and look.

What about the fish fossils that have been found in the Himalayas and other mountains? Anyway, many would argue that the Himalayas most likely weren't there when the flood occured anyway. They were a by product of it happening.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 



So, the whole topography of the world changed? Really?


Why is this so hard to believe? After all, modern science believes in the continental drift theory, which changes the topography, Mount Everest being the best example. Geologists would say that it hasn't always been there.

Millions of gallons of water coming up from the ground and falling from the sky could totally knock the land around, cause upheavals, and make the world as we know it today.


It's hard to believe because it's absurd. Leveling mountains with water in FORTY days? That's got a Hovind Factor of 9, minimum. Rationalizations don't equate to facts.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 


"The fact that species have been disappearing for thousands of years doesn't dispprove the notion that at the time of the flood, there could've been less variation amongst the animals that were around."

99.99999% of the species that have lived are already extinct. The fossil record shows that. The rational world knows the fossil record shows that. Hovindistas may refuse to believe it, but that doesn't change the facts.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 


"The dimensions of the Ark are as follows [in feet with a cubit equaling 18 inches]: 450x75x45. That gives the Ark a volume of 1,518,750 cubic feet and a floor space of 100,000 feet squared or so. That's a ton of space and since, most likely, there weren't as many variations amongst the animals as there are today, the Ark had ample room. It's been suggested that only 50,000 animals were brought onto the Ark due to this and other factors."

Proving your premise by your conclusion? Sorry. Fail.

BTW, THREE men built that "ship" in six months? A ship larger than anything ever built before? Really? You believe that, right?



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Proving God scientifically is impossible. At this point in time we have no way to test God.

But... I can ask you this, and give you something to think about. The Universe exists and we know this because we're living in it now. So if there was ever a time when absolutely nothing existed, then nothing would still exist today. It's a scientific fact that you cannot gain something from nothing.

So if God had never existed to create this universe, then who or what could have? The Big Bang is not the answer because it requires something. It requires molecules and gases to expand and create galaxies... but before that... there was nothing. The universe did have a beginning and this is also scientific.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by one_enlightened_mind]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by one_enlightened_mind
 


"So if God had never existed to create this universe, then who or what could have? The Big Bang is not the answer because it requires something. It requires molecules and gases to expand and create galaxies... but before that... there was nothing. The universe did have a beginning and this is also scientific."

Okay, then, who created your god? He couldn't have come from nothing, yes?

"Nothing comes from nothing"?

I think that in our limited understanding of the universe the concept that nothing comes from nothing makes sense, but remember, "Man will never fly."



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
who created your god? He couldn't have come from nothing, yes?


God has no creator. He is timeless. God has always been.

How can this be? God is not of this universe, but the creator of it. He exists outside of all we know.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by one_enlightened_mind]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join