Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Stephen T-B · 03-03-2003, 10:27 AM

It�s just so damn surreal...people ACTUALLY believe those Biblical stories!
I mean, Noah and the Flood for chrissake.
At ten I knew it was a fable. Nobody needed to tell me that. Common sense did.

Arguing here with the Fundamentalists is so weird. It�s like they believe the moon is made of cheese, and here we are, trying to persuade them it isn�t.
Of course, it wouldn�t matter if all they did was to believe it. A person is entitled to believe anything he likes - but NOT when it leads him to a course of action which damages other people, or society as a whole.
We�ve seen Christian Fundamentalism raise its head in our educational system here in the UK, and I find that quite alarming.
If I lived in the US where the religious nutters are trying to set the agenda for entire states, I think I�d be seriously scared.

RufusAtticus · 03-03-2003, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MortalWombat
Sorry, I can't name one place. How about a few dozen?

See, I told you you couldn't name one place.

James Hamlin · 03-03-2003, 01:34 PM

It's especially worrisome when major political leaders ARE religious nutters.

JohnR · 03-04-2003, 11:28 PM

Now all this talk of how long this or that survives in sea water is all well and good. But the word does not allow that.

Quote:

7:23
And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

7:24
Gen.7:17
And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

If it wasn't on the ark it is dead. Not on ark, dead. Everything destroyed. How can this be explained away?

Doubting Didymus · 03-04-2003, 11:42 PM

Easy: the bible does not really count plants as 'living things'. At worst, they don't get any mention at all, and at best they count only as a kind of rudimentary fashion statement.

Lobstrosity · 03-05-2003, 12:10 AM

So what happened to the fish? The change in salinity can't have been good for the salt-water fish and the fresh-water fish would have been screwed. I guess the YEC answer is that Noah had a bunch of fishbowls with him on the arc? This dude was really one with nature, wasn't he? And people think the Crocodile Hunter is good with animals!

Albion · 03-05-2003, 02:12 AM

Well, this floodwater was kind enough to have layers or pockets (or something) of different salinities, which just happened to be suitable for the various sorts (sorry, KINDS) of freshwater and marine fish. We'll forget for the moment that the Himalayas and Andes and other ranges were being raised at the time, with all the accompanying turbulence and tsunamis, because it must have been like that because God said so. That's why it's science.

dirtymatt · 03-07-2003, 09:09 PM

Here's what I never could figure out about the "kinds". Am I right in understanding that certain people believe that Noah only had two of each "kind" on the ark, ie two horses, instead of a horse, a zebra, a donkey and so on. Or two dogs instead of a dog, wolf, fox, yada yada yada. And then these "kinds" became all of the various species on the planet. Isn't this the macro-evolution that they claim isn't real? Maybe I'm missing something, but if evolution could happen in the 4000 years (or whatever it supposedly is) since the flood, why can't it happen over hundereds of millions of years?

Albion · 03-07-2003, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Am I right in understanding that certain people believe that Noah only had two of each "kind" on the ark, ie two horses, instead of a horse, a zebra, a donkey and so on. Or two dogs instead of a dog, wolf, fox, yada yada yada.

After some creationists realised that taking two of absolutely everything would be a bit of a problem in terms of them all fitting, they hit on the idea that only the base "kinds" were taken and that super-fast evolution happened post-flood to produce all the species we have now. Sort of like the warp-speed plate tectonics needed to raise major mountain ranges in a matter of months.

Quote:

And then these "kinds" became all of the various species on the planet. Isn't this the macro-evolution that they claim isn't real?

Um, no. On account of they allow that it can happen and they insist that macroevolution can't happen so therefore it isn't macroevolution. Stands to reeason. Macroevolution is when fish grow legs or when dinosaurs grow wings or when monkeys learn to talk or when dogs turn into cats. "Kinds" is vague enough that microevolution in one "kind" can have far greater scope than microevolution in another "kind." You know, as in words meaning whatever Humpty Dumpty decided they should mean? Same for these terms for creationists as far as I can see. The only thing we know for certain is that humans are in their own "kind" with no other species. So obviously "kinds" don't have anything much to do with degrees of genetic relatedness.

Quote:

Maybe I'm missing something, but if evolution could happen in the 4000 years (or whatever it supposedly is) since the flood, why can't it happen over hundereds of millions of years?

Apart from the fact the Earth is only 6,000 years old, you mean? Well, microevolution (whatever that is) probably could have, but macroevolution (whatever that is) is impossible. Says so right there in The Book. On account of this barrier between "kinds" that creationists can never manage to describe or explain.

Lobstrosity · 03-08-2003, 12:29 AM

What do creationists have to say about mitochondrial DNA? Don't they know that it's possible to trace this? If all humans evolved from one woman 6000 years ago, we could actually experimentally confirm it, just as we could also confirm it for all animals on Earth. Do they somehow claim that mitochondrial DNA is bogus, or perhaps that our estimation of mutation rates is far too low?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-03-2003, 10:27 AM	#11
Stephen T-B Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 5,878	It�s just so damn surreal...people ACTUALLY believe those Biblical stories! I mean, Noah and the Flood for chrissake. At ten I knew it was a fable. Nobody needed to tell me that. Common sense did. Arguing here with the Fundamentalists is so weird. It�s like they believe the moon is made of cheese, and here we are, trying to persuade them it isn�t. Of course, it wouldn�t matter if all they did was to believe it. A person is entitled to believe anything he likes - but NOT when it leads him to a course of action which damages other people, or society as a whole. We�ve seen Christian Fundamentalism raise its head in our educational system here in the UK, and I find that quite alarming. If I lived in the US where the religious nutters are trying to set the agenda for entire states, I think I�d be seriously scared.

03-03-2003, 01:34 PM	#13
James Hamlin Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: USA Posts: 155	It's especially worrisome when major political leaders ARE religious nutters.

03-04-2003, 11:42 PM	#15
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Easy: the bible does not really count plants as 'living things'. At worst, they don't get any mention at all, and at best they count only as a kind of rudimentary fashion statement.

03-05-2003, 12:10 AM	#16
Lobstrosity Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: San Diego, California Posts: 719	So what happened to the fish? The change in salinity can't have been good for the salt-water fish and the fresh-water fish would have been screwed. I guess the YEC answer is that Noah had a bunch of fishbowls with him on the arc? This dude was really one with nature, wasn't he? And people think the Crocodile Hunter is good with animals!

03-05-2003, 02:12 AM	#17
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	Well, this floodwater was kind enough to have layers or pockets (or something) of different salinities, which just happened to be suitable for the various sorts (sorry, KINDS) of freshwater and marine fish. We'll forget for the moment that the Himalayas and Andes and other ranges were being raised at the time, with all the accompanying turbulence and tsunamis, because it must have been like that because God said so. That's why it's science.

03-07-2003, 09:09 PM	#18
dirtymatt Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: PA Posts: 108	Here's what I never could figure out about the "kinds". Am I right in understanding that certain people believe that Noah only had two of each "kind" on the ark, ie two horses, instead of a horse, a zebra, a donkey and so on. Or two dogs instead of a dog, wolf, fox, yada yada yada. And then these "kinds" became all of the various species on the planet. Isn't this the macro-evolution that they claim isn't real? Maybe I'm missing something, but if evolution could happen in the 4000 years (or whatever it supposedly is) since the flood, why can't it happen over hundereds of millions of years?

03-08-2003, 12:29 AM	#20
Lobstrosity Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: San Diego, California Posts: 719	What do creationists have to say about mitochondrial DNA? Don't they know that it's possible to trace this? If all humans evolved from one woman 6000 years ago, we could actually experimentally confirm it, just as we could also confirm it for all animals on Earth. Do they somehow claim that mitochondrial DNA is bogus, or perhaps that our estimation of mutation rates is far too low?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.