Please explain Noah's Ark to me ...

[liljp617]

It is not just a story it is true events.

Prove it.

[StephaBon]

So every human had turned pretty bad (save Noah and his family), so God decided he needed to destroy all the living beings and start over basically. He commanded Noah to build a ginormous ship to carry two of every creature.  I wasn't exactly there, so I can't tell you everything. Whether Dinosaurs got left behind, whether they got on and then became extinct after, or whether they were there and then devolved is up for debate, but whatever.  So a mating pair of each animal was put on board (by God leading them there), and then it rained for 40 days and 40 nights until the whole world was covered (even Mt. Everest).  All the humans on earth died, and all the leftover animals as well.  Noah and his family rode out the storm and made it safely to land. All the animals mated, and a ton of years afterward, we have all the species today. I don't see why people think that would be impossible when they would easily accept the theory that from a whole bunch of random chemicals, a single cell was formed (by CHANCE), and reproduced (by CHANCE), turned into a different thingy mabob (by CHANCE), turned into bigger thingy mabobs (by CHANCE), came out of the water and survived and became a different animal (by CHANCE), mutated, mutated, mutated and mutated some more (by CHANCE) until it became every species of today, all living simultaneously (by CHANCE).  Wow, lot of lucky happenings there. 

and also, how are there sea creature fossils on mountains if the sea wasn't up to the mountains?

[liljp617]

So every human had turned pretty bad (save Noah and his family), so God decided he needed to destroy all the living beings and start over basically. He commanded Noah to build a ginormous ship to carry two of every creature.

Prove it.  Where is the evidence of this "Noah?"  Where is the evidence of this unimaginably huge boat?  Archaeological, paleontological, historical, anything...nope, not a shred.  Why is this "Noah" character extremely similar to multiple other mythical characters of other ancient civilizations (Gilgamesh particularly)?  Why is the story of Noah's Ark extremely similar to multiple other global flood myths of other ancient civilizations (again, Gilgamesh in particular).

This "Noah" character is said to have lived to be 950 years old -- very realistic.  Even if you claim that it's a result of mistranslation, he's still listed at 83 years old -- also unrealistic given the time period.

There is literally zero legitimate historical evidence of such a flood occurring in the time period.  There is literally zero legitimate paleontological evidence of such a flood occurring in the time period.  There is literally zero legitimate archaeological evidence of such a flood occurring in the time period.  There is literally zero legitimate historical evidence of such a physical being as Noah existing in the time period.

The Bible is not a legitimate historical source when nothing can be cross referenced to confirm what it says on this issue.

I wasn't exactly there, so I can't tell you everything.

You can't tell me anything.  You have nothing to support anything you say in this post except a book from people who would be amazed by a wheel barrow.

Whether Dinosaurs got left behind, whether they got on and then became extinct after, or whether they were there and then devolved is up for debate, but whatever.

It's not up for debate at all among sensible people.  It is only up for debate among silly, naive young earth creationists.

So a mating pair of each animal was put on board (by God leading them there), and then it rained for 40 days and 40 nights until the whole world was covered (even Mt. Everest).  All the humans on earth died, and all the leftover animals as well.  Noah and his family rode out the storm and made it safely to land. All the animals mated, and a ton of years afterward, we have all the species today.

Again, show me even a slight amount of historical, archaeological, or paleontological evidence and then we can discuss the subject a bit better.

Why is it so hard to believe?  Because it goes directly against the history we know.  It goes against the age of the Earth.  It goes against logic.  It goes against evidence.

I don't see why people think that would be impossible when they would easily accept the theory that from a whole bunch of random chemicals, a single cell was formed (by CHANCE), and reproduced (by CHANCE), turned into a different thingy mabob (by CHANCE), turned into bigger thingy mabobs (by CHANCE), came out of the water and survived and became a different animal (by CHANCE), mutated, mutated, mutated and mutated some more (by CHANCE) until it became every species of today, all living simultaneously (by CHANCE).  Wow, lot of lucky happenings there.

If you're going to use the term "thingy mabob" when describing evolution, it's pretty likely you don't have the slightest clue what it really is or what the theory encompasses.

and also, how are there sea creature fossils on mountains if the sea wasn't up to the mountains?

You assume the water rose to that level, rather than those mountains actually being at a lower sea level in the past.  One proposal is supported by scientific evidence of the Earth and every sensible geological historian, the other isn't.

[ipayitforward]

[/quote]What Kuhn brings up is something that should be brought up, but that doesn't mean it holds up under scrutiny or holds any validity.  Could you give some examples of scientific studies being skewed because someone lacked the belief in a god(s)?  Why would someone skew results because of a lack of belief?  What are they achieving by doing this?
[/quote]

Maybe you wouldn't consider Darwin to be a true scientist...but his work would be an example to me...he considered other races inferior!

[liljp617]

What Kuhn brings up is something that should be brought up, but that doesn't mean it holds up under scrutiny or holds any validity.  Could you give some examples of scientific studies being skewed because someone lacked the belief in a god(s)?  Why would someone skew results because of a lack of belief?  What are they achieving by doing this?

Maybe you wouldn't consider Darwin to be a true scientist...but his work would be an example to me...he considered other races inferior!

What other races?  Races outside of Caucasians?

What is the basis for calling Darwin a racist?  Could you show me something that proves this, or are you just making baseless claims that add nothing to the discussion?

The fact of the matter is this:  Darwin was very concerned and worried about the idea of eugenics and about the potential misunderstandings that could arise from his proposals (survival of the fittest for example).  He did not promote eugenics; in fact, he was very much opposed to the idea of using his discoveries to "perfect" the human race.

He was even offered the chance to co-release a report on eugenics with Francis Galton (the father of the idea of eugenics) this scene unfolded:

"When Galton suggested that publishing research could encourage intermarriage within a "caste" of "those who are naturally gifted", Darwin foresaw practical difficulties, and thought it "the sole feasible, yet I fear utopian, plan of procedure in improving the human race", preferring to simply publicise the importance of inheritance and leave decisions to individuals."


It is quite obvious he was not a proponent of eugenics or a proponent of exterminating other races to achieve human racial perfection.  His entire theory of evolution revolves around NATURAL selection, not artificial selection or genetic engineering.

But please, do feel free to post some accurate information backing up your claim that he was a racist and supported artificially perfecting the human race.  I'm very interested to hear it.

[walksalone11]

Christians would really be quite funny to observe were it not for the fact that such uber-passionate supremacy is potentially so dangerous.

I did get a couple chuckles from this thread tho 

[Falconer02]

Yeah this is getting ridiculous. I wish they would just delete this whole thread.

If the world's ice caps melt the planet would be completely under water. So do we build and Ark and bring 2 of each kind of animal or just let ourselves die off.

Yeah I saw this in a movie once with Kevin Costner. I remember it because he had to drink his own pee. But I vote for ark! We should also have 1 man do it all himself. Seems like a logical manuever considering it happened in an old outdated book with disproven myths.

The rainbow is there to remind people God won't flood the Earth again

And thunder is just angels bowling in the clouds. Oh, and remember...if you don't say "god bless you" after someone sneezes, their soul jumps out of their body.

Maybe you wouldn't consider Darwin to be a true scientist...but his work would be an example to me...he considered other races inferior!

I'm sorry...but PLEASE stop making stupid posts. I might as well just say you're a racist and leave it at that. Because it's gotta be true, right? I mean I don't have any proof or instances that I could show, but...you know...

But please, do feel free to post some accurate information backing up your claim that he was a racist and supported artificially perfecting the human race.  I'm very interested to hear it.

I'd be surprised if they do. But I wouldn't count on it.

[eSineM]

I'm baffled how people can be so easily mislead and deceived.

[liljp617]

I'd be surprised if they do. But I wouldn't count on it.

I have no expectations.  I merely feel it necessary to leave the challenge out in the open so they look more ignorant when they have no rebuttal.

[ipayitforward]

What Kuhn brings up is something that should be brought up, but that doesn't mean it holds up under scrutiny or holds any validity.  Could you give some examples of scientific studies being skewed because someone lacked the belief in a god(s)?  Why would someone skew results because of a lack of belief?  What are they achieving by doing this?

Maybe you wouldn't consider Darwin to be a true scientist...but his work would be an example to me...he considered other races inferior!

What other races?  Races outside of Caucasians?

What is the basis for calling Darwin a racist?  Could you show me something that proves this, or are you just making baseless claims that add nothing to the discussion?

The fact of the matter is this:  Darwin was very concerned and worried about the idea of eugenics and about the potential misunderstandings that could arise from his proposals (survival of the fittest for example).  He did not promote eugenics; in fact, he was very much opposed to the idea of using his discoveries to "perfect" the human race.

He was even offered the chance to co-release a report on eugenics with Francis Galton (the father of the idea of eugenics) this scene unfolded:

"When Galton suggested that publishing research could encourage intermarriage within a "caste" of "those who are naturally gifted", Darwin foresaw practical difficulties, and thought it "the sole feasible, yet I fear utopian, plan of procedure in improving the human race", preferring to simply publicise the importance of inheritance and leave decisions to individuals."


It is quite obvious he was not a proponent of eugenics or a proponent of exterminating other races to achieve human racial perfection.  His entire theory of evolution revolves around NATURAL selection, not artificial selection or genetic engineering.

But please, do feel free to post some accurate information backing up your claim that he was a racist and supported artificially perfecting the human race.  I'm very interested to hear it.

OK, I did some research..(accepted your challenge) http://darwin-online.org.uk/contents.html  and found that darwin was in fact an abolitionist...He was less racist than the society he was in which still had slavery...the English people of that day considered cultures who didn't sit and drink tea as savages.  Here is an interesting quote from Travels in Brazil (quote)Two very different feelings are excited in the observer when he beholds the children of Africa placed amidst the more exalted relations of European civilisation; on the one hand he remarks with joy the traces of humanity which gradually develop in the negro by his intercourse with the whites* while on the other hand he cannot but grieve that means so cruel, so contrary to the rights of mankind as the slave trade, were required to afford to that unhappy race, degraded even in their own native country, the first school of moral, education. These feelings affected us still more deeply when we were obliged to go to the slave-market to look for, and purchase, a young negro for ourselves.(end quote)

     

      I did find though that other scientists took his ideas and perverted them to promote their racist agendas...(yes, even Hitler) One person I read said that many of the early evolutionists were outspoken racists.  Maybe Darwin has been lumped in with them?

On another perhaps unrelated note...I think it is sad that people who claimed to be Christians have used God and the Bible to rationalize and support their atrocities  throughout history.  It seems to me that Christians should be less racist than anyone else because they believe we all came from a common ancestor. 

[walksalone11]

To the contrary,......
most self proclaimed Christians of today have no idea what the true history of the religion entails. They know only what is spoon-fed to them by their pastor/preacher/minister etc. They have also been indoctrinated usually from a very young age to be very fearful of questioning the church even if these questions were unspoken in their own minds. They will not even entertain the possibility of wrong doing by the church itself and instead blame anyone who is unlucky enough to be confronted acting in an immoral fashion of only "claiming to be christian" but doesn't represent the true description of what it truly means to be Christian.

Church officials throughout the history of christianity have preached supreamacy and encouraged vile and vicious behavior towards non-christians.

The following are two instances of church hierarchy instigating atrocious behavior,......<b> are these men just claiming to be christian???<?b>


http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-2536600094.html




"In the eleventh century Pope Gregory proclaimed that God sanctioned wars against nonbelievers and enemies of the Church."


and also......



"The Rights of Non-Christians. In the thirteenth century Pope Innocent IV suggested that non-Christians possessed the same rights as Christians under natural law. He then asked rhetorically, “s it licit to invade a land that infidels possess, or which belongs to them?” In answering that question, Innocent IV argued that violations of natural law by nonbelievers, such as Christian conceptions of sexual perversion or idolatry, created a duty in the Pope to force the miscreant peoples to admit missionaries into their lands. If the nonbelievers did not convert to Christianity, Innocent argued, he could then authorize secular governments to declare war on the nonbelievers and force them to accept the faith. Out of Innocent IV’s theory emerged two competing lines of authority. One recognized that non-Christian peoples held property rights and sovereignty under the theory of natural law, and the other maintained that under certain conditions Christian nations could encroach upon and extinguish those rights. This ambiguity, which essentially gave non-Christians natural rights with one hand and took them back with the other, controlled philosophical discussions of Native American rights for the next five hundred years. Thus, even before Columbus set sail for the West, Christian European governments possessed legal theories that they believed gave them the right to seize the lands of Native Americans. These doctrines were based on the premises that western culture was sanctioned by God and that Europeans were spiritually and culturally superior to peoples of other lands and faiths. Under that flag of cultural arrogance Europeans could invade and conquer the lands of non-Christians, and they could by right sanctioned by God take the lands of the conquered and make them their own."




You may now make the claim that all of that is in the past and the church has evolved.....really?

lets take a look at the recent apology <b>by the church</B> for the deaths of over 50,000 children who were forcefully removed from their homes and placed into christian residential schools and then died there.

http://archive.hiddenfromhistory.org/html/spin.html





".....In effect, under this strategy of Redefinition and Containment, the Christian churches were to be absolved and made immune from prosecution for their crimes of Genocide against non-Christian Indians, in order for the issue of genocide itself to be diffused and discarded.

....through a series of legal decisions which made the churches (Catholic, Anglican and United) liable with the government for only certain, restricted tort offenses, such as physical and sexual abuses; and which placed severe restrictions on Indians' right to sue their oppressors..........these churches felt free to absolve themselves from any responsibility for the wider crimes in the residential schools, in a series of astounding public relations "spins" of the issue that would make even many lawyers blush........"


I could go on and on with more examples of the abuse people of this continent have suffered at the hands of Christians, but I'm sure you get the point, and maybe, not likely but maybe, some of you will pull your head out of the sand and start truly thinking for yourself.

[liljp617]

What Kuhn brings up is something that should be brought up, but that doesn't mean it holds up under scrutiny or holds any validity.  Could you give some examples of scientific studies being skewed because someone lacked the belief in a god(s)?  Why would someone skew results because of a lack of belief?  What are they achieving by doing this?

Maybe you wouldn't consider Darwin to be a true scientist...but his work would be an example to me...he considered other races inferior!

What other races?  Races outside of Caucasians?

What is the basis for calling Darwin a racist?  Could you show me something that proves this, or are you just making baseless claims that add nothing to the discussion?

The fact of the matter is this:  Darwin was very concerned and worried about the idea of eugenics and about the potential misunderstandings that could arise from his proposals (survival of the fittest for example).  He did not promote eugenics; in fact, he was very much opposed to the idea of using his discoveries to "perfect" the human race.

He was even offered the chance to co-release a report on eugenics with Francis Galton (the father of the idea of eugenics) this scene unfolded:

"When Galton suggested that publishing research could encourage intermarriage within a "caste" of "those who are naturally gifted", Darwin foresaw practical difficulties, and thought it "the sole feasible, yet I fear utopian, plan of procedure in improving the human race", preferring to simply publicise the importance of inheritance and leave decisions to individuals."


It is quite obvious he was not a proponent of eugenics or a proponent of exterminating other races to achieve human racial perfection.  His entire theory of evolution revolves around NATURAL selection, not artificial selection or genetic engineering.

But please, do feel free to post some accurate information backing up your claim that he was a racist and supported artificially perfecting the human race.  I'm very interested to hear it.

I did find though that other scientists took his ideas and perverted them to promote their racist agendas...(yes, even Hitler) One person I read said that many of the early evolutionists were outspoken racists.  Maybe Darwin has been lumped in with them?

To state the obvious, Hitler was not a scientist by any stretch of the definition.  To correct a common misunderstanding, Social Darwinism is the idea that natural forces also play an "evolutionary" role in the change of ideas, the actions of nations, and the actions of individuals in modern society.  

As for the other "early evolutionists," I don't know who you're talking about or where you got the information, so I see no possibility of commenting.

It should be noted that Hitler was also a devout Christian, both in public and private.  Heinrich Himmler (the head of the SS/Gestapo and basically the man in charge of the Holocaust) was also a devout Christian.  The majority of the *bleep* Party was Christian.  *bleep* belt buckles read "Gott mit uns," which translates to "God with us."  So on and so forth.

I am making no effort to say religion caused the Holocaust or had anything significant to do with WWII, I just always have a brief lapse of sanity when people tell me Hitler and the *bleep* Party carried their actions out because of something like atheism or evolution.

[klutzycutie]

noahs ark was a ark a huge ship pretty much

that was constructed by a man named noah

the story goes he was told by god to build it

why?

bcuz there was going ot be a huge flood

he also had to get 2 of each of the same animal such as 2 elephants

and 2 giraffes and watnot

also there were ppl on board so they can stay alive.

of course its in the bible

also u can google it

they have wat they believe is the real noahs ark

[tee1618]

Read the bible

[smylyfayce]

Read Genesis chapters 6 through 10 of the Bible.