Question about flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-03-2015, 10:53 AM
RE: Question about flood
Quote:I asked a christian yesterday about how Noah and his animals could survive the altitude of 8000m and the oxygen problems.

Apologies if this has already been said but there are a lot of responses so I've only skim read. However, the 8000m is above sea level and, as the sea level is now at the 8000m, altitude would not be an issue.

- Talking lions, magic wardrobes, witches with Turkish Delight - GOOD - Muggles, Quidditch and Dark Arts Lessons - BAD -
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2015, 11:02 AM
RE: Question about flood
(17-03-2015 10:53 AM)Nieko Sx Wrote:  
Quote:I asked a christian yesterday about how Noah and his animals could survive the altitude of 8000m and the oxygen problems.

Apologies if this has already been said but there are a lot of responses so I've only skim read. However, the 8000m is above sea level and, as the sea level is now at the 8000m, altitude would not be an issue.

I don't find the altitude issue to be very compelling.

I find more issues far more compelling. The waste from all the animals could have certainly affected the air quality inside the ark.

Also the numbers of animals is in question. Some animals the number brought was 7 (those i guess were the ones Noah and his family could eat/sacrifice) while others just two. Also many animals, while stressed don't reproduce well.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2015, 11:02 AM
RE: Question about flood
(17-03-2015 10:53 AM)Nieko Sx Wrote:  
Quote:I asked a christian yesterday about how Noah and his animals could survive the altitude of 8000m and the oxygen problems.

Apologies if this has already been said but there are a lot of responses so I've only skim read. However, the 8000m is above sea level and, as the sea level is now at the 8000m, altitude would not be an issue.

That was covered. I think the consensus was that the atmospheric pressure would be slightly different with sea level at 8000 meters, but not different enough to be noticeable or to cause a problem. So that's a non-issue. But there are many many other reasons to discount the flood story. Goodwithoutgod and others have covered this in great detail elsewhere on the forum. Some of it is even in this thread.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2015, 11:15 AM (This post was last modified: 17-03-2015 11:19 AM by The Organic Chemist.)
RE: Question about flood
(17-03-2015 10:07 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  They both agree on one very important thing regarding Christ' birth...they both agree with the fact that he was....born.

So by that logic, every religion with an origin story is equally valid. Does that also mean that witnesses to an event are telling the truth if they say that a man stole a car but one says that he was black, and the other was white, and they can't agree on the time of day, or the type of car? The fact that the details on the story are completely different does not in any way corroborate the extraordinary events that are claimed.


(17-03-2015 10:07 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Last 500 years? I can't speak for other religions, but MY religion has been saying that the universe began to exist for the past 3,000 years!!! While your peers (atheists) were saying that the universe is static and eternal...and what happened, science has now confirmed what us religious folks have been saying for the past 3,000 years.

But that doesn't count, does it?

First, your religion didn't even exist 3000 years ago unless you are a Jew. Second, I said any CONTRIBUTIONS, i.e. any advancement in knowledge. Third, EVERYONE thought that the universe was static because there was no evidence saying it wasn't. Your religion did not help with Germ Theory, instead it says that illnesses are caused by demonic possession and the cure for leprosy was to kill a few birds. It was killing and persecuting people who gave evidence for a heliocentric solar system. Your holy book has literally contributed nothing in the way of understanding how the universe works and has a track record of actually hindering it. Science at least admits when it is wrong and is flexible to reevaluate itself as new data is generated and learn from that new data. People like you on the other hand start with an answer, display what you feel supports your position, and simply ignore what doesn't. Very dishonest. Nice try dodging the question.


(17-03-2015 10:07 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  More like "Science can't explain the origin of the universe, life, consciousness, and morality...so next up to the plate is God, and he is batting 1000."

You seem to not understand that just because we have not found a root cause for something that we will never will. Morality without god is easily explainable, don't be lazy the work is all over the place. The others may not have concrete explanations yet but again, that is not to say that there will never be one. You are basically admitting to doing a god of the gaps argument. You are making up what you don't know. If and when we can explain any one of these things and even duplicate it in a lab, you will simply move the goalposts like usual.

And let's look at your god who is supposedly batting 1000.
Was the human female made out of a rib? NO.
Is human history is as old as the bible claims it is? NO, it is older.
Is there any evidence there were ever giants that are half human and half angel? NO.
With what we now know of mental illness, is it likely that demonic possession is likely? NO.
Is the length of one's hair dictate their strength? NO.
Can you breed goats to have a stripe based on what stick they are looking at when they mate? NO.
Can you change water into wine? NO.
Can an entire group of dead rise in a major city and nobody bothers to write that down except one guy? NO.
Is there any evidence an angel flew a man by his hair across the desert without spilling the soup he was carrying? NO.
Is there any explanation as to where the light came from? NO.
Is there any explanation as to where the earth came from? NO.
Is there any explanation as to where the animals came from? NO.
Is there any evidence that magic is real? NO.
Does anything contained with the pages of the bible ever resulted in a breakthrough of knowledge? NO.

You are completely IGNORING these things that your god says and did which are not true. I will give you that your religion says the universe had a beginning (like others also say) but I must also hold you to what else the inerrant word of god says. Drinking Beverage



Edit: I somehow missed Mom's post. Cartilage? Really?!!!

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2015, 11:44 AM
RE: Question about flood
(17-03-2015 09:47 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(16-03-2015 04:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  Because you absolutely have to have an answer right now, you'll take an incorrect one.

Saying that my answer is the INCORRECT one is to assume that nature is the CORRECT one, which is the fallacy of begging the question.

No, I didn't say that. You are accepting as true an answer for which there is absolutely no evidence. You have no reason to think it is true so you accept it even though it is not shown to be correct - therefore demonstrating your willingness to accept an incorrect explanation.

Quote:
(16-03-2015 04:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  You sound like a three-year-old. Drinking Beverage

I was intellectually spanking kids when I was 3 yrs old, too. Now I am an adult intellectually spanking adults. Who knew? Laugh out load

You have intellectually spanked no one here.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2015, 11:57 AM
RE: Question about flood
Quote:Apologies if this has already been said but there are a lot of responses so I've only skim read. However, the 8000m is above sea level and, as the sea level is now at the 8000m, altitude would not be an issue.

That was covered. I think the consensus was that the atmospheric pressure would be slightly different with sea level at 8000 meters, but not different enough to be noticeable or to cause a problem. So that's a non-issue. But there are many many other reasons to discount the flood story. Goodwithoutgod and others have covered this in great detail elsewhere on the forum. Some of it is even in this thread.

I've found it, am reading through the replies and charts and graphs and maths... Smartass
I also had a look at a map of the Earth and what it would look like if all the ice caps melted, here's a map from a wonderful British newspaper, reknownwed for it's political verbosity.

Remembering what I learned about the water cycle at school, there is a finite amount of water on the Earth. Even with ice caps melted and the water cycle stopped (the plot thickens) there is nowhere near enough water to cover the high Himalaya. My friend has also pointed out that the water could do with being a touch higher to save Noah from having to do any akward navigating or getting grounded up EverestSadcryface

All other numbers aside, I'm just focussing on the actual body of water required - I saw someone asked where it all went after the flood... hmmmmm...

- Talking lions, magic wardrobes, witches with Turkish Delight - GOOD - Muggles, Quidditch and Dark Arts Lessons - BAD -
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2015, 12:55 PM
RE: Question about flood
(16-03-2015 01:07 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(16-03-2015 11:18 AM)OddGamer Wrote:  God cannot do other than "program" us. He knows the outcome of everything that will happen upon making decisions like how to make us (omniscient). He chooses the parameters of construction, could have chosen other ones, and knew the ones he picked led to evil. We're exactly as evil as he made us. He could have made us _more_ evil, too.

Well we can just nip this in the bud based on one yes or no question...are you freely choosing to reject Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior?? Yes or no.

(16-03-2015 11:18 AM)OddGamer Wrote:  You mention objective morality somewhere. What do you mean by objective and how does that relate to morality?

Objective morality is idea that the truth value of what is right/wrong transcends the mind of mankind. For example,[ even if the whole world thought that the rape and torture of a child is right...it would still be wrong. Now, if you agree that even if the whole world thought it was right, that it would STILL be wrong]/...then you believe in objective morality...but the objective standard would have to transcend yourself, as there has to be a transcendant standard, otherwise, what are you basing that standard off of?

Now, if you DON'T believe in objective morality, then everything becomes subjective, a matter of opinion...but what would make your opinion any more right than someone that disagrees with you?

(16-03-2015 11:18 AM)OddGamer Wrote:  Wouldn't god based morality simply be god's opinion, and he has the power to enforce his rules, just like you see here on Earth with societies?

It wouldn't be his opinion because his morality is as necessary as his existence..and to take away his moral perfection would be like trying to take the wet from the water..his laws and commandments reflect who he is as a person. God, according to the Christian view, is the HIGHEST standard of what it means to be "good". It is "goodness" maxed out to its highest degree.

So if God is omniscient and omnibenovolent, then it isn't a matter of his opinion..it isn't "I think it is right, or I think it is wrong"...it is "It IS right...or it IS wrong".

Ahhhh, so you agree. The torture of children is wrong, ergo.. god bashing babies against rocks is wrong. Therefore your god is immoral.

If your mythical god asked you to kill your own child would this be wrong? I sure as hell do, and most people around this planet do too. If any god from anywhere asked this of me I'd say "fuck you god, you're an asshole for asking me". But guess what, the god in your idiot storybook asked one of the characters to do this. And as you stated in your post torturing children is wrong,so again, your god is immoral according to your "objective morality".

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2015, 01:00 PM
RE: Question about flood
(17-03-2015 11:44 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(17-03-2015 09:47 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Saying that my answer is the INCORRECT one is to assume that nature is the CORRECT one, which is the fallacy of begging the question.

No, I didn't say that. You are accepting as true an answer for which there is absolutely no evidence. You have no reason to think it is true so you accept it even though it is not shown to be correct - therefore demonstrating your willingness to accept an incorrect explanation.

Quote:I was intellectually spanking kids when I was 3 yrs old, too. Now I am an adult intellectually spanking adults. Who knew? Laugh out load

You have intellectually spanked no one here.

Classic example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Popeye's Pappy's post
17-03-2015, 01:15 PM
RE: Question about flood
(17-03-2015 11:44 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(17-03-2015 09:47 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Saying that my answer is the INCORRECT one is to assume that nature is the CORRECT one, which is the fallacy of begging the question.

No, I didn't say that. You are accepting as true an answer for which there is absolutely no evidence. You have no reason to think it is true so you accept it even though it is not shown to be correct - therefore demonstrating your willingness to accept an incorrect explanation.

Quote:I was intellectually spanking kids when I was 3 yrs old, too. Now I am an adult intellectually spanking adults. Who knew? Laugh out load

You have intellectually spanked no one here.

The only thing he's been spanking is the monkey (assuming he has figured out how to do that, which is not a given).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2015, 10:56 PM
RE: Question about flood
(17-03-2015 11:15 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  So by that logic, every religion with an origin story is equally valid.

Name me one religion with a creation story which state that God created the universe from nothing. I will wait.

(17-03-2015 11:15 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Does that also mean that witnesses to an event are telling the truth if they say that a man stole a car but one says that he was black, and the other was white, and they can't agree on the time of day, or the type of car? The fact that the details on the story are completely different does not in any way corroborate the extraordinary events that are claimed.

First off, the specific thing you mentioned (involving the differences in the genealogy of Jesus), many people have given responses to the differences...this objection is nothing new and has already been dealt with...and if any of the answers to the objection is even REMOTELY possible, then it can't be a contradiction. Second, again, all the two Gospels in question agree that Jesus had a virgin birth, which is the big picture.

(17-03-2015 11:15 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  First, your religion didn't even exist 3000 years ago unless you are a Jew.

My religion, Jesus in particular, said that you can't get to the Father without getting to the Son (John 14:6)...so if I accept Jesus, I accept his Father...therefore, that integrates Judiasm with Christianity (as a Gentile). Second, since the Bible teaches that Jesus is God in the flesh ANYWAY (John 1:1), that would mean that the creation account in Gen 1:1 can be attributed to Jesus himself.

So as I said, 3,000 years. And even if it was only 2,000 years (dating back to the Resurrection), that is still 2,000 years of Christians maintaining that the universe began to exist, based on the scriptures above. So either way lol.

(17-03-2015 11:15 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Second, I said any CONTRIBUTIONS, i.e. any advancement in knowledge.

Well let me put it to you this way...there science isn't getting any more closer to answering the question of origins (life, consciousness, morality, universe)...you can't use the scientific method to demonstrate either, so I have no other choice but to go with the last man standing, God.

(17-03-2015 11:15 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Third, EVERYONE thought that the universe was static because there was no evidence saying it wasn't.

Then "everyone" should have taken an agnostic position when it came to the universe, then. No one should have taken any positive positions until they had positive evidence.

(17-03-2015 11:15 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Your religion did not help with Germ Theory, instead it says that illnesses are caused by demonic possession and the cure for leprosy was to kill a few birds. It was killing and persecuting people who gave evidence for a heliocentric solar system.

So because people used religion for evil reasons, you blame the religion as a whole? Fallacious.

(17-03-2015 11:15 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Your holy book has literally contributed nothing in the way of understanding how the universe works and has a track record of actually hindering it.

The Bible states that the universe began to exist (Gen 1:1). That covers the questions of origins right there. Questions regardig how the universe works, I will leave that up to you guys...but leave the question of origins to us guys.

(17-03-2015 11:15 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Science at least admits when it is wrong and is flexible to reevaluate itself as new data is generated and learn from that new data.

Religious folks admit when they are wrong too (not all, but some). There have been many ex-Jehovah's Witnesses...ex-Mormons...ex-Catholics that have realized that their religion was wrong and have "reevaluated" themselves as new data was generated.

(17-03-2015 11:15 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  People like you on the other hand start with an answer, display what you feel supports your position, and simply ignore what doesn't. Very dishonest. Nice try dodging the question.

Actually, I start with an observation...and the observation is that life, consciousness, human morality, and the universe...these things began to exist, so I appeal to the best explanation that will explain why these things began to exist, and I determined that theism is the best explanation.

There isn't a more honest approach than that.

(17-03-2015 11:15 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  You seem to not understand that just because we have not found a root cause for something that we will never will.

Well, when you find it, let me know. Until then, I am fine with my theism.

(17-03-2015 11:15 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Morality without god is easily explainable, don't be lazy the work is all over the place.

Morality is easy, it is the OBJECTIVE moral value that is the hard part. I should have been more specific.

(17-03-2015 11:15 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  You are basically admitting to doing a god of the gaps argument. You are making up what you don't know. If and when we can explain any one of these things and even duplicate it in a lab, you will simply move the goalposts like usual.

How is my "god of the gaps" argument any more different than your "nature of the gaps" argument. You are basically saying that someday, science will figure it out. That is the hope that you live for. If you don't see the faith in that, then you are deliberately duping yourself.

Second, I am not using a god of the gaps argument...since I am not basing my beliefs on what I don't know, but rather, what I DO know.

(17-03-2015 11:15 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Was the human female made out of a rib? NO.

Did humans evolve from apes? No.

(17-03-2015 11:15 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Is human history is as old as the bible claims it is? NO, it is older.

Not all Christians are young earth creations. Next.

(17-03-2015 11:15 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Is there any evidence there were ever giants that are half human and half angel? NO.

Is there any evidence that reptiles evolved into birds? NO. Next.

(17-03-2015 11:15 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  With what we now know of mental illness, is it likely that demonic possession is likely? NO.

With what all human beings have ever observed, is it likely that reptiles can evolve into birds? NO. Next.

(17-03-2015 11:15 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Is the length of one's hair dictate their strength? NO.

If God exists, does he have the power to base a man's strength upon the length of his hair? YES. Next.

(17-03-2015 11:15 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Can you breed goats to have a stripe based on what stick they are looking at when they mate? NO.

If God exists, and if he so desires, can he dictate the method at which a goat breeds? YES. Next.

(17-03-2015 11:15 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Can you change water into wine? NO.

Can I? NO. But can God? YES.

(17-03-2015 11:15 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Can an entire group of dead rise in a major city and nobody bothers to write that down except one guy? NO.

Do you know whether or not anyone wrote it down? NO. So are you just assuming that there isn't a written account of the mass resurrection as narrated in Matt 27? Yes.

(17-03-2015 11:15 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Is there any evidence an angel flew a man by his hair across the desert without spilling the soup he was carrying? NO.

Is there any evidence that long ago, when no one was conveniently around to witness it, that animals were making these large scale transformations into different kinds of animals..the kind of changes that evolutionists can only dream about? NO.

(17-03-2015 11:15 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Is there any explanation as to where the light came from? NO.

Is there any naturalistic demonstration to show how life can come from nonlife? NO.

(17-03-2015 11:15 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Is there any explanation as to where the earth came from? NO.

Yes. Gen 1:1.

(17-03-2015 11:15 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Is there any explanation as to where the animals came from? NO.

Yes. Start from Gen 1:1, and work your way down from there.

(17-03-2015 11:15 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Is there any evidence that magic is real? NO.

If you believe in abiogenesis, you believe in magic.

(17-03-2015 11:15 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Does anything contained with the pages of the bible ever resulted in a breakthrough of knowledge? NO.

Yes. I found out through the Bible that God is a Holy Trinity. I found out how the universe could have originated from nothing. I found out where mankind got its concept of objective moral values from. I found out how God has interacted and dwelled on earth with his creation and how he died on the cross for mankind with Jesus Christ. I found out the purpose and meaning of life...and I also found out man's ultimate destination should he accept Jesus' grace and mercy.

Now, of course, none of that doesn't mean a damn thing to you, or to people like you. But to Christians, this is a breakthrough of knowledge. It means EVERYTHING.

(17-03-2015 11:15 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  You are completely IGNORING these things that your god says and did which are not true.

And how are you determining these things aren't true?? They aren't true because you said so and can prove it? Or are you just assuming stuff for the sake of your atheism? Which is it.

(17-03-2015 11:15 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  I will give you that your religion says the universe had a beginning (like others also say) but I must also hold you to what else the inerrant word of god says. Drinking Beverage

Again I ask...can you name me one religion besides Judeo-Christianity which state that the universe was made from nothing?

(17-03-2015 11:15 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Edit: I somehow missed Mom's post. Cartilage? Really?!!!

Yeah, really.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: