South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

November 19, 2019, 05:36:38 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Follow saskeptics on twitter.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Noah's Ark

 (Read 29736 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jane of the Jungle
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 235



« Reply #15 on: August 22, 2009, 19:00:05 PM »

Quote
If I offended you Jane, then I apologise, but I don't think it's reasonable to assume that Noah's ark was impossible but that the thought of every single living organism in the whole world came from a slime that came from rocks is indeed possible.


Well if I look at the possibilities of Noah’s ark, I do not agree
Considering all the information which I’ve supplied and scientists
Recently tested organisms to extreme temperatures and extreme
Impact to survive, so yeah living organisms could have entered our planet.

It's interesting how the flood story matches up with Mesopotamian accounts,
- Gilgamesh Epic: Gilgamesh went to Upnapishtim to learn the secret of eternal life.
• The Genesis story describes how mankind had become obnoxious to God; they were hopelessly sinful and wicked. In the Babylonian story, they were too numerous and noisy.
• The Gods (or God) decided to send a worldwide flood. This would drown men, women, children, babies and infants, as well as eliminate all of the land animals and birds.
• The Gods (or God) knew of one righteous man, Ut-Napishtim or Noah.
• The Gods (or God) ordered the hero to build a multi-story wooden ark (called a chest or box in the original Hebrew).
• The ark was built and loaded with the hero, a few other humans, and samples from all species of other land animals.
• The hero sent out birds at regular intervals to find if any dry land was in the vicinity.
• The first two doves returned to the ark. The third bird (raven) apparently found dry land because it did not return.
• The hero and his family left the ark, ritually killed an animal, offered it as a sacrifice.
• God (or the Gods in the Epic of Gilgamesh) smelled the roasted meat of the sacrifice.
• The hero was blessed.
• The Babylonian gods seemed genuinely sorry for the genocide that they had created. The God of Noah appears to have regretted his actions as well, because he promised never to do it again.

Quote
I believe in the bible and that's why I call it my faith. Nobody who believes in evolution will call it a religion, they all call it science. However there is not one single piece of evidence to suggest that it can even happen and it cannot even be tested and demonstrated.You ultimately have to believe that it took place.


Yeah you wait for the Apocalypse and we wait for scientists.
 page

Quote
If animals have morals, do plants too? And do fungi have it? And what about bacteria? How far do you take it?


Something very informative on morals, please don’t stop reading
Until you reach the end of the

http://www.evilbible.com/christians_are_hypocrites.htm

Quote
The salinity is a good theory. I might ask then why we have salt water crocs and freshwater crocs today? The salinity doesn't bother them? And they probably had a common ancestor, a croc.


Yeah the salinity doesn’t bother them, how long did they take
Getting used to it???  197 days, 6000years, 15000 years or 50 000 years?

Quote
I think its a bit more plausable for humans to have come only from Noah's ark than it is from humans to have come from slime.


And yet again, even after crossbreeding were forbidden, they had
To do it again?  Or what is the explanation?

Quote
As for the babies issue, the bible tells that only after the flood they were allowed to eat meat, so the creatures did not have a fear of man until after the flood.


Does that go for meat eating animals as well?

Quote
If the animals have morals, and they may kill each other, why may we not?


You tell me, because most wars up to date were religion driven!
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2463


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #16 on: August 22, 2009, 20:27:06 PM »

The difference between theistic belief and scientific belief

To a creationist, his faith in the Biblical accounts is of primary importance. The theistic mind is made up. Belief first, evidence later (or not at all). Any evidence that contradicts the Bible will be disregarded, and any evidence that supports the Biblical accounts will be embraced. In fact, the Bible frowns on those who question, just look at poor Thomas, the only disciple with some common sense.

But let me give you an example: here is a link to some famous transitional forms that you asked for. You can link to a pic of the original fossil for several of them.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Now to me, a faithless, objective observer, as far as evolutionary evidence goes,this seems like pretty convincing stuff. But to yourself, because you have to defend your faith, it will not constitute evidence for anything at all. You will also be left unimpressed by molecular proof, fruit fly studies, the emergence of HIV, bacterial resistance, or any other type of solid, testable evidence that supports the theory of evolution. Anything will be denied to uphold the faith that you base on bronze age manuscripts.

The scientist/ sceptic on the other hand is typically lacking in ego, and will happily sway his beliefs towards the weight of the evidence. OURS IS THE WONDERFUL LUXURY TO CHANGE OUR MINDS AND LEARN NEW STUFF! What matters is the TRUTH, not personal, temporal belief. There are less absolutes in our world. Carl Sagan said that the methods of science are more important than the findings of science. I think that sums it up beautifully. Provide solid evidence (such as the fossils cited above) that your God is not just another one of the 250+ gods made up during the course of recorded history, but an actual living entity, and no sceptic will deny his existence. On the contrary, I expect most would be overjoyed by this new knowledge. We would have uncovered another truth.

Quote
I think its a bit more plausible for humans to have come only from Noah's ark than it is from humans to have come from slime.


But were did the humans that built the ark come from?

Quote
1.If the big bang did occur, I still would like to know where the matter came from in the first place?

That is a good question. The theory I like best says that the sum off all the matter and energy that was liberated by the big bang, still adds up to nothing! Our resident scientist and general bottomless fount of knowledge, Mefiante, once remarked that it may be the ultimate free lunch!

Quote
2.Why is there still single-celled organisms? Didn't they want to evolve?

Why should they? If their environment is such that unicellular forms turns out to be the best at procreating, there will be scant pressure to select for other variations.

Quote
3.If a single-celled organism formed in the soup, what did it eat?

Look, even a single celled organism is massively complex and its highly unlikely that it spontaneously formed in the soup. What you are likely to find are some organic molecules, which were capable of replicating themselves. These replicators became more abundant and when they changed slightly, the ones in which the changes caused a higher rate of replication were naturally selected for. A unicellular organism would have to be built up very gradually indeed. To me, the difference between a lifeless soup of molecules and a unicellular organism is much greater than the single-cellular organism and a dog, for instance.

Quote
And who did it marry ?

Marriage only became important much later, after the sexes evolved. Wink

Quote
4.Why does evolution contradict the law of entropy?

What makes you say that? Is it because an organism looks less chaotic than a heap of its constituent atoms? Just bear in mind how much thermodynamic chaos we cause to maintain and build our bodies, and it should make sense.

Quote
5.Where is the fossil evidence that insects and vertebrates have a common ancestor?
I'm not sure there is one. And even if there was, it would probably not look anything like an insect nor a vertebrate. It may well be a little worm-like organism. These are the kind of things they deduce through molecular evidence rather than fossils. Read The Ancestors' Tale by Richard Dawkins, if you are really interested.

Quote
6.How did the first cell live in it's hostile environment?
The first cell was not suddenly plonked down in a hostle environment. The cell and its properties were selected for over a long period of time by the very environment in which it finds itself , through a process called natural selection. If it wasn't suitably adapted to its environment, it would not be there in the first place.

Quote
7.If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?

You are full of good science questions! Thats cool. I'm not sure that anyone knows for sure. But we can measure the stuff in space flying apart at an increasing rate, so there is no question about the expansion itself.

Quote
8.Why isn't there a continuum in the fossil record?

Disagree. See link above.

9.
Quote
Where are we going when we die and why are we here?

There is no real evidence that we are going anywhere when we die, is there? As tempting it is to hope for an eternity in heaven, I'm afraid just believing hard enough is unlikely to make it true. No, my hopes aren't high. I wouldn't mind being recycled into a pretty flower perhaps.

Why are we here? I don't know about you, but I'm here to love my wife and child, enjoy astronomy, pig out on pizza and annoy theists Wink.

Mintaka



« Last Edit: August 22, 2009, 23:29:44 PM by Mintaka » Logged
jhkeet
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


« Reply #17 on: August 22, 2009, 20:35:18 PM »

The scientists tested already existing organisms, but no human being has ever been able to create life out of non-living materials.

I still would like to hear how that can happen. You have asked me a whole bunch of questions ragarding this topic and I've answered them yet you fail to answer mine, you just keep on coming back to all the problems you think Noah had.

I just have one final question for all evoluntionists: Why do you have such a desire to feel that you came from an ape instead of believing that you are a special creation handmade by God Himself? (And you are by the way)
Logged
Wandapec
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 431


100% Proud Atheist/Skeptic


« Reply #18 on: August 22, 2009, 20:46:18 PM »

Hi jhkeet, thanks for posting on South African Skeptics. I don't think any of your arguments are new, and a few of these crept in. It would seems that your position is that the bible (an anthology written and edited by human authors over long periods of time, all of which didn't even know that by simply washing your hands after going to the toilet - you could reduce the incidence of illness) has all the answers and as is normally the case it would seem that the no matter how many or what facts are presented to you, nothing will convince you, as can be seen from the following quote...
However there is not one single piece of evidence to suggest that it can even happen and it cannot even be tested and demonstrated.
The theory of evolution (And I will expect the standard response to this) is as much a scientific theory as that of the theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease or many others. Contrary to what you say in the quote above; the emperical evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
Guys, you're welcome to believe in evolution if want to, but don't call it science and put it in science textbooks.
You might as well have said, "Guys, you're welcome to believe in relativity if want to, but don't call it science and put it in science textbooks."

Logged
jhkeet
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


« Reply #19 on: August 22, 2009, 20:54:14 PM »

Mintaka, do you really think that something can come from absolutely nothing? That everything in the universe came from nothing? If you do, it's you're religion, because there no such evidence that that can even happen, it is not science and can never be. And if you think it is, then we clearly have different meanings of what science is. I cannot prove that God exists by using science, that's why it's my religion,  but neither can anybody prove evolution with science, but you all call it science!

I saw the Archaeopteryx link, that's not a transitional fossil, it's a bird. And I assume you don't have anymore out of all the fossils there is? (Even the Ibis today and a few other birds have claws on their wings)

I fully agree that we should teach the truth, and if anyone can ever make an animal produce anything other than its own kind,or can make a living organism out of non-living material or even make something out of nothing, then they can teach it.

And by the way Mintaka, where does love come from? And is it going to matter whether you loved your wife and child in 200 years time?

I'd rather believe there's a hell and die one day to find out there isn't one, than to believe there isn't one and die one day to find out there is one.

(If I was able to prove with science that God existed , I really doubt if most evolutionists would even care.)
Logged
jhkeet
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


« Reply #20 on: August 22, 2009, 20:58:48 PM »

Could you please supply with some of the overwhelming evolution evidence then wandapec? By the way, no matter what is presented to you, you won't believe the bible either would you? You see, it goes both ways.... (The washing of the hands never was about diseases anyway, they wanted to know if it was a sin or not.)
Logged
Irreverend
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +9/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 222



« Reply #21 on: August 22, 2009, 21:08:17 PM »

... no human being has ever been able to create life out of non-living materials.
First, that's not evolution. It's abiogenesis. Get the discipline and the science right. Second, that doesn't mean that we'll never discover how to derive life from inert matter in the future. The history of science is full of idiots who declared "impossible" and later had to eat humble pie.

Bullshitting for god is a fulltime occupation. Believers can't bring themselves to accept "We don't know but we're working on it" as a valid answer. They rather peddle play-play answers.

So Keetie, seeing as you avoided my first question, here's the next two. What makes you think that "god" is a better answer than the tentative ones given us by science? In what sense is it "better"?
Logged
Wandapec
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 431


100% Proud Atheist/Skeptic


« Reply #22 on: August 22, 2009, 21:16:44 PM »

Could you please supply with some of the overwhelming evolution evidence then wandapec?
I created a hyperlink from the word; you've just proven my point.
By the way, no matter what is presented to you, you won't believe the bible either would you? You see, it goes both ways....
Another point made....it was the first one on this list.
(The washing of the hands never was about diseases anyway, they wanted to know if it was a sin or not.)
Strike three, as another point I was making goes whizzing by.....
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2463


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #23 on: August 22, 2009, 21:51:26 PM »

Quote
Mintaka, do you really think that something can come from absolutely nothing?
It is a possibility yes, one of many, and not a belief (yet). Some things may be so far beyond our grasp that it may remain speculative forever. There's  a lot of stuff that we can't explain yet, and there is nothing wrong with admitting that. But what is inexcusable is to attribute these wonderful mysteries to imaginary beings. That's just lazy thinking. See God of the Gaps.

Quote
but neither can anybody prove evolution with science, but you all call it science!

Look, no disrespect intended, but we have been through this before, and I don't think you are really interested in evidence in support of evolution theory. If you were you could have dragged it up with Google within 5 minutes yourself.


Quote
I saw the Archaeopteryx link, that's not a transitional fossil, it's a bird.

Quote from Wikipedia: "Unlike modern birds, Archaeopteryx had small teeth as well as a long bony tail, features which Archaeopteryx shared with other dinosaurs of the time."
So then jhkeet, exactly how would the dinosaur-bird tansitional fossil look that would satisfy you?

Quote
And I assume you don't have anymore out of all the fossils there is?
OK try this, but its the last time I'm doing your homework for you.

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

Quote
And is it going to matter whether you loved your wife and child in 200 years time?
 I can see that happening yes. Parental love could lead to better caring, resulting in higher survival rate in offspring. Love (or affection) evolved, just like everything else.

Quote
I'd rather believe there's a hell and die one day to find out there isn't one, than to believe there isn't one and die one day to find out there is one.

Pascal's wager, eh?  Well, that does not strike me as a very sincere reason for believing. Just a tad self serving don't you think? And you are assuming that faith is a choice, which many informed people find its not. You can't just flip a switch in your brain and now suddenly believe ridiculous, unsupported notions, just because there is some carrot being dangled. Not even a real carrot, but a promise of a carrot.

Quote
(If I was able to prove with science that God existed , I really doubt if most evolutionists would even care.)


Wether or not there is a God is POTENTIALLY the most important question in the world. Just look at the implications if the Bible is indeed correct. I'm pretty sure everyone would care to look at your evidence, don't worry.

Besides, don't think for a moment that all theists are creationists. There are theists by the score that also accept evolution for the fact that it is. For goodness sake, there are even religious scientists, although how they juggle the two conflicting disciplines in their minds is beyond me. BTW, personally, I respect the litteral, Bible thumpin' old fashioned dyed-in-the-wool young earth creationist most. At least he does not distort and interpret the book that he calls the foundation of his faith to keep up with scientific findings.

Mintaka
« Last Edit: August 22, 2009, 22:58:45 PM by Mintaka » Logged
jhkeet
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


« Reply #24 on: August 23, 2009, 09:27:57 AM »

Ok. What is science then? (This is also for wandapec): Science is testable, observable, repeatable, proveable and demonstrateable. That means neither God nor evolution fits the criteria. Can you see why it's both a religion. I can prove gravity exists right here and so can anybody, I can prove electricity exists by a voltaic or galvanic cell. I can prove pressure in a fluid exists (Your car's brake system relies on this). I can prove that chemical reactions take place. I can go on and on.

(By the way, the touraco and the hoatzin still have claws today, like your Archaeopteryx)

If anyone can bring forth a non-dog from a dog or a dog from a non-dog, it will be science. For now it isn't, so don't teach it, and you don't even have to teach creation, but teach science, not religion.

As for the new link, most of your picture's are drawn, and I see squid and nuatilus -like creatures (Can see where the squid and nuatilus came from),drawn amphibian creatures (Most of which look like salamanders anyway), drawn reptiles (which look like reptiles), drawn birds (which look like birds) and so on.

You believe the scientists say that nothing can come from something, yet it's them who observed the first law of thermodynamics in the first place, matter & energy cannot be created or destroyed, that's a bit confusing don't you think? (I believe God did it, thats why its my religion and I don't claim it as science, don't seem to get that do you?)

And here are a few points to ponder, none of which has anything to do with the bible, in fact you don;t even need to know that the bible exists:

1.The oldest tree in the world is a bristlecone pine and is less than 4400 years old. Why don't we have an older tree?
2.The biggest reef in the world, Great Barrier Reef, is estimated to be les than 4000 years old. Why don't we have an older reef?
3. Saturn is losing its rings, at its rate it will be hard to have given it billion's of years of existence.
4.The moon is slowly moving away (nothing to worry about) and at its rate it would have been able to drown everything on earth twice a day a billion years back, because it causes the tides.
5.The earth is spinning slower each day (again nothing to worry about, days are getting longer at a rate of about 0.0001s a day, but still if you calculate it back a billion years or so back it poses a major problem)
6.The oldest desert in the world, the Sahara, is less than 4000 years old based on its rate of desertification. Why don't we have an older desert?
7.The earth's magnetic field is getting weaker which again poses a problem if you calculate it back a billion years.
8.Comets have an estimated life span of about 10 000 years, but they are still flying around today.

Here is a link to check out http://www.drdino.com/

I still want to know why evolutionists would rather believe they came from an ape instead of being a special ceation handmade by God Himself?
« Last Edit: August 23, 2009, 09:44:11 AM by jhkeet » Logged
jhkeet
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


« Reply #25 on: August 23, 2009, 09:48:55 AM »

Sir Isaac Newton said the following:

"We account the Scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy. I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever."

http://www.raptureready.com/rr-bible.html
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2463


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #26 on: August 23, 2009, 10:40:06 AM »

Quote
(By the way, the touraco and the hoatzin still have claws today, like your Archaeopteryx)
You keep going on about claws. Who said anything about claws? Its reptilian features are its teeth and tail.

You have been amply linked to evidence for evolution by Wandapec already, but you keep saying "there is no evidence, there is no evidence", like a mantra. You do not refute the evidence directly. Oh, sorry, except for Archaeopteryx's claws, which completely missed the point. So debating this any further is futile.

The fact remains that these proofs are sufficient, more than sufficient, to convince very sceptical scientists that evolution is a fact.

So if you take only one thing away with you after clearly ignoring all that was said by myself and others, let it be this:

EVOLUTION THEORY IS NOT A RELIGION BECAUSE IT IS OPEN TO MODIFICATION OR EVEN ABANDONMENT SHOULD COMPELLING EVIDENCE COME TO LIGHT.

There. How brave is that?

Mintaka


Logged
jhkeet
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


« Reply #27 on: August 23, 2009, 11:02:02 AM »

 Then may I ask you this: Can the scientific method be applied to evolution theory? ( Question, formulate hypothesis, TEST hypothesis, MAKE OBSERVATIONS, conclusion.)

I hope you also saw my facts and evidence.

And you haven't answered my last question yet. "Why would evolutionists rather believe they came from an ape instead of being a special ceation handmade by God Himself?"

(By the way, I would just like to thank you for even having this debate with me. Wink)
Logged
Wandapec
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 431


100% Proud Atheist/Skeptic


« Reply #28 on: August 23, 2009, 11:29:39 AM »

Albert Einstein once said "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - so this will be my last post in this discussion. I just can't keep up with the logical fallicies. I am going to try and demonstrate the following with one of my own -
Ok. What is science then? (This is also for wandapec): Science is testable, observable, repeatable, proveable and demonstrateable. That means neither God nor evolution fits the criteria. Can you see why it's both a religion.
Okay, here goes - "Ok. What is baking then? Baking is measuring, pouring, sifting, mixing, cooking and cooling. That means that neither an experienced invisible shopkeeper nor making a cake fits the criteria. Can you see why it's both a coffee shop.
Logged
Irreverend
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +9/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 222



« Reply #29 on: August 23, 2009, 11:36:13 AM »

Hmm, no answer to any of my previous questions yet.

Isaac Newton also thought that his scriptural interpretation work was infinitely more important than his work on calculus, statics, dynamics, gravitation and optics. He was wrong because nobody, including theologians, even takes his interpretation work seriously.

But whatever. So Keetie, it looks like you think evolution says something like that an amoeba gave birth to a worm, a worm then gave birth to a lizard, a lizard gave birth to a mouse, a mouse gave birth to a monkey and a monkey gave birth to a person. Is that more or less what you think evolution teaches? Because it's total rubbish.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 1.579 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page May 24, 2019, 04:04:52 AM
Privacy Policy