Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I found this to be a funny read, they seem to take many liberties in their math and the only way the can even make it work is to take out the vast majority of "kinds" of animals. Some other sites say that Noah didn't have to go and get all the animals that God made them come to him so my question would be is how did the land animals from the other continents get to him? The other question would be is after the flood where did all the incests come from since they were not taken on the Ark and they would have all died from the flood. How did some of these animals even make it to the Middle East when they have such a sort life span and only one male and female are making the trip? Some sites say that Noah would have only taken the young animals, most of them would have been full adults by the time (if they could) reach the Middle East.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2000/04/03/dinosaurs-on-noahs-ark

You have to have faith. Preferably of the unshakable and illogical variety.

I guess dinosaurs were kosher, ie "clean animals". So maybe Fred Flintstone was on the right track with his Bronto-Burgers.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2000/04/03/dinosaurs-on-noahs-ark It's a joke, right? They don't really believe what they're saying, do they? As in, they must be being sarcastic...

Originally posted by Quark_666
It's a joke, right? They don't really believe what they're saying, do they? As in, they must be being sarcastic...

They believe God (the omniscient and omnipotent creator of all) was born human through a Palestinian virgin and lived some 30 odd years, only occasional dipping into the power cosmic to heal someone or turn water into wine. So, yes, they do believe that.

Only bird like Dinosaurs.

I'm of the idea that it was a localized flood. MASSIVE, but localized. And only the animals, for the most part, from that area, were put on the ark.


Just the 3 millions+ species of mammals alone would not fit on the ark, much less all the others.


You can't believe in creationsim, a 6000 year old Earth, and Noah saving all land dwelling species. Either evolution is the mechanism and Noah just saved origin species and God rapidly, over just a few generations, evolved all the species we see, or it is like I say. Earth is 4.5 billion years old, evolution is the way it be, and Noah only saved local animals in a massive local flood.

^makes more sense if noah didnt exist, wudnt u agree? btw, why is mormonism based so much in the new frontier and localised american mythology?

Originally posted by Robtard
They believe God (the omniscient and omnipotent creator of all) was born human through a Palestinian virgin and lived some 30 odd years, only occasional dipping into the power cosmic to heal someone or turn water into wine. So, yes, they do believe that.

too bad jesus didnt get a silver surfboard. jesus christ, herald of yahweh.

Of course there weren't. Scientists have proven that Satan invented the idea of dinosaurs to tempt us.

i think churches need to start have Q&A after or during the sermons.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a pastor who wouldn't answer questions about his sermons.

thanks for proving that amongst the billions of people on the planet, the ones' with access to information and understanding are the idiots.

simple case point - there is a bug/insect/beetle called the "bom -kewer" or exploding beetle, how is it possible that a creature can evolve an explosition out of their ass without killing themselves?

does the theory of the floating continets ring a bell to anyone. if you can give me one valid explanation of evolution i will buy into it just 1.

there is a microspecies evolution, a theory that even creationist support. that creature can evolve into something better but not from a ape to a human, unless you have the missing link of americans in there.

Originally posted by KYamato
thanks for proving that amongst the billions of people on the planet, the ones' with access to information and understanding are the idiots.

simple case point - there is a bug/insect/beetle called the "bom -kewer" or exploding beetle, how is it possible that a creature can evolve an explosition out of their ass without killing themselves?

does the theory of the floating continets ring a bell to anyone. if you can give me one valid explanation of evolution i will buy into it just 1.

there is a microspecies evolution, a theory that even creationist support. that creature can evolve into something better but not from a ape to a human, unless you have the missing link of americans in there.

Humans are apes. We did not evolve for animals that live today. Both Chimpanzees and Humans evolved from a common ancestor. Micro Evolution is Evolution.

Originally posted by KYamato
thanks for proving that amongst the billions of people on the planet, the ones' with access to information and understanding are the idiots.

simple case point - there is a bug/insect/beetle called the "bom -kewer" or exploding beetle, how is it possible that a creature can evolve an explosition out of their ass without killing themselves?

does the theory of the floating continets ring a bell to anyone. if you can give me one valid explanation of evolution i will buy into it just 1.

there is a microspecies evolution, a theory that even creationist support. that creature can evolve into something better but not from a ape to a human, unless you have the missing link of americans in there. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310_1.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310.html

Thank you, thank you very much

Originally posted by Da Pittman
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310_1.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310.html

Thank you, thank you very much

You showed him/her.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You showed him/her. So I guess the floating continents transported all the animals since they are hauling ass at 1cm a year.

Originally posted by KYamato
thanks for proving that amongst the billions of people on the planet, the ones' with access to information and understanding are the idiots.

simple case point - there is a bug/insect/beetle called the "bom -kewer" or exploding beetle, how is it possible that a creature can evolve an explosition out of their ass without killing themselves?

does the theory of the floating continets ring a bell to anyone. if you can give me one valid explanation of evolution i will buy into it just 1.

there is a microspecies evolution, a theory that even creationist support. that creature can evolve into something better but not from a ape to a human, unless you have the missing link of americans in there.

for the love of GOD! there is no MISSING LINK. because humans didnt evolve FROM apes of today. they both evolved along different paths from ANOTHER pre historic ape which DOESNT exist anymore. HOW hard is this to understand. they are both branches of an OLDER species than either one of them. you will NEVER find middle species the way you want to find them.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
HOW hard is this to understand. VERY

Shakyamunison,

thank you for confirming that you are an ape, now to the other non primate intelligent life out there...

if evolution of ape to human be true, why do we still have apes, if evolution is the "ultimate" form, then why would apes remain apes? there are some serious wholes in that theory.

kinda like swizz cheessse.

btw, do you like banana's.

and no, if a wild pheasant is kept in captivity the next generation will have a different colour shade - micro evolution

if a wild pheasant is kept in captivity and the next generation turns into dumb asses chickens - cross breeding.

evolution the pheasant looses all the pretty feathers and its beak shortens to that of a chicken that is evolution.

Originally posted by KYamato
Shakyamunison,

thank you for confirming that you are an ape, now to the other non primate intelligent life out there...

if evolution of ape to human be true, why do we still have apes, if evolution is the "ultimate" form, then why would apes remain apes? there are some serious wholes in that theory.

kinda like swizz cheessse.

btw, do you like banana's.

and no, if a wild pheasant is kept in captivity the next generation will have a different colour shade - micro evolution

if a wild pheasant is kept in captivity and the next generation turns into dumb asses chickens - cross breeding.

evolution the pheasant looses all the pretty feathers and its beak shortens to that of a chicken that is evolution. Are you serious or are you just trolling

If you really are serious do you even understand evolution and where do you get this "ultimate" form idea from? Evolution doesn't mean or say anything about turning into an ultimate form of anything.

Two posts from another site that should answer your question.

"We did not evolve from monkeys and apes, we evolved from ape-like creatures. We share a common ancestor. Look it up. Science is neat, huh?"

"Man didn't evolve FROM apes, all primates (apes and man included) evolved from the same ancestors.

This is like asking: if all dogs came from wolves, why do we still have wolves? They fill different biological niches and so they survive independant of one another."

There is a while thread about this so how about answering the question of this one

Originally posted by KYamato
Shakyamunison,

thank you for confirming that you are an ape, now to the other non primate intelligent life out there...

KYamato, I never insulted you. By insulting me first, you have shown how ignorant you are.

Originally posted by KYamato
if evolution of ape to human be true, why do we still have apes, if evolution is the "ultimate" form, then why would apes remain apes? there are some serious wholes in that theory.

Again, humans did not evolve from apes. Humans are a subcategory of ape called Hominid (look it up for yourself).

Both Human and other apes evolved from a common ancestor who is now extinct.

The only wholes are in your understanding of evolution. Please go back to school and listen and learn.

Originally posted by KYamato
kinda like swizz cheessse.

btw, do you like banana's.

and no, if a wild pheasant is kept in captivity the next generation will have a different colour shade - micro evolution

Micro Evolution over millions of years is Macro Evolution. If you believe in one and not the other, it is only because of ignorants.

Originally posted by KYamato
if a wild pheasant is kept in captivity and the next generation turns into dumb asses chickens - cross breeding.

evolution the pheasant looses all the pretty feathers and its beak shortens to that of a chicken that is evolution.

You do not know enough about what Evolution is to give an example that makes any sense. No wonder Evolution seems so wrong to you.

No they weren't because Noah didn't exist.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
I think he was talking about how most think that there is the missing link between modern ape, as for the missing link from the prehistoric ape and man that will more than likely never be found just as any fossil is very rare.

Oh, I know what he meant. All I was talking about is the fact that no link has been found, so there is indeed reasonable doubt to the theory of evolutoion.

I myself do believe in evolution, to an extent. I may be Christian, but you will never convince me that the world was created in 7 24-hour periods and is only 6,000 years old. Nor will anyone convince me that there were no carnivores before the sin of Adam and Eve, and I even have my doubts that Adam and Eve even existed.

Originally posted by Kinkin
No they weren't because Noah didn't exist. Nope her she is

http://sacramentoscoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/miley-and-noah-cyrus.jpg

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is Lucy.

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

Ah, yea. I forgot about lucy... but there was something that I seem to remember when I was studying for a project, hang on, I've gotta look this up.

Noah's ark didn't exist in the sense certain religions portray it as.

The story was first mentioned in the Babylonian Gilgamesh epic ages before the old testament, which probably copied it, the same way most of the books were taken over from the ancient Egytpian stories

Originally posted by Mandrag Ganon
Oh, I know what he meant. All I was talking about is the fact that no link has been found, so there is indeed reasonable doubt to the theory of evolutoion.

I myself do believe in evolution, to an extent. I may be Christian, but you will never convince me that the world was created in 7 24-hour periods and is only 6,000 years old. Nor will anyone convince me that there were no carnivores before the sin of Adam and Eve, and I even have my doubts that Adam and Eve even existed.

Evolution is a continual change over time. Sometimes this change happens fast and sometimes it is slow. All species are transitional from what they were to what they will become. Evolution is like a river, not a staircase. A missing link may never exist in a form that we can easily detect. Also, the chance of any remains turning into a facial is remote at best.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Evolution is a continual change over time. Sometimes this change happens fast and sometimes it is slow. All species are transitional from what they were to what they will become. Evolution is like a river, not a staircase. A missing link may never exist in a form that we can easily detect. Also, the chance of any remains turning into a facial is remote at best. You can get a facial from a fossil SWEET

My apologies Shakyamunison, the intention was not to insult you but to point out the obvious.

if homosapiens and apes are indeed related to the same "ancestor" the why do we still have apes? if indeed "micro evolution over millions of years" created a better species then why the existence of the old one?

my appendix serves no purpose, yet i still have it? would evolution not have "fixed" this?

Originally posted by KYamato
My apologies Shakyamunison, the intention was not to insult you but to point out the obvious.

if homosapiens and apes are indeed related to the same "ancestor" the why do we still have apes? if indeed "micro evolution over millions of years" created a better species then why the existence of the old one?

my appendix serves no purpose, yet i still have it? would evolution not have "fixed" this?

Apes are not old. They are just as modern as we are. The species that is old is gone now. That is the species that all apes (including humans) came from.

Evolution does not "fix" anything. There is no "mind" behind Evolution. Evolution is simply a response to an ever changing environment. Those who do not change die, while those that survive do so because they have changed.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
You can get a facial from a fossil SWEET

Spelling is not my stranth.

Originally posted by KYamato
My apologies Shakyamunison, the intention was not to insult you but to point out the obvious.

if homosapiens and apes are indeed related to the same "ancestor" the why do we still have apes? if indeed "micro evolution over millions of years" created a better species then why the existence of the old one?

my appendix serves no purpose, yet i still have it? would evolution not have "fixed" this? Why is there all the other animals in the world then? Why do we have all the breeds of dogs if they evolved from the wolf and so on and so forth? Why are humans better than apes? What makes us better? Just because we can read and write, look at porn and drive cars? Throw an average chimp and an average man with only the skin on his back into the wild and see which one survives the longest.

The appendix would lean more toward evolution than to a creator, why would a creator create a completely useless organ? We are not positive as to the function of the appendix but some say that it helps with the bacteria in the digestive system but this "left over organ" is a common part of evolution.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Evolution is a continual change over time. Sometimes this change happens fast and sometimes it is slow. All species are transitional from what they were to what they will become. Evolution is like a river, not a staircase. A missing link may never exist in a form that we can easily detect. Also, the chance of any remains turning into a facial is remote at best.

All valid points. It really just comes down to what you believe. The fact is that we will never know beyond all reasonable doubt what the origin of life is. Perhaps evolution is the truth, perhaps religion. Or perhaps it is a combination of both. I choose to believe the third option.

Sience will never be able to prove or disprove the existance of God, but religion will never be able to prove or disprove evolution. Evolution has it's share of holes, noone can deny that, but then again what scientific theroy doesn't. Religion relies on a basis of faith, and faith is very hard for people, we like to know with certanty.

But I don't think the answer is in one or the other. Perhaps we did evolve from an ape like species, and perhaps that's how God orchrestrated it. The fact is that we will never KNOW. I think the fact that annoys me the most is these people like KYamoto who look at their dogmatic narrow view from religion and never actually do the research themselves. And people like Robotard who take a gleening of information about religion and make a judgement based on that.

I think the fact that annoys me about all this is that people refuse to step out of their comfort zone and actually do research, in order to find the truth. I mean, believe me, I'll be doing alot of research on Lucy (what little I do know comes from a project I did back in middle school, very little of which I even remember.) And odds are when I am done my views will change a bit to accomidate her. *shrugs* All I know is that I am not happy with narrow views, and simple explanations. I like to look at the wider picture.

It's like Sherlock Holmes once said (in the book "The Sign of Four": "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Originally posted by Mandrag Ganon
All valid points. It really just comes down to what you believe. The fact is that we will never know beyond all reasonable doubt what the origin of life is. Perhaps evolution is the truth, perhaps religion. Or perhaps it is a combination of both. I choose to believe the third option.

Sience will never be able to prove or disprove the existance of God, but religion will never be able to prove or disprove evolution. Evolution has it's share of holes, noone can deny that, but then again what scientific theroy doesn't. Religion relies on a basis of faith, and faith is very hard for people, we like to know with certanty.

But I don't think the answer is in one or the other. Perhaps we did evolve from an ape like species, and perhaps that's how God orchrestrated it. The fact is that we will never KNOW. I think the fact that annoys me the most is these people like KYamoto who look at their dogmatic narrow view from religion and never actually do the research themselves. And people like Robotard who take a gleening of information about religion and make a judgement based on that.

I think the fact that annoys me about all this is that people refuse to step out of their comfort zone and actually do research, in order to find the truth. I mean, believe me, I'll be doing alot of research on Lucy (what little I do know comes from a project I did back in middle school, very little of which I even remember.) And odds are when I am done my views will change a bit to accomidate her. *shrugs* All I know is that I am not happy with narrow views, and simple explanations. I like to look at the wider picture.

It's like Sherlock Holmes once said (in the book "The Sign of Four": "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Read up on the life of Kepler. He worked most of his life to prove a theory that was false. Once he realized this fact, he did not hold on to it, but moved on to establish the 3 laws of planetary motion. If he had never given up on his life long work, he would have never found the truth.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^makes more sense if noah didnt exist, wudnt u agree? btw, why is mormonism based so much in the new frontier and localised american mythology? because American Mormons like to believe what Americans believe and what Mormons believe......it doesn't change theology of Mormonism any more than it changes the culture of America.

Originally posted by Quark_666
because American Mormons like to believe what Americans believe and what Mormons believe......it doesn't change theology of Mormonism any more than it changes the culture of America.

true, but it makes u wonder if mormonism isnt just a newer age extension of american and new frontier mythology mixed with the mainstream relegion that survived in society.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
true, but it makes u wonder if mormonism isnt just a newer age extension of american and new frontier mythology mixed with the mainstream relegion that survived in society. haha yes Mormonism could be a form of religious evolution. It crosses my mind all the time.

So has anyone actually seen the supposed remains of Noah's Ark?

You would of thought something that vindicates something in the Bible would have been world wide 24hr news.

Or it was a load of rubbish, proven scientifically to be rubbish and forgotten about as...you guessed it....a load of rubbish.

Originally posted by Beliver
So has anyone actually seen the supposed remains of Noah's Ark?

You would of thought something that vindicates something in the Bible would have been world wide 24hr news.

Or it was a load of rubbish, proven scientifically to be rubbish and forgotten about as...you guessed it....a load of rubbish.

Faith does not need remains.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Faith does not need remains.

But it does make your evidence a little more credible.

Originally posted by Beliver
But it does make your evidence a little more credible.

That is true, if evidence is important.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is true, if evidence is important.

You catch more flys with some poo on a stick than the stick on its own.

Originally posted by Beliver
You catch more flys with some poo on a stick than the stick on its own.

Not true. You can use a poo-less stick to beat people until they catch flies for you.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not true. You can use a poo-less stick to beat people until they catch flies for you.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not true. You can use a poo-less stick to beat people until they catch flies for you.

Kind of how the Bible was used in the Dark ages?

Belive or Die.....

Basically, but there was also a lot of poo in the Dark Ages.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not true. You can use a poo-less stick to beat people until they catch flies for you. Or kill them with the stick and that will bring even more flies then a poo stick

Getting away from the subject of poo and sticks...

If there is no evidence then the events depicted in the bible surrounding the "Noah's Ark" incident, are purely anecdotal (chinese whipsers passed down over the centuries) at best or just plain made up hogwash.

Perhaps Noah recieved Extraterrestrial help from teachers from above. Alot of the Bible is broken and many chapters are missing like for example the Book of Enoch. The most important book is missing because it explains the Human/ Reptilian Giants (Gods ) that came to earth and had an influence to Mankind.

I believe the story of Noah is real but it's is an ancient Babylonian story transfered to the Bible.

So if these Giants existed Noah would have no problem finding most of the animals that can live with Humans. Dinosaurs were not included in the list , but this planet is truly vast so I don't think the Flood was global.

Originally posted by Beliver
Getting away from the subject of poo and sticks...

If there is no evidence then the events depicted in the bible surrounding the "Noah's Ark" incident, are purely anecdotal (chinese whipsers passed down over the centuries) at best or just plain made up hogwash.

Well first off, you can account for multiple, similar flood legends in that area at that time...outside of the bible.

Secondly, again your logic is flawed. History is all anecdotal. You don't doubt aspects of Roman history, even though all the evidence we have of this is anecdotal...written accounts from very biased individuals.

It seems to me, you're more interested in portraying religion and the Bible as invalid, rather than proving its points of invalidity. You should go read the Creation vs Evolution thread. There's some great examples in there of how people will go to any length to prove their ideology (even in point of fact).

Frankly I think it just makes them look ridiculous.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is true, if evidence is important.


Shakyamunison, am i to assume that you are a believer, not specifically christianity?

your comments are mostly founded on historical account, be tangible proof or main stream beliefs passed down from generation to generation.

however your last to comments are that of a faith based believer, do you follow the teachings of buddah or are you using it as a signature for decorative purposes?

i am not insulting i am really curious. as you have not yet bashed any person as far as i can see.

Originally posted by KYamato
Shakyamunison, am i to assume that you are a believer, not specifically christianity?

your comments are mostly founded on historical account, be tangible proof or main stream beliefs passed down from generation to generation.

however your last to comments are that of a faith based believer, do you follow the teachings of buddah or are you using it as a signature for decorative purposes?

i am not insulting i am really curious. as you have not yet bashed any person as far as i can see.

He's a coffee shop Buddhist

Originally posted by KYamato
Shakyamunison, am i to assume that you are a believer, not specifically christianity?

your comments are mostly founded on historical account, be tangible proof or main stream beliefs passed down from generation to generation.

however your last to comments are that of a faith based believer, do you follow the teachings of buddah or are you using it as a signature for decorative purposes?

i am not insulting i am really curious. as you have not yet bashed any person as far as i can see. He bashes me all the time

Originally posted by Ordo
..and I like it

Originally posted by Da Pittman
He bashes me all the time

Me too. He's a hate filled monster.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
..and I like it

Yeah, I know you're into that stuff...

My only question is: Does your wife know?

Originally posted by Ordo
Yeah, I know you're into that stuff...

My only question is: Does your wife know? Who do you think set him up to it

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Who do you think set him up to it

I'm telling.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Noah's ark didn't exist in the sense certain religions portray it as.

The story was first mentioned in the Babylonian Gilgamesh epic ages before the old testament, which probably copied it, the same way most of the books were taken over from the ancient Egytpian stories


Well, how do you explain that almost every ancient culture in history has ancient stories of a Great Deluge...even the ancient Indians in the Americas?

water is important to humans?

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Well, how do you explain that almost every ancient culture in history has ancient stories of a Great Deluge...even the ancient Indians in the Americas?

Wow! like floods are so rare that no ancient culture would have ever had one.

i think he means the GREAT flood. and he's right. there seems to be mention of it in India as well.

Originally posted by Sado22
i think he means the GREAT flood. and he's right. there seems to be mention of it in India as well.

There has never been enough water on the Earth to flood the entire Earth.

yeah, okay, good point

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There has never been enough water on the Earth to flood the entire Earth.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AWizardDidIt

anyway, we're also have to consider what the earth looked like at his time (anywhere between 4500000 to 2250000 years ago).

Originally posted by Sado22

anyway, we're also have to consider what the earth looked like at his time (anywhere between 4500000 to 2250000 years ago).


Explain, please.

biblical heavenly year=1000 earthly years (4500x1000)
islamic heavenly year=500,000 earthly years (4500x500,000)

Originally posted by Sado22
biblical heavenly year=1000 earthly years (4500x1000)
islamic heavenly year=500,000 earthly years (4500x500,000)

That is not what I was talking about. How was the Earth different 2 to 4 million years ago, and how does that shed any light on the biblical flood?

well, geographic location of the continents for one would be greatly matter in this case. and if the continents were all together (or mostly together) as the theory states then the "world flood" is even more plausible isnt it? especially if we take it to be 22500000 years old version the world age?

notice, i'm stating these as facts. just trying to present the flipside.

Originally posted by Sado22
well, geographic location of the continents for one would be greatly matter in this case. and if the continents were all together (or mostly together) as the theory states then the "world flood" is even more plausible isnt it? especially if we take it to be 22500000 years old version the world age?

notice, i'm stating these as facts. just trying to present the flipside.

the amount of water still wudnt be any different and still insufficient to flood even a significant portion of this landmass.

you mean the 2/3 of the world gathered around 1/3?

Originally posted by Sado22
you mean the 2/3 of the world gathered around 1/3?


what does that have to do with the volume of water?

the description i remember of it was not just flood but heavy rains, water gushing out from springs and all that.

^thats a circular rationalisation when any known scientific mode of thought fails.

not really. you're claiming that 2/3 of the world water isn't enough to flood 1/3 of it. i'm cliaming it can, especially if you consider heavy downpour and the water under land gushing out as well....not to mention that i don't know of any place in the quran (or the bible) where it said that the whole world was flooded...but i'll double check.

^are you considering height here? obviously not. ur only considering area. i.e. ur still wrong

Originally posted by Sado22
not really. you're claiming that 2/3 of the world water isn't enough to flood 1/3 of it. i'm cliaming it can, especially if you consider heavy downpour and the water under land gushing out as well....not to mention that i don't know of any place in the quran (or the bible) where it said that the whole world was flooded...but i'll double check.

http://www.whoi.edu/cms/images/cook-EarthWater_88530.jpg

Originally posted by Sado22
i think he means the GREAT flood. and he's right. there seems to be mention of it in India as well.

yes, floods would have been hugely dramatic to civilizations thousands of years ago.

Much like how all ancient cultures have Sun Gods. Things which are important to human survival tend to get mythology built around them.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
http://www.whoi.edu/cms/images/cook-EarthWater_88530.jpg

350,000,000km^2 of water
150,000,000km^2 of land

Strikes me as much more meaningful and more like what he's talking about.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
350,000,000km^2 of water
150,000,000km^2 of land

Strikes me as much more meaningful and more like what he's talking about.

My point is that there is not enough water on the Earth to cover all the land on the Earth for 40 days.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
My point is that there is not enough water on the Earth to cover all the land on the Earth for 40 days.

The average ocean depth is 4km.
Over 40 days that's 100 meters of rain per day.

Then again, I'm not very good at math.

Anyway we know that didn't happen because no one mentions the whole "all the water vanishing" thing.

Stands to reason if God-magic made the flood, then God-magic just made it go away.

Don't understand the length of the flood though, when a week or two would have worked to kill all. Seems God just wanted Noah to float around needlessly, having incest in the Ark.

Originally posted by Robtard
Stands to reason if God-magic made the flood, then God-magic just made it go away.

Don't understand the length of the flood though, when a week or two would have worked to kill all. Seems God just wanted Noah to float around needlessly, having incest in the Ark.

In all stories like the great flood, there is a grain of truth. Perhaps the flood did last 40 days.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In all stories like the great flood, there is a grain of truth. Perhaps the flood did last 40 days.

I wouldn't go as far as to claim that certainly that they "all" have some truth, as I know plenty a bullshitter, but I feel what you're saying.

There likely was a (localized) flood 6-7k years (Neolithic era) ago in that region, as the last (great) ice-age came to an end and that's where the story originates from, just distorted and built upon during the centuries.

Then again, there's similar flood stories in ancient Sumerian myths, so the early Jews could have just copied the story as a teaching tool.

Originally posted by Robtard
...Then again, there's similar flood stories in ancient Sumerian myths, so the early Jews could have just copied the story as a teaching tool.

That is what I believe.

the bible doesn't speak of the world being 6000 years old. its been a while since i've read the bible (well, a LONG time actually) but i don't recall it beng there. not only that, but its a known fact even amidst chrstians that the whole 6000 year thing came in centuries later with the gregorian calender being used to trace biblical events. all this happened SIXTEEN CENTURIES after Christ.

Originally posted by Sado22
the bible doesn't speak of the world being 6000 years old. its been a while since i've read the bible (well, a LONG time actually) but i don't recall it beng there. not only that, but its a known fact even amidst chrstians that the whole 6000 year thing came in centuries later with the gregorian calender being used to trace biblical events. all this happened SIXTEEN CENTURIES after Christ.
Typical of Christianity.

maybe, but not the fault of god now is it?

Originally posted by Sado22
maybe, but not the fault of god now is it?

God is the creation of man.

fundamental difference in opinion. but lets find common ground: whether its god or the idea of god, do you agree with me that its not his fault when people keep changing things around?

Originally posted by Sado22
fundamental difference in opinion. but lets find common ground: whether its god or the idea of god, do you agree with me that its not his fault when people keep changing things around?

How can I agree with you?

It is like saying: let us agree that Santa Clause is very jolly. Santa Clause is not real, so in real terms, how can he be jolly?

In other words, if god is the creation of man, how is he 'to blame' or 'not to blame' for anything?

i think you're limiting my question to theism or atheism...consider it irrespective of the two. you don't have to believe in santa or not to see that the people who believe in him think of him as jolly.

i'm asking you that irrespective of your views on god, do you think he's to blame for all the cockups people carry out in his name?

Originally posted by Sado22
i think you're limiting my question to theism or atheism...consider it irrespective of the two. you don't have to believe in santa or not to see that the people who believe in him think of him as jolly.

i'm asking you that irrespective of your views on god, do you think he's to blame for all the cockups people carry out in his name?

Sure, why not?

If god created us, then what we do reflects onto god in some way. If we created god, then god is a direct reflection of human behavior. Therefore, I cannot agree with you.

Don't worry, I still like you.

BTW I'm not an atheist.

hmm...interesting theory.



honestly, i think ahteists are more conscerned about the god issue and what his creation does than theists do.

and i'm not a christian. i'm a muslim...apparently that makes it even worse these days

Originally posted by Sado22
hmm...interesting theory.



honestly, i think ahteists are more conscerned about the god issue and what his creation does than theists do.

and i'm not a christian. i'm a muslim...apparently that makes it even worse these days

Yes there are people who would attribute evil onto you just because of your religion. I am not one of those people.

says the infidel shifty

^the word "infidel" is an isult coming from a muslim.

or sarcasm......which obviously seem to have trouble grasping.
get laid...and when coming from a muslim, that really means something too (also sarcasm)

Originally posted by Sado22
says the infidel shifty

Typical.

just noticed that your avatar actually blinks. lol.

Originally posted by Sado22


just noticed that your avatar actually blinks. lol.

Got ya!

1) the 6000BC thing is a fundamental christian belief that came about only after Saint Gregory tried to place the christian events in teh gregorian calender. fact.
2) bible is not disproving sciene here. fact.
3) this thread needs to close because it is ignorant. fact.

Was the woodpecker on Noah's ark?

or you're not reading what i posted

Originally posted by Sado22
or you're not reading what i posted

I am not. Do like looking at your sig/avatar though.

who wouldn't?

Originally posted by Robtard
I am not. Do like looking at your sig/avatar though.

Ya, I've not been able to read any of his posts, even though I spend most of my time trying too.

well, you boys better make the most of it though. come ramadan, i'll have to take it down and replace it with something else.

a guy i respected for a long time told me that he believes that dinosaurs came from angels in the book of enoch...... and the flood killed them all b/c he did not like them.... i groan at him and asked him seriously? and he said he did not want to talk about his religious beliefs......