Most kids in the U.S. celebrate the Day of the Dead. It's all about the candy.
Most kids in the U.S. celebrate the Day of the Dead. It's all about the candy.
Sort of tangentially related to this:
Even Mohammad probably never existed. Jesus almost certainly never existed. Moses and Abraham didn't exist.
Rational Faith wrote:
todays huck finn wrote:The argument put up by Rational Faith is so moronic I'm just going to leave it at that. One non-argument deserves another.
It's easy to see that Noah's Ark didn't happen as described in the Bible. No species is going to survive the inbreeding that comes from being reduced to a population of seven, let alone two. Even if they did, that kind of genetic bottleneck would be obvious in the genetic similarity of all members of the species today. That doesn't show up.
When Adam was created, he was created perfect in every sense of the word. intelligence, no diseases, no sickness, no head colds, no heart disease, no cancer, etc. In fact if you believe the Bible, Adam had he not sinned, would have been immortal. Despite the his fall and sin, he still lived to be 930 years old. Let's fast forward to Noah, he lived to be 950 years or so. Are so moronic to assume that the human race had all the genetic defects that we have today?
I didn't actually say anything about humans and genetic defects, only the animals that were on your alleged ark. And that doesn't matter; the point is that a reduction to a population of two (in "unclean" animals) or seven (for the "clean" ones) would be clearly evident by comparing the similarities in DNA of members of the species 5,000 years or so later. But there's no evidence for a worldwide bottleneck in all extant species around that time, or ever, which is what the Noah's Ark story requires. So it didn't happen. This suggests that the Bible is not the inspired word of your god, and is probably false where it appears to be false.
And if I'm wrong, in the words of my 19th-century predecessor, all right then, I'll go to hell.
This thread has amused me for about 15 minutes; well done, trolls on both sides.
random a hole wrote:
Also, Nobama believes that the earth is 9K years old --- his lunacy continues to amaze me, no wonder he is a Palin fan.
Oh for God's sake, he is a troll! And SOME of you on the left still believe he is an actual legitimate conservative.
this is awesome....people believe this?!....I have to take a trip through the more "devout" parts of the US...hilarious.
Rational Faith wrote:
It takes a lot of "belief" in evolution. Take for example the population of the earth today. If humans have populated the earth for hundreds of thousands of years, there wouldn't be enough room on this planet to fit them all. Here is the math and explanation.
Example #1:
Fact: gestation period for a human is roughly 9 months
Fact: a human can easily have a baby every year during child bearing years
Fact: child bearing years last AT LEAST 20 years
So, year zero being the exiting of the Ark.
This is of course conservative, and doesn't take into account variables that can't be taken into account as this is a fact based look.
Noah and 3 sons and 4 wives have a child every year for 20 years. At year 20 then, there are a total of 80 children.
Since this is conservative, I'm waiting 20 years before reproducing any children from the children, ie the next set of child bearing children will be between the ages of 20 and 40.
So at year 40, those 80 children begin reproducing for 20 consecutive years. After 20 years of reproduction, those 80 children will turn into 800 children. This is year 60, and there are 800 children on top of the 80 and 4.
So at year 80, those 800 children who are now between the ages of 20 and 40 begin reproducing. This results in a population of 8,000 at year 100.
Sticking with the 20 year wait period. At year 120 those 8,000 begin reproducing resulting in 80,000 children of the ages of 20 - 40 at year 160.
So at year 200, there are 800,000 children who begin reproducing.
Resulting in 8 million children between the ages of 20 and 40 at year 240.
So at year 280 there are 80 million children between the ages of 20 and 40 able to reproduce, and at year 320 there are 800,000,000 who begin reproducing...
Leaving us at a tidy and fully factually possible sum, based on human genetics and child birth, at 8 BILLION PEOPLE ON THE PLANET 360 YEARS AFTER NOAH LEFT THE ARK.
----------------------------------------------------------
Example #2:
Today’s world population hovers near 6.5 billion people, growing at an annual rate of 2.3%. A statistic somewhat mind-boggling observation is, that more people are alive today than have ever lived before. Just in the last one hundred years, the world population has increased more than six-fold.
We can use these numbers and attempt to work backwards to calculate how long it would take to grow this world population at different growth rates starting with “Adam and Eve”. The result of this exercise has resulted in table 7-2. Assuming a generation to be 25 years, the table also shows the average number of children per family that corresponds with the growth rate:
Growth Rate Aver num of children Age of Mankind
2% 3.3 1,150 years
1% 2.5 2,275 years
0.5% 2.25 4,550 years
0.25% 2.12 9,100 years
This demonstrates that even with a very low growth rate of the population, such as .5% (quite low compared to the current 2.3%) and the average number of children per family 2.25, only 4,550 years would be required to grow a population of 6.5 billion from just one original couple. Even with the growth rate at only .25%, only 9,100 years would be required to achieve the same.
One might claim that the lack of medical knowledge dramatically lowered the average life expectancy of our “ancient” ancestors, forcing the growth rate to be much lower. However mankind has a strong drive to populate and continue to preserve and grow the species. As observed often today, areas with the lowest degree of development and by far the lowest life expectancy, see their population growing the fastest. Women can bear children in their teenage years, so even a life expectancy of only 25 or 30 years of age, still gives more than enough time to get large families.
The same applies for the aftermath of epidemics (for instance, the plague in Europe in 1347) and the effect of major wars or other catastrophes. Historical records show usually a population boom right afer the catastrophic event. This boom compensates within a few generations for the more than average loss of life. For instance, the devastating plagues of 1347 killed an estimated 50-75% of the population in many European countries, but in less than 200 years, the dip in population had been completely recovered. That’s why the generation born right after WWII is called – the Baby Boomers.
The Population Boom After the European Plagues
A similar line of thinking challenges that even the low range of the biochemical estimate of 37,000 years of human habitation might still be too high. If the “first family” was alive that long ago, even at a low growth rate of .5% we now should have a world population of 1.4 x 1080 (that would be calculated as (1 + 0.005 (the .5% growth rate)) ^ 37,000 (years)).
Lastly, please notice that the global flood described by the Bible happened about 4,500-5,000 years ago. This event would be quite consistent with the above calculations of growth rate and size of today’s world population.
This exercise shows that mankind didn't need to take 100,000 years to reach 6.5 Billion people.
I think people who take the story of Noah's Ark seriously just need to think critically about the idea of it, if only for a moment. How on earth is it feasible that a single man could round up 2 of every animal currently alive today, and store all of them on a boat. We can discount aquatic life, they seem to have gotten a break, although I'm not sure that freshwater fish would fare well in this new diluted salt sea. Noah would have had to catch 2 of all 9000 species of birds, 2 of all 5400 species of mammals, 2 of all 8200 species of reptiles, 2 of all 5400 species of amphibians, 2 of all 6-10 MILLION species of insects, and that's just some of all life on earth. How on earth could a reasonable person believe that a man could round up all these specimens, feed them all on his boat, prevent them from killing eachother, etc. What about plants? Did Noah go around and collect seeds from all 375,000 species of plants and store them on his boat? No reasonable person can possibly take this seriously! How did all the animals redistribute themselves throughout the world, congregating on various continents and islands as if they had evolved? That people past the age of 15 actually believe that this event historically happened is mind numbing.
Moes Tavern wrote:
Actually there are many instances where what was written in the Bible almost 3,000 years ago was found to be true in recent finds. There are new finds all the time but 90% don't get the press that this most recent Noah story.
Funny how people will accept something in history based on less proof than when it comes to Biblical things.
I'd be interested to know what peer-reviewed, university published journals you've been reading.
Let's figure out that space requirements for 4 million different animals, times two. Then, how you get them, how you feed them, how you keep them from eating one another, how avoid the problem of total genetic bottleneck with so little genetic variation left in the genepools, where these animals go now that their habitats have been destoryed by total flood, how two cheetahs are supposed to live and feed their children when there are only two wildabeasts and two Thompson gazelles's left.
Or, why Noah (or anyone else in the Bible) didn't mention the existence of North or South America or Antarctica, especially since Noah would have had to have gone there to collect all those animals endemic to the Americas. That's a big omission from the Bible, isn't it?
heytheredelilah
You missed my point by all of this. Homer is credited with writing the Iliad and the Odyssey, yet nothing was actually written until 1000 after Homer died. No proof, yet he still gets a free ride that he wrote. EVERYONE accepts that, yet some people want to question Scripture that has been accepted through the ages.
I actually read every post on this thread. A first for a long one. I don't know where to begin with debunking many claims, but let me start with this.
1. I don't know if this claim of the ark is true. I doubt the Shroud of Turin and think it has been debunked. It doesn't matter to me if the ark proves to be true because I know that many will discount it even if it were to be proven.
2. Over 600 cultures have a story about a man and a boat who saved the animals. Many of the cultures have conflicts, different religions, etc. but think about it. Where did this claim of a flood come from? 600 cultures have a similar story.
3. Every culture has a god and from the earliest time, man has always claimed a god. Back to the most primitive cultures. Something inside us tells us there one. These "gods" have had many names, many forms, but man has always accepted a higher being than himself.
4. Numerically, it is impossible to accept that we have been on earth for 4+ billion years. Mankind would have died out. If you take the rate of growth at 6+ billion now and go back fifty years in the world census was only 2.7 billion in 1960. We only saw 1 billion in 1803. Quite a growth. Assuming we only grew by 20% every 50 years and go backwards, it is mathematically impossible. I have asked noted mathematicians (even an associate with John Nash) and Marilyn Vos Savant, but they had no answer.
5. and lastly, there are scientific writings in the Old Testament regarding geography, science, medicine and astronomy that took centuries and millenniums to catch up with what the Bible wrote eons ago.
I find it funny that science and archealogy continue to prove Biblical accounts, but again, you probably don't care.
The Iceman they found in the Alps in '91 was supposedly from 5000 years ago. Based on this shouldn't he have been under salt water during the Flood and therefore pickled when they found him?
The authors of the Bible weren't astute enough to write anything about America.
I suggest you read those posts on human population growth and survival rates in the pre-agricultural and pre-industrial eras.
on the runs wrote:
Or, why Noah (or anyone else in the Bible) didn't mention the existence of North or South America or Antarctica, especially since Noah would have had to have gone there to collect all those animals endemic to the Americas. That's a big omission from the Bible, isn't it?
Many scientist believe that Africa/Europe and North/South America were the same continent years ago. Look, they fit!! when you look at the globe..... why would they mention it?
Moes Tavern wrote:
4. Numerically, it is impossible to accept that we have been on earth for 4+ billion years. Mankind would have died out. If you take the rate of growth at 6+ billion now and go back fifty years in the world census was only 2.7 billion in 1960. We only saw 1 billion in 1803. Quite a growth.
R u serious?
Toba eruption 85k years ago reduces human population to ~2-3000.
From then to 0 BCE estimate of 2-3mm people, this implies 0.008% population growth. Stable population cohorts.
0-1800 1bn -> growth rate of 0.34%
1800-2000 -> 0.94%
the rate of population growth is increasing, as healthcare technology improves.
Plague, wars, natural disasters. These all wipe out populations quickly.
Do you read you own post? wrote:
on the runs wrote:Or, why Noah (or anyone else in the Bible) didn't mention the existence of North or South America or Antarctica, especially since Noah would have had to have gone there to collect all those animals endemic to the Americas. That's a big omission from the Bible, isn't it?
Many scientist believe that Africa/Europe and North/South America were the same continent years ago. Look, they fit!! when you look at the globe..... why would they mention it?
They were parts of Pangea many tens of millions of years ago.
16,000. It was animals in the known world. Most evangelists that I know believe it to be 16,000. 7 million is a crazy number, if you believe in evolution then you would know thousands of years would produce new species, but you also have to remember it was probably mostly animals from the mediterranian, Africa, middle East, Western Asia...Not the Americas, europe, Russia.
I am by no means agreeing or disagreeing with anything. Just throwing some facts that I have learned from christians who believe in the young Earth
Since people are actually still posting on this thread, here's a few links:
Math of the Great Flood:
Old article on biblical archaeology:
Nobody says "we" have been around for 4 billion years. Life began 4 billion years ago, and sorry to burst your bubble but it was not Adam or Eve or anything resembling "mankind". It was a single-celled organism. And your growth of human population estimates completely ignores population reductions due to various factors. Try doing some research before babbling your bs. I know it is difficult for you to care about facts, but give it a try.
Moes Tavern wrote:
4. Numerically, it is impossible to accept that we have been on earth for 4+ billion years. Mankind would have died out. If you take the rate of growth at 6+ billion now and go back fifty years in the world census was only 2.7 billion in 1960. We only saw 1 billion in 1803. Quite a growth. Assuming we only grew by 20% every 50 years and go backwards, it is mathematically impossible. I have asked noted mathematicians (even an associate with John Nash) and Marilyn Vos Savant, but they had no answer.
I find it funny that science and archealogy continue to prove Biblical accounts, but again, you probably don't care.
Terminator X wrote:
heytheredelilah wrote:If Noah's Ark had nothing to do with the Bible, everyone on this board would believe the story.
But, because believing this story would lend validation to the Bible, they search for reasons to discredit it.
Let me reword that for you and hopefully you'll understand what a stupid, stupid thing you just wrote.
"If the story of God telling Noah to build and ark had nothing to do with religion, everyone on this board would believe the story"
I hope you see the problem with that statement and retract it immediately.
I'll dumb it down for you. I should have in the first place I guess:
If this was just any other random artifact, say from the old roman ages, that had nothing to do with Christianity or the Bible, and nothing to do with God, or, most importantly, would not lend validity to the Bible in any way, then people on this board would be much more inclined to believe it. You know this is right
However, to have to admit that a story from the Bible (and one of the more outrageous ones, at that) is actually true would surely lend more validity to what the rest of the Bible says (we call this common sense). Because a story that was thought to be outrageously unbelievable was actually true, well, then, what else could be true in the Bible?
And you know I am right too. I thought you liberals worshiped science and the wonders of carbon dating? According to the abc.com article, carbon dating said that the ark/wood found dated back to around Noah's time. But, here, you all flip flop. Honestly, I am not surprised.
The Iliad is actually a good example of the opposite. There is little reason to question the conflict taking place. But just because it may accurately depict history, it doesn't mean Athena and Apollo etc were swooping down from the heavens to influence battles.
I could write a truthful diary for 20 years but if I broke into the part about my flying dragon, I think I'd be held to a higher standard of accountability.
Swofford11 wrote:
Do you believe in the book of Morman?
A lot of what is said in the book of Morman can be backed up by historical evidence. Must mean it is 100% true right?
Hopefully you get the point.
Just because a book is old doesn't make it 100% true. Use it as an historical referance but like any ancient bronze age book take it on face value only and learn to understand fact from fiction. Understand that the people who wrote these old books did not have a very large understanding of the how the world worked and they thought their small world of a few hundred square miles was it.
I don't believe in the Iliad any more than I believe in the Bible. Even though at times both books were looked upon as 100% fact. Both books have historically acurate points in them but most people view the Iliad as just a story why is the Bible treated any differantly?
I understand what you are saying, and agree that just because 1 story of the 1000s in the Bible is true, does not mean any of the rest are. However, you can not deny that it does raise questions about what else could be true, especially given the unbelievability of this individual story.
lot,