Questions on the Flood for TWD39 (or any theist)
Offline This thread is mainly for TWD39, though other people who believe the flood, Noah and so on really happened are welcome to chime in. It is an extension of the other thread discussing language and the tower of Babel, which started some questions about Noah's flood.
If you believe that the Flood happened as the Bible states, then you must have rational answers to the following questions:
1 Were babies also killed in the flood? Were they deemed sinful, or just collateral damage? What about the unborn? (in case you think people are born with sin..) Is God an innocent baby killer?
2 If the flood covered the whole earth, where did the water come from, and where did it go afterwards?
3 If the flood was caused by rain for 40 days and nights, and rain covered the earth, then it would need to rain 112 million cubic kilometers each day. The water vapour that’s needed to be suspended in the air to achieve this would render the air unbreathable - people would have drowned by breathing this air. How did Noah and his family survive this?
4 How did the animals get to the arc? If Noah gathered them, how did he get around the world so quickly? If the animals came of their own accord, how did the giant tortoises get there in time? How did animals that can’t swim cross seas to get there?
5 How did Noah feed the animals? Some animals have very specific diets (pandas eat only bamboo, koalas eat only eucalyptus, for example) so how did Noah get these foods, which don’t grow in Mesopotamia?
6 How did Noah keep meat fresh for the hungry carnivores?
7 How did the freshwater fish survive? Did the arc carry fresh water? How were these fish collected and stored?
8 The flood would have killed all plant life. What would the ‘saved’ herbivores eat? What about those that feed only on adult trees that take a long time to grow?
9 What about the carnivores? They must have had to eat the herbivores – they were on the arc for over a year, so any corpses would be completely rotten, as well as being buried under sediment.
10 Where would the animals find fresh water to sustain themselves?
11 How did the plants survive being underwater for more than a year? Some might have seeds that survive, but vast numbers of plant species would have become extinct. How come the are still here today?
12 When the flood ended, only 6 people survived that would go on to breed. The bible indicates that the tower of Babel happened 100 years after the flood. How were there enough people to build the tower, which must have been massive?
13 How did the Native Americans, and Australian Aboriginals get to their continents (Which don’t have land bridges with Asia) after the flood?
14 How did God ‘create’ the rainbow as part of the promise he’d never flood the whole world again? If there was refracted sunlight and rain ever before the flood, there must have been rainbows.
15 Why did god change his mind about how many of each type of animal had to be taken into the arc? Genesis 6 says take 2 of each, Genesis 7 says take up to 7.
16 Lastly, why did god go to all the trouble?
- Login to post comments
Offline Phew, I'll need a cup of tea for this one! Also, we are officially done here (aside from one small section I might address as you'll see below). You have conceded defeat here by responding with crap so ridiculous, it's not worth the discussion any more. You can say what you want. I am actually done with you after this response. it's not the first time you have said things this stupid, but I'm just done being generous here. You are either a troll, or a complete moron. There is no in-between here. Those Christians who are ignorant and actually REFUSE to hear the other side, refuse to be educated about things that could shatter their faith, are being ignorant. You, however, take it to a new level. You come on a forum like this one, and are confronted with actual problems with your specific interpretation of Christianity. Your response is to either play dumber than you are, or somehow be stupid to a level I thought actually impossible.
then I guess the rest of this extensive post is hardly worth reading through. If that's your view of me then you have failed to even try to read what I've wrote. I am not a troll or a moron, I have actually decided to open my mind to the idea that someone might know something I don't... when challenged, I get the ignorance response and nothing too different than the post above. Really I've been waiting for you to show me why i've been wrong in my understanding... I have kept an open mind thorugh it all, but just like you I will challenge what is brought to the table so you can be sure what you're presenting is actually credible...... let's just see what we have to work with for the sake of integrity in this final response.
The similarities in DNA between all living things is not neccessary for life to exist. The natural explanation works. The supernatural one requires a designer who is either limited, or stupid. If you want to think that a mutation that allows our brains to get big, but also makes us far more succeptible to brain cancer than our primate cousins (or primate "similars, but not cousins as you might think"is the result of a perfect all-powerful designer, so be it. It is not a position that is reasonable in any way shape or form.
This whole discussion was based on the evolution of the bipedal pelvis (and more broadly, "gaps" in the fossil record as you claim). When you were being vague, you provided vague "this mostly quadrupedal pelvis vs. this very much bipedal one, with nothing in between" (except you didn't word it as concisely, clearly due to your lack of education). So now that I insist that you name me species, you provide me with an order and a family (although elephants are of the same family too). I have asked you to research before you post on multiple occasions. You have refused to do that. Not only that, but your response here displays your evasive nature. This whole discussion was about holes in the fossil record where we were keeping on topic somewhat. However, I asked you to get more specific. So you then get out of the order of primates entirely and go to something completely different. The only possible reason to do so is to keep your actual position from being properly examined, and therefore exposed for the absurd position that it is. The only other alternative is that you are actually stupid enough to believe that those who understand and accept biology believe that elephants and dogs evolved from one another. This is a level of stupidity I can not believe. The sudden change in order to me suggests that it's evasiveness. So congratulations to you. You have admitted to me, and everyone who has the patience to read through my long-winded posts (and your short but fucking stupid ones) that your position can not possibly stand up to scrutiny and examination, without being exposed as clearly false. You have also shown that you feel that lying about how stupid you are is an acceptable thing to do, as long as it's in the name of Jeeezus.
See above. Evasive. Nobody suggests that one of those evolved from the other. Different orders.
caposkia wrote:No we haven't.What fossil would you say is the first bipedal species and what would the previous fossil species be... there i can look them both up and see if there is a gap or not.
I tasked you with looking up the evolution of homo sapiens (as proposed by biologists) and to find me the two species between which you find that the difference between the pelvis in each was too great a leap to possibly have evolved from one to the other through a series of yet not-located intermediaries. Creationists move the goalposts a lot (or in your case, simply play without a net to begin with, and every one of your shots is in between the posts, whereas I can kick a ball between your legs and you would say it went over the cross-bar). Because of that, I insist that they state what they actually do believe are problems with mainstream biology. In your case, it is even more necessary than in most, as you seem to disagree even with mainstream creationists. Seeing as you are unable to point to a creationist with a website that you fully agree with on at least MOST things (so that I could read a summary of their beliefs and assertions to get an idea of what lines you are thinking on), I insist that you mention what you actually DO believe. Until that point, we are having a useless discussion. I will accept what mainstream science will accept. If there is a dispute in mainstream science, point me to it and I will be happy to state what I think on the matter (if I am qualified to even have an opinion, as I am not a scientist). Another reason I insist that you provide your position, is because when I provided you with evidence we have, you simply said that the change in pelves is too great for you to believe that there was a common ancestor. When I pointed out that breeds of dog (that are the SAME species) exhibit differences in proportion in their bones about as great as the difference you had trouble accepting between a human pelvis, and an ancestral primate with a quadrupedal pelvis, your response was to mock me for bringing up that example. When I asked you if my response was fit for mockery because dog breeds are a result of artificial selection (because creationist arguments ARE that predictable) you said yes. Of course, the difference between natural and artifical selection are nothing other than who does the selecting (and the selection pressures are therefore artificial). The process of mutation and the rate of mutation functions exactly the same, of course, unless you can find a mechanism in biology that KNOWS it's being artifically selected and therefore behaves differently for some reason, suggesting that mutation rates are governed by something sentient which is ABSURD! And above, while you at least stayed on the topic of fossils and gaps, you proposed two pairs of animals that nobody says evolved from one another (and were of a different order from one another in both cases, showing a remarkable ignorance in biology for someone who wants to actually argue on the topic). Last time we had this argument, I showed you how mutation and isolation can cause a major difference in bone proportion within a species, one close to as great as the pelvis problem you were having. Instead of staying on that point, you decided to veer off to "artificial selection is not natural selection" (except once again, worded in a way dumber manner). You shouldn't be surprised that I am fed up with it, and refusing to address your argument unless it is CONCISE! See, in the Bill Nye v. Ken Ham debate, Ken Ham did have a specific date for the flood. Bill Nye challenged him on the # of animals on the ark. When Ham said that "kinds" were somewhere around the family level (in normal biological classification) then suggested a much smaller number, Bill Nye pointed out that they would then have had to evolve so quickly that we would have noticed (something to the tune of over a dozen new species every single DAY since then on average). After that, Ham pretty much just glossed over the point. At least he put down one goal post (the time during which the flood occurred). You, in this thread are arguing that a maybe world-wide flood occurred at some point which you don't know and refuse to examine, and instead insist that we prove to you that it didn't happen in 2013, or 2012, or 2011, all the way back to 2 million or so BCE year by year. Moronic.
The commonalities vs. the differences in DNA over the human species shows that we were down to a group of between 1 and 10 thousand, but at no point were humans ever reduced to one single male-female pair (let alone twice..and if you believe in the flood, and not in common ancestry between all extant primates, you would have to believe that). The DNA suggests what biologists say, not what creationists say. Sorry.
What year was Anakin Skywalker born? That is just as valid a question for me to ask you, as you asking me when the flood occurred. You probably don't believe that Anakin Skywalker was born. Imagine for a moment though, that I did (or at least convincingly pretended that I did). Imagine then that I asserted that you can't prove he didn't exist unless you can eliminate the possibility of his birth in every possible year since the dawn of humanity (and possibly in a galaxy far far away). That would be ridiculous...right? Please agree with that...oh wait. Of course you will, but then you will engage in your usual special pleading and somehow exempt your ridiculous claim, and say it's not ridiculous to assert a completely ass backwards standard of evidence.
Never....NEVER??? You then go on to say "until we started looking for it"....well, yeah. Once we did, we can then evaluate for what there is evidence, and if some assertions based on no evidence exist, we can also say if there is NO evidence for such an assertion. Russell's teapot. One could say there is no evidence for OR against it, since Russell posited a teapot that was too small to be seen with the strongest telescopes (of the time...who is to say that today's telescopes are strong enough either in that case?). The strength of a telescope is your "time of the flood". You will simply claim that until we propose a date, we can't say it didn't happen. Then, if we propose a date and search evidence for a flood of that date, you will say we have the wrong date. Once again....soccer without a net.
There is enough to read just in our posts responding to one another. If there is something that addressed what I said here that's relevant, I might even respond to just that one bit if you can provide anything compelling.
Jesus existed, but a leprechaun lived up his asshole. Right up there. That was the source of most of his power (the rest being a result of witchcraft which is real). You can't prove otherwise. Absence of evidence of a leprechaun in Jesus's ass is not evidence of absence of a leprechaun up Jesus's ass. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that a leprechaun, lived in the rectum of Christ.
Haha...seriously. We simply say that the lack of evidence for the flood is a problem in the claim that it happened. Further, a number of questions were posed in the thread specific to the flood, that if they were not answered well, would further suggest that the flood couldn't even possibly have happened. You concede that there is no evidence for the flood, yet assert that it happened for some other reason. You don't provide evidence of any sort. You don't solve the actual problems that would make such a proposition unreasonable. I don't know how there is any burden of proof on the atheist (or the Christian or Jew who sees it for the fable it is).
Of course I know why you would say it. But any other evidence? Nope. So another piece of scripture with no evidence to support it. Where are all those parts that DO have evidence (a claim that you DO make)?
What the actual fuck?? You deleted some context which I have re-added just to show everyone how fucking absurd you are.
oh come now, if i was actually as absurd as you claim, you wouldn't need to make an effort to show everyone else... it would be that obvious...
You have asserted in other places when biblical accuracy was put into question, that oral tradition was meticulous and accurate. You even posted a link to wikipedia that suggested that prior to writing, some ancient cultures passed down information by having people memorize such things word for word in a very accurate fashion. So when it suits you, and you need the bible stories based on oral tradition to be accurate accounts, oral tradition is accurate. But here, we have 4 different accounts of the same event, some with extraordinary details missing. Of course, nobody would merely forget to mention such a thing like graves opening up. Then you chalk it up to "well nobody wrote it down". So suddenly your accurate oral passing down of events is no longer that reliable? That is how you shot yourself in the foot. The accuracy of oral tradition varies post to post here in order to suit your argument in that particular place. You must be able to see this...right? Or, awesome troll job.
as I posted just in the other thread we're... er.. we were discussing in [depending on the extent of you being done talking with me] there are literally thousands of copies of the manuscripts just in the new testament alone... and for people here, no not copies of the Bible, but of the written documented occurances.. the variences between the thousands are minimal. to claim it wasn't dramatically documented in that time would be a dramatic understatement.
If Allah were completely undetectable and unknowable, there would be no Qu'ran. If Krishna were completely undetectable (or imaginary), then there would be no Bhagavad Gita...right? Logic. You fail at it. Special pleading. You fail to see it (except where it isn't there)
So you believe that god let that guy into the garden knowing how good he is at deceiving. Shitty parent.
I asked you to provide evidence for multiple starts "to the degree that you're talking about". Of course, since you refuse to accept common ancestry between humans and other apes, that would include that. You posted a link where in the introduction...before they started explaining anything....in the throat clearing process, it says in almost plain English (biological terms) "monophyletic biota we have now"....that means that the people who wrote the paper to which you linked me say that all life on earth today had a common ancestor. Hence your link proves exactly what you are arguing against. It's great when I don't even have to argue with you, because you do it yourself.
No. I asked you only to point me to how one can deem the bible a reliable document. You yourself say that there is no good evidence of the flood. You say you believe it due to the bible's reliability as a document in other places. Even though that isn't a good argument, as it's made up of many books (As you know, and remind us of constantly as if it's some sort of great success). So when I ask you to point me to those other places where I can verify their reliability and it has reprecussions on other parts making them more believable, etc., you have been unable to do so thus far. This is a surprise to nobody.
A reduction in population, yes. Smaller populations experience more genetic drift. This is an observed fact. So imagine, for a moment, if there was a climate catastrophe, reducing a population to a fraction of what it was a generation or two ago. Imagine, then, that this population escapes to a new environment (barely making it as a species). The new environment differing from the old, would have different selection pressures. Also, the population is drastically reduced. These are things we know, and every time we observe life under such conditions, we find exactly what I have outlined, whether it's in a lab or in the wild.
Look. I moved into my the house I'm living in now about a half a year ago. If, before I lived here, anybody ever broke into the house through the front door, so long as the door got replaced/the frame fixed, it might be hard to EVER notice. If it was through a window that was smashed, I might not notice for years, then when lifting the carpet to put in nicer flooring, I would maybe find a small shard or two, suggesting that the window was once broken. Ever have a window in your car broken? You'll never get all the glass out. You'll always find more every year or two. What you are suggesting is like having a high rise building worth of glass smashed, and thrown into your car, but somehow nobody ever sees the glass. Floods leave evidence. A flood that big would leave massive evidence. We don't see it. And it's not because we aren't "looking in the right place". It would be evident everywhere. You won't accept or understand this though, so let me just say, enjoy your continued delusion.
Of course. Every Christian can claim the same and call you an apostate. More assertions.
As religiosity goes down, societal health goes up. Disruptions of peace occur in places that are supposed to be very "Christian" or Jewish...well of course. Religion is the enemy of peace as it deals in absolutes (and only a sith deals in absolutes). I don't see how you've said anything here other than agreeing with me. You're suggesting that very Christian places are punished because of the few non-Christians there, but atheist nations like Norway are healthy...because....I have no idea what you're getting at here. None at all. Oh wait, I've got it. Nothing. As usual. You're only concerned wth responding in a vacuum. It's nonsense.
A "change"? A change from what? An ancestor that didn't need to breathe? If we were designed, it wouldn't be a change, it would just be "the design". Infections wouldn't be a problem if we were designed to not be succeptible to them. If our immune systems were preprogrammed to combat disease properly, there would be no disease. We don't take vaccinations because it's cool, we do it because it's the best way to protect ourselves from these infections.
And you end this piece of post with another ridiculous skewing of standards. Are you an engineer who designs cars? If not, then until you design and test a better car, you have no right to say what's wrong with yours. Seriously, are you 12 years old?
the design is made to adapt....
...and I've never heard a twelve year old use such reasoning. rather it's usually because someone else says so.
P.S. that was 3 cups of tea.
future suggestion... I use a large cup and leave the bag in.
Phew, I'll need a cup of tea for this one! Also, we are officially done here (aside from one small section I might address as you'll see below). You have conceded defeat here by responding with crap so ridiculous, it's not worth the discussion any more. You can say what you want. I am actually done with you after this response. it's not the first time you have said things this stupid, but I'm just done being generous here. You are either a troll, or a complete moron. There is no in-between here. Those Christians who are ignorant and actually REFUSE to hear the other side, refuse to be educated about things that could shatter their faith, are being ignorant. You, however, take it to a new level. You come on a forum like this one, and are confronted with actual problems with your specific interpretation of Christianity. Your response is to either play dumber than you are, or somehow be stupid to a level I thought actually impossible.
What the actual fuck?? You deleted some context which I have re-added just to show everyone how fucking absurd you are. You have asserted in other places when biblical accuracy was put into question, that oral tradition was meticulous and accurate. You even posted a link to wikipedia that suggested that prior to writing, some ancient cultures passed down information by having people memorize such things word for word in a very accurate fashion. So when it suits you, and you need the bible stories based on oral tradition to be accurate accounts, oral tradition is accurate. But here, we have 4 different accounts of the same event, some with extraordinary details missing. Of course, nobody would merely forget to mention such a thing like graves opening up. Then you chalk it up to "well nobody wrote it down". So suddenly your accurate oral passing down of events is no longer that reliable? That is how you shot yourself in the foot. The accuracy of oral tradition varies post to post here in order to suit your argument in that particular place. You must be able to see this...right? Or, awesome troll job.
I asked you to provide evidence for multiple starts "to the degree that you're talking about". Of course, since you refuse to accept common ancestry between humans and other apes, that would include that. You posted a link where in the introduction...before they started explaining anything....in the throat clearing process, it says in almost plain English (biological terms) "monophyletic biota we have now"....that means that the people who wrote the paper to which you linked me say that all life on earth today had a common ancestor. Hence your link proves exactly what you are arguing against. It's great when I don't even have to argue with you, because you do it yourself.
A "change"? A change from what? An ancestor that didn't need to breathe? If we were designed, it wouldn't be a change, it would just be "the design". Infections wouldn't be a problem if we were designed to not be succeptible to them. If our immune systems were preprogrammed to combat disease properly, there would be no disease. We don't take vaccinations because it's cool, we do it because it's the best way to protect ourselves from these infections.
And you end this piece of post with another ridiculous skewing of standards. Are you an engineer who designs cars? If not, then until you design and test a better car, you have no right to say what's wrong with yours. Seriously, are you 12 years old?
Wankel engines burn oil "by design". By that, I mean they couldn't figure out a way to make them NOT burn oil due to problems with sealing the rotors. Or in other words, Mazda engineers aren't omnipotent. Is god? Just saying that the design is ideal doesn't make it so. Also, my status as a non-god doesn't mean that all my commentary on the problems of how our body works are automatically invalid.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if a perfect designer designed us, we would be flawless, no? Unless he created us deliberately flawed, including succeptibility to ebola (which is sort of a problem lately in case you haven't heard)
No. I said I'm not qualified to tell you exactly why the systems evolved the way they did. I'm not sure what systems evolved to cause our breathing to utilize the same path as some of the start of our digestive tract. I still haven't looked it up. Clearly you can't be bothered yourself. Just because I say I don't know a certain thing doesn't mean that I know nothing (and it certainly doesn't mean that I can't comment on something almost completely unrelated).
A digestive system that can properly digest unchewed food is beyond your god's ability too? Seriously, can god even like...play mini-golf?
P.S. that was 3 cups of tea.
Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
In 42 BBY (Before Battle of Yavin 4).
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Ok God knows all possibilities... that does not imply that God knows THE future, rather all possibilities for the future... which possibility might come to pass might be elusive depending on how far and when and whether God is influencing the outcome. It is also God's intention to leave the future up to us with the implication that all possible futures we choose will have the same ultimate outcome.
The idea that future would be beyond Gods ability only suggests that the future cannot be known, not that the future isn't known, but that it is constantly changing and thus is impossible to know at any level. God can influence future events to come to be the way He intended them and thus ultimately can have control over the future, but also can choose to allow us to make our own choices. Does that clarify a bit?
So in other words, it is the computer manufacturers that should be getting arrested and jailed for child porn, security breaches and identity thefts around the world... no they didn't create the brains of the people committing those crimes, but they did create the means by which the crimes are being committed. By your reasoning, they are responsible.
It seems then that this scenario cannot apply to God.
God has told us we have the freedom to choose. There are consequences for all of our actions good or bad, but we still choose these outcomes. for God to dictate the future takes away any freedom we have... including having this very conversation.
Let's take your scenario to people having children... I'm willing to bet all parents "HOPE" their children grow up to be good human beings, but I also know as a parent myself that you know the possibilities of them being terrible people. So are all parents evil because they birth children that have the potential to be murderers, rapists, theives.... politicians???