How can Noah's Ark being even remotely plausible? (science, children, create)

[Astron1000]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

As would be the creation of a world where there would not be any need to kill all the people in a giant flood.


You postulate an all powerful god, albeit one with very poor judgment. The notion that the same entity which is responsible for the existence of the world was also responsible for having to slaughter nearly all of its inhabitants, certainly suggests a god who goofed.

I think an asteroid impact would probably have been better. God could have just surrounded Noah and his brood with a force field.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by citizenkane2

But surely your more advanced way of thinking makes room for all to share openly in the public square....right?

Well of course, if you religiously oriented folks would ever deign to answer our simple, open and often yes/no questions, those we've poised time and again, asking for the simplest of answers, why...we could have ourselves an intellectually honest debate.

So... tell us, citizenkane, {and noting that this is yet another of those simple and honest questions...) have you ever read Robert's Rules of Order?. Or even heard of them?

(Given the rabbelously (?) aggressive ways fundamentalist Christians continue to run in these fora, I suspect most of you have not, or will not, because when asked to participate in an honest back-and-forth debate, you guys always dance off stage, giving all sorts of fascinating non-answers. Thus earning the everlasting distain of honest atheists for even trying to debate with you.

But nonetheless, here's a summary of the time-tested Roberts Rules of Conduct, their rationale being this (my highlights in the usual blue...)...

"The application of parliamentary law is the best method yet devised to enable assemblies of any size, with due regard for every member’s opinion, to arrive at the general will on the maximum number of questions of varying complexity in a minimum amount of time and under all kinds of internal climate ranging from total harmony to hardened or impassioned division of opinion."
[Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised [RONR (11th ed.), Introduction, p. liii]

In other words, Roberts' Rules provide the most common sense approach to conflicts of opinion, not the predictable Christian solution which has been repeatedly shown to be a purposefully evasive and deflective method, to wit:

1) ignore the question, then

2) evade the main but usually simple issue often by a patently straw-man revision of the question, then

3) to obfuscate ["to purposefully confuse with intent to draw attention away from a discussion.."] the issue with unrelated commentary and finally, to...

4) add insults, lies and ad hominems to generate an angry response from someone who originally had nothing but a simple, quiet intent to discuss.

As well, a last option (no. (5):

I've seen many a logically-cornered Christian acolyte announce that his feelings have been hurt, or that he does not ever get involved in overly heated or sarcastic arguments, and as a result, there's "obviously no point in continuing" any discussion with an atheist bully who only wants to insult and denigrate the Christian viewpoint! And then, as if mortally injured, off they stomp!

http://i861.photobucket.com/albums/a...mpPoutAmyS.jpg

If this is not an accurate portrayal of you, citizenkane then by all means... show me the error of my thinking, why don't you? I only have two or three very simple questions for you, and since you are in touch with The Way, The Truth and The Light, why... you should have no particular problems answering them, right? Otherwise, you'd end up rightfully earning the same critical labels that other more intransigent absolute Christian moralists have achieved.

(Btw, late add to this post: I just now found this note: here's one of the recent {2011!} revisions to the timeless Roberts' Rules Book, (available on-line) which might well have applications right here on the R&P sub!:

"A thorough revision of Chapter XX, Disciplinary Procedures, includes more detailed treatment of ...as well as expanded provisions on remedies for abuse of authority... in a meeting and on handling disruptions by members."

I'll shush now and await your polite and intelligent answer. With no disruptive commentary, OK? OK.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by hiker45

Seriously, how has this thread survived this long?

It has to be divine intervention. If it lasts much longer, I'm going to have to convert.

Well, it kind of got side-tracked. The question was, "How can Noah's Ark being even remotely plausible?"

Uh, because of the bad grammar, it took me a while to process that.

First we have to either accept or reject the premise of a "Flood."

I attempted to introduce that, and I did it primarily to show how damaging and destructive religion really it is, and how it hinders and stifles.

There was no global flood; there is no evidence of a global flood; and the possibility of a global flood is further refuted by the physics and science of the event -- with or without a god-thing;

Having said that....there is evidence of global cataclysmic event:

1] the Sumerians claimed this event took place during the Age of Leo (10,000 BCE - 8,000 BCE) and the geological, physical and scientific evidence proves that.

2] there are hundreds of impact craters in at least two groups, one in Canada and one running along the Eastern Seaboard of the United States from the Hudson Bay in the north to as far south as South Carolina dated to the Age of Leo --- and seeing how the sea-level was 600 feet to 800 feet lower then than now, I would suggest if you searched out on the Continental Shelf you will find dozens more impact craters.

3] there are huge anomalous deposits of sand in mountain ranges -- the Andes, the Himalayas (and another in the mountain range near Lake Baikal) -- where no sand should exist...and the sand/debris is not organic to the region -- eg the sand deposits in the Himalayas match the geology of Southeast Asia (some where discovered during the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War).

4] there are unusual debris fields containing flora and fauna that is not indigenous to the region, for example on the islands in the White Sea, in northern Canada, in northern Europe, and South America and southern Africa. These are deposits containing the bones of numerous animals, entire trees, entire bushes and shrubs and an host of other organic material.

5] you have the Gobi Desert, which is not a desert at all. It is a vast expanse of land that has had the top soil stripped off all the way down to the bed-rock (which has since been covered with a fine layer of dust) and even more damning is the manner in which rocks/boulders are arrayed -- from heaviest to lightest with anomalous deposits of sand and gravel like you would see in an esker or moraine but without evidence of a glacier or any glacial activity.

6] the destruction of the entire western ice sheet in Antarctica. We can date that to the Age of Leo, because none of the ice there is older than 8,000 years...and don't confuse that with the eastern ice sheet that is several hundred thousand years old (at least). This accelerated the present Inter-Glacial Period.

7] much of the United States is covered with a layer of burnt material dating to the Age of Leo, accompanied by "asteroid diamonds" and tektites. That is evidence of an asteroid impact with the ensuing blast and heat wave causing massive fires to sweep across the US. It is now accepted that this event is responsible for the extinction of the Giant Bear, Giant Sloth, Mastodons, Mammoths and Sabre-toothed cats that roamed North America.

8] this event was also responsible for the decimation, perhaps even the annihilation of tribal groups in the northeastern and east central US.

Singly, the evidence doesn't mean a lot, but taken as a whole, a picture begins to develop of a dreadful event that took place 12,000 years ago. The triggering event was the impact of an asteroid or comet that had broken up before entering Earth's atmosphere or upon entering Earth's atmosphere.

That several of the impactors landed in the Earth's oceans generating tsunamis does not require a leap of faith...it's just science...and more than plausible.

Ignore the damn idiotic christian version for just a second and focus on the more than 140 myths. All of them....save one...claims the event lasted 3-5 days. The one that doesn't claims 7 days.

Myth or science? Science.

We know for a fact that impactors landed all along the Eastern Seaboard of the US. If one landed in the Atlantic just off the coast of North Carolina, it would generate a tsunami that would sweep toward Europe/Africa...probably Africa given the direction of impact...and it would sweep back toward the Americas, and then back to Africa, and then back to the Americas over a period of several days....say 3-5 days....before losing its energy and finally subsiding.

But 7 days? Still within the realm of science. The fact that a tsunami lasted 7 days in one part of the world does not logically result in all tsunamis lasting 7 days. Perhaps it was only 5 days, but two more days of very large unusually big waves.

The flaming arrow, flaming star, green star etc....

...myth or science?

Science again.

If people on one side of the Earth see an asteroid impact, then people on the opposite cannot see it due to the laws of physics...not to mention spherical geometry. We already know for a fact that impacts took place during the Age of Leo in the United States, so what is so goddam hard about accepting the fact that tribal groups in the US all claim the cause of the catastrophe was an asteroid/comet?

Finally, I proved earlier on another post in this thread that the actual Hebrew word means "tsunami" and not "flood." Leave it to the idiots who mistranslated the entire King James Vision to muck things up for the entire world for centuries, and then leave it to the less intelligent to thump their bible and scream "flood" in spite of the fact that the Hebrew word means "tsunami."

So....then....having established that a global cataclysmic event took place 12,000 years ago during the Age of Leo, we can now move on to the OP Topic.

Whenever you examine anything comparatively, you always go to the original source. There is only one original "flood story" on Earth and that story was written by the Sumerians a few thousand years before the birth of Abrahm.

A few things about the Sumerian "flood story":

1] it is incredibly detailed, much more so than any other story.

2] it does not directly state the cause of the Event, but the text implies it was celestial in nature. We can determine that, because the texts stated that one of the Annunaki, Nergal, noted something in the heavens from his observatory located in southern Africa. Nergal calls for his father Enki and brother Ningishzidda to help him assess the situation. In turn, the call for Marduk. Agreeing that whatever is going to happen will wreck havoc on Earth, they all go to Enlil, who calls for a meeting of the great council. At that meeting, Enlil blasts Enki, Ningishiddza and Ningursag (a female and half-sister to Enlil and Enki) for creating humans. Enlil's position is that the event will kill a large number of humans, so just let it be. The Annunaki swear an oath to keep the event a secret from humans including heaping mutual curses upon one another for breaking the oath (that is also mentioned one of the extra-Biblical texts).

3] Enki --- uh, for the record both he and Ningishzidda are um, you know, "serpent gods" -- cannot live with the fact that humans might be wiped out by this event, so he gets around his oath using a trick. Knowing that Ziusurda (the Hebrew Noah) comes to meditate every day, Enki hides in the building and talks to a wall...telling the wall of a terrible event to come....and what must be done to ensure humans survive.

4] Ziusurda does not build an ark nor does he build a ship, rather he builds a boat that can "tumble and turn"....a submersible boat. Think about for a second...in a tsunami, do you want to be on a submarine or on the SS Minnow? A submarine, even a barrel would be better than an ark or any surface craft.

5] the people who help Ziusurda build the craft are allowed to bring their families aboard. They bring animals, but only enough animals to feed people, not save animals.

6] Enki sends a man to operate the craft and serve as navigator...the target is somewhere near Mount Ararat.

7] the signal to board the vessel is when lights are seen in the sky in the territory of Shamash (what christians claim to be a "Sun-god").

8] the texts claim the Annunaki left Earth and sought refuge in their orbiting spacecraft....and they watched the horrors unfold on Earth.

9] witnessing the horrors.....Enlil regrets his actions....he now wishes they had attempted to save at least some of the humans and warn other humans to seek shelter/safety. Enki of course is relieved by Enlil's change of heart.

10] returning to Earth, Enki takes Enlil to Mount Ararat for some quality time together to discuss their mutual issues. Enlil smells the savory scent of meat being cooked on an open flame and wanders over to find Ziusurda & Crew. Thankful that some humans survived, Enlil blesses Ziusurda and promises that it shall not happen again. Now...it is very important to understand that Enlil is not promising there will never be another calamity, rather he is promising to help humans the next time such a devastating calamity occurs.

The Hebrews took that story and then totally butchered it, because they didn't understand it. They misinterpreted Enlil's hostility as the event being caused by Enlil, and the event serving as some sort of punishment. The Hebrews were unable to comprehend how animals might survive, so they deluded themselves into believing animals were saved by placing them on an ark. Naturally, the Hebrews would omit the name of the navigator, since he wasn't related to Noah and wouldn't fit into the "flood-as-punishment" theme.

And that's one of the reasons I hate religion....it's bad enough that religion, and especially the Hebrews mucked things up worse than a 3-year old ever could, but it results in people denying the truth simply on the basis of religion making everything FUBAR.

Anyway, something did happen 12,000 years ago...a devastating event. The event did not kill everyone on Earth, but it did kill many, and it caused a lot of damage. The fact that the idiot Hebrews butchered the re-telling of the event does not negate the fact that there really was a cataclysmic event 12,000 years ago.

It would behoove all of you to find out what really did happen, before it happens again.

Originally Posted by citizenkane2

He gave to us.....that is how we are "made in His image" emotion, intellect and free-will.

The bible says no such thing. The plural is used....

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness..."

Additionally, that proves that Elohim at one time meant or represented a plurality of gods; a pantheon of gods. See....

Genesis 11:7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they won’t be able to understand each other.

I'm sure the idiot Heiser is foaming at the mouth right now, but too bad.

Originally Posted by citizenkane2

If an all powerful God is in this equation, this is very possible.

He can suspend the the natural processes He put in place for a specified time.....including the aggression and predatory nature that animals have.

Then that only proves how stupid your god is.

I would have blinked my eyes and instantly killed every human, except for a select few, and instead of flood. A plague, like the so-called Plague of the 1st Born would have worked as well. In fact, I could think of 1,001 ways to accomplish the same thing without the need for a flood, which makes me infinitely more intelligent than your god.

It also proves how spiteful and cruel your god really is....and so what does that say about people who fawn over such a spiteful hateful cruel being and bend over backward to act as apologists?

Originally Posted by citizenkane2

And as far as travel to the ark is concerned.....it took Noah 120 years to build it.

That is a misinterpretation of the original Sumerian texts.

Genesis 6:3 ...They will remain for 120 more years.

In Classical Biblical Hebrew, time is contextual and dependent on the knower, because there are no auxiliary verbs to indicate time. Accordingly, all of the following literal translations are correct on their face...

Their days were 120 years
Their days are 120 years
Their days will be 120 years

Note that the word "more" does not appear in the text, rather it was added by christian miscreants.

The only possible correct translation is "Their days were 120 cycles."

The Hebrew word shanah is mistranslated in context. The connotation of shanah is cycles not years.

We know that because shanah stems from the Sumerian shar, and it is shar that is used in the Sumerian texts that the Hebrews messed up.

A shar is 3,600 years.

120 shar is thus 432,000 years.

Now the message of the passage can be correctly conveyed.....humans walked the Earth for 432,000 years from the time of their creation, until this catastrophic event took place.

To understand that, you do not look to the bastardized Hebrew text, instead you once again go to the original source documents, which are the Sumerian texts that describe the creation of humans.

According to the Sumerians, there were people on Earth whom they referred to as "lofty ones." These were not gods, they were flesh and blood humanoids who lived and died. If you want, you can go to Devil's Island -- so named by the French because according to the peoples who inhabit the region of "Guyana" (British, French and Dutch Guyana at one time) a serpent "god" died and was entombed on the island -- and poke around. There is a parallel Sumerian text claiming that one of the "lofty ones of Heaven and Earth" died --- it is believed to be Enki....one of the two "serpent gods" whose emblem was the caduceus --- the medical symbol -- two serpents entwined around the Tree of Life. Marduk is another one of these "gods" that died and was buried in a tomb in (I believe) present-day Syria.

Again, according to the Sumerians, these Annunaki were mining gold in the abzu. The Sumerian description of the abzu is clearly southeastern Africa, specifically where the River Zambesi flows into the Indian Ocean. The idiot Greeks who stupidly thought the Earth was flat, reasoned that the abzu had to be underneath Earth and that is the origin of Hell. Then along come idiot christians who mistranslated abzu as "underworld" because, you know, we all know Hell is real, right? So Hell was a mistake created by the Greeks, compounded by the Jews and compounded further still by christians.

Okay, so there's a mutiny -- the Annunaki say they're scientists and should be doing studies instead of digging for gold, and if anyone wants gold, then someone had best create some kind of worker drone. Enki saves the day by saying worker drones do exist, but they're not ready for prime-time, and to get them ready for prime-time, it is necessary to bind upon an existing hominid "the image of the 'lofty ones'."

So Enki, his half-sister Ningursag, and his son (the other serpent god) perhaps took Homo Erectus or Homo Habilis, and genetically manipulated them to create Neanderthals.

The Sumerians claim this took place ~432,000 years before the cataclysmic event that took place 12,000 years ago, puts the date circa 444,000 years ago, which comports at least in part with the archeological evidence for the appearance of Neanderthals.

While Neanderthals might have been good miners, they were terrible chefs. To fix that problem, Enki went back and created a better human, and the dating of that according to Sumerian texts coincides with the rise of Homo Sapiens.

And that brings us back to Ziusurda/Noah.

A Sumerian text claims that Enki put Ziusurda's mother to sleep, and then did something to the unborn child in her womb. This account appears in extra-biblical texts as well. When Noah was born, he was "different" somehow to the extent that Lamech accused his wife of having sex with one of the 'lofty ones.'

Note that Sumerian texts (such as the King Lists) put Ziusurda's birth circa 30,000 BCE, corresponding to the rise of Homo Sapiens Sapiens. I'm sure some find the numbers confusing, but the Sumerians state that one year in the life of a 'lofty one' was equivalent to 3,600 Earth years. Off-spring of so-called demi-gods or demi-humans were noted to be longer than normal humans, but not as long as the Annunaki.

The reason I mention that is because if you're smart enough to recognize that the Sumerians used Base 60 instead of Base 10, and then you convert the numbers in Genesis to Base 60, they match the Sumerian King Lists, which means the Hebrews copied the King Lists, changed the names to Hebrew names and then mistook the the ages of the Patriarchs as being what they were in Base 10.....instead of Base 60.

Originally Posted by citizenkane2

Also....no doubt the topography before the flood was very different. You are assuming that the Indian Ocean or the Pacific even existed.......there might have been land masses between the continents we know today.......

There weren't.

At the time this cataclysmic event took place, Earth looked exactly as it does now, with the exception being the sea levels were 600 feet to 800 feet lower....meaning there was no Persian Gulf....Florida and Cuba were separated by a small ocean strait....Florida was about 3x the size it is now....all continents were larger because the continental shelves were exposed.

Seeing how now as then people lived on the coasts to take advantage of weather, a source of food and transportation, it means that large amount of archaeological evidence is now under 600' or more of sea-water. There are in fact numerous structures as large as modern cities either submerged or partially submerged (as in the case of Roratonga).

Anyway, Noah's Ark is not even remotely plausible. It's gibberish from the mind of a 5-year old concocted by people who didn't understand the world around them.....and for that....I can forgive them.....but this is the 21st Century and people still believe that nonsense? I'm inclined to pull a Yahweh and not be at all forgiving.

Remotely...

Mircea

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by Astron1000

I think an asteroid impact would probably have been better. God could have just surrounded Noah and his brood with a force field.

Yahweh suffered from inconsistency. That the Big Y had the power to kill by simpler means was often demonstrated. When Y wanted to wipe out all the first born sons of Egypt, he just zapped them where they lay. When Lot's wife got the death penalty for looking back against orders, she was simply instantly morphed into a pillar of salt. Sometimes the Yster decided to go with the middle management approach like when he convinced Abraham that he had to kill his own son to please the Lord.

Yahweh did seem to have a thing for aquatic spectacles, along with the Great Flood, his most famous stunt has to be the parting of the Red Sea, followed by the homicidal restoration of the waters when Pharaoh's soldiers were trying to pass.

Now, if I had been running the show and decided to spare Noah, his family and all the forest critters while killing off the rest, and I had unlimited powers, I would have been more practical. I would have taken a modified Lot's wife approach and morphed all the people save Noah's group, into something useful as a reward for Noah's fidelity. Some could be turned into pillars of salt, others pillars of sugar or garlic..like that. That apostate over there gets turned into ten heads of lettuce, that hypocrite next to him becomes a dining table...and so forth.

Would that have not been much better then having to soak down the entire world and force Noah and company to live for 40 days on what must have been a really bad smelling ark?

[Lilac110]

Originally Posted by Texan2008

How can Christians even defend this story with a straight face? Seriously can somebody explain how all the Earth's creatures were stored on this ark for 40 days with everything taken care of. I want the sizes of the animals, all of the logistics of this and how it is accomplished. Why didn't God just re-create the animals / creatures again from scratch like he did in the beginning? Everything does not need another to reproduce. What about asexual animals?

It doesn't surprise me. My humble, anecdotal observation is that there appears to be some overlap between religious fanaticism and things like doomsday prepping. So to them it's perfectly logical that some guy built a big ark and put all of his farm animals in it.

And who knows? Maybe there was some crackpot biblical prepper, kind of like how my friend's father went nutso when we were 16 and built a submarine pod in their backyard.

[Tantalust]

[quote=citizenkane2;28775177]

.that is how we are "made in His image" emotion, intellect and free-will.

Not to mention His almighty, all-powerful male nipples.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by citizenkane2

If an all powerful God is in this equation, this is very possible.

He can suspend the the natural processes He put in place for a specified time.....including the aggression and predatory nature that animals have.

And as far as travel to the ark is concerned.....it took Noah 120 years to build it.

Also....no doubt the topography before the flood was very different. You are assuming that the Indian Ocean or the Pacific even existed.......there might have been land masses between the continents we know today.......

So why didn't such a powerful God not just allow 2 of each animal to swim for a year, with no need for food? That would've saved Noah 120 years of building a huge boat. All he would've needed then was a dinghi to hold his family.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by Mircea

The reason I mention that is because if you're smart enough

to recognize that the Sumerians used Base 60 instead of Base 10, and then you convert the numbers in Genesis to Base 60, they match the Sumerian King Lists, which means the Hebrews copied the King Lists, changed the names to Hebrew names and then mistook the the ages of the Patriarchs as being what they were in Base 10.....instead of Base 60.

At the time this cataclysmic event took place, Earth looked exactly as it does now, with the exception being the sea levels were 600 feet to 800 feet lower....meaning there was no Persian Gulf....Florida and Cuba were separated by a small ocean strait....Florida was about 3x the size it is now....all continents were larger because the continental shelves were exposed.

Seeing how now as then people lived on the coasts to take advantage of weather, a source of food and transportation, it means that large amount of archaeological evidence is now under 600' or more of sea-water. There are in fact numerous structures as large as modern cities either submerged or partially submerged (as in the case of Roratonga).

Anyway, Noah's Ark is not even remotely plausible. It's gibberish from the mind of a 5-year old concocted by people who didn't understand the world around them.....and for that....I can forgive them.....but this is the 21st Century and people still believe that nonsense? I'm inclined to pull a Yahweh and not be at all forgiving.

Remotely...

Mircea

So true M... The obvious geological, astronomic, atmospheric and aquatic facts have never held any particular sway with the devout Christians here. It's obvious that such an ability to alter one's personal beliefs when the facts are so obvious are well beyond their ability to "torque their minds" over to the option of 1) understanding the technicalities, and then 2) applying that very useful info to the real world.

The usual result of such a process of mature enlightenment is to become enlightened, but only if it doesn't involve changes to one's huge personal investment in a lifelong belief system. It's usually able to alter the reality of one's intellectual awareness. But in the case of religious intellectual parsimony, coupled to one's mental inertia, and an apparently inalterable continuance in believing an obviously obtuse and unsupportable story, it's all quite inexcusable.

But still, here it is, for all of us critical thinkers to see...

And yet, they seem to want to selectively choose to continue their intransigence.

So.. uhmmm... what am I missing here?

[citizenkane2]

Originally Posted by rifleman

Well of course, if you religiously oriented folks would ever deign to answer our simple, open and often yes/no questions, those we've poised time and again, asking for the simplest of answers, why...we could have ourselves an intellectually honest debate.

So... tell us, citizenkane, {and noting that this is yet another of those simple and honest questions...) have you ever read Robert's Rules of Order?. Or even heard of them?

(Given the rabbelously (?) aggressive ways fundamentalist Christians continue to run in these fora, I suspect most of you have not, or will not, because when asked to participate in an honest back-and-forth debate, you guys always dance off stage, giving all sorts of fascinating non-answers. Thus earning the everlasting distain of honest atheists for even trying to debate with you.

But nonetheless, here's a summary of the time-tested Roberts Rules of Conduct, their rationale being this (my highlights in the usual blue...)...

"The application of parliamentary law is the best method yet devised to enable assemblies of any size, with due regard for every member’s opinion, to arrive at the general will on the maximum number of questions of varying complexity in a minimum amount of time and under all kinds of internal climate ranging from total harmony to hardened or impassioned division of opinion."
[Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised [RONR (11th ed.), Introduction, p. liii]

In other words, Roberts' Rules provide the most common sense approach to conflicts of opinion, not the predictable Christian solution which has been repeatedly shown to be a purposefully evasive and deflective method, to wit:

1) ignore the question, then

2) evade the main but usually simple issue often by a patently straw-man revision of the question, then

3) to obfuscate ["to purposefully confuse with intent to draw attention away from a discussion.."] the issue with unrelated commentary and finally, to...

4) add insults, lies and ad hominems to generate an angry response from someone who originally had nothing but a simple, quiet intent to discuss.

As well, a last option (no. (5):

I've seen many a logically-cornered Christian acolyte announce that his feelings have been hurt, or that he does not ever get involved in overly heated or sarcastic arguments, and as a result, there's "obviously no point in continuing" any discussion with an atheist bully who only wants to insult and denigrate the Christian viewpoint! And then, as if mortally injured, off they stomp!

http://i861.photobucket.com/albums/a...mpPoutAmyS.jpg

If this is not an accurate portrayal of you, citizenkane then by all means... show me the error of my thinking, why don't you? I only have two or three very simple questions for you, and since you are in touch with The Way, The Truth and The Light, why... you should have no particular problems answering them, right? Otherwise, you'd end up rightfully earning the same critical labels that other more intransigent absolute Christian moralists have achieved.

(Btw, late add to this post: I just now found this note: here's one of the recent {2011!} revisions to the timeless Roberts' Rules Book, (available on-line) which might well have applications right here on the R&P sub!:

"A thorough revision of Chapter XX, Disciplinary Procedures, includes more detailed treatment of ...as well as expanded provisions on remedies for abuse of authority... in a meeting and on handling disruptions by members."

I'll shush now and await your polite and intelligent answer. With no disruptive commentary, OK? OK.

Surely a massive intellectual such as yourself, knows that not all sufficient answers are yes or no. And surely you can also see that this thread is gone far off from Noah's Ark and it's believability. My original question has not being answered by any of you. Yet you question me? If God is part of the equation, then all of that story is indeed possible. You don't believe in God. Fine. But in order to start there, you MUST....and I say MUST have knowlege of all things.

The common sense approach? Really? Common sense seems to be very uncommon when you try to say complexity has no designer. Is the universe fine-tuned to support intelligent life? Is it designed? Does apparent design in the universe, both at a macroscopic and microscopic level, suggest chance or design? This is a brief presentation of one form of the teleological or design argument. It suggests that biological life and other factors, such as a seemingly biocentric universe, point to the reality of an intelligent designer behind the cosmos.

I guess we might as well take this further from Noah's Ark.... LOL

Do moral standards exist? If so, where do they come from? If they are mere inventions of beings who themselves are the result of time and chance, then there are no real standards of right and wrong. The result is moral relativism or variations of a sort of social contract theory of ethics. Whatever the atheist explanation, it falls short of having ultimate and transcendent authority. If God exists, however, we have a real and transcendent standard of right and wrong. I think that frightens the atheist the most. The possibility of a God that is waiting to meet you on the other side and judge you for your sin.

Is that why you expend so much energy trying to dispell harmless stories that you consider myths like Noah's Ark? Fear?


Another ghost that may haunt the universe of the atheist is the existence of the intelligent Christian. You seem to be under the impression that most Christians are idiots. Your responses are dripping with contempt. It's kinda funny. Unfortunately, some of the believers you might encounter are intellectually ignorant, unable to articulate why they believed what they believed, much less able to engage with an atheist on more than a superficial level.

Some former atheists have encountered intelligent Christians (Lee Strobel was one), however, both through their writings and in person, were haunted by a common problem: how can seemingly intelligent people embrace Christianity? Yet history is filled with individuals possessed of obviously great intelligence who also embrace Christianity as being “true and reasonable” (Acts 26:25 NIV). Christian thinkers are unlikely to compare to the intellectual greatness of the likes of Augustine. Nevertheless, we can model an intelligent and reasonable Christianity as an example for atheists not of a blind faith, but of a reasonable faith. There is evidence for belief in God.

Followed to its logical conclusions, atheism ultimately leads to the despair of nihilism. I jested a little saying that you all seem so "miserable" and sad. The negative vibe on this board is palpable. If people are happy beliving in God and the Noah's Ark story, that just makes you guys angry. LOL!! In the end, there is no lasting meaning to life within atheism because within its framework there is no God, no real grounding for morality, no reason for human existence, and no lasting meaning to anything we do. In this regard, atheism has nothing truly positive to offer the world. This is why traditionally it is Christians who help the needy, establish hospitals, and care for the hurting. Atheism has no real foundation to offer help to the world, unless its foundation is borrowed from a justifiably moral worldview such as what is found in Christian theism. It's very nihilistic. Sad........

Look....we can go round and round forever.....I didnt come on here to convince you people of anything. I knew that I wouldnt. It's a waste of time. You are dug in and so am I. You're the ones trying to chase down your Santa Claus and prove he's not real. I was just curious as to why a Bible story like that bugged you or made your life less worth living.

Peace be unto you........

PS : If you have the notion, take a look at this film.....God is never mentioned and science is at the forefront....but the conclusions are glaring: If your mind is truly open....


The Privileged Planet - YouTube

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by weltschmerz

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
You're right.

1
Not just have water to drink, but massive aquariums for fish. If the flooding was salt water, the freshwater fish would not survive, and vice versa.

They didn't need aquariums for fish. The fish obviously survived the world-wide flood. Salt water fish often swim up fresh water rivers and into fresh water lakes.