Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 95 (8831 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-20-2018 12:38 PM
289 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Modulous (AdminModulous), PaulK, ringo, Tanypteryx (6 members, 283 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeepaManjusha
Post Volume:
Total: 830,276 Year: 5,099/29,783 Month: 1,031/1,467 Week: 228/462 Day: 15/42 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   Why is a Literal Ark Important?
Percy
Member
Posts: 16964
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 16 of 22 (505318)
04-10-2009 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Peg
04-10-2009 7:19 AM


Re: Point of Fact
Peg writes:

are they not related?

(sigh)

Of course they're related. All life is related to all other life. The question comes down to the closeness of the relationship. Were they different enough to require Noah to take 2 of each? This isn't a yes or no question. It's just the beginning of a discussion for what criteria Noah would have used, which is the point Bluescat was actually raising.

It's interesting that those married to a literal interpretation of the Bible will accept any argument as long as it allows them to maintain their literal interpretation. If evolution is required in order to produce the millions of species from the much smaller number of kinds represented on the ark, then evolution within kinds is just fine by them! But evolution between kinds? Impossible! Why? Well, I've been waiting for a scientific answer to that question for as long as I've been participating in this debate.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Peg, posted 04-10-2009 7:19 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 691 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 17 of 22 (505369)
04-10-2009 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by doctrbill
04-09-2009 10:07 AM


Re: Point of Fact
And if that is what one wishes to do, then I submit he had rather 8 elephants: 2 African, 2 Asian, 2 Mammoth, and 2 Mastadon.

[minor quibble:] Mastadons went extinct way before the flood date of 4500 years ago.

Mammoths, maybe, but not likely since they too went extinct before the flood, but, closer to the date of 4500 years ago, depending on which source is used.

I suppose that would be reasonable if one insists on applying conventions of modern science to the poetry of ancient legends.

But the word "genus" and "species" which you describe here:

doctorbill writes:

In fact, at Genesis 1:12, where the word "kind" appears twice, the Latin Bible gives it as "genus" in the first instance, and "species" in the second.

...Are in fact representing conventional scientifc terms. You used it in the same form trying to reach a different outcome.


"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by doctrbill, posted 04-09-2009 10:07 AM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by doctrbill, posted 04-10-2009 6:57 PM onifre has not yet responded

    
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 505 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 18 of 22 (505373)
04-10-2009 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by onifre
04-10-2009 4:57 PM


Re: Point of Fact
onifre writes:

Mastadons went extinct way before the flood date of 4500 years ago.

Mammoths, maybe, but not likely since they too went extinct before the flood, but, closer to the date of 4500 years ago, depending on which source is used.

Working within the myth, of course, all of them were on the ark.

But the word "genus" and "species" which you describe...Are in fact representing conventional scientifc terms. You used it in the same form trying to reach a different outcome.

Indeed. A fine example of what not to do.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by onifre, posted 04-10-2009 4:57 PM onifre has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by AustinG, posted 04-10-2009 8:18 PM doctrbill has responded

  
AustinG
Member (Idle past 2909 days)
Posts: 36
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 19 of 22 (505376)
04-10-2009 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by doctrbill
04-10-2009 6:57 PM


Re: Point of Fact
I still would like to know why a few people (who call them selves creationist or IDist), within the last ten years, insist on refuting hundreds of years of scientific research in order to explain their faith based beliefs.

Its seems as though they (Creationists/intelligent design advicates) are attempting to legitimize their world view through science. To me, this is totally unneccessary. If there are problems with scientific theory, sure, these errors must be pointed out; however, I'm not convinced that's their entire agenda.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by doctrbill, posted 04-10-2009 6:57 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Coyote, posted 04-10-2009 9:17 PM AustinG has not yet responded
 Message 21 by doctrbill, posted 04-11-2009 1:35 AM AustinG has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6098
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 20 of 22 (505382)
04-10-2009 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by AustinG
04-10-2009 8:18 PM


Re: Point of Fact
Its seems as though they (Creationists/intelligent design advicates) are attempting to legitimize their world view through science. To me, this is totally unneccessary. If there are problems with scientific theory, sure, these errors must be pointed out; however, I'm not convinced that's their entire agenda.

It seems they are trying to convince themselves more than anything. They have particular beliefs, so certain findings of science must be wrong! Creation "science" and ID are just rationalizations which attempt to construct a scientific framework supporting those beliefs.

And it is not "unneccessary" -- it is futile. Science goes where it goes, and so far it is not supporting those fundamentalists' particular religious beliefs. It is disproving many of them.

But for some reason, they have to see every claim of the bible as accurate, hence the support for a literal ark even though science disproved pretty much all of that 200 years ago.

Again, we see that creation "science" is the exact opposite of science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by AustinG, posted 04-10-2009 8:18 PM AustinG has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 505 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 21 of 22 (505394)
04-11-2009 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by AustinG
04-10-2009 8:18 PM


Re: Point of Fact
AustinG writes:

I still would like to know why a few people (who call them selves creationist or IDist), within the last ten years, insist on refuting hundreds of years of scientific research in order to explain their faith based beliefs.

They did the same thing during the 16th and 17th centuries; refusing to believe Copernicus; quoting the Bible to prove him wrong. The Bible hasn't changed but now they claim it supports Copernicus. Go figure!

Its seems as though they (Creationists/intelligent design advicates) are attempting to legitimize their world view through science. To me, this is totally unneccessary. If there are problems with scientific theory, sure, these errors must be pointed out; however, I'm not convinced that's their entire agenda.

That's it exactly.

And you're right about there being more to their agenda. They (religionists) once had a lot of power in government, during what we call The Dark Ages.

They would like to have that power again.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by AustinG, posted 04-10-2009 8:18 PM AustinG has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1930 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 22 of 22 (505970)
04-20-2009 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Peg
04-10-2009 7:19 AM


Re: Point of Fact
Yes they are related about the same relationship as a human and a chimp.
different genera of the same family.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Peg, posted 04-10-2009 7:19 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018