Has Creationism been disproven?

[Mighty NorCal]

Space was never the issue I was arguing, as space would be the least of Noah's worries. His real worries would be in keeping the animals from eating or fighting with each other, or hoping that they'll still be healthy enough for mating after 40 days and nights on a ship.

Fresh born or mere weeks old baby animals?

Surely, you jest

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Sorry if I misinterpreted your earlier post, but I thought you were arguing that it was remotely feasible that two of every single species existent in the world today was carried aboard a large boat.

For reference, there are between 2 and 100 million species existent in the world today.

Ah, trusty ol science, always so razor sharp

 

[Harthan]

I agree that there isn't a "problem", per se, with belief, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone (including the believer). As soon as it trends toward hurting people, as it frequently does, then its a problem. But even if someone's belief is completely "harmless" to themselves and others, it still carries the problem of being illogical and irrational.

 

[jmt225]

I agree, somewhat. Blind faith can also lead people into following some pretty fucked up orders. That shouldn't be ignored.

Yeah, but those people are psychos anyway and if it wasn't their beliefs in their religion that drove them to a breaking point, something else would have eventually anyway.

The fact is, God and religion brings way more comfort to people's lives than it does harm (Christianity in America, specifically). I always think it's an asshole thing to do to start questioning the stories that bring so many people so much comfort and happiness.

Now, before someone replies with the typical, "I don't want those stories shoved down my throat!" yeah, well... just deal. Find different people to hang out with if you're unfortunately stuck with people who simply want you to feel the happiness they feel.

 

[Harthan]

Ah, trusty ol science, always so razor sharp

Nice job avoiding the question.

This article explains it, in part: Science!

 

[JGlass]

Fresh born or mere weeks old baby animals?

Surely, you jest

That just further proves my point. An animal has got to eat, and a baby lion, for instance, is only going to drink milk and eat meat. Where is it going to get the milk and the meat? They aren't getting it from their mother, or anyone else as all the mammals on the ship are going to be babies, too immature to nurse any young. Furthermore, Noah can't feed them any meat because that would mean sacrificing an entire species.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

That just further proves my point. An animal has got to eat, and a baby lion, for instance, is only going to drink milk and eat meat. Where is it going to get the milk and the meat? They aren't getting it from their mother, or anyone else as all the mammals on the ship are going to be babies, too immature to nurse any young. Furthermore, Noah can't feed them any meat because that would mean sacrificing an entire species.

the had to get the meat from animals on the boat already? There were just two of every kind, and nothing else? There was no such thing as milking animals back then?

I mean seriously. Such easily answered issues, just because those answers arent spelled out in the bible doesnt mean they were or could not be addressed. Dont be so narrow minded. "NO ITS IN THE BIBLE SO JUST IMPOSSIBLE I WILL NOT THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX AT ALL"

 

[Harthan]

the had to get the meat from animals on the boat already? There were just two of every kind, and nothing else? There was no such thing as milking animals back then?

I mean seriously. Such easily answered issues, just because those answers arent spelled out in the bible doesnt mean they were or could not be addressed. Dont be so narrow minded. "NO ITS IN THE BIBLE SO JUST IMPOSSIBLE I WILL NOT THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX AT ALL"

So, do remind me of your reasonable solution to fitting 2 million species on a large boat (we'll estimate conservatively).

 

[JGlass]

the had to get the meat from animals on the boat already?

How are they going to preserve it? And for a tens of thousands of species on the boat they'd need tens of thousands of pounds of meat. If he can barely fit all the animals on the boat, how is he going to make enough room for all the meat?

There were just two of every kind, and nothing else?

No, but close. Here's a quote from Christianity.about.com

With more detail in Genesis 7:2-3, God instructed Noah to take seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, and two of every kind of unclean animal. Bible scholars have calculated that approximately 45,000 animals might have fit on the ark.

I can only assume clean animals are kosher and unclean are non-kosher.

There was no such thing as milking animals back then?

Not if they're all babies, and if they brought the milk before hand it would likely spoil early on in the journey.

I mean seriously. Such easily answered issues, just because those answers arent spelled out in the bible doesnt mean they were or could not be addressed. Dont be so narrow minded. "NO ITS IN THE BIBLE SO JUST IMPOSSIBLE I WILL NOT THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX AT ALL"

Why are you getting so testy about all this? I'm just having a conversation with you and you keep insulting my intelligence.

Nonetheless, you have to admit that it's next to impossible that any of this happened without the aid of a divine being. There are too many things that could and would go wrong.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

So, do remind me of your reasonable solution to fitting 2 million species on a large boat (we'll estimate conservatively).

One large boat? No. small baby animals, on several boats? mmmmm

 

[Mighty NorCal]

How are they going to preserve it? And for a tens of thousands of species on the boat they'd need tens of thousands of pounds of meat. If he can barely fit all the animals on the boat, how is he going to make enough room for all the meat?



No, but close. Here's a quote from Christianity.about.com



I can only assume clean animals are kosher and unclean are non-kosher.



Not if they're all babies, and if they brought the milk before hand it would likely spoil early on in the journey.



Why are you getting so testy about all this? I'm just having a conversation with you and you keep insulting my intelligence.

Nonetheless, you have to admit that it's next to impossible that any of this happened without the aid of a divine being. There are too many things that could and would go wrong.

Im sure they had preservation methods back then. In fact, I know they did.

Im getting testy about it, because I quite clearly said I wasnt the least interested in a debate, and yet, as always, people just simply cannot resist. You cant even get the whole word "bible" or "creation" out of your mouth without some arrogant twat who cant wait to disprove every facet of everything (because they know everything) opening theirs.

My point from the very beginning is that it is perfectly feasible, or just as much as the "well this shit all just happened for no reason out of the fucking blue" theory.

Pretty sure I have never even one time said that I necessarily beleive in creationsim, or stated my stance on it at all. Nor have I said the bible is the end all be all. The two of you just want it to be that kind of thing so badly, and jump directly into the "NO NO NO WORNG WORNG THE BIBLE AND RELIGION IS WRONG YOU ARE WRONG THE BIBLE IS WRONG" and in this, choose to be narrow minded and overlook perfectly plausible solutions to such questions. My point all along is that people who use literal lines and interpretation of the bible to disprove are every bit as foolish as people who use those same lines and interpretations to support their beleifs

 

[Harthan]

One large boat? No. small baby animals, on several boats? mmmmm

Except this fails to account for the plants, the insects, the microbes, the viruses, the bacteria, the fish...in fact, it doesn't even account for anything. Do you know how many animals would be necessary to ensure a varied gene pool? More than two. More like thousands. Thousands of animals. Thousands and thousands of at least 2 million species.

Perhaps if you built a boat as large as the Earth itself. Shame that's completely impossible.

Not to mention the sheer bloody impossibility of collecting all the species. How, exactly, did Noah contain viruses and bacteria when he had no idea what they were, and without even such simple equipment as a microscope? How did he store all the fish? How could he contain all the insects?

We are talking about 2 million species, in the most conservative possible estimate. The reality is probably more like 30 or 50.

Do you honestly believe what you are telling me - that this is somehow possible?

 

[JGlass]

Im sure they had preservation methods back then. In fact, I know they did.

To preserve massive amounts of extremely perishable meat and liquid for over a month? That technology is just barely a century old.

Im getting testy about it, because I quite clearly said I wasnt the least interested in a debate, and yet, as always, people just simply cannot resist. You cant even get the whole word "bible" or "creation" out of your mouth without some arrogant twat who cant wait to disprove every facet of everything (because they know everything) opening theirs.

At least we're not really debating religion, just the feasibility of a Noah type even happening. Still, why even bother posting if you know it's going to result in a debate?

My point from the very beginning is that it is perfectly feasible, or just as much as the "well this shit all just happened for no reason out of the fucking blue" theory.

What's the, "well this shit all just happened for no reason out of the fucking blue" theory?

Pretty sure I have never even one time said that I necessarily beleive in creationsim, or stated my stance on it at all. Nor have I said the bible is the end all be all. The two of you just want it to be that kind of thing so badly, and jump directly into the "NO NO NO WORNG WORNG THE BIBLE AND RELIGION IS WRONG YOU ARE WRONG THE BIBLE IS WRONG" and in this, choose to be narrow minded and overlook perfectly plausible solutions to such questions

That's not what I want at all, and I don't think Harthan wants that either. We're merely explaining that if you're going to use a biblical reference then you're going to have to explain the massive amounts of things that were wrong with the Bible story. Sure, you can say they only took baby animals or that they took more than two of each animal or that they took many ships instead of just one... but eventually it starts to become a totally different story and you can't use the Bible as an example anymore.

And I've yet to see any plausible solutions, as each time you come up with a "plausible" solution it just opens up a whole new can of problems. I still don't know how they'd deal with disease, keeping these animals from killing each other when they got off the boat, dealing with the fact that they'd be at sea for (as the Bible said) 40 days and 40 nights in flood water, which would damage the ecosystem so badly that upon offloading the animals the entire environment would be extremely inhospitable, likely resulting in massive extinctions due to starvation. There are too many uncontrollable results of a great flood that would prevent a Noah type situation from working.

On a side note, to keep this all friendly... I like how two of your oldest proteges are teaming up against you right now. You trained us well apparently... too well.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Except this fails to account for the plants, the insects, the microbes, the viruses, the bacteria, the fish...in fact, it doesn't even account for anything. Do you know how many animals would be necessary to ensure a varied gene pool? More than two. More like thousands. Thousands of animals. Thousands and thousands of at least 2 million species.

Perhaps if you built a boat as large as the Earth itself. Shame that's completely impossible.

Not to mention the sheer bloody impossibility of collecting all the species. How, exactly, did Noah contain viruses and bacteria when he had no idea what they were, and without even such simple equipment as a microscope? How did he store all the fish? How could he contain all the insects?

We are talking about 2 million species, in the most conservative possible estimate. The reality is probably more like 30 or 50.

Do you honestly believe what you are telling me - that this is somehow possible?

What the fuck, did I not just say various boats?

Also, you mean to tell me the earth and all the bacteria, viruses, etc could not survive a 40 day flood and repopulate, but a catstrophic life ending explosion on earth...Yes, it was able to regenerate life from THAT event, but a 40 day flood, totally out of the fucking question....

So if what I said, is not somehow possible, then the meteor thing, IS, somehow possible? And you honestly believe THAT?

You mean, the species were gathered, and spared, from a relatively short flood, that is just so fucking impossible, but a meteor strike, which wiped life from the earth was somehow discriminate? Was it prejudice? Did it think Alligators were cool, and let them go?

 

[Mighty NorCal]

At least we're not really debating religion, just the feasibility of a Noah type even happening. Still, why even bother posting if you know it's going to result in a debate?





That's not what I want at all, and I don't think Harthan wants that either. We're merely explaining that if you're going to use a biblical reference then you're going to have to explain the massive amounts of things that were wrong with the Bible story. Sure, you can say they only took baby animals or that they took more than two of each animal or that they took many ships instead of just one... but eventually it starts to become a totally different story and you can't use the Bible as an example anymore.

And I've yet to see any plausible solutions, as each time you come up with a "plausible" solution it just opens up a whole new can of problems. I still don't know how they'd deal with disease, keeping these animals from killing each other when they got off the boat, dealing with the fact that they'd be at sea for (as the Bible said) 40 days and 40 nights in flood water, which would damage the ecosystem so badly that upon offloading the animals the entire environment would be extremely inhospitable, likely resulting in massive extinctions due to starvation. There are too many uncontrollable results of a great flood that would prevent a Noah type situation from working.

On a side note, to keep this all friendly... I like how two of your oldest proteges are teaming up against you right now. You trained us well apparently... too well.

Well, uh, thats generally how it works when someone respectfully says "Im not really looking for a debate on this" fuck, I dunno

How is it a totally different story? There was an extinction level flood event, in which an old haggard dude built a fucking huge boat, and took a fuck ton of baby animals onto, to spare them from drowning.

Sounds a lot like something ive read about in the bible, to be honest.

 

[JGlass]

You mean, the species were gathered, and spared, from a relatively short flood, that is just so fucking impossible, but a meteor strike, which wiped life from the earth was somehow discriminate? Was it prejudice? Did it think Alligators were cool, and let them go?

This is where evolution comes in, though. The reason most dinosaurs died wasn't because of the actual explosion and earthquakes and what not, it was from the massive famine the ash from the explosion created. Plant life died so the herbivore dinosaurs died, which meant less food for the carnivorous dinosaurs which died. Smaller mammals and reptiles prospered because they didn't have to eat as much food to survive and could burrow underground to avoid the intense eat/cold that the earth was going through.

It was prejudice in a way, prejudice in favor of the fittest animals. The juggernauts that used to flourish in a lush world were no longer cut out for the new extreme climate that was Earth, but the animals that had been the lowest on the food chain were.

 

[JGlass]

Well, uh, thats generally how it works when someone respectfully says "Im not really looking for a debate on this" fuck, I dunno

How is it a totally different story? There was an extinction level flood event, in which an old haggard dude built a fucking huge boat, and took a fuck ton of baby animals onto, to spare them from drowning.

Sounds a lot like something ive read about in the bible, to be honest.

It's a similar story, but nowhere in the Bible does it say that they were baby animals, nor that there were multiple boats, or that it was all done without any sort of divine intervention. After all, who would waste their time rounding up two of every animal if they weren't instructed to by their personal deity? It's not like they knew a catastrophic flood was coming.

You keep avoiding the hard questions. Wassupwitdat?

 

[Mighty NorCal]

This is where evolution comes in, though. The reason most dinosaurs died wasn't because of the actual explosion and earthquakes and what not, it was from the massive famine the ash from the explosion created. Plant life died so the herbivore dinosaurs died, which meant less food for the carnivorous dinosaurs which died. Smaller mammals and reptiles prospered because they didn't have to eat as much food to survive and could burrow underground to avoid the intense eat/cold that the earth was going through.

It was prejudice in a way, prejudice in favor of the fittest animals. The juggernauts that used to flourish in a lush world were no longer cut out for the new extreme climate that was Earth, but the animals that had been the lowest on the food chain were.

Yea, I understand. I have been told this / read this, almost verbatum what you wrote.

Small dinos then? Water Dinos? FLying ones?

But we still have birds? there are a shit ton of animals here today that we know lived with dinosaurs. Some bigger, some smaller, etc.

I think beleiving those ones just randomly lived when nothing much sperates them on the broader scale we are talking about requires just as much blindness and faith as saying the flying spaghetti monster created the world last week, or anything else anyone beleives.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

It's a similar story, but nowhere in the Bible does it say that they were baby animals, nor that there were multiple boats, or that it was all done without any sort of divine intervention. After all, who would waste their time rounding up two of every animal if they weren't instructed to by their personal deity? It's not like they knew a catastrophic flood was coming.

You keep avoiding the hard questions. Wassupwitdat?

Direct me to were I said it had nothing to do with a personal diety? You understand I do beleive in God, right?

What hard questions? Did I say someplace in here that the bible was a literal, historical document? Im pretty sure I didnt. I said this story from the bible could quyite feasibly have happened, and should not be laughed off as foolishness by people who are fucking arrogant. That is what I said.

I have also said, fuck, I dunno, like 100 times now, that anyone who uses a literal interpretation of the bible to disprove the stories within it is just as fucking much of a clown as people who use literal interpretation of the bible to support their religous beleifs.

 

[Harthan]

What the fuck, did I not just say various boats?

Also, you mean to tell me the earth and all the bacteria, viruses, etc could not survive a 40 day flood and repopulate, but a catstrophic life ending explosion on earth...Yes, it was able to regenerate life from THAT event, but a 40 day flood, totally out of the fucking question....

So if what I said, is not somehow possible, then the meteor thing, IS, somehow possible? And you honestly believe THAT?

You mean, the species were gathered, and spared, from a relatively short flood, that is just so fucking impossible, but a meteor strike, which wiped life from the earth was somehow discriminate? Was it prejudice? Did it think Alligators were cool, and let them go?

So you can't fit 2 million species on one boat, but a dozen, that's cool? Keep in mind, 2 million, now.

As a matter of fact, yes. There were a number of effects of the impact event, but it's not as if the Earth was engulfed in flame. In a large region near the impact, everything would have been devastated - but beyond that, creatures would have had a chance for survival. The problems for them would include infrared radiation, global firestorms, acid rain, and, most importantly, the particulates in the air inhibiting photosynthesis, killing off plants and those species dependent on them for survival. Some, though not many, species were capable of surviving these effects (the majority of living species died off at the time). We also have plenty of evidence that the impact happened, and that species survived it.

Let us contrast this event with the 40 day flood. The first, most damning statistic is that there's no evidence it ever occurred. Furthermore, it would be far more devastating to life because, as you may be aware, most creatures on the planet like to breathe every now and again. The impact event didn't prevent creatures from breathing (at least, not outside the immediate impact radius). Drowning the world would kill off, well, everything, except species capable of surviving in a saltwater environment and that were able to adjust to the change in depth. Of course, the depth change would have killed off pretty much all of the saltwater plants reliant on sunlight, and therefore everything that ate off them. So, pretty much every single living thing (far more than the impact event killed) would have died as a result of this theoretical event.

In short, a 40 day flood would be far more damaging to the species of Earth than an impact event of that magnitude, devastating though the latter was.

The reason why some species survived the impact event is clear in some cases, less so in others. In particular crocodiles and turtles are a bit puzzling, though there are explanations (I'm not paleontology savvy enough to fully understand). Mammals are easier to explain, since they were tiny and were able to both shelter and survive off the food that was left over.

If you take nothing else away from this, understand how much more damaging a 40 day flood would be to the ecosystem than an impact event was.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

So you can't fit 2 million species on one boat, but a dozen, that's cool? Keep in mind, 2 million, now.

As a matter of fact, yes. There were a number of effects of the impact event, but it's not as if the Earth was engulfed in flame. In a large region near the impact, everything would have been devastated - but beyond that, creatures would have had a chance for survival. The problems for them would include infrared radiation, global firestorms, acid rain, and, most importantly, the particulates in the air inhibiting photosynthesis, killing off plants and those species dependent on them for survival. Some, though not many, species were capable of surviving these effects (the majority of living species died off at the time). We also have plenty of evidence that the impact happened, and that species survived it.

Let us contrast this event with the 40 day flood. The first, most damning statistic is that there's no evidence it ever occurred. Furthermore, it would be far more devastating to life because, as you may be aware, most creatures on the planet like to breathe every now and again. The impact event didn't prevent creatures from breathing (at least, not outside the immediate impact radius). Drowning the world would kill off, well, everything, except species capable of surviving in a saltwater environment and that were able to adjust to the change in depth. Of course, the depth change would have killed off pretty much all of the saltwater plants reliant on sunlight, and therefore everything that ate off them. So, pretty much every single living thing (far more than the impact event killed) would have died as a result of this theoretical event.

In short, a 40 day flood would be far more damaging to the species of Earth than an impact event of that magnitude, devastating though the latter was.

The reason why some species survived the impact event is clear in some cases, less so in others. In particular crocodiles and turtles are a bit puzzling, though there are explanations (I'm not paleontology savvy enough to fully understand). Mammals are easier to explain, since they were tiny and were able to both shelter and survive off the food that was left over.

If you take nothing else away from this, understand how much more damaging a 40 day flood would be to the ecosystem than an impact event was.

So then its possible the current level of species we have today evolved from what was left over from ALL of the bullshit you just mentioned, but not from extremely large groups of animals gathered all over the world?

and you have just as much explanation for a various amount of species surviving in opposition to your theory as I do mine, but you are telling me your scenario DID happen, and mine, is impossible?

 

[JGlass]

Yea, I understand. I have been told this / read this, almost verbatum what you wrote.

Cool, because I just did that all off the top of my head.

Small dinos then? Water Dinos? FLying ones?

Well, dinosaur refers to large lizard, so I guess a small dinosaur is really just a reptile, and yeah, they probably lived. The water dinosaurs may or may not have lived. Once again, the ocean temperatures surely changed due to the giant ash cloud which in turn killed a lot of the population, leaving the large dinosaurs to starve while the smaller fish were able to survive. The flying ones probably mostly died off too, especially if they were large.

But we still have birds? there are a shit ton of animals here today that we know lived with dinosaurs. Some bigger, some smaller, etc.

There are quite a few species that live today that probably walked with the dinosaurs, yes, but most of them have evolved significantly since the mass extinction. Also, it's important to note that birds and some dinosaurs have extraordinarily similar skeletal structures and other things that lead evolutionary scientists to believe that they are related, so it's possible that one of the tiny dinosaurs that survived the extinction evolved into a chicken.

I think beleiving those ones just randomly lived when nothing much sperates them on the broader scale we are talking about requires just as much blindness and faith as saying the flying spaghetti monster created the world last week, or anything else anyone beleives.

How is it random? They survived because of a variety of reasons, not because they won the "don't get your entire species killed off" lottery. The difference between evolution and religion is that there is scientific evidence to explain the phenomenon of evolution, while the only way to explain religious events is by faith and faith alone.

Direct me to were I said it had nothing to do with a personal diety? You understand I do beleive in God, right?

I thought we were talking about it as a plausible event that occurred in a non-religious sense. Whether you believe in God or not is irrelevant here, as I respect your belief in God as much as I'm sure you respect my atheism.

What hard questions? Did I say someplace in here that the bible was a literal, historical document? Im pretty sure I didnt. I said this story from the bible could quyite feasibly have happened, and should not be laughed off as foolishness by people who are fucking arrogant. That is what I said.

I still don't know how they'd deal with disease, keeping these animals from killing each other when they got off the boat, dealing with the fact that they'd be at sea for (as the Bible said) 40 days and 40 nights in flood water, which would damage the ecosystem so badly that upon offloading the animals the entire environment would be extremely inhospitable, likely resulting in massive extinctions due to starvation. There are too many uncontrollable results of a great flood that would prevent a Noah type situation from working.

Those questions. I'm not laughing it off or being arrogant, but you keep arguing for the plausibility of a Noah-like story, so I'm asking questions about how the situation would work. I'm not trying to shake your faith to the core, just trying to show you how a Noah-like situation is next to impossible.

I have also said, fuck, I dunno, like 100 times now, that anyone who uses a literal interpretation of the bible to disprove the stories within it is just as fucking much of a clown as people who use literal interpretation of the bible to support their religous beleifs.

I'm so confused by what you're arguing right now. On the one hand, you're talking about the possibility of a Noah-like event actually occurring, but on the other hand you say that anybody who uses a literal interpretation of the Bible is stupid, while meanwhile Harthan and I have been playing your game with you. Who is trying to use a literal interpretation of the bible to disprove the stories within it? The only things Harthan and I have been using are science and logic.

 

[Harthan]

So then its possible the current level of species we have today evolved from what was left over from ALL of the bullshit you just mentioned, but not from extremely large groups of animals gathered all over the world?

and you have just as much explanation for a various amount of species surviving in opposition to your theory as I do mine, but you are telling me your scenario DID happen, and mine, is impossible?

Yes, in fact, because the impact event did not kill off enough of the planet's population to prevent species from not only surviving, but thriving once the world was theirs alone, and from there evolving into the current crop of life.

In fact, some species survived the impact event nearly unscathed (amphibians, for example).

The great flood would have killed off everything that needed to breathe air, everything that lived in freshwater, and everything that relied upon phytoplankton and saltwater plants to survive. By the way, that's everything everywhere.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Well, dinosaur refers to large lizard, so I guess a small dinosaur is really just a reptile, and yeah, they probably lived. The water dinosaurs may or may not have lived. Once again, the ocean temperatures surely changed due to the giant ash cloud which in turn killed a lot of the population, leaving the large dinosaurs to starve while the smaller fish were able to survive. The flying ones probably mostly died off too, especially if they were large.

Whales? Fish? Squid? Turtles? Alligators?

May or may not? Mostly? Ah, im fairly confident all of the dinosaurs are dead.

There are quite a few species that live today that probably walked with the dinosaurs, yes, but most of them have evolved significantly since the mass extinction. Also, it's important to note that birds and some dinosaurs have extraordinarily similar skeletal structures and other things that lead evolutionary scientists to believe that they are related, so it's possible that one of the tiny dinosaurs that survived the extinction evolved into a chicken.

Well thats rather convienent, isnt it? Whole lot of faith to swallow that one, I would say.

.
How is it random? They survived because of a variety of reasons

reasons, that in theory, should have saved various other species, and didnt? See how I am having a tough time wrapping my head around that one?

I thought we were talking about it as a plausible event that occurred in a non-religious sense. Whether you believe in God or not is irrelevant here, as I respect your belief in God as much as I'm sure you respect my atheism.

It is a plausible event, as you have so much as said yourself. You said there is a large amount of scientific evidence that supports a great flood...Is Science only reliable when you want it to be?

and I doubt that second sentance quite seriously.

Those questions. I'm not laughing it off or being arrogant, but you keep arguing for the plausibility of a Noah-like story, so I'm asking questions about how the situation would work. I'm not trying to shake your faith to the core, just trying to show you how a Noah-like situation is next to impossible.

Even though we have established an event likely did happen, your science supports that, and pretty much every major group of anceint peoples who have never made contact with one another had a version of the story?

Doesnt sound "next to impossible" to me. Genetic code randomly establishing itself into structures that are so complex thar the mere concept of them would make your fucking head explode....Uh, THAT sounds next to impossible to me.

Ahhhh science and religion vauguely linking up and agreeing with one another, noooooo my brain cant handle iiiittt

. Who is trying to use a literal interpretation of the bible to disprove the stories within it? The only things Harthan and I have been using are science and logic.

Uh, I dont know, maybe when you guys used literal lines and numbers directly out of the bible to say "well this could never happen so neer neer neer"

Fuck, one os those parargraphs IS RIGHT ABOVE THIS IN YOUR RESPONSE. How have I been the one NOT using science and logic?

Babies? Various boats? Preservation?

Sounds like scientific and logical theories to me. Of course, it is in support of something in the bible being plausible, so they dont count, right?

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Yes, in fact, because the impact event did not kill off enough of the planet's population to prevent species from not only surviving, but thriving once the world was theirs alone, and from there evolving into the current crop of life.

In fact, some species survived the impact event nearly unscathed (amphibians, for example).

Once again, rather convienent. Take a lot of faith to belive in that. Very reliable research and information, given the what, 12 or 15 meteor strikes humankind has been able to do research on.

The great flood would have killed off everything that needed to breathe air, everything that lived in freshwater, and everything that relied upon phytoplankton and saltwater plants to survive. By the way, that's everything everywhere.

If we are to take an absolute, literal inerpretation of the bible, sure