Creation vs. Evolution

[Danoff]

And just so nobody is confused, it had not rained(people hadn't seen rain) before the flood. Hence when Noah was building the Ark, everyone thought he was nuts.

So were there plants at the time? Or did they just die out? Had people seen snow?

As far as the Ark itself, you can't tell me it took more trees then America cut down in five years. It took Noah over 100 years to complete the Ark, so a lot of trees would've grown from the time he cut the first one down.

I agree, where he got the wood is NOT the biggest problem with the arc myth.

 

[Swift]

So were there plants at the time? Or did they just die out? Had people seen snow?



I agree, where he got the wood is NOT the biggest problem with the arc myth.

Dew in the morning and of course rivers lakes and the like. But no, percipitation hadn't occured up to that point in time.

I can just hear the gears grinding as those that think everything has to have a scientific explaination read that.

 

[TheCracker]

How old was he?

Got to love those 'fountains of the deep'


No rain up until then? - where did the water from rivers and lakes come from?

How did the plants grow that fed the animals up until that point without rain?

Did Noah era earth have no clouds in the sky? - where did the angels sit?

I thought the precipitation cycle was simple physics that you learn at primary school level?

 

[Danoff]

Dew in the morning and of course rivers lakes and the like. But no, percipitation hadn't occured up to that point in time.

I can just hear the gears grinding as those that think everything has to have a scientific explaination read that.

Where did the rivers and lakes come from swift? Dew? The people at the time must have been totally freaked out when it started raining. They must have attacked Noah to get into his arc immediately... the instant the first rain drops fell (seeing as how they'd never seen rain before).

 

[Swift]

Where did the rivers and lakes come from swift? Dew?

Yep, from the mountains. Ice caps melting leads to the rivers, much like today. Yeah yeah, I know. But that's how it was.

The people at the time must have been totally freaked out when it started raining. They must have attacked Noah to get into his arc immediately... the instant the first rain drops fell (seeing as how they'd never seen rain before).

Quite right, but the door was shut. Nobody was getting in or out.

 

[TheCracker]

Yep, from the mountains. Ice caps melting leads to the rivers, much like today. Yeah yeah, I know. But that's how it was.

So where did the ice come from?

- don't tell me, down the corridor, in that noisey machine that most motels seem to have

 

[Danoff]

Quite right, but the door was shut. Nobody was getting in or out.

Well in the movies they always make it look like people didn't care when it started raining. They didn't realize there was a problem until it was already very wet... but I guess I should go back and read the original text. Can't trust the movies.

Yep, from the mountains. Ice caps melting leads to the rivers, much like today. Yeah yeah, I know. But that's how it was.

...and you know what my next question will be (hint: TheCracker already posted it)

 

[Kylehnat]

Dew in the morning and of course rivers lakes and the like. But no, percipitation hadn't occured up to that point in time.

I can just hear the gears grinding as those that think everything has to have a scientific explaination read that.

This is the Middle East we're talking about? Desert regions are not known for their high humidity. Just poking around the Internet, dewpoints across the region are about 40 degrees. That means for any dew, the temperature must be below 40. That happens occasionally over there, but certainly nowhere near enough to sustain even the lowliest plant. And in the summer, the air is even drier.

Also, rivers and lakes dry up without precipitation. Simple as that.

 

[TheCracker]

...just when i thought this whole Cre vs. Evo situation had been sorted - and now i get this devastating nugget of information!

- my whole world's been turned upside down!



- i may need to take a day off from GTP tomorrow to recuperate and gather my thoughts

 

[Kylehnat]

So where did the ice come from?

- don't tell me, down the corridor, in that noisey machine that most motels seem to have

It came from the highest, coldest mountains in Saudi Arabia of course!

 

[Danoff]

This is the Middle East we're talking about? Desert regions are not known for their high humidity. Just poking around the Internet, dewpoints across the region are about 40 degrees. That means for any dew, the temperature must be below 40. That happens occasionally over there, but certainly nowhere near enough to sustain even the lowliest plant. And in the summer, the air is even drier.

Also, rivers and lakes dry up without precipitation. Simple as that.

Kyle,

This is going to culminate in "God made it work" eventually. But that doesn't add up in my view. Why would God choose to "make it work" instead of letting it rain every once in a while? What reason would God have to supply plants/lakes/rivers/the atmosphere with water miraculously while also miraculously stopping rain from occuring, when he can sit back and let it work on its own?

It doesn't make any sense that it didn't rain before the Arc (even from a spiritual supernatural point of view) until you consider that the people who wrote this story didn't understand the water cycle. They didn't know why it rained occasionally because they didn't understand the basic concept behind evaporation and condensation. This is 5th grade stuff now, but the people who wrote the bible didn't have any knowledge of this. So they used this story to explain how rain got started.

I'm sure it seemed plausible at the time. But now, like most myths, it seems very dated.

 

[Swift]

It doesn't make any sense that it didn't rain before the Arc (even from a spiritual supernatural point of view) until you consider that the people who wrote this story didn't understand the water cycle. They didn't know why it rained occasionally because they didn't understand the basic concept behind evaporation and condensation. This is 5th grade stuff now, but the people who wrote the bible didn't have any knowledge of this. So they used this story to explain how rain got started.

Dan, you don't acknowledge and supernatural or spiritual entity. So how can you say it doesn't make sense from "that" point of view?

Man, why did I even start this. Oh, I know why. Because some of the people opposing this don't even undertsand the basics behind it.

 

[Danoff]

Dan, you don't acknowledge and supernatural or spiritual entity. So how can you say it doesn't make sense from "that" point of view?

I don't acknowledge the validity of that point of view, but I understand it. I understand the concept of God, and Jesus, and his sacrifice for our sins, and the whole accept Jesus as your savior and your sins will be forgiven and you'll go to heaven and all that stuff. I get it, I just don't believe it.

So when I say it doesn't make sense from a supernatural spirirtual point of view, I mean assuming that God exists, and he is all powerful and all capable, it doesn't make sense.

 

[Swift]

So when I say it doesn't make sense from a supernatural spirirtual point of view, I mean assuming that God exists, and he is all powerful and all capable, it doesn't make sense.

Uh...he has all power and is all capable but rain is an issue?

 

[Danoff]

Uh...he has all power and is all capable but rain is an issue?

Not saying he can't do it, just saying it doesn't make sense.

Obviously if you accept the premise that God is all powerful, he will be able to supply water to lakes/rivers/plants miraculously and will be able to then just as miraculously prevent the evaporated moisture from those things from condensing into rain.

Fine. I can accept that if God is all powerful. But why? Why would he do that when simply staying out of the picture would fix the situation? It makes zero sense for a God to intervene in two ways that cancel each other out when he could simply not do anything and it would work out.

I'm just not getting God's motivation here. What I am getting is that the people who wrote this story clearly didn't understand the mechanics behind rain.

 

[Swift]

Not saying he can't do it, just saying it doesn't make sense.

Obviously if you accept the premise that God is all powerful, he will be able to supply water to lakes/rivers/plants miraculously and will be able to then just as miraculously prevent the evaporated moisture from those things from condensing into rain.

Fine. I can accept that if God is all powerful. But why? Why would he do that when simply staying out of the picture would fix the situation? It makes zero sense for a God to intervene in two ways that cancel each other out when he could simply not do anything and it would work out.

I'm just not getting God's motivation here. What I am getting is that the people who wrote this story clearly didn't understand the mechanics behind rain.

Of course it doesn't make sense. The existance of life doesn't make sense.

If you understood God's motivation, you would be a god.

Anyway, what are the two ways that cancel each other out?

 

[Danoff]

Of course it doesn't make sense. The existance of life doesn't make sense.

If you understood God's motivation, you would be a god.

Anyway, what are the two ways that cancel each other out?

I don't think you're following me here. This is akin to god creating a big rock and then making it dissapear - over and over and over. There is no point.

Here's how they cancel each other out.

God makes the water appear in the lacks and rivers and soil and atomsphere to keep life going. Then when that water evaporates into the atmosphere god removes the water.

The creation of the water cancels the removal of the water. If god did nothing at all in this scenario, everything would be exactly the same (except for the occasional rain shower) as it is if he does all of these miraculous water transport things.

If the snow on the mountains is melting, why does it not run out? Does god make snow up there to replace the melted snow? What does it look like when god makes snow suddenly appear? (rather than allowing it to fall from the sky after condensation)

I wonder if any of this is making sense. Let me try to simplify.

Why would God make water only to remove it again?

 

[Keef]

What does it look like when god makes snow suddenly appear?

It works like the internet--there's new stuff happening every second, but it doesn't appear until you look away.
It's like when you want to say "The Ohio River starts in western Pennsylvania; I don't believe Pennsylvania has any ice caps", you look away, and when you come back the next day, there's a whole 'nuther page of stuff.
You look at the mountain and you see not a thing. You look away--take a nap, possibly, or have a snack--then you come back outside and, POOF!, there's a colossal ****ing pile of snow and ice on top that mountain. Wow.

 

[Touring Mars]

But that's how it was.

How do you know?

 

[Famine]

Because some cultists wrote it down a thousand or more years ago in a foreign language nobody can agree on the precise translations of.

Duh!

Seriously, Swift... This is quite poor even for the blithest Creationist, but even more so for you.

One thing I don't understand is when you said to me that the New Testament - or at the least the rules within it - overrode the Old Testament, specifically Leviticus. Why can you throw away this one book, but yet treat other ones as, a-ha, Gospel truth?

 

[Touring Mars]

Because some cultists wrote it down a thousand or more years ago in a foreign language nobody can agree on the precise translations of.

Duh!

Well, why didn't you say before?....

 

[kennythebomb]

I've honestly never heard/read the part about it never raining before the flood.

 

[Touring Mars]

Maybe we should ask the aboriginal people of Australia about whether or not it rained before Noah turned up? They have existed for 40,000 years in the vast expanse of the Australian outback and have doubtless learned a thing or two about water management/rain collection in those 40,000 years - of course, if the story of the Ark is to be true and be a part of the Creationist manifesto, then the aboriginals would have to have been on the Ark too - funny that they have absolutely no record or recollection of that though - you would think their collective ancestry would mention something about the vast Australian desert being totally flooded for over a month? (Creationism holds that the flood was global, not local)... maybe they were so traumatised by it, that all recollection has been banished from their minds? It would have been pretty traumatic indeed, what with having to fend for themselves against the likes of the velociraptor, T. rex, Sabre-toothed tigers, mammoths, wolves, dingos and such and such...? Presumably fish, sharks and blue whales didn't need to go on the Ark because they could swim...? Just as well, really, since a blue whale is quite big - but then again, so is a Brachiosaurus... anyway, I digress - so what of the aboriginal people of Australia? Are they, too, part of this elaborate hoax we scientists like to call 'History', or maybe it is just the story of the Ark that is not entirely true?

 

[Swift]

Because some cultists wrote it down a thousand or more years ago in a foreign language nobody can agree on the precise translations of.

Duh!

Seriously, Swift... This is quite poor even for the blithest Creationist, but even more so for you.

One thing I don't understand is when you said to me that the New Testament - or at the least the rules within it - overrode the Old Testament, specifically Leviticus. Why can you throw away this one book, but yet treat other ones as, a-ha, Gospel truth?

Poor for me? Interesting.

This is starting to get boring because we keep talking about the same things.

Jesus specifically talks about all the commandments except 1, the sabbath. Why, because he is the sabbath. He is the rest, the Prince of peace.

As far as leviticus goes, the majority of that book is about what the high priest wearsand how to atone for sin. I'm not saying throw it out, as there are lessons to be learned in that book. But all the atonment for sin no longer applies because Jesus is the Lamb of God that was slain for out sins. He was the sacrifice.

Did that explain it better?

Also, the only reason I jumped back into this thread is because people were misquoting the story of the flood. So I came in to correct them. We've been over all this before, about 100 pages ago. All I was doing was correcting a new person to the conversation. If you want to totally disagree with it and say that abiriginies have been here for 40K years, fine. But the sarcasam is just annoying as I haven't been sarcastic with any of you about the things that science can't prove.

 

[Touring Mars]

All I was doing was correcting a new person to the conversation. If you want to totally disagree with it and say that abiriginies have been here for 40K years, fine. But the sarcasam is just annoying as I haven't been sarcastic with any of you about the things that science can't prove.

Sorry Swift, it wasn't my intention to offend or annoy you by using a bit of humour - indeed, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit... however, from a rationist point of view, you do have to agree that there are elements of the story that are extremely difficult to accept... (the aboriginal people of Australia being a case in point) I may have worded it rather sarcastically, but only to lighten the load of an otherwise pretty serious point... anyway, I'll bear it in mind for the future - I also appreciate that you have had plenty chances to use sarcasm as well, but to your credit, you've refrained from doing so...

 

[Swift]

Sorry Swift, it wasn't my intention to offend or annoy you by using a bit of humour - indeed, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit... however, from a rationist point of view, you do have to agree that there are elements of the story that are extremely difficult to accept... (the aboriginal people of Australia being a case in point) I may have worded it rather sarcastically, but only to lighten the load of an otherwise pretty serious point... anyway, I'll bear it in mind for the future - I also appreciate that you have had plenty chances to use sarcasm as well, but to your credit, you've refrained from doing so...

It's all good TM

 

[Danoff]

I haven't been sarcastic with any of you about the things that science can't prove.

I don't think I'll surprise anyone here if I say "bring it on!".

 

[lmracer]

i decided to venture outside the gt4 photo thread to see what was up with the vast unknown to me see of threads. i read a substantial amount of recent posts and i must say, the people that post here regularily are very insightful intelligent gents. i enjoyed your philisophic plato-esque scripture, or rather debate. see you guys around.

vote for me in round two photo tourny.

_________________________________________________________________

 

[Swift]

That was a pretty shameless plug lmracer.

 

[lmracer]

should i take shame in a bad joke?

i dont want to post here. im not in this conversation, and this will be my last post.

my only intent was to inform you stand on very keen dispositions, and i enjoy reading it.

im not really a forum scumbag.