Did Noah have help?

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I know it took 120 years to complete but without advanced machinery or help with a huge undertaking like that, it would seem impossible for 3 men no matter how many years they had. The movie suggests it taking many years as well but that they had help from the watchers.

Actually, according to that Answers in Genesis site, the 120 years is the future maximum life span of human beings, not the amount of time Noah had to build the ark until the flood rains came.

I've actually seen a few videos on the subject of that time period.
One of the more intriguing points made by some of the writers and hosts was that ancient man was larger and stronger than his modern day counterpart.

The most striking of these featured a video wherein a researcher actually created a biosphere designed to mimic preflood environmental conditions, primarily in terms of humidity, oxygen content and barometric pressure. The animals and plants raised under these conditions grew to be virtual "super"specimens.

Foolishly, I did not think to copy and paste the video link to myself.
I'll have to find it again and share at some future date.

The best I can do for the present is suggest you check to see some of the research on hyperbaric oxygen chambers in treating various medical conditions.
I understand the treatments have yielded a number of surprising results.

Time Immemorial

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Actually, according to that Answers in Genesis site, the 120 years is the future maximum life span of human beings, not the amount of time Noah had to build the ark until the flood rains came.

I've actually seen a few videos on the subject of that time period.
One of the more intriguing points made by some of the writers and hosts was that ancient man was larger and stronger than his modern day counterpart.

The most striking of these featured a video wherein a researcher actually created a biosphere designed to mimic preflood environmental conditions, primarily in terms of humidity, oxygen content and barometric pressure. The animals and plants raised under these conditions grew to be virtual "super"specimens.

Foolishly, I did not think to copy and paste the video link to myself.
I'll have to find it again and share at some future date.

The best I can do for the present is suggest you check to see some of the research on hyperbaric oxygen chambers in treating various medical conditions.
I understand the treatments have yielded a number of surprising results.

Isn't site is wrong though? As Noah lived like 900 years, the 120 year human cap was initiated after the flood correct? And he was already like 500 years before he started work on the ark.

siriuswriter

Noah actually had three sons - Shem, Ham, and Japheth. It's later, after they land when Ham comes upon his father in a drunken sleep, covers him up, and God curses the tribes of Ham

But according to the Bible, Noah had no help, except that god gave him the measurements and image in a vision.

There's an interpretation of the story by Madeleine L'Engle called "Many Waters" that offers some inventive answers as to how Noah completed the Ark, or one called "The Preservationist," also with creative ideas as to how Noah gathered all the animals...

Time Immemorial

Originally posted by siriuswriter
Noah actually had three sons - Shem, Ham, and Japheth. It's later, after they land when Ham comes upon his father in a drunken sleep, covers him up, and God curses the tribes of Ham

But according to the Bible, Noah had no help, except that god gave him the measurements and image in a vision.

There's an interpretation of the story by Madeleine L'Engle called "Many Waters" that offers some inventive answers as to how Noah completed the Ark, or one called "The Preservationist," also with creative ideas as to how Noah gathered all the animals...

Noah and his sons must have been extremely powerful and strong as well as guided by God. The Ark is huge and would take much work to accomplish with him and 3 sons.

I feel like there is much missing from the bible, The Book of Enoch has much more information about the watchers, angels, demons and watchers, the giants, nephilim and other things.

Stealth Moose

Don't think too hard on it. That defeats the purpose of faith.

Omega Vision

Ruminating on the logistics of the Bible makes as much sense as ruminating on the logistics of Grimms' Fairy Tales.

Time Immemorial

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Ruminating on the logistics of the Bible makes as much sense as ruminating on the logistics of Grimms' Fairy Tales.

Well it was written 2000 or more years ago, and the church took out all the cool information. I blame them for trying to suppress this knowledge.

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Don't think too hard on it. That defeats the purpose of faith.

You're Christian again now?

Stealth Moose

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Well it was written 2000 or more years ago, and the church took out all the cool information. I blame them for trying to suppress this knowledge.

Yeah, I hate it when the blueprints for the ark got cut from the original version of the Bible. It reminds me of when Han shot first, but then Lucas ruined it.

Time Immemorial

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Yeah, I hate it when the blueprints for the ark got cut from the original version of the Bible. It reminds me of when Han shot first, but then Lucas ruined it.

laughing

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
You're Christian again now?

What?

Stealth Moose

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
You're Christian again now?

No. I'm simply pointing out that attempting to be scientifically or rationally accurate about Bible prose is as logical as doing the same with anything faith-based. Talking snakes and the ark are all fairy tales, kind of like Odin and his brothers making the world from the body of the first primordial giant or the sun being a god on a chariot as thought the Greeks.

Are you still going to evade the question of where you are as a religious individual?

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
No. I'm simply pointing out that attempting to be scientifically or rationally accurate about Bible prose is as logical as doing the same with anything faith-based. Talking snakes and the ark are all fairy tales, kind of like Odin and his brothers making the world from the body of the first primordial giant or the sun being a god on a chariot as thought the Greeks.

Are you still going to evade the question of where you are as a religious individual?

I believe that BWR is religious. I base this belief on faith. Nothing he can say can change that belief. wink

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Isn't site ... wrong ... ?
As Noah lived like 900 years, the 120 year human cap was initiated after the flood correct?
And he was already like 500 years before he started work on the ark.

Many of the things in the Bible don't happen instantly.

They tend to occur over a period of time.

Examine now these 2 charts based on the lifespans of the patriarchs pre-flood and post-flood, according to the Bible.

Notice that the lifespan of people is shorter after the flood and becomes lower every subsequent generation until the average is down to around ... 120 years.

http://i60.tinypic.com/dvg9z7.gif

http://i60.tinypic.com/35lt4dg.jpg

Stealth Moose

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Are you still going to evade the question of where you are as a religious individual?

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lsci05BTpM1qbn69no1_400.gif

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lsci05BTpM1qbn69no1_400.gif

laughing out loud

I got to go get my glass.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
...http://i60.tinypic.com/dvg9z7.gif

http://i60.tinypic.com/35lt4dg.jpg

This just goes to show that even fiction can be represented in a chart.

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Are you still going to evade the question of where you are as a religious individual?

"Evasion" implies there's something in my path that I need to pay attention to.

Or is relevant to the thread topic.

Or is even something that should be paid attention to.

Until you make a good case for the above, or give me other reason to think it worth my time, my answer to you is the same as Neil DeGrasse Tyson's to similar query:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm not an "ism" ...
I think for myself.

The moment when someone attaches you to a philosophy or a movement,
then they assign all the baggage and all the rest of the philosophy that goes with it TO you,
and when you want to have a conversation,
they will assert, that they already know everything important there is to know about you,
because of that association.

And that's not the way to have a conversation
I'm sorry. It's not."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos

Shakyamunison

BWR That quote does not apply to you. Neil DeGrasse Tyson would not run away from a relevant question. However, I do agree that it is not relevent to this thread, but I can understand Stealth Moose's frustration with you.

Stealth Moose

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
"Evasion" implies there's something in my path that I need to pay attention to.

Just a question which was leveled your way many times, and directly impacts your standing in debates. It's entirely logical to speculate given your past history of championing Abrahamic religious arguments and your spammarrific thread about Bible gateway table of contents. The fact that remotely questioning or attacking religious line of thought draws your attention is pretty telling in itself.

That hasn't stopped you before, Mr. R. Herring.

Funny, coming from:

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
You're Christian again now?

Your usual; refusal to stand firm and take a stance, nitpicking, misdirection and red herrings, followed by a quote marginally related, as if citation makes everything okay.

Again:

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
You're Christian again now?

My question to you is the same. You can either answer because you have been asked many times, or refuse to and let us speculate on why. If you are saying "Hurr, I don't want to be pinned down", too bad. You're already being associated given your posting history. People make judgments based on available evidence, so withholding evidence and then whining about being pigeon-holed is counter-productive.

Either you feel religious evidence is valid or you don't. And you either have an argument as to why this is the case or you don't. If it's an unexamined idea or argument, it's up for challenging. If you are refusing to make that statement for fear of coming under personal fire, maybe don't go to a diverse forum. Or outside.

I haven't run from the question. I answered it directly and concisely. What are you afraid of? Being held accountable for your words? Your past history of hedging, misdirection and retreating implies that is the case.

Shakyamunison

http://www.elistmania.com/images/articles/319/Original/cricket2c.jpg

bluewaterrider

Is that what you're having for dinner?

I can probably get you in contact with some food service agencies if you're having trouble, Shake.

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

I haven't run from the question. I answered it directly and concisely.

Are you pretending you're good at answering questions now?

Answers these two, then:

1. You make a lot of noise about Abrahamic religions being discriminatory against homosexuals.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Well, most buddhists are pretty laid back and don't infringe on other's rights, so they get a pass. Most Abrahamic religions seem to have a strong foundation of "us versus them" and it's a pity it survived this long.
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=589430&pagenumber=4

How then, do you account for the fact that one of the countries most recently in the news for criminalizing homosexuality, is India, whose majority demographic religion is Hinduism,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_India

and whose lawmakers, arguably, are secular people?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a shocking decision, the Indian Supreme Court has reversed the July 2009 ruling of the Delhi High Court decriminalizing gay sex between consenting adults. In doing so, the Indian Supreme Court has re-criminalized gay sex in India, rendering almost 20 percent of the global LGBT population illegal.
Overturning a High Court decision, the Indian Supreme Court upheld Indian Penal Code 377, an archaic and barbaric law that criminalizes "homosexual" acts:

377. Unnatural offenses -- Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Western media and LGBT organizations are likely to demonize India and Indians after this ruling, which does not make life easier for Indians who are gay and lesbian abroad, and conveniently casts the West as an arbiter of freedom. Anthopologist Akshaye Khanna articulates this quite well:

We are seeing, in several parts of the world, a cynical appropriation of the discourse of sexual rights and sexuality by right-wing and reactionary agendas. In Western Europe, North America and Israel, we see the phenomenon of 'homonationalism', where LGBT discourse is being used in deeply racist -- usually Islamophobic -- groups. In East Africa, the question of sexuality has come to be the central question in discourse about the nation -- where notions of 'Africanness' have come to be tied to the position on homosexuality. This centering of the question of sexuality is always a way of diverting attention from political and economic questions relating to the control over natural resources, or instances of corruption ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/prerna-lal/indias-supreme-court-gay-sex_b_4425457.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t590516.html

2. If resistance to condoning homosexuality is based on Abrahamic moral law, how do you explain the fact that the leaders of The Church of Satan, of all institutions, are ALSO resistant to condoning homosexuality?

The First Family Of Satanism
(Bob Larson Interviews Zeena Lavey and Nikolas Schreck)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WcKrdFHTds
(16 min 57 sec mark to 17 min 54 sec mark; a total of 57 seconds worth of viewing)

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
confused

Is that what you're having for dinner?

I can probably get you in contact with some food service agencies if you're having trouble, Shake.

No, but I couldn't find a video with crickets chirping.

Stealth Moose

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Are you pretending you're good at answering questions now?

I don't have to pretend. Can you indicate anywhere where I was contradictory or inconsistent on my status as a non-believer of Christianity?

I've asked you something like four times and all I get is this:

http://i48.tinypic.com/15chx80.gif

Let me ask again. I'll keep it in multiple question-format so you can negate anything you think is too damning:

1. Are you a Christian?
2. Are you of any Abrahamic faith?
3. Do you give any credit to any Abrahamic faith?
4. If any of the above are true, why?
5. Why do you defend Abrahamic believers at KMC but refuse to self-identify?
6. Why do I have to answer these same questions but you are exempt?
7. Why are you so fond of misdirection?

Really, a defining attribute of all but the most liberal interpretations or followings of Abrahamic dogma is homophobia. I'd even point out that those self-professed Christians or Muslims who don't actively disagree with homosexuality are being apostates, or at the very least extremely selective in their application of dogma.

But then again, no one follows all of the rules consistently; just the ones that fit their bias. Homophobes who happen to be Christians use the scripture as a defense, but ignore all the other tenets because it suits them. Hypocrisy indeed.

Keep on reading:

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Thank you. big grin

But most Christians and Muslims are also laid back and don't infringe on others rights. It's extremism that destroys a religion.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Hrm. True. LIberal Muslims and Christians usually take the best that religion has to offer and don't dwell on the literal wording that sometimes doesn't mesh with modern society.

Sometimes.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
There's a possibility we're all wrong. I just don't see why people want to control, fight and kill each other to prove they they are right.

Context is a beautiful thing.

Whether or not India has this problem doesn't change the fundamental fact that gay hate is a rather core principle among Abrahamic fundamentalists and even some of the less conservative members, and has been for thousands of years. Using the current First-World exceptions isn't very helpful given that these progressive changes are also concurrent with an erosion of Christian dominance in these areas. A lot of the current fundie movement appears to be a knee-jerk against perceived heresy and decline of the majority, or at least most religious leaders indicate as much while speaking in expensive auditoriums wearing fancy suits.

You do realize that the source you quoted states the reason for the reversal of the decision is because being gay is apparently against the order of nature, right?

K. I know the thread very well. You might even see me in there.

I wouldn't, because I am not discussing them, nor am I introducing them into the argument under the guise that they are relevant.

So let me help you with your future replies:

Ignore direct questions, especially if they hurt your stance/argument.
Post some kind of barely related citation. Block quote it as if it makes a difference.
Nitpick the opposition. Twist everything they say, even if the semantics require double joints to do so.
Make sure you don't actually take a stance on anything. If pinned down, dodge like Neo in a wind tunnel.
Take the argument to the opposition, questioning their morals, their upbringing, their true motives, and their behaviors in an effort to keep the spotlight on them and not on you where it rightly belongs.
Resubscribe to Religious Trolls Weekly.

Now time for random slightly related bullshit:

http://atheismresource.com/wp-content/uploads/robber.jpg

http://img3.visualizeus.com/thumbs/09/01/02/atheism,cartoon,comic,hypocrisy-6e69f6aa62face97de8afd5f418085ce_h.jpg

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Ignore direct questions, especially if they hurt your stance/argument.

mmm

Originally posted by bluewaterrider

If resistance to condoning homosexuality is based on Abrahamic moral law, how do you explain the fact that the leaders of The Church of Satan, of all institutions, are ALSO resistant to condoning homosexuality?

The First Family Of Satanism
(Bob Larson Interviews Zeena Lavey and Nikolas Schreck)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WcKrdFHTds
(16 min 57 sec mark to 17 min 54 sec mark; a total of 57 seconds worth of viewing)

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

... I am not discussing them ...

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
mmm

What's your point?

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What's your point?

Stealth Moose doesn't consider the other side of his arguments.

If "homophobia" as he calls it, is something distinctly characteristic of Abrahamic morality, then you shouldn't expect to find it in non-Abrahamic religions, you shouldn't expect to find it in secular communities, and you shouldn't expect to find it in a group that is, arguably, perfectly and diametrically OPPOSED to Abrahamic morality.

But you do.

He's giving special attention to Islam and Christianity for reasons known only to himself.

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

I couldn't find a video with crickets chirping ...

confused

Would you be able to play it if you did?

You said YouTube was blocked on your computer --
what channels does it allow?

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
confused

Would you be able to play it if you did?

You said YouTube was blocked on your computer --
what channels does it allow?

Ya, good point, that maybe the reason I couldn't find one.

I don't know what is blocked. Sometimes websites that are related to my job get blocked, and sometimes they're okay.

Shakyamunison

Robtard

Noah had help, he employed gangs of homosexual, who later died in the flood. /answered

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Robtard
Noah had help, he employed gangs of homosexual, who later died in the flood. /answered

Why didn't God just turn everyone homo? That would have killed off the human race without all the flood stuff.

Stealth Moose

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Stealth Moose doesn't consider the other side of his arguments.

If "homophobia" as he calls it, is something distinctly characteristic of Abrahamic morality, then you shouldn't expect to find it in non-Abrahamic religions, you shouldn't expect to find it in secular communities, and you shouldn't expect to find it in a group that is, arguably, perfectly and diametrically OPPOSED to Abrahamic morality.

That's because this is a:

http://liberalbias.com/images/content/Wizard-of-Oz-Scarecrow.jpg

... And that was never my argument. I said specifically that homophobia is a byproduct of nature = good fallacies perpetuated by Abrahamic religions, but not necessarily exclusive to them. Satanists always appeared rather unhinged or off the wall in general and I never bothered to evaluate their moral beliefs. This isn't dodging the question when you're strawmanning in the first place.

Learn 2 Debate.

Or you know, people who will listen. I know a great deal more about Christianity and Islam, and they are far more common here and in the West, where I would be exposed to their preaching, and I would be far more likely to challenge their more common viewpoints than those of the less vocal or entirely absent alternatives. I've even said as much when you asked before.

Common sense is your friend.

Robtard

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why didn't God just turn everyone homo? That would have killed off the human race without all the flood stuff.

People lived for hundreds of years back then; so God would have had to watch male-on-male butt****ing for hundreds of years; God didn't want that, God wanted a fresh start in about a year's time. /factsfromthebible

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Robtard
People lived for hundreds of years back then; so God would have had to watch male-on-male butt****ing for hundreds of years; God didn't want that, God wanted a fresh start in about a year's time. /factsfromthebible

Wow! You would think that a god that created the universe in 6 days could have done it right the first time.

Robtard

Who are you to judge God

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Robtard
Who are you to judge God

The story of the flood is fiction.

Time Immemorial

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why didn't God just turn everyone homo? That would have killed off the human race without all the flood stuff.

The way the ended the movie was with twin girls being born as the hope for humanity to repopulate the earth. laughing

Robtard

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
The way the ended the movie was with twin girls being born as the hope for humanity to repopulate the earth. laughing

Don't worry, their grandfather and uncles were there to have sex with them. /factsfromthebible

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
The way the ended the movie was with twin girls being born as the hope for humanity to repopulate the earth. laughing

Well, we all know that lesbos are not homo. evil face

Time Immemorial

Originally posted by Robtard
Don't worry, their grandfather and uncles were there to have sex with them. /factsfromthebible

Are you serious?

Stealth Moose

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
The way the ended the movie was with twin girls being born as the hope for humanity to repopulate the earth. laughing

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg50/NimixBecky/Lost/Miles-WUT.gif

Originally posted by Robtard
Don't worry, their grandfather and uncles were there to have sex with them. /factsfromthebible

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxot9ex5E81r19wsxo1_500.gif

Time Immemorial

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg50/NimixBecky/Lost/Miles-WUT.gif

If he is saying "What?"

laughing

Yup!

Robtard

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Are you serious?

Did you see any other males around?

Time Immemorial

Originally posted by Robtard
Did you see any other males around?

The movie was a complete farce of the Scripture though. They ended it with the twins girls I think for gay pride?

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Learn debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKdaRcptVz8&feature=related
(1 min 56 sec mark to 3 min 42 sec mark)

(Relevant transcript)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" concern about Congress?

I checked these numbers ...

57% of the Senate
38% of the House,
cite "Law" as their profession ...

and when you look at law ...
well, what happens in the courtroom?

It doesn't go to what's right, it goes to who argues best ...

the entire profession is founded on who the best arguers are ...

... the practice ... is bred in debating teams ...
... you know the subject, but you don't know which side you're going to be put on ...

... the act of arguing, and not agreeing, seems to be fundamental to that profession ...
... and Congress is half that profession ...

... where is the rest of life represented ...?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Neil DeGrasse Tyson)

Shakyamunison

bluewaterrider, so you don't think you need to improve your debating skills? Everyone has room to improve.

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I don't have to pretend.

Let me ask again.

1. Are you a Christian?
2. Are you of any Abrahamic faith?
3. Do you give any credit to any Abrahamic faith?
4. If any of the above are true, why?
5. Why do you defend Abrahamic believers at KMC but refuse to self-identify?
6. Why do I have to answer these same questions but you are exempt?
7. Why are you so fond of misdirection?

mmm

Correct me if I'm wrong: The above is exactly the kind of fallacious line of questioning you advocate below to say what shouldn't have any bearing on a "true" debate?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Take the argument to the opposition, questioning their morals, their upbringing, their true motives, and their behaviors in an effort to keep the spotlight on them and not on you where it rightly belongs.

Stealth Moose

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
The movie was a complete farce of the Scripture though. They ended it with the twins girls I think for gay pride?

If they're sisters it's twincest.

--

BWR, admit you strawmanned.

Robtard

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
The movie was a complete farce of the Scripture though.

They ended it with the twins girls I think for gay pride?

Artistic freedom happens. Not seen the flick, but if they focused on God wiping out life on the planet via flood except for an old man, his immediate family and a bunch of animals all surviving on a boat, they got the gist of it.

I doubt the director and/or writer had "twin lesbian babies" in mind when they showed that scene.

Time Immemorial

Originally posted by Robtard
Artistic freedom happens. Not seen the flick, but if they focused on God wiping out life on the planet via flood except for an old man, his immediate family and a bunch of animals all surviving on a boat, they got the gist of it.

I doubt the director and/or writer had "twin lesbian babies" in mind when they showed that scene.

I didn't know what they where trying to do, first Noah was convinved that God wanted no more people and he wanted no off spring, then Noah's wife goes to his grandfather and he's got all sort of powers and he asks her to remove the curse from his son's wife so that she may have kids, circumventing Noah's plan. He goes ape shit and threatens to kill the babies as soon as they are born if they are boys. Just so happens they come out as two girls..not to say they are going to be lesbians, just I'm literally drawing a blank and the writing of this movie.

Where they going with that God won and in this version of Noah planet extinction of people and that we should have no humans on this earth

Or

That man went against God and that no matter what he got what he wanted producing no males.

Robtard

iirc, in the Bible Noah's family did a whole lot of incest ****ing to repopulate the earth and they did it in an amazingly short amount of time.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Robtard
iirc, in the Bible Noah's family did a whole lot of incest ****ing to repopulate the earth and they did it in an amazingly short amount of time.

So, the bible would lead us to believe that we are all inbreeds. How have we survived for so long? It's a miracle!

Robtard

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, the bible would lead us to believe that we are all inbreeds. How have we survived for so long? It's a miracle!

You're a Jew deep down inside, just deal with it.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Robtard
You're a Jew deep down inside, just deal with it.
I don't have any money.

Time Immemorial

Originally posted by Robtard
You're a Jew deep down inside, just deal with it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't have any money.

laughing

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

There's no point in giving credit to tenets of a faith when those tenets are not based on scientific or objective fact ...

Prove that the tenets of Abrahamic groups like the Seventh Day Adventists are not generally consistent with or generally in alignment with scientific or objective fact.

Robtard

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Prove that the tenets of Abrahamic groups like the Seventh Day Adventists are not generally consistent with or generally in alignment with scientific or objective fact.

Do 7th Day Adventist believe the Bible to be true in all its facets? Adam & Eve. Great Flood. Fire breathing sea monsters. Human being capable of living inside a giant fish. 6,000 or so old Earth. Corpses coming back to life after 3 or so days. Vegan lions and tigers and bears, oh my. etc etc etc etc.

If the answer is yes, then that would be not consistent with scientific fact smile

Stealth Moose

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Prove that the tenets of Abrahamic groups like the Seventh Day Adventists are not generally consistent with or generally in alignment with scientific or objective fact. Originally posted by Robtard
Do 7th Day Adventist believe the Bible to be true in all its facets? Adam & Eve. Great Flood. Fire breathing sea monsters. Human being capable of living inside a giant fish. 6,000 or so old Earth. Corpses coming back to life after 3 or so days. Vegan lions and tigers and bears, oh my. etc etc etc etc.

If the answer is yes, then that would be not consistent with scientific fact smile

Also, nice shifting of that burden of proof, BWR.

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Robtard
Do 7th Day Adventist believe the Bible to be true in all its facets?

Don't fully know. Not a 7th Day Adventist. I admire them, but I'm not one of them. They are reasonably well-known for their adherence to Biblical principles though, and have a good reputation as a community with better than average health compared to other people in the U.S. They've been the subject of quite a few medical studies because of that.

Originally posted by Robtard

If the answer is yes, then that would be not consistent with scientific fact smile

Keep the phrasing correct. At the least, even to be in accordance with what Stealth Moose outlines: "consistent with scientific OR objective fact".
For "science" and "scientific fact" have fairly strict definitions not met by the way we use those words in normal everyday life.

Originally posted by Robtard

Adam & Eve.

Haven't seen anything objectively disproving them yet.

Originally posted by Robtard

Great Flood.

The subject of this entire thread, more or less.
More than likely I'll be supplying some things for consideration in the days to come.

Originally posted by Robtard

Fire breathing sea monsters.

Lightning bolt throwing "water snakes"?

Also bombardier beetle (creates a chemical fire for defense against enemies), and angler fish (creates its own light to hunt for other fish).

Originally posted by Robtard

Human being capable of living inside a giant fish.

Look up the name "James Bartley".

Originally posted by Robtard

6,000 or so old Earth.

Goes with the Flood; we'll get to it as a matter of course in this thread.

Originally posted by Robtard

Corpses coming back to life after 3 or so days.

This one's a challenge, admittedly.

Originally posted by Robtard

Vegan lions ...

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Saints/Authors/Stories/LittleTyke.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSopWo3IUvU

Originally posted by Robtard

... tigers ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMm43YNhg8g
(Not asserting this is this particular tiger's main diet, though; this is just for those who cannot envision a tiger eating plants)

Originally posted by Robtard

... and bears

http://www.ibtimes.com/are-black-bears-going-vegan-yosemite-park-bears-stealing-63-fewer-picnic-baskets-favor-natural-diet

bluewaterrider

Stealth Moose

So because nothing has objectively disproven (X), it must exist?

Are there unicorns running around out there, simply because science and/or I haven't disproven them?

http://www.sabinabecker.com/media/logic-fail.jpg

There's a Bible on BWR's computer desk. Since it hasn't been objectively disproven, I must assume it exists. Ergo, I win.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
So because nothing has objectively disproven (X), it must exist?

Are there unicorns running around out there, simply because science and/or I haven't disproven them?

http://www.sabinabecker.com/media/logic-fail.jpg

There's a Bible on BWR's computer desk. Since it hasn't been objectively disproven, I must assume it exists. Ergo, I win.

Unicorns dancing in the spring time.

Robtard

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Don't fully know. Not a 7th Day Adventist. I admire them, but I'm not one of them. They are reasonably well-known for their adherence to Biblical principles though, and have a good reputation as a community with better than average health compared to other people in the U.S. They've been the subject of quite a few medical studies because of that.

Keep the phrasing correct. At the least, even to be in accordance with what Stealth Moose outlines: "consistent with scientific OR objective fact".
For "science" and "scientific fact" have fairly strict definitions not met by the way we use those words in normal everyday life.

Haven't seen anything objectively disproving them yet.

The subject of this entire thread, more or less.
More than likely I'll be supplying some things for consideration in the days to come.

Lightning bolt throwing "water snakes"?

Also bombardier beetle (creates a chemical fire for defense against enemies), and angler fish (creates its own light to hunt for other fish).

Look up the name "James Bartley".

Goes with the Flood; we'll get to it as a matter of course in this thread.

This one's a challenge, admittedly.

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Saints/Authors/Stories/LittleTyke.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSopWo3IUvU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMm43YNhg8g
(Not asserting this is this particular tiger's main diet, though; this is just for those who cannot envision a tiger eating plants)

http://www.ibtimes.com/are-black-bears-going-vegan-yosemite-park-bears-stealing-63-fewer-picnic-baskets-favor-natural-diet

If you don't know, why pose the question to someone else? The answer is yes though, they hold the Bible to be truth.

Okay.

Pretty sure people being made out of dirt and then a rib of said dirt-man is not held as "fact" or "science" or "scientific fact".

Do so.

Those are not the leviathan, not even close

Did. Bartly is an urban legend and said to have been inside a whale (not a great fish) for 15 hrs. Urban legends are not facts.

6,000 year old Earth spits in the face of logic.

The lion was a cute little story. I was referring to the notion that all animals (including dinosaurs) living in harmony in the Garden of Eden before the fall. Does not follow logic.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Robtard
If you don't know, why pose the question to someone else? The answer is yes though, they hold the Bible to be truth.

Okay.

Pretty sure people being made out of dirt and then a rib of said dirt-man is not held as "fact" or "science" or "scientific fact".

Do so.

Those are not the leviathan, not even close

Did. Bartly is an urban legend and said to have been inside a whale (not a great fish) for 15 hrs. Urban legends are not facts.

6,000 year old Earth spits in the face of logic.

The lion was a cute little story. I was referring to the notion that all animals (including dinosaurs) living in harmony in the Garden of Eden before the fall. Does not follow logic.

Logic is of the devil. evil face

Robtard

Vulcans are an evil lot.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Robtard
Vulcans are an evil lot.

Hey! Keep Star Trek out of this. mad

Robtard

It's not science fiction, it's science fact until you can disprove it.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Robtard
It's not science fiction, it's science fact until you can disprove it.

Are you standing on your head? laughing out loud

BTW, Logic is of the devil, is not what I believe. It is what many fundamentalists believe.

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Robtard

If you don't know, why pose the question to someone else?

confused

Are you wording this the way you intended?

1. Asking questions (and getting them answered by people who are kind enough and knowledgeable enough to authoritatively respond)
is one of the primary ways, perhaps THE primary way, people the world over learn.

(What do you do when you don't know the answer to something and want to find it out?)

2. Also, it was you who asked me a question, not the reverse.

Originally posted by Robtard

Pretty sure people being made out of dirt and then a rib of said dirt-man is not held as "fact" or "science" or "scientific fact".

Quite so.

It requires dirt plus water and amino acids to be held as science, IIRC.

Originally posted by Robtard

Bartley is an urban legend and said to have been inside a whale (not a great fish) for 15 hrs. Urban legends are not facts.

The Jonah problem is arguably the same class of problem as Easter Jesus ...

We'll get back to this one.

Even the snopes dot com website gives the verdict of "inconclusive" as to whether you're right about Bartley being a legend, but Bartley's case is different enough from Jonah's that it would warrant discussion regardless.

In the meantime, thank you for reading up on the name I gave.

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Robtard

The lion was a cute little story.
I was referring to the notion that all animals (including dinosaurs) liv in harmony in the Garden of Eden before the fall.
Does not follow logic ...

6,000 year old Earth (also) spits in the face of logic ...

I'm not so certain about this.

Are you actually familiar with any of the theories that propose 6,000 year old Earth? One of the premises of almost all 6K models is a life/growth encouraging environment being stripped of nearly everything that made it so, and, arguably, a great deal of the full variety and richness by a cataclysmic world event.
Comparable, I suppose, to the great asteroid many posit struck Earth some 60 plus million years ago.
Except, of course, in the 6K model, whether that asteroid struck or not, the cataclysmic world event became known as the Great Flood.

None of us were there; presumably we don't have the ability to recreate exactly what happened or did not happen there, assuming that we'd even want to.
So we cannot actually reproduce the type of repeatable controlled experiments science formally calls for. We're rather left with playing detectives, relying on "forensic" evidence.

We theorize what occurred, construct a model of what should and should not have occurred given x and/or y and/or z, and see if we can fit new discoveries to that model, all the while examining whether our model is not so contradicted by what we find that we must change that model.

There are problems, though.

One is that we tend to assume that what we see today is not only the norm for everything we see today, but is ALSO the way things are supposed to run, and the way things were in the past, often without significant variation.

In another thread, for example, we discussed whether or not men in the past were more or less healthy than their modern counterparts.

Or rather, 2 other posters did. I don't remember now weighing in on the debate because I was only then searching for articles like the one I refer to here.

There's no real substitute for reading the article. I hope you'll do so. It is perhaps the equivalent of 2 pages in a book and should take no more than 5 to 7 minutes. Here is a brief excerpt that you might get one of the general drifts of my thought:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" ... hile farmers concentrate on high-carbohydrate crops like rice and potatoes, the mix of wild plants and animals in the diets of surviving hunter-gatherers provides more protein and a better balance of other nutrients. In one study, the Bushmen's average daily food intake (during a month when food was plentiful) was 2,140 calories and 93 grams of protein, considerably greater than the recommended daily allowance for people of their size. It's almost inconceivable that Bushmen, who eat 75 or so wild plants, could die of starvation the way hundreds of thousands of Irish farmers and their families did during the potato famine of the 1840s ...

... hunter-gatherers enjoyed a varied diet, while early farmers obtained most of their food from one or a few starchy crops. The farmers gained cheap calories at the cost of poor nutrition ... today just three high-carbohydrate plants -- wheat, rice, and corn -- provide the bulk of the calories consumed by the human species, yet each one is deficient in certain vitamins or amino acids essential to life ..."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html

Source: Jared Diamond, "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race," Discover Magazine, May 1987, pp. 64-66.
Jared Diamond
University of California at Los Angeles Medical School

Robtard

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
confused

Are you wording this the way you intended?

Yes. You posed the question to Stealth in a manner that spoke of you knowing the answer and him being ignorant of it. It was a condescending question.

Robtard

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I'm not so certain about this.

Are you actually familiar with any of the theories that propose 6,000 year old Earth? One of the premises of almost all 6K models is a life/growth encouraging environment being stripped of nearly everything that made it so, and, arguably, a great deal of the full variety and richness by a cataclysmic world event.
Comparable, I suppose, to the great asteroid many posit struck Earth some 60 plus million years ago.
Except, of course, in the 6K model, whether that asteroid struck or not, the cataclysmic world event became known as the Great Flood.

None of us were there; presumably we don't have the ability to recreate exactly what happened or did not happen there, assuming that we'd even want to.
So we cannot actually reproduce the type of repeatable controlled experiments science formally calls for. We're rather left with playing detectives, relying on "forensic" evidence.

We theorize what occurred, construct a model of what should and should not have occurred given x and/or y and/or z, and see if we can fit new discoveries to that model, all the while examining whether our model is not so contradicted by what we find that we must change that model.

There are problems, though.

One is that we tend to assume that what we see today is not only the norm for everything we see today, but is ALSO the way things are supposed to run, and the way things were in the past, often without significant variation.

In another thread, for example, we discussed whether or not men in the past were more or less healthy than their modern counterparts.

Or rather, 2 other posters did. I don't remember now weighing in on the debate because I was only then searching for articles like the one I refer to here.

There's no real substitute for reading the article. I hope you'll do so. It is perhaps the equivalent of 2 pages in a book and should take no more than 5 to 7 minutes. Here is a brief excerpt that you might get one of the general drifts of my thought:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" ... hile farmers concentrate on high-carbohydrate crops like rice and potatoes, the mix of wild plants and animals in the diets of surviving hunter-gatherers provides more protein and a better balance of other nutrients. In one study, the Bushmen's average daily food intake (during a month when food was plentiful) was 2,140 calories and 93 grams of protein, considerably greater than the recommended daily allowance for people of their size. It's almost inconceivable that Bushmen, who eat 75 or so wild plants, could die of starvation the way hundreds of thousands of Irish farmers and their families did during the potato famine of the 1840s ...

... hunter-gatherers enjoyed a varied diet, while early farmers obtained most of their food from one or a few starchy crops. The farmers gained cheap calories at the cost of poor nutrition ... today just three high-carbohydrate plants -- wheat, rice, and corn -- provide the bulk of the calories consumed by the human species, yet each one is deficient in certain vitamins or amino acids essential to life ..."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html

Source: Jared Diamond, "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race," Discover Magazine, May 1987, pp. 64-66.
Jared Diamond
University of California at Los Angeles Medical School

I am. Cos maybe the Earth isn't 4.5 billions years old, but a 6K model is utterly ridiculous.

And if you're going to use the "who knows, no one was there", you're little more than Haming it (Ken Ham).

I'll check the article out later when I have time. I liked Diamond's 'Guns, Germs and Steel'.

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Robtard

I'll check the article out later when I have time. I liked Diamond's 'Guns, Germs and Steel'.

Here's the click-able link for it --

I usually leave web addresses in URL format so that they remain explorable for people once these threads are archived, but, before that time, I like things to be as convenient as possible for current readers, too.

http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html

Source: "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race," Discover Magazine, May 1987, pp. 64-66.
Jared Diamond, University of California at Los Angeles Medical School

Shakyamunison

I tried to read it, but it was so bad... I couldn't continue.

Robtard

Wasn't that bad. There's some great points (if the info is indeed accurate) there, imo. But it does try and force a class warfare angle onto you.

How it relates to the thread though and Blue's points, I have no idea, considering Diamond's talking of over 100,000 years of human history, which clearly doesn't gel with a 6,000 year old earth.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Robtard
Wasn't that bad. There's some great points (if the info is indeed accurate) there, imo. But it does try and force a class warfare angle onto you.

How it relates to the thread though and Blue's points, I have no idea, considering Diamond's talking of over 100,000 years of human history, which clearly doesn't gel with a 6,000 year old earth.

I have a headache today. I will try it later, after the drugs kick in. wink

Robtard

In short: We traded a simple healthy life where we had to resort to infanticide at times for Doritos, poor health, rock music and iPhones.

Oh, and class warfare where the rich do little but reap the most rewards.

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I tried to read it, but it was so bad ... I couldn't continue.

Jared Diamond, writer of that article, is a Pulitzer prize winner.

More than that, by your own admission, you face a genuine challenge that most people do not:

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
@bluewaterrider
If you really want to spend the time to edit my posts in the quotes, that is fine. But do not blame me when it becomes a burden. I am extremely dyslectic.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=583683&pagenumber=14

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

I use the language and the way I write to get my point out in as few words a possible. I'm not a good speller and sometimes I can't spell the word I want to say, so I say the word I can spell. I am extremely dyslexic, if you talked to me in person you would understand that I do not believe that I am better than you.

I have a lot of pain still in my heart, from the days when I HATED Christians. Talking to you and others is helping me understand this pain. I am sorry if, form time to time, you see the pain in me ...

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=354880&pagenumber=6

I've often wondered about this.

If you have such a degree of difficulty that even spell check does not help, how, in all seriousness, can you ever be confident you've understood what any author has to say to you, let alone one writing on religious themes?

I think of the following nearly every time I read a post from you now, and have for quite a long time ...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference between the almost right word & the right word is really a large matter--it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.
- Letter to George Bainton, 10/15/1888
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.twainquotes.com/Lightning.html

No less an authority than Mark Twain wrote that.
Yet he was merely speaking of the enormous loss (or gain) in literary power and comprehension to be had by the addition or omission of ONE word.

What must the experience be like of the person who sees five or six words per paragraph in arrangements that make no sense?

Here, Shaky ... you hinted in your post from many years ago that the SPOKEN word gives you far fewer problems ...
Perhaps some information contained where this URL links might be of use to you:

http://ncld.org/students-disabilities/assistive-technology-education/apps-students-ld-dyslexia-reading-difficulties

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Robtard
In short: We traded a simple healthy life where we had to resort to infanticide at times for Doritos, poor health, rock music and iPhones.

Oh, and class warfare where the rich do little but reap the most rewards.

I think the term for your summary is "oversimplification", but I appreciate you taking the time to read that article just the same.

bluewaterrider

A click-able link version of my post with that Twain quote might be more accessible to most, so ...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I tried to read it, but it was so bad ... I couldn't continue.

Jared Diamond is a Pulitzer prize winner.

More than that, by your own admission, you face a genuine challenge that most people do not:

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
@bluewaterrider
If you really want to spend the time to edit my posts in the quotes, that is fine. But do not blame me when it becomes a burden. I am extremely dyslectic.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=583683&pagenumber=14

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

I use the language and the way I write to get my point out in as few words a possible. I'm not a good speller and sometimes I can't spell the word I want to say, so I say the word I can spell. I am extremely dyslexic, if you talked to me in person you would understand that I do not believe that I am better than you.

I have a lot of pain still in my heart, from the days when I HATED Christians. Talking to you and others is helping me understand this pain. I am sorry if, form time to time, you see the pain in me ...

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=354880&pagenumber=6

I've often wondered about this.

If you have such a degree of difficulty that even spell check does not help, how, in all seriousness, can you ever be confident you've understood what any author has to say to you, let alone one writing on religious themes?

I think of the following nearly every time I read a post from you now, and have for quite a long time ...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference between the almost right word & the right word is really a large matter--it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.
- Letter to George Bainton, 10/15/1888
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.twainquotes.com/Lightning.html

No less an authority than Mark Twain wrote that.
And he was merely speaking of the enormous loss (or gain) in literary power and comprehension to be had by the addition or omission of ONE word.

What must the experience be like of the person who sees five or six words per paragraph in arrangements that make no sense?

Here, Shaky ... you hinted in your post from many years ago that the SPOKEN word gives you far fewer problems ...
Perhaps some information contained where this URL links might be of use to you:

http://ncld.org/students-disabilities/assistive-technology-education/apps-students-ld-dyslexia-reading-difficulties

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Jared Diamond, writer of that article, is a Pulitzer prize winner.

More than that, by your own admission, you face a genuine challenge that most people do not:

I've often wondered about this.

If you have such a degree of difficulty that even spell check does not help, how, in all seriousness, can you ever be confident you've understood what any author has to say to you, let alone one writing on religious themes?

I can't see when a word in misspelled. My ability to understand is not hampered, because I do not have the same problem with reading. If you did a little reading about Dyslexia, you would realize that most people who are Dyslexic are average to genius level of intelligence. Best example is Albert Einstein.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I think of the following nearly every time I read a post from you now, and have for quite a long time ...

Perhaps you should think about other things like answering questions that have been asked of you.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
What must the experience be like of the person who sees five or six words per paragraph in arrangements that make no sense?

I do have that problem when reading your posts, but that has nothing to do with Dyslexia on my part.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Here, Shaky ... you hinted in your post from many years ago that the SPOKEN word gives you far fewer problems ...
Perhaps some information contained where this URL links might be of use to you:

Thanks, but no thanks. I can't help but feel that your sudden concern for my well being is hollow, and self serving.

Robtard

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I think the term for your summary is "oversimplification", but I appreciate you taking the time to read that article just the same.

Over simplifying it for Shaky was the exact purpose of my post. He's dyslectic and has trouble reading lengthy post.

So I won again.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Robtard
Over simplifying it for Shaky was the exact purpose of my post. He's dyslectic and has trouble reading lengthy post.

So I won again.

I didn't think it was OVER simplified. I took it as an encouragement for me to take the time and read it (I am very slow at reading).

Basally you were trying to help me in a nice way, so you win again. wink

Robtard

I should try not winning one day; see what that's all about.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Robtard
I should try not winning one day; see what that's all about.

Can I get the lottery numbers from you.pray laughing out loud

bluewaterrider

Shaky, you perceive attacks from me even where none exist.

A perfect case in point was when you thought I was accusing you of being a sock and protested vehemently.

Originally posted by Robtard
Wasn't that bad. There's some great points (if the info is indeed accurate) there, imo. But it does try and force a class warfare angle onto you.

How it relates to the thread though and Blue's points, I have no idea, considering Diamond's talking of over 100,000 years of human history, which clearly doesn't gel with a 6,000 year old earth.

Jared should prove useful in the very near future; I'm only concerned right now with giving you a context for understanding my point of view.

I must say I'm happy to have discovered (and re-discovered) Jared, though.

Until yesterday, I had no idea he was that celebrated or that heralded across so many disciplines.
There's quite a bit more than that, too, but that's all I'll say concerning him for the present moment ...
(April 15th has quite a few tasks for me to accomplish in the real world.)

In the meanwhile ...

Hopefully you've guessed Jared's article was part of me "supplying things for consideration in the days to come".
Genuinely appreciate that you took the time to actually read through or examine most, if not all, of what I've presented to this point.

Last perceivable request (for this page, at least) ...

Read or re-read the following, please:

http://london.sonoma.edu/Writings/WhiteFang/4chapter3.html

http://london.sonoma.edu/Writings/WhiteFang/4chapter4.html

These are links to two chapters of the Jack London novel "White Fang" that Sonoma University has put online for students.

Need you to read them (~5 minutes each) and tell me, when you're done, or at least think about, the answer to 2 questions:

1. Given what we're told in Chapter 3, does the action of Chapter 4 make actual sense? Is it plausible?
2. Do you think Jack London actually witnessed what he wrote about, or anything like it? Why or why not?

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Shaky, you perceive attacks from me even where none exist.

A perfect case in point was when you thought I was accusing you of being a sock and protested vehemently...

Point one: Maybe if you apologized for falsely accusing me of having JIA banned, then things would be better between us.

Point two: Being called a sock can lead to being banned, but I've been here so long that no one would believe you. I don't recall, but I was probably joking around.

Robtard

I read parts of White Fang in middle school, iirc, not interested in reading excerpts out of it so you can apparently make some point which you've avoided making for pages now.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Here's the click-able link for it --

I usually leave web addresses in URL format so that they remain explorable for people once these threads are archived, but, before that time, I like things to be as convenient as possible for current readers, too.

http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html

Source: "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race," Discover Magazine, May 1987, pp. 64-66.
Jared Diamond, University of California at Los Angeles Medical School

Okay, I read it. This reminds me of the book the forest people (I don't remember who wrote it). It was a researcher who lived with the pigmies to study them. After a few years he had to leave because if he didn't, he would have never left. Life was that much better as a pigmy then western society.

I thought the over use of the word "progressive" was hinting at a hidden agenda, but the write never persuade that line of thought.

What did this have to do with the OP?

Robtard

You've never truly had sex, until you've had pygmy sex

Shakyamunison

Okay! a little back reading helped.

The fact that humans may have been healthier in the past does not prove a world wide flood.

To say we were not there, is to say that thing in the past do not leave evidence in the present, and that is NOT true.

The idea of a world wide floor has been disproved over and over again. The geological evidence points in the opposite direction. There have been many floods in different locations, but none that would cover all the Earth. However, I am assuming that we are talking about the time when humans have been on the Earth. 65 million years ago, there may have been a flood that cover much of the Earth, but humans did not exist then. Before that, the Earth was covered by ice in the snowball Earth, but that was 1/2 a billion years ago or so. Again, humans had not evolved yet.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Robtard
You've never truly had sex, until you've had pygmy sex
According to the book, the pygmies (thanks for the correct spelling) got him a wife, because they thought it was strange for a man to live without a wife. However, he did not have sex with her.

Robtard

Was he gay?

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Robtard
Was he gay?

laughing out loud

The Forest People by Colin M. Turnbull

It's a good book, and well written. Maybe too well written wink

Lestov16

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Okay! a little back reading helped.

The fact that humans may have been healthier in the past does not prove a world wide flood.

To say we were not there, is to say that thing in the past do not leave evidence in the present, and that is NOT true.

The idea of a world wide floor has been disproved over and over again. The geological evidence points in the opposite direction. There have been many floods in different locations, but none that would cover all the Earth. However, I am assuming that we are talking about the time when humans have been on the Earth. 65 million years ago, there may have been a flood that cover much of the Earth, but humans did not exist then. Before that, the Earth was covered by ice in the snowball Earth, but that was 1/2 a billion years ago or so. Again, humans had not evolved yet.

I think this site provides a reasonable origin of the flood myth. Don't know if it is complete fact, but it is a good theory

http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/the-great-flood-and-population-migrations.html#lesson

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Lestov16
I think this site provides a reasonable origin of the flood myth. Don't know if it is complete fact, but it is a good theory

http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/the-great-flood-and-population-migrations.html#lesson

Ya, I've heard this before. That would be a flood story I might believe. There needs to be more proof. But that is not the story in the bible when taken literally. big grin

Lestov16

Nothing is more objective fact than the literal translation of a myth of scientifically ignorant desert primitives smile

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Okay! a little back reading helped.

The fact that humans may have been healthier in the past does not prove a world wide flood.

Quite so, but it is very consistent with Great Flood theory, even as the OP alluded to in another recent thread:

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Don't you think in a environment without pollution, radiation, cell phones, millions of chemicals surrounding us, chemical treated water we drink, not having much of an ozone or firmament to protect us, diseases, hunger, malnutrition, degeneration of our food's nutrients we actually could be living shorter then people from the ancient scriptures? I would think those people lived a much cleaner life without all the current products of the industrial revolution and its citizens ...

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=592744&pagenumber=4

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Robtard

I read parts of White Fang in middle school ...

Indeed a great many people have; unlike the Jared Diamond article, White Fang is easy to understand and common reading for a great number, even for many beginning readers, even the readers that form the KMC audience.

This warrants its own interlude.

White Fang is generally interesting reading, and part of the public domain.

It should largely explain itself ...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" ... hite Fang came to look forward eagerly to the gathering of the men around his pen. It meant a fight; and this was the only way that was now vouchsafed him of expressing the life that was in him. Tormented, incited to hate, he was kept a prisoner so that there was no way of satisfying that hate except at the times his master saw fit to put another dog against him. Beauty Smith had estimated his powers well, for he was invariably the victor. One day, three dogs were turned in upon him in succession. Another day, a full-grown wolf, fresh-caught from the Wild, was shoved in through the door of the pen. And on still another day two dogs were set against him at the same time. This was his severest fight, and although in the end he killed them both he was himself half killed in doing it ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm of the opinion that the more of the passages that are read, the better the impression and understanding, but, if you are short on time, note that only the
bolded portions are fully necessary to understand what's singular enough about the Chapter 3 and 4 accounts of the book to warrant mention here.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" ... was a professional fighting animal ... he fought all sizes and breeds of dogs. It was a savage land, the men were savage, and the fights were usually to the death.

Since White Fang continued to fight, it is obvious that it was the other dogs that died. He never knew defeat. His early training, when he fought with Lip-lip and the whole puppy-pack, stood him in good stead. There was the tenacity with which he clung to the earth. No dog could make him lose his footing. This was the favorite trick of the wolf breeds -- to rush in upon him, either directly or with an unexpected swerve, in the hope of striking his shoulder and overthrowing him. Mackenzie hounds, Eskimo and Labrador dogs, huskies and Malemutes -- all tried it on him, and all failed. He was never known to lose his footing. Men told this to one another, and looked each time to see it happen; but White Fang always disappointed them.

Then there was his lightning quickness. It gave him a tremendous advantage over his antagonists. No matter what their fighting experience, they had never encountered a dog that moved so swiftly as he. Also to be reckoned with, was the immediateness of his attack. The average dog was accustomed to the preliminaries of snarling and bristling and growling, and the average dog was knocked off his feet and finished before he had begun to fight or recovered from his surprise. So often did this happen, that it became the custom to hold White Fang until the other dog went through its preliminaries, was good and ready, and even made the first attack ..."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

bluewaterrider

Bonus: White Fang
Brief Chapter 3 Interlude, extended

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" reatest of all the advantages in White Fang's favor, was his experience. He knew more about fighting than did any of the dogs that faced him. He had fought more fights, knew how to meet more tricks and methods, and had more tricks himself, while his own method was scarcely to be improved upon.

As the time went by, he had fewer and fewer fights. Men despaired of matching him with an equal, and Beauty Smith was compelled to pit wolves against him. These were trapped by the Indians for the purpose, and a fight between White Fang and a wolf was always sure to draw a crowd. Once, a full-grown female lynx was secured, and this time White Fang fought for his life. Her quickness matched his; her ferocity equalled his; while he fought with his fangs alone, and she fought with her sharp-clawed feet as well.

But after the lynx, all fighting ceased for White Fang.
There were no more animals with which to fight -- at least, there was none considered worthy of fighting with him. So he remained on exhibition until spring, when one Tim Keenan, a faro-dealer, arrived in the land. With him came the first bulldog that had ever entered the Klondike. That this dog and White Fang should come together was inevitable, and for a week the anticipated fight was the mainspring of conversation in certain quarters of the town ... "
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Quite so, but it is very consistent with Great Flood theory, even as the OP alluded to in another recent thread:...

Sure there could have been a flood in the black sea 8000 years ago, and that event could have led to stories that have been past down to us. However, the main point behind the biblical flood story, that a god destroyed the Earth with a flood because of the wickedness of man, is without any support.

If a great lake in North America dumped water into the oceans, and this water caused a flood in the black sea, then where is god?

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

If a great lake in North America dumped water into the oceans, and this water caused a flood in the black sea, then where is god?

I think you may have misunderstood.

By "Great Flood" I was referring to the Worldwide Flood, not the more localized one proposed a few posts ago by the new poster.

Your proposed Black Sea flood would have appealed to me several years ago, incidentally. There might even be a good case to make that, despite the relatively small fraction of the globe it actually encompasses, the human-inhabited portion of Earth may well have been limited to that region.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
the main point behind the biblical flood story, that a god destroyed the Earth with a flood because of the wickedness of man, is without any support.

I'm not sure how much of your Methodist background you bring to this discussion when you use language like this. For that matter, I'm not sure how fundamentalist your particular Methodist group's worldview is.

Actually, now that I come to think of it, I'm not sure how fundamentalist Methodist groups are in general. One school of Christian thought would assert that non-Biblical flood stories might well involve a god: Satan.
Certainly I've heard the Enlil and Enki described in your Black Sea account were guises of him in recent videos.

As for the KJV account, I'm not nearly so convinced the Great Flood is without support as you allude. Actually, I'm not convinced at all.
I'd appreciate knowing even 3 things you think would have occurred with a world flood that did not happen and/or that we would or would not see evidence for.

Robtard

If you want to move onto your point with the White Fang excerpts, it would be nice smile

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I think you may have misunderstood.

By "Great Flood" I was referring to the Worldwide Flood, not the more localized one proposed a few posts ago by the new poster.

Your proposed Black Sea flood would have appealed to me several years ago, incidentally. There might even be a good case to make that, despite the relatively small fraction of the globe it actually encompasses, the human-inhabited portion of Earth may well have been limited to that region.

I'm not sure how much of your Methodist background you bring to this discussion when you use language like this. For that matter, I'm not sure how fundamentalist your particular Methodist group's worldview is.

Actually, now that I come to think of it, I'm not sure how fundamentalist Methodist groups are in general. One school of Christian thought would assert that non-Biblical flood stories might well involve a god: Satan.
Certainly I've heard the Enlil and Enki described in your Black Sea account were guises of him in recent videos.

As for the KJV account, I'm not nearly so convinced the Great Flood is without support as you allude. Actually, I'm not convinced at all.
I'd appreciate knowing even 3 things you think would have occurred with a world flood that did not happen and/or that we would or would not see evidence for.

I don't know anything about Methodists. I was born and raised a Baptist, not Methodist.

To say that the Earth was covered by a great biblical flood in the time when humans where on the earth is an extraordinary claim. That extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.

It is much simpler to say that the story of Noah and the Ark is just that, a story. This would not be an extraordinary claim, and would not require extraordinary proof.

Here is my standard proof. Humans have written a lot of stories. We have building filled with books, we call them libraries, and a large portion of these books are fiction. Also, floods have happened everywhere on the Earth over time. It would make sense that humans would write fictional stories about events that did happen. Gone With The Wind is a good example. It was a fictional story placed in a historic setting. Therefore, the story of Noah and the Ark is most likely a fictional story placed in a historic setting, just like Gone With the Wing.

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Robtard
If you want to move onto your point with the White Fang excerpts, it would be nice ...

Sure.

I'd read long ago that Jack London, author of both Call of the Wild and White Fang, was able to write thrilling accounts of dogfights because he had firsthand personal experience. He had intimate knowledge of dogfighting and dog behavior, along with a plethora of other competencies earned from his own frontier life. He supposedly got the idea of White Fang, iirc, because he saw a wolf-dog hybrid that beat just about every dog it ever came up against.

In a very non-coincidental parallel, Chapter 3 of London's White Fang establishes the formidability of its own wolf-dog hybrid, White Fang.

The author takes great pains to convince of it, repeating it several times in several ways and describing various impressive opponents.

If you remember the book,

or read the excerpt I linked,

http://london.sonoma.edu/Writings/WhiteFang/4chapter4.html

or simply noted what I bolded and underlined, however

then you know White Fang eventually does meet his match, and that in the form of the very unlikely-seeming combatant Cherokee, which was either an English or an American bulldog.

Why is that significant?

It's significant because bulldogs of today, quite a separate breed from the so-called "pit"bulls that regularly used to feature in the news, are widely regarded as relatively gentle, completely UNsuited-to-fighting family pets.

To see one of these today or even a generation ago, in, say, the 1980s and 1990s "Lucky Dog" commercials, is to wonder why London took so much "artistic license" to have his own ultimate dog lose to one of them.

The answer from most indications, however, was that he didn't.

It was NOT artistic license to suppose the bulldog of London's day could take down an animal like White Fang. They were bred to face far bigger challenges than mere fighting wolves and other dogs.

Read now something most people DON'T know about the way things used to be, one of many striking illustrations discoverable in written accounts of yesteryear ...

(This particular one was found in 1999's Webster's Word Histories, Page 72)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The low-slung bulldog has bowed front legs that are so far apart that the dog looks as if it were eternally braced for trouble. Indeed its whole body has a sturdy, rock-solid appearance that suggests it could withstand a high wind and not blow over. There was a time when the bulldog needed all the sturdiness it could muster. It also needed plenty of courage, as well as something the breed is NOT characterized by today: ferocity. The bulldog gets its name not from the fact that it resembles a domestic bull but from its use in the cruel and savage sport of bullbaiting.
The bulldog was developed in England centuries ago specifically to attack an angry bull for the amusement of spectators, who could wager on the outcome.
The bull was chained by the neck or leg to a stake in an open arena, and often it was roused to fury by being whipped or by having pepper blown into its nose. Then bulldogs were loosed in the arena. The dogs had been specially trained to grab the bull's sensitive nose. The most successful ones could slip past the bull's horns, seize it by the nose, and hold on, no matter how the bull tried to shake them loose.

There were no winners in bullbaiting, for the bulldogs were often horribly injured or killed, and few bulls succeeded in shaking off the determined dogs. If one did, the spectators simply released more dogs into the arena. When bullbaiting was finally outlawed by an act of the British Parliament in 1835, the bulldog's admirers suffered mixed feelings. As an attack animal the dog had outlived its usefulness.
The bulldog's bred-in savagery could not be tolerated in a family pet.
Yet, admirers did not want to lose the many desirable qualities of this old breed, such as determination and extraordinary courage. So the dog was developed into the compact, muscular creature that it is today, with its former aggressiveness completely eradicated. Its four-square, low-center-of-gravity build has not changed. Nor its undershot jaw. These characteristics helped its ancestors stand their ground and bite tenaciously and powerfully. Its determination remains unaltered, too. In fact, the breed's name is a synonym for tenacity. See also PIT buLL bullet See ballot. bulwark, etc ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robtard

And your point of London taking or not taking artistic license in having the canine protagonist of his story finally lose in a fight which is the fulcrum for the rest of the story matters here how?

Shakyamunison

eat

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Robtard
And your point of London taking or not taking artistic license in having the canine protagonist of his story finally lose in a fight which is the fulcrum for the rest of the story matters here how?

The White Fang account, coupled with that word history of the bulldog, is an illustration that conventional wisdom, formed, typically by just assuming we know how the world works today, and then extrapolating backwards, is a poor substitute for actual investigation and research.

The Jared Diamond "worst mistake" article is an illustration of the same thing, incidentally.

Shakyamunison

Robtard

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
The White Fang account, coupled with that word history of the bulldog, is an illustration that conventional wisdom, formed, typically by just assuming we know how the world works today, and then extrapolating backwards, is a poor substitute for actual investigation and research.

The Jared Diamond "worst mistake" article is an illustration of the same thing, incidentally. Except of course we do have a history of dog breeding to use as a source. Just as we do have scientific knowledge that paints of a picture that a 6,000k doesn't hold under stress test.

Yes and no. While we did seemingly (if the facts in Diamond's article are true) trade a better diet for mass cheap calories, those mass cheap calories allowed us to achieve a far greater technological level. Coincidentally, watch "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond, he touches on agriculture and such as a reason why some civilizations advanced quickly while others lagged.

Shakyamunison

Yes, hunter gatherers would never walk on the moon or send rovers to Mars.

Robtard

They'd never dream of walking on one of their gods.

Stealth Moose

Originally posted by Robtard
Except of course we do have a history of dog breeding to use as a source. Just as we do have scientific knowledge that paints of a picture that a 6,000k doesn't hold under stress test.

Ultimately, BWR has obfuscated the original point by introducing various sources as if they are relevant to the discussion. Now you feel my pain.

Even more to the point, it is accessibility to farm staples like maize and wheat that allowed societies to flourish; on a simple hunter-gatherer diet, society would not have developed as quickly. Diamond, in his "Guns, Germs and Steel" explicitly points out that civilisation began where farming did, as you noted. If not having civilisation is worth better diets, then awesome red herring.

Robtard

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Ultimately, BWR has obfuscated the original point by introducing various sources as if they are relevant to the discussion. Now you feel my pain.

Even more to the point, it is accessibility to farm staples like maize and wheat that allowed societies to flourish; on a simple hunter-gatherer diet, society would not have developed as quickly. Diamond, in his "Guns, Germs and Steel" explicitly points out that civilisation began where farming did, as you noted. If not having civilisation is worth better diets, then awesome red herring.

Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out how his Jack London bit works into the thread.

thumb up

I loved that documentary.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out how his Jack London bit works into the thread.

thumb up

I loved that documentary.

I think he is trying to say that sense we (science) was wrong in the past, then we (science) is wrong now.

Robtard

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think he is trying to say that sense we (science) was wrong in the past, then we (science) is wrong now.

That's fine; his White fang examples of dog breeds don't follow that lead though.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Robtard
That's fine; his White fang examples of dog breeds don't follow that lead though.

That is my best guess. I admit that I had to stretch to get that to fit.

Robtard

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I had to stretch to get that to fit.

Are you flirting with me? I am a married man!

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Robtard
Are you flirting with me? I am a married man!

I should know better then to use the word stretch around you. laughing out loud

Stealth Moose

Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out how his Jack London bit works into the thread.

thumb up

I loved that documentary.

Don't spend too much time thinking it over; he'll change the herring out for a new one soon.

Drinking game goal: Every time BWR does the following, take a drink -

Uses a large block quote or Youtube video to emphasize a point he can't articulate in plain English.
Applies a double standard of proof for religious arguments.
Misunderstands the value of debating fairly.
Cherry picks a large valid post only to focus on something small and ultimately unrelated.
If he references more than three KMC threads using bare URLs, upend the entire bottle.
If he mentions the anonymous millions reading his thread and awed by his arguments, also upend the bottle.
If he addresses a point directly without any of the above, you have drank too much. Stop.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Don't spend too much time thinking it over; he'll change the herring out for a new one soon.

Drinking game goal: Every time BWR does the following, take a drink -

Uses a large block quote or Youtube video to emphasize a point he can't articulate in plain English.
Applies a double standard of proof for religious arguments.
Misunderstands the value of debating fairly.
Cherry picks a large valid post only to focus on something small and ultimately unrelated.
If he references more than three KMC threads using bare URLs, upend the entire bottle.
If he mentions the anonymous millions reading his thread and awed by his arguments, also upend the bottle.
If he addresses a point directly without any of the above, you have drank too much. Stop.

laughing

drunk

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Robtard
That's fine; his White fang examples of dog breeds don't follow that lead though.

Another comment on the "differentness" of bulldogs of today and yesteryear:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In time, the original old English Bulldog was crossed with the pug. The outcome was a shorter, wider dog with a brachycephalic skull. Though today's Bulldog looks tough, he cannot perform the job he was originally created for as he cannot withstand the rigors of running and being thrown by a bull, and also cannot grip with such a short muzzle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldog

bluewaterrider

White Fang and the Webster word history was also a partial answer to your earlier response, Rob:

Originally posted by Robtard

The lion was a cute little story. I was referring to the notion that all animals (including dinosaurs) liv in harmony in the Garden of Eden before the fall.
Does not follow logic.

As we discussed earlier, one premise of 6K world is that most, if not all, were originally as vegetarian as that lion was.
Arguably, by many 6K models, this remained the case until the environmental stress of Great Flood; some models propose it took place far sooner.

You never explained why you thought harmony didn't make sense to you.
Presumably you are arguing that animals like the "lions and tigers and bears" you mentioned earlier in the thread could not be made to forego killing other animals. Just as likely, you are basing that entirely on what you suppose to be the norm today and extrapolating that to the past.

I showed the video of that tiger eating grass because I'm aware it's extremely difficult for people to even imagine such a thing, let alone envision it.
Yet you can see that tiger quite clearly chowing down on patches of grass.
Similar case of the lion; most would assume a lion could not even survive without meat. Yet the case of that lion seems fairly well documented, and she survived for many years on a vegetarian diet.
Bears? Contrary to popular opinion, the diet of many, if not most, bears today is largely vegetarian already; meat is consumed by them rarely, if at all.

Animals like pandas, who represent white and black Chinese "bears" to your man on the street?
Vegetarian. Subsisting largely on bamboo.

Note that these animals, much like the hunter-gatherer people mentioned by Jared Diamond, have largely been exiled to poor feeding and grazing grounds, too. There is little if any reason to think their environments yield the same kind of diet and diversity once enjoyed by their forefathers. Arguable if the quality of food that DOES exist is comparable to the food of yesteryear, too, much in the way the average mass-produced tomato is in no wise comparable to a garden-grown specimen ...

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Another comment on the "differentness" of bulldogs of today and yesteryear:...

Do you think that bulldogs are evolving before our very eyes?

Stealth Moose

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Uses a large block quote or Youtube video to emphasize a point he can't articulate in plain English.
Cherry picks a large valid post only to focus on something small and ultimately unrelated.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Another comment on the "differentness" of bulldogs of today and yesteryear:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In time, the original old English Bulldog was crossed with the pug. The outcome was a shorter, wider dog with a brachycephalic skull. Though today's Bulldog looks tough, he cannot perform the job he was originally created for as he cannot withstand the rigors of running and being thrown by a bull, and also cannot grip with such a short muzzle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldog

Drink count : 2.

http://media.giphy.com/media/aZ83L5Gk3hvm8/giphy.gif

Robtard

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
White Fang and the Webster word history was also a partial answer to your earlier response, Rob:

As we discussed earlier, one premise of 6K world is that most, if not all, were originally as vegetarian as that lion was.
Arguably, by many 6K models, this remained the case until the environmental stress of Great Flood; some models propose it took place far sooner.

You never explained why you thought harmony didn't make sense to you.
Presumably you are arguing that animals like the "lions and tigers and bears" you mentioned earlier in the thread could not be made to forego killing other animals. Just as likely, you are basing that entirely on what you suppose to be the norm today and extrapolating that to the past.

I showed the video of that tiger eating grass because I'm aware it's extremely difficult for people to even imagine such a thing, let alone envision it.
Yet you can see that tiger quite clearly chowing down on patches of grass.
Similar case of the lion; most would assume a lion could not even survive without meat. Yet the case of that lion seems fairly well documented, and she survived for many years on a vegetarian diet.
Bears? Contrary to popular opinion, the diet of many, if not most, bears today is largely vegetarian already; meat is consumed by them rarely, if at all.

Animals like pandas, who represent white and black Chinese "bears" to your man on the street?
Vegetarian. Subsisting largely on bamboo.

Note that these animals, much like the hunter-gatherer people mentioned by Jared Diamond, have largely been exiled to poor feeding and grazing grounds, too. There is little if any reason to think their environments yield the same kind of diet and diversity once enjoyed by their forefathers. Arguable if the quality of food that DOES exist is comparable to the food of yesteryear, too, much in the way the average mass-produced tomato is in no wise comparable to a garden-grown specimen ...

IIRC, all animals in the Garden before the fall were vegetarians, ie there was no killing in the Garden, hence "a paradise".

You're ignoring that predators look like predators because they hunt and eat meat.

One thing we do know, animals are generally suited to eat what they eat. So if lions were originally ctreated to "just eat grasses", why the meat specific teeth, the relatively short digestive tract that is ideal for a carnivorous diet, the forward facing eyes and ears that greatlu assist in stalking prey, the powerful build that is well suited in holding onto and taking down larger beast, the fangs that are perfectly suited to pierce/hold on to a neck and suffocate prey? Your one story about a vegetarian lion is at best an outlier, at worst, an outright lie.

I'm going to LoLz if the purpose of your 'bulldog of 1800's not like the bulldog of today' angle is to imply that lions (predators) in the Garden were vastly different than the ones today. Cos we do know why the bulldog changed superficially in appearance and had a180 change in temperament, it was due to human meddling/breeding. In fact, the bulldog is a human creation due to domestication and selective breeding.

Shakyamunison

Think about this: 100 million years ago, the Earth was populated with completely different animals then today. A 100 million years before that there was again a completely different array of life then today or any other time. When you look at these different life forms you will realized that these animals are related over time.

There was never any time that lions were vegetarian.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Presumably you're trying to say that significant changes in nature, not being as man-directed as breeding, take eons to affect?

For the kind of changes Rob and I have been discussing, however, that is not true, especially when we're looking at things like diet consumption habits.

That I can illustrate fairly easily, and in a way directly relevant to Rob's "Predator or plant eater" (lions, and tigers, and bears, oh my) proposal:...

There is no micro or macro evolution. Evolution is change over time. It doesn't matter how much time.

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Robtard

One thing we do know, animals are generally suited to eat what they eat. So if lions were originally created to "just eat grasses", why the meat specific teeth, the relatively short digestive tract that is ideal for a carnivorous diet, the forward facing eyes and ears that greatly assist in stalking prey, the powerful build that is well suited in holding onto and taking down larger beast, the fangs that are perfectly suited to pierce/hold on to a neck and suffocate prey? Your one story about a vegetarian lion is at best an outlier, at worst, an outright lie.

You're ignoring that predators look like predators because they hunt and eat meat.

I am not ignoring that predators look like predators.
It's the "because" part, which you're just assuming, that I am challenging.

Most of what you describe for a lion is present for giant pandas, too, after all, and giant pandas are not exactly known for hunting behavior.

"Forward facing eyes and ears that greatly assist in stalking prey"?
Check.

Except, of course that they panda obviously don't "stalk" the bamboo that is 99% of their diet.

"Relatively short digestive tract that is ideal for a carnivorous diet"?
Check.

Examine your favorite encyclopedic site on pandas if you don't believe it.

"Powerful build that is well suited in holding onto and taking down larger beast
fangs that are perfectly suited to pierce/hold on to a neck and suffocate prey"?

I must admit I don't rightly know about this one. Because I don't know how similar the hunting style of bears is to lions.
But if this is likewise true for bears, it is more than likely true for giant pandas, because giant pandas are bears.

"Meat specific teeth"?
See above. Or, again, check out your favorite encyclopedic source.

I'll start you off with my second favorite encyclopedic source, after World Book Encyclopedia ...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though it belongs to the order Carnivora, the panda's diet is over 99% bamboo. Pandas in the wild will occasionally eat other grasses, wild tubers, or even meat in the form of birds, rodents or carrion. In captivity, they may receive honey, eggs, fish, yams, shrub leaves, oranges, or bananas along with specially prepared food ...

the giant panda's diet is primarily herbivorous, consisting almost exclusively of bamboo. Pandas are born with sterile intestines, and require bacteria obtained from their mother's feces to digest vegetation. However, the giant panda still has the digestive system of a carnivore, as well as carnivore-specific genes, and thus derives little energy and little protein from consumption of bamboo. Its ability to digest cellulose is ascribed to the microbes in its gut.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_panda

Shakyamunison

bluewaterrider, do you believe that only herbivores can become predators, or can predators become herbivores also?

Evolution doesn't work in a straight line.

Robtard

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I am not ignoring that predators look like predators.
It's the "because" part, which you're just assuming, that I am challenging.

Most of what you describe for a lion is present for giant pandas, too, after all, and giant pandas are not exactly known for hunting behavior.

"Forward facing eyes and ears that greatly assist in stalking prey"?
Check.

Except, of course that they panda obviously don't "stalk" the bamboo that is 99% of their diet.

"Relatively short digestive tract that is ideal for a carnivorous diet"?
Check.

Examine your favorite encyclopedic site on pandas if you don't believe it.

"Powerful build that is well suited in holding onto and taking down larger beast
fangs that are perfectly suited to pierce/hold on to a neck and suffocate prey"?

I must admit I don't rightly know about this one. Because I don't know how similar the hunting style of bears is to lions.
But if this is likewise true for bears, it is more than likely true for giant pandas, because giant pandas are bears.

"Meat specific teeth"?
See above. Or, again, check out your favorite encyclopedic source.

I'll start you off with my second favorite encyclopedic source, after World Book Encyclopedia ...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though it belongs to the order Carnivora, the panda's diet is over 99% bamboo. Pandas in the wild will occasionally eat other grasses, wild tubers, or even meat in the form of birds, rodents or carrion. In captivity, they may receive honey, eggs, fish, yams, shrub leaves, oranges, or bananas along with specially prepared food ...

the giant panda's diet is primarily herbivorous, consisting almost exclusively of bamboo. Pandas are born with sterile intestines, and require bacteria obtained from their mother's feces to digest vegetation. However, the giant panda still has the digestive system of a carnivore, as well as carnivore-specific genes, and thus derives little energy and little protein from consumption of bamboo. Its ability to digest cellulose is ascribed to the microbes in its gut.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_panda

Pandas like many bears are omnivores. Though they generally consist on a heavy vegetarian diet. They're an example of a extremely specialized animal and it is due to millions of years of adapatation to their bamboo forest environment. 'Millions of years of adaptation to a given environment' does not support the "6k year old Earth" model nor the 'vegetarians in the Garden of Eden angle'.

You're once again using outliers as a "aha, this proves all predators were vegetarians before!" and cherry picking certain info to support your stance. It's silly and dishonest, so stop?

In short: The few do not outweigh the many smile

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Robtard
Pandas like many bears are omnivores. Though they generally consist on a heavy vegetarian diet. They're an example of a extremely specialized animal and it is due to millions of years of adapatation to their bamboo forest environment. 'Millions of years of adaptation to a given environment' does not support the "6k year old Earth" model nor the 'vegetarians in the Garden of Eden angle'.

I agree that "millions of years of adaptation" does not support the "6K year old Earth" model. I'm asking you to show me that adaptation took millions of years.

From everything I can tell, you're merely assuming this.

Already, for instance, you have seen animals determine whether or not they would be plant eaters or full-fledged cannibals based on environmental cues and lack of resources, and that in only a matter of hours (Spadefoot Toads).

You've seen animals individually decide, though they were carnivores,
"I'm going to be vegetarian today" (the tiger and lion, respectively).

You've seen animals within a few generations bred from being tough, aggressive fighters with powerful jaws to docile, low-endurance house pets (bulldogs).

None of that required more than a fraction of the scale of time you're alluding to.

Then why should I believe your other unmentioned changes needed eons?

Originally posted by Robtard

You're once again using outliers as a "aha, this proves all predators were vegetarians before!" and cherry picking certain info to support your stance. It's silly and dishonest, so stop?

Nearly every well-known idea given validity now in science, started off as an idea the majority of people considered "silly" and slammed mercilessly.

Merely calling the idea "silly" does not effectively refute it.

Originally posted by Robtard

In short: The few do not outweigh the many smile

This is a meaningless cliche where the subjects we're discussing are concerned, and I think I can prove it, and with perhaps the most famous example of "micro"evolution the average reader on these boards knows:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evolution of the peppered moth over the last two hundred years has been studied in detail. Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths had light colouration, which effectively camouflaged them against the light-coloured trees and lichens which they rested upon. However, because of widespread pollution during the Industrial Revolution in England, many of the lichens died out, and the trees that peppered moths rested on became blackened by soot, causing most of the light-coloured moths, or typica, to die off from predation. At the same time, the dark-coloured, or melanic, moths, carbonaria, flourished because of their ability to hide on the darkened trees ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

Following environmental change, populations can experience dramatic changes, even, in the cases of these moths, complete reversal of what characterized them a scant few generations prior.

Rob, you should begin to see, if you examine the above carefully, your argument of "many outweighs the few" does not hold much weight here.

A person asking, during any of the many years England had severe pollution
"What color were pepper moths, say, 200 years ago?"
would receive the answer, from your "many outweigh the few" position:

"Why, how can you be so silly? Chap, don't you see with your own eyes that these moths are black? Like, 99% of them? Oh, you get the random white one once in a while, but that's, what? 1 in one hundred? 2 in 3 hundred?
Why would you ever assume they were some other color?
White? What, do you propose the moths themselves have been covered in soot and all their flapping of their wings fails to remove it? Are we just looking at really dirty white moths? You're talking random outliers with those white moths. Open your eyes."

Robtard

Oh boy. You didn't ask any such notion before, so you're playing games. You're also cherry picking the parts you want, as in the article you cited as proof for Pandas, it states the "millions of years / adaptation". So why accept only the parts that fit your point of view? That's dishonest.

I called your tactics "silly" here. So that's a strawman you're using.

Your moth example is a red herring, you're trying to distract away that you cited a resource (Pandas) and then cherry picked only the few segments that fit your narrative.

But did you bother to read the moth snippet you posted? It proves a facet of evolution theory. Animals that happen to be better suited for a given environment after a change/shift tend to live and produce offspring, while those less suited don't. ie The light colored moths didn't just change to dark colored moths, both existed at the same time, but when a change in the environment happened, the dark ones where better suited to survive as were their offspring. Multiply that over many generations and you get more dark moths and less light moths.

Shakyamunison

BWR has already made it clear that he believes in evolution. If a lion starts as a herbivore and then becomes a predator, that at its most basic level is evolution. However, I don't think he believes in natural selection. In a sense he believes in supernatural selection.

BWR, prove that supernatural exists, and I will listen to what you have to say.

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
BWR has already made it clear that he believes in evolution. If a lion starts as a herbivore and then becomes a predator, that at its most basic level is evolution. However, I don't think he believes in natural selection. In a sense he believes in supernatural selection.

BWR, prove that supernatural exists, and I will listen to what you have to say.

I doubt that I could prove to YOUR satisfaction that I even exist.

One sticking point for me, though is this:

Somewhere, going far enough back in time, there was a point at which life on Earth as we know it came into existence. Natural theories have no answer for how that occurred, and science has no theory, to my knowledge, of how to replicate it.
It's doubtful it ever will, and the transition from non-living to living violates the existing laws, like the law of entropy; or at least the scant bit of that rule that I know, to the extent that science says it could not happen by our known laws.

If naturally, by all known laws, an event could not happen, and yet did,
well, that means something outside of known nature had to do it.
It's "above" all that we know.
A lot of people would call that "supernatural".
If only for the sake of argument today, so will I.

bluewaterrider

Originally posted by Robtard

did you bother to read the moth snippet you posted? It proves a facet of evolution theory. Animals that happen to be better suited for a given environment after a change/shift tend to live and produce offspring, while those less suited don't. ie The light colored moths didn't just change to dark colored moths, both existed at the same time, but when a change in the environment happened, the dark ones where better suited to survive as were their offspring. Multiply that over many generations and you get more dark moths and less light moths.

I read the moth snippet I posted.

Where do you feel I've ever said anything in contradiction to what you typed above?

Exactly as you just said, though, the few BECOME the many over time, even if they were only a miniscule fraction at the beginning.

So if you're trying to ascertain with certainty what existed in days and years prior, you cannot merely "photocopy" what you see today and blindly assert
"It was always this way!"

For chances are it wasn't.