The 10 most ridiculous things people believe.

I don't see how you can call the rapture and God creating humans and all that ridiculous, so what evolution yeah its true, but i still find it hard to believe a super natural being didn't have a part in all this.. which i do believe God did, but meh.. and you can't call people beliefs ridiculous

Chris_Williams

lluminati
It is not officially known how many Americans believe in The Illuminati as the official "New World Order", pollsters cannot read their minds through their tin foil hats.
What we do know, is that there are millions of people who believe that a cartel of very rich and powerful people control the entire world, using world leaders as puppets. Some even believe that the Illuminati are an alien Lizard race – and that George Bush is one of them! . . .and you thought the visitors were our friends.

This is the one I did the most research on in recent years (books, online) but I wouldn't say I'm a believer. I just like weird things to read (ghosts, ufos etc).

[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"]

I don't see how you can call the rapture and God creating humans and all that ridiculous, so what evolution yeah its true, but i still find it hard to believe a super natural being didn't have a part in all this.. which i do believe God did, but meh.. and you can't call people beliefs ridiculous

chopperdave447

All that religous stuff is pretty unfair. To be honest, I'm an athiest myself, but still, calling out relgious folk as ridiculous is pretty rude. However, anyone who thinks the moonlanding was fake is bat **** crazy.enterawesome

[QUOTE="chopperdave447"][QUOTE="Chris_Williams"]

I don't see how you can call the rapture and God creating humans and all that ridiculous, so what evolution yeah its true, but i still find it hard to believe a super natural being didn't have a part in all this.. which i do believe God did, but meh.. and you can't call people beliefs ridiculous

DiabeticVampire

[QUOTE="enterawesome"]All that religous stuff is pretty unfair. To be honest, I'm an athiest myself, but still, calling out relgious folk as ridiculous is pretty rude. However, anyone who thinks the moonlanding was fake is bat **** crazy.chopperdave447

In my experience it is quite the opposite. They take parables totally out of context and take them literally trying to disprove them.

All that religous stuff is pretty unfair. To be honest, I'm an athiest myself, but still, calling out relgious folk as ridiculous is pretty rude. However, anyone who thinks the moonlanding was fake is bat **** crazy.enterawesome

Belief aside, can anyone really look someone else in the eye and say something like Noah's Ark makes logical sense? The article brings up valid points about holes in the story. I think it also might address the fact that some people can't seperate what they believe from what can be proven, and that they take things that are only mentioned in the Bible to be self-evident facts of life. Of course that's my own inference, maybe if the article commented more on that it would come off as a little more credible to people who are scoffing at it.

if i told you a story about a flying spaghetti monster which happened to create our universe, regardless of the fact that it is the sole truth, would you not think it ridiculous?chopperdave447

FSM's are totally different than belief in a creator. They're completely arbitrary, it's completely unreasonable to think they exist, and while these first two points may hold true of a creator there is one difference that sets them apart, a creator has a function. Evolution doesn't prove origin, theories of origin are not conclusive, there is still a large question about where we actually come from. That being said, do I think an omnipotent being is the logical answer to that question? By no means, I just hate the FSM argument, I think it lacks any sort of substance.

[QUOTE="enterawesome"]All that religous stuff is pretty unfair. To be honest, I'm an athiest myself, but still, calling out relgious folk as ridiculous is pretty rude. However, anyone who thinks the moonlanding was fake is bat **** crazy.chopperdave447

[QUOTE="chopperdave447"][QUOTE="enterawesome"]All that religous stuff is pretty unfair. To be honest, I'm an athiest myself, but still, calling out relgious folk as ridiculous is pretty rude. However, anyone who thinks the moonlanding was fake is bat **** crazy.mattbbpl

Yup, and Lets not forgot the Stabs at Conservatives/Republicans.

[QUOTE="chopperdave447"][QUOTE="enterawesome"]All that religous stuff is pretty unfair. To be honest, I'm an athiest myself, but still, calling out relgious folk as ridiculous is pretty rude. However, anyone who thinks the moonlanding was fake is bat **** crazy.Snipes_2

In my experience it is quite the opposite. They take parables totally out of context and take them literally trying to disprove them.

I think the author's problem is that RELIGIOUS people are taking the Bible literally, if Christians said Noah's Ark was a metaphor or a tale of a real life disaster that was infused with hyperbole I think he'd be perfectly content.

I don't see how you can call the rapture and God creating humans and all that ridiculous, so what evolution yeah its true, but i still find it hard to believe a super natural being didn't have a part in all this.. which i do believe God did, but meh.. and you can't call people beliefs ridiculous

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="chopperdave447"] there is a bit of a double standard in place IMO. atheists have to apologize and not be rude when putting forth arguments based on logic and conjecture, but when a christian puts forth verses from the bible as support for their arguments/beliefs, atheists are expected to not be offended simply because it is the status quo. theone86

In my experience it is quite the opposite. They take parables totally out of context and take them literally trying to disprove them.

I think the author's problem is that RELIGIOUS people are taking the Bible literally, if Christians said Noah's Ark was a metaphor or a tale of a real life disaster that was infused with hyperbole I think he'd be perfectly content.

The Bible is meant to be taken literally, the parables are so Jesus could explain situations that arise simply to his Apostles. When he says "Stone blah blah" it doesn't LITERALLY Mean to go out and stone someone. The author fails to disprove Noahs Ark, who's to say there was no Ark or flood. It's documented.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="chopperdave447"] there is a bit of a double standard in place IMO. atheists have to apologize and not be rude when putting forth arguments based on logic and conjecture, but when a christian puts forth verses from the bible as support for their arguments/beliefs, atheists are expected to not be offended simply because it is the status quo. Snipes_2

Yup, and Lets not forgot the Stabs at Conservatives/Republicans.

If you're taking an ontologicalor epistemilogical position you're opening the door for it to be attacked, being offended at the idea of it being attacked does not reveal anything about anyone else, it reveals that you're not completely prepared to defend that position, trying to derail the argument with a mea culpa is only covering up for that.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

In my experience it is quite the opposite. They take parables totally out of context and take them literally trying to disprove them.

I think the author's problem is that RELIGIOUS people are taking the Bible literally, if Christians said Noah's Ark was a metaphor or a tale of a real life disaster that was infused with hyperbole I think he'd be perfectly content.

The Bible is meant to be taken literally, the parables are so Jesus could explain situations that arise simply to his Apostles. When he says "Stone blah blah" it doesn't LITERALLY Mean to go out and stone someone. The author fails to disprove Noahs Ark, who's to say there was no Ark or flood. It's documented.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="chopperdave447"] there is a bit of a double standard in place IMO. atheists have to apologize and not be rude when putting forth arguments based on logic and conjecture, but when a christian puts forth verses from the bible as support for their arguments/beliefs, atheists are expected to not be offended simply because it is the status quo. Snipes_2

Yup, and Lets not forgot the Stabs at Conservatives/Republicans.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"] And yet, here we are responding to an artiicle consisting largely of someone ridiculing religious beliefs... theone86

Yup, and Lets not forgot the Stabs at Conservatives/Republicans.

If you're taking an ontologicalor epistemilogical position you're opening the door for it to be attacked, being offended at the idea of it being attacked does not reveal anything about anyone else, it reveals that you're not completely prepared to defend that position, trying to derail the argument with a mea culpa is only covering up for that.

Lol, IF you say so.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

I think the author's problem is that RELIGIOUS people are taking the Bible literally, if Christians said Noah's Ark was a metaphor or a tale of a real life disaster that was infused with hyperbole I think he'd be perfectly content.

mattbbpl

The Bible is meant to be taken literally, the parables are so Jesus could explain situations that arise simply to his Apostles. When he says "Stone blah blah" it doesn't LITERALLY Mean to go out and stone someone. The author fails to disprove Noahs Ark, who's to say there was no Ark or flood. It's documented.

Yeah, Different Denominations view the Bible differently.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

In my experience it is quite the opposite. They take parables totally out of context and take them literally trying to disprove them.

Snipes_2

I think the author's problem is that RELIGIOUS people are taking the Bible literally, if Christians said Noah's Ark was a metaphor or a tale of a real life disaster that was infused with hyperbole I think he'd be perfectly content.

The Bible is meant to be taken literally, the parables are so Jesus could explain situations that arise simply to his Apostles. When he says "Stone blah blah" it doesn't LITERALLY Mean to go out and stone someone. The author fails to disprove Noahs Ark, who's to say there was no Ark or flood. It's documented.

Says who?

I don't believe Jesus told anyone to stone anyone, I believe it was Paul and whoever wrote the earlier books of the Bible, not neccessarily Moses as there are different segments of the Bible that were at least clearly translated by different groups if not written entirely by them.

Why should the author have to disprove it? All logic and knowledge of basic physics, zoology, geography, and many other aspects say that it is impossible for this story to have happened exactly as reported in the Bible. Also, usually the burden of proof is on the party saying that something out of the ordinary DID happen, not on the one saying that it didn't.

No, it's not documented, it's a story in a book that is millenia old and has gone through numerous re-translations, not to mention one which goes back almost as far as written word in the civilization where it originated from meaning the cultural context for the writings has been long lost. If 2000 years from now someone finds a Stephen King novel in a pile of rubble does that mean it's documented that a man ressurected his dead son using an indian burial ground?

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

I think the author's problem is that RELIGIOUS people are taking the Bible literally, if Christians said Noah's Ark was a metaphor or a tale of a real life disaster that was infused with hyperbole I think he'd be perfectly content.

theone86

The Bible is meant to be taken literally, the parables are so Jesus could explain situations that arise simply to his Apostles. When he says "Stone blah blah" it doesn't LITERALLY Mean to go out and stone someone. The author fails to disprove Noahs Ark, who's to say there was no Ark or flood. It's documented.

Says who?

I don't believe Jesus told anyone to stone anyone, I believe it was Paul and whoever wrote the earlier books of the Bible, not neccessarily Moses as there are different segments of the Bible that were at least clearly translated by different groups if not written entirely by them.

Why should the author have to disprove it? All logic and knowledge of basic physics, zoology, geography, and many other aspects say that it is impossible for this story to have happened exactly as reported in the Bible. Also, usually the burden of proof is on the party saying that something out of the ordinary DID happen, not on the one saying that it didn't.

No, it's not documented, it's a story in a book that is millenia old and has gone through numerous re-translations, not to mention one which goes back almost as far as written word in the civilization where it originated from meaning the cultural context for the writings has been long lost. If 2000 years from now someone finds a Stephen King novel in a pile of rubble does that mean it's documented that a man ressurected his dead son using an indian burial ground?

"Why should the author have to disprove it? All logic and knowledge of basic physics, zoology, geography, and many other aspects say that it is impossible for this story to have happened exactly as reported in the Bible. Also, usually the burden of proof is on the party saying that something out of the ordinary DID happen, not on the one saying that it didn't."

My Proof for now is that it's in the Bible. Which I believe in. Give me a reliable source disproving this. So, all the History books are not documented? They were written Thousands of Years ago. They were Re-Written, but we accept these as proof. How do we know these events really happened? They weren't written by the exact person it happened to.

It's documented.

Snipes_2

If by "documented" you mean all the reasons why it's inconsistent with every piece of evidence we have, yes. :P

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

The Bible is meant to be taken literally, the parables are so Jesus could explain situations that arise simply to his Apostles. When he says "Stone blah blah" it doesn't LITERALLY Mean to go out and stone someone. The author fails to disprove Noahs Ark, who's to say there was no Ark or flood. It's documented.

Snipes_2

Says who?

I don't believe Jesus told anyone to stone anyone, I believe it was Paul and whoever wrote the earlier books of the Bible, not neccessarily Moses as there are different segments of the Bible that were at least clearly translated by different groups if not written entirely by them.

Why should the author have to disprove it? All logic and knowledge of basic physics, zoology, geography, and many other aspects say that it is impossible for this story to have happened exactly as reported in the Bible. Also, usually the burden of proof is on the party saying that something out of the ordinary DID happen, not on the one saying that it didn't.

No, it's not documented, it's a story in a book that is millenia old and has gone through numerous re-translations, not to mention one which goes back almost as far as written word in the civilization where it originated from meaning the cultural context for the writings has been long lost. If 2000 years from now someone finds a Stephen King novel in a pile of rubble does that mean it's documented that a man ressurected his dead son using an indian burial ground?

"Why should the author have to disprove it? All logic and knowledge of basic physics, zoology, geography, and many other aspects say that it is impossible for this story to have happened exactly as reported in the Bible. Also, usually the burden of proof is on the party saying that something out of the ordinary DID happen, not on the one saying that it didn't."

My Proof for now is that it's in the Bible. Which I believe in. Give me a reliable source disproving this. So, all the History books are not documented? They were written Thousands of Years ago. They were Re-Written, but we accept these as proof. How do we know these events really happened? They weren't written by the exact person it happened to.

OK, so your proof is not proof. You believe it because it's in the Bible, but that's not proof. It's no more proof than anything Scientologists say about aliens influencing life on Earth. History books were not written thousands of years ago, they're written preferably within a decade and updated constantly, there are many people who dedicate their lives to documenting history, there is empirical evidence that backs up their claims, and their claims fall within the bounds of reason. The U.S. split over slavery and started a war 150 years ago, that's believable. One man and his wife built an ark to ridiculous specifications (have you ever converted the measurements in cubits? And the guy was supposed to be like 100 and building this thing by hand? Nations have had armies of laborers build ships that large) rounded up two of every conceivable animal, all of whom did not fight, which still doesn't account for dinosaurs both for the fact that they couldn't possibly all co-exist on an ark that size and because if they were wiped out in the flood how come they weren't on the ark and if they were on the ark why were they wiped out? Oh, and there's carbon dating, or how do you explain how he fed the animals, or how the animals were able to breed if only two of every kind were saved? So yeah, which of the two, the civil war or the ark, is more believable? Creationism actually holds more logic here, it would make more sense to just say, "god did it," than to sift through all the semantics and loose ends of the ark story.

(#1): "Most Hebrew scholars believe the cubit to have been no less than 18 inches long [45.72 centimeters]. This means that the ark would have been at least 450 feet long [137.16 meters], 75 feet wide [22.86 meters] and 45 feet high [13.716000000000001 meters]. Noah's Ark was said to have been the largest sea-going vessel ever built until the late nineteenth century when giant metal ships were first constructed. Its length to width ratio of six to one provided excellent stability on the high seas. In fact, modern shipbuilders say it would have been almost impossible to turn over. In every way, it was admirably suited for riding out the tremendous storms in the year of the flood."

( #2,#3,#4): "Another enormous problem some have posed is the problem of gathering specimens of each kind of air-breathing land animal and bringing them aboard the Ark. However, the Genesis account indicates that God gathered the animals and brought them to Noah inside the ark two by two. Some have suggested this may have involved the origin of animal migratory instincts or, at least, an intensification of it. We also know that most animals possess the ability to sense danger and to move to a place of safety."

"Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their classic book,The Genesis Flood state that no more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark. In his well documented book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe suggests that far fewer animals would have been transported upon the ark. By pointing out that the word "specie" is not equivalent to the "created kinds" of the Genesis account, Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark."

"Remember there are really only a few very large animals, such as the dinosaur or the elephant, and these could be represented by young ones. Assuming the average animal to be about the size of a sheep and using a railroad car for comparison, we note that the average double-deck stock car can accommodate 240 sheep. Thus, three trains hauling 69 cars each would have ample space to carry the 50,000 animals, filling only 37% of the ark. This would leave an additional 361 cars or enough to make 5 trains of 72 cars each to carry all of the food and baggage plus Noah's family of eight people. The Ark had plenty of space."

"Once aboard, many have suggested that Noah's problems really began, with only 8 people to feed and water, to provide fresh air and sanitation for the huge menagerie of animals for a total of 371 days. However, a number of scientists have suggested that the animals may have gone into a type of dormancy. It has been said that in nearly all groups of animals there is at least an indication of a latent ability to hibernate or aestivate. Perhaps these abilities were supernaturally intensified during this period. With their bodily functions reduced to a minimum, the burden of their care would have been greatly lightened."

(#5): "The flood of Noah's day was a universal judgment of sin. God destroyed the world that existed at that time because of their wickedness. When we look at nature, with its testimonies to the flood, we are viewing a reminder that God does judge sin. It is also a reminder that God will save those who have faith in Him from judgment. God promised that He would never again destroy the world with water, but that a future judgment would take place. Jesus Christ came into the world to die for our sins and to restore man's relationship with God, so that we need not fear His judgment."

"Turkish officials and Ron Wyatt make official decision, 1986
February 1987 - Ron meets with the Governor of the Agri District, Mr. Sevket Ekinci. The December 1986 decision was positive - it was the official decision of members of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, of Internal Affairs, and researchers from Ataturk University, among others, that the "boat-shaped formation" did indeed contain the remains of Noah's Ark!"

"Plans were made for the official dedication of the site, which would include Ron as guest of honor as the "discoverer" of the fact that it was truly the remains of Noah's Ark.
June 20, 1987 - Ron participates in the Dedication of "Noah's Ark."

Noahs Ark Facts

Flood

http://www.squidoo.com/noahsarkfound

Another enormous problem some have posed is the problem of gathering specimens of each kind of air-breathing land animal and bringing them aboard the Ark. However, the Genesis account indicates that God gathered the animals and brought them to Noah inside the ark two by two.

...

It has been said that in nearly all groups of animals there is at least an indication of a latent ability to hibernate or aestivate. Perhaps these abilities were supernaturally intensified during this period.

Snipes_2

Putting aside the rest of the post for a second, if one needs to fill in the blanks by basically saying "and then a miracle happened", then why even bother with the evidence or lack thereof at all? No matter what anyone raises, you can always provide that as an answer.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Says who?

I don't believe Jesus told anyone to stone anyone, I believe it was Paul and whoever wrote the earlier books of the Bible, not neccessarily Moses as there are different segments of the Bible that were at least clearly translated by different groups if not written entirely by them.

Why should the author have to disprove it? All logic and knowledge of basic physics, zoology, geography, and many other aspects say that it is impossible for this story to have happened exactly as reported in the Bible. Also, usually the burden of proof is on the party saying that something out of the ordinary DID happen, not on the one saying that it didn't.

No, it's not documented, it's a story in a book that is millenia old and has gone through numerous re-translations, not to mention one which goes back almost as far as written word in the civilization where it originated from meaning the cultural context for the writings has been long lost. If 2000 years from now someone finds a Stephen King novel in a pile of rubble does that mean it's documented that a man ressurected his dead son using an indian burial ground?

theone86

"Why should the author have to disprove it? All logic and knowledge of basic physics, zoology, geography, and many other aspects say that it is impossible for this story to have happened exactly as reported in the Bible. Also, usually the burden of proof is on the party saying that something out of the ordinary DID happen, not on the one saying that it didn't."

My Proof for now is that it's in the Bible. Which I believe in. Give me a reliable source disproving this. So, all the History books are not documented? They were written Thousands of Years ago. They were Re-Written, but we accept these as proof. How do we know these events really happened? They weren't written by the exact person it happened to.

OK, so your proof is not proof. You believe it because it's in the Bible, but that's not proof. It's no more proof than anything Scientologists say about aliens influencing life on Earth. History books were not written thousands of years ago, they're written preferably within a decade and updated constantly, there are many people who dedicate their lives to documenting history, there is empirical evidence that backs up their claims, and their claims fall within the bounds of reason. The U.S. split over slavery and started a war 150 years ago, that's believable. One man and his wife built an ark to ridiculous specifications (have you ever converted the measurements in cubits? And the guy was supposed to be like 100 and building this thing by hand? Nations have had armies of laborers build ships that large) rounded up two of every conceivable animal, all of whom did not fight, which still doesn't account for dinosaurs both for the fact that they couldn't possibly all co-exist on an ark that size and because if they were wiped out in the flood how come they weren't on the ark and if they were on the ark why were they wiped out? Oh, and there's carbon dating, or how do you explain how he fed the animals, or how the animals were able to breed if only two of every kind were saved? So yeah, which of the two, the civil war or the ark, is more believable? Creationism actually holds more logic here, it would make more sense to just say, "god did it," than to sift through all the semantics and loose ends of the ark story.

Read my post. The one above this one. The Bible is my proof, how is not proof? There's also evidence of what's in the Bible. Where do you think Historians get information from?

"The historical method comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use primary sources and other evidence to research and then to write history.
Herodotus of Halicarnassus (484 BC – ca.425 BC)[25] has generally been acclaimed as the "father of history". However, his contemporary Thucydides (ca. 460 BC – ca. 400 BC) is credited with having first approached history with a well-developed historical method in his work the History of the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides, unlike Herodotus and other religious historians, regarded history as being the product of the choices and actions of human beings, and looked at cause and effect, rather than as the result of divine intervention."

His work is not "Updated", we accept it as fact even though it was written in 460 B.C. Furthermore, the Bible does not need to be "Updated", it's not talking about current history, it's documenting Jesus' life and Miracles (It also documents the Lives of Moses etc..). IF they're no longer here performing miracles, why do we need to "Update" it?

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

Another enormous problem some have posed is the problem of gathering specimens of each kind of air-breathing land animal and bringing them aboard the Ark. However, the Genesis account indicates that God gathered the animals and brought them to Noah inside the ark two by two.

...

It has been said that in nearly all groups of animals there is at least an indication of a latent ability to hibernate or aestivate. Perhaps these abilities were supernaturally intensified during this period.

GabuEx

Putting aside the rest of the post for a second, if one needs to fill in the blanks by basically saying "and then a miracle happened", then why even bother with the evidence or lack thereof at all? No matter what anyone raises, you can always provide that as an answer.

I do vaguely believe in noahs ark, I mean I dont think it was an ark, I think the arc was more symbolic of safety from the floods then anything/

[QUOTE="chopperdave447"][QUOTE="DiabeticVampire"] Because this argument has never been done before.... Theokhoth

It does have a devoted following and it does have a valid scripture.

FSM is just as valid as the Bible.

the truth about 9/11 :D

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

Another enormous problem some have posed is the problem of gathering specimens of each kind of air-breathing land animal and bringing them aboard the Ark. However, the Genesis account indicates that God gathered the animals and brought them to Noah inside the ark two by two.

...

It has been said that in nearly all groups of animals there is at least an indication of a latent ability to hibernate or aestivate. Perhaps these abilities were supernaturally intensified during this period.

GabuEx

Putting aside the rest of the post for a second, if one needs to fill in the blanks by basically saying "and then a miracle happened", then why even bother with the evidence or lack thereof at all? No matter what anyone raises, you can always provide that as an answer.

God Gathered the animals and brought them to Noah, It also says they have the ability to sense when something's not right, and where they should go to stay safe. IT also says that PERHAPS the abilities were supernaturally intensified, it doesn't say that they were indefinitely.

There's also a little something nobody seems to mention here: where did the plants come from? I mean, if the world was flooded, there's just no possible way that all vegetable life survived. What did the animals eat?Theokhoth

Well, obviously God put a protective shield around them while the water covered the earth... :P

Both of those were mentioned in the link I posted above.

God Gathered the animals and brought them to Noah, It also says they have the ability to sense when something's not right, and where they should go to stay safe. IT also says that PERHAPS the abilities were supernaturally intensified, it doesn't say that they were indefinitely.

Snipes_2

You can frame it how you want, but the passage you were quoting was still basically saying "God did it" as an explanation where it couldn't even attempt a scientific answer.

Believing that2 of EVERY animal was housed, and fed, for 40 days on a boat is ridiculous.

There are over 1,000,000 different species of animal on Earth.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

Another enormous problem some have posed is the problem of gathering specimens of each kind of air-breathing land animal and bringing them aboard the Ark. However, the Genesis account indicates that God gathered the animals and brought them to Noah inside the ark two by two.

...

It has been said that in nearly all groups of animals there is at least an indication of a latent ability to hibernate or aestivate. Perhaps these abilities were supernaturally intensified during this period.

Theokhoth

Putting aside the rest of the post for a second, if one needs to fill in the blanks by basically saying "and then a miracle happened", then why even bother with the evidence or lack thereof at all? No matter what anyone raises, you can always provide that as an answer.

"Doubters of the flood ask how plants could survive the flood when the salinity and pressure, and lack of sunlight, would most likely kill most plants. Their argument assumes that the salinity and pressure would in fact be high. As shown above, the water level wasn't nearly as high as the present altitude of mount Everest and not as high as they'd consider, so the pressure would not be high enough to flatten trees and such as they'd think.
They further assume that the water flooding the earth, had to be salt water. If it wasn't, then it would more than likely "water" the plants underneath rather than poison them. And because the water altitude wasn't nearly as high as they anticipated, sunlight filtration becomes less of a problem. Indeed, thousands of sea creatures and plants today can live in seawater at great depths with minimal sunlight, and they are submerged deeper than those flooded plants would have been. Furthermore, even if the water flooding the earth was highly saline, seeds could have easily survived—as Darwin himself proved"

http://creationwiki.org/Global_flood#Pre-flood_and_Post-flood_differences

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="chopperdave447"] k, how does that make it any less effective. akuma_od3

It does have a devoted following and it does have a valid scripture.

FSM is just as valid as the Bible.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

God Gathered the animals and brought them to Noah, It also says they have the ability to sense when something's not right, and where they should go to stay safe. IT also says that PERHAPS the abilities were supernaturally intensified, it doesn't say that they were indefinitely.

GabuEx

You can frame it how you want, but the passage you were quoting was still basically saying "God did it" as an explanation where it couldn't even attempt a scientific answer.

No, how is the word "Perhaps" stating "God did it"? It says that animals had the instict to go to the Ark, and Animals had the ability to aestivate (Lay Dormant).

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Putting aside the rest of the post for a second, if one needs to fill in the blanks by basically saying "and then a miracle happened", then why even bother with the evidence or lack thereof at all? No matter what anyone raises, you can always provide that as an answer.

Snipes_2

"Doubters of the flood ask how plants could survive the flood when the salinity and pressure, and lack of sunlight, would most likely kill most plants. Their argument assumes that the salinity and pressure would in fact be high. As shown above, the water level wasn't nearly as high as the present altitude of mount Everest and not as high as they'd consider, so the pressure would not be high enough to flatten trees and such as they'd think.
They further assume that the water flooding the earth, had to be salt water. If it wasn't, then it would more than likely "water" the plants underneath rather than poison them. And because the water altitude wasn't nearly as high as they anticipated, sunlight filtration becomes less of a problem. Indeed, thousands of sea creatures and plants today can live in seawater at great depths with minimal sunlight, and they are submerged deeper than those flooded plants would have been. Furthermore, even if the water flooding the earth was highly saline, seeds could have easily survived-as Darwin himself proved"

http://creationwiki.org/Global_flood#Pre-flood_and_Post-flood_differences

And use your own words, rather than quoting from some creationist website.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="akuma_od3"]

It does have a devoted following and it does have a valid scripture.

FSM is just as valid as the Bible.

akuma_od3

I think that answers the question of the intelligence level of religious people.

[QUOTE="enterawesome"]All that religous stuff is pretty unfair. To be honest, I'm an athiest myself, but still, calling out relgious folk as ridiculous is pretty rude. However, anyone who thinks the moonlanding was fake is bat **** crazy.chopperdave447

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

God Gathered the animals and brought them to Noah, It also says they have the ability to sense when something's not right, and where they should go to stay safe. IT also says that PERHAPS the abilities were supernaturally intensified, it doesn't say that they were indefinitely.

Snipes_2

You can frame it how you want, but the passage you were quoting was still basically saying "God did it" as an explanation where it couldn't even attempt a scientific answer.

No, how is the word "Perhaps" stating "God did it"? It says that animals had the instict to go to the Ark, and Animals had the ability to aestivate (Lay Dormant).

No, how is the word "Perhaps" stating "God did it"? It says that animals had the instict to go to the Ark, and Animals had the ability to aestivate (Lay Dormant).

Snipes_2

So all of a sudden, all of the animals in the world instinctively knew to go get on this guy's huge boat, and then they all hibernated without the need of food for months on end? And they did all this without the help of God? Have you ever seen animals do that before?

"Doubters of the flood ask how plants could survive the flood when the salinity and pressure, and lack of sunlight, would most likely kill most plants. Their argument assumes that the salinity and pressure would in fact be high. As shown above, the water level wasn't nearly as high as the present altitude of mount Everest and not as high as they'd consider, so the pressure would not be high enough to flatten trees and such as they'd think.
They further assume that the water flooding the earth, had to be salt water. If it wasn't, then it would more than likely "water" the plants underneath rather than poison them. And because the water altitude wasn't nearly as high as they anticipated, sunlight filtration becomes less of a problem. Indeed, thousands of sea creatures and plants today can live in seawater at great depths with minimal sunlight, and they are submerged deeper than those flooded plants would have been. Furthermore, even if the water flooding the earth was highly saline, seeds could have easily survived—as Darwin himself proved"

http://creationwiki.org/Global_flood#Pre-flood_and_Post-flood_differences

Snipes_2

Fresh water: salt-water fish die.

Salt water: fresh-water fish die.

Yet we still seem to have salt-water fish and fresh-water fish...

Also, how in the world do they conclude that Mount Everest rose up during the flood? A large downward pressure force generally does not inspire things to go up. Or are they claiming that the world was constantly quaking the entire time?

Get over it people. The majority of the Bible is false. To even consider the fact that a boat held thousands up thousands of animals and kept them alive for 40 days is absurd. The people who believe this will obviously believe anything. Thats why they believe the Bible.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] There's also a little something nobody seems to mention here: where did the plants come from? I mean, if the world was flooded, there's just no possible way that all vegetable life survived. What did the animals eat?Theokhoth

"Doubters of the flood ask how plants could survive the flood when the salinity and pressure, and lack of sunlight, would most likely kill most plants. Their argument assumes that the salinity and pressure would in fact be high. As shown above, the water level wasn't nearly as high as the present altitude of mount Everest and not as high as they'd consider, so the pressure would not be high enough to flatten trees and such as they'd think.
They further assume that the water flooding the earth, had to be salt water. If it wasn't, then it would more than likely "water" the plants underneath rather than poison them. And because the water altitude wasn't nearly as high as they anticipated, sunlight filtration becomes less of a problem. Indeed, thousands of sea creatures and plants today can live in seawater at great depths with minimal sunlight, and they are submerged deeper than those flooded plants would have been. Furthermore, even if the water flooding the earth was highly saline, seeds could have easily survived-as Darwin himself proved"

http://creationwiki.org/Global_flood#Pre-flood_and_Post-flood_differences

And use your own words, rather than quoting from some creationist website.

It's Wikipedia. How does it dodge the point that plants survive? I don't put stuff in my own words anymore when arguing over the internet, I tried, and others wrote it off as my "Opinion, With no Facts".

"They further assume that the water flooding the earth, had to be salt water. If it wasn't, then it would more than likely "water" the plants underneath rather than poison them. And because the water altitude wasn't nearly as high as they anticipated, sunlight filtration becomes less of a problem. Indeed, thousands of sea creatures and plants today can live in seawater at great depths with minimal sunlight, and they are submerged deeper than those flooded plants would have been. Furthermore, even if the water flooding the earth was highly saline, seeds could have easily survived-as Darwin himself proved""