Originally posted by abnoxio KellyJay has quite a high chess rating, he's certainly not unintelligent
Chess rating is a poor indicator of intelligence. [This is not meant as a slight on KellyJay.] One of the reasons is that knowing chess theory is essential to playing well, and this is gained by study and experience. Raw intelligence alone is not enough.
For example, Albert Einstein was reputedly an 1800 player, while John Wayne played at a 2000+ level, yet few would claim John Wayne was smarter than Einstein.
Originally posted by shavixmir Oh. I stand corrected.
According to Wikipedia:
Estimates put the total number of species, described and undescribed, at between 5 and 8 million.
That means between 10 and 16 million (two of each kind) aboard the Arc...
Well Kent Hovind and others believe that two of every "kind" of animal, means a for example, a dog, who later spawned wolves, hyenas, yorkshire terriers, coyotes, jackals....etc. This reduces the number of animals on the ark, but not below absurdity. Yet it creates another problem, super evolution. Meaning that within 6000 years or so a "kind" of animal became a common ancestor to thousands of species. It gets sillier and sillier. Don't get me started on the flood creating the grand canyon in a couple of weeks.
Originally posted by SwissGambit Chess rating is a poor indicator of intelligence. [This is not meant as a slight on KellyJay.] One of the reasons is that knowing chess theory is essential to playing well, and this is gained by study and experience. Raw intelligence alone is not enough.
For example, Albert Einstein was reputedly an 1800 player, while John Wayne played at a 2000+ level, yet few would claim John Wayne was smarter than Einstein.
Are you kidding me? John Wayne played at 2000? Holy crap! I wonder what Clint Eastwood plays at.
Plus I agree that chess abilities are not, necessarily, an indication of intelligence, I know a guy who is a friggin genius and he plays at about 1309 at this writing. He's got his big head kid looking avatar, can't remember his name.
Absent many, many magical interventions, the Ark story could not be literal. Some people, like KJ, are comfortable with that. I recognize that there's really no debate to be had with him. He accepts miracle (i.e., magical) solutions. I do not.
Now there are plenty of Christians that believe the Ark story without any magical interventions is literal, but those people are just out to lunch.
Originally posted by telerion Absent many, many magical interventions, the Ark story could not be literal. Some people, like KJ, are comfortable with that. I recognize that there's really no debate to be had with him. He accepts miracle (i.e., magical) solutions. I do not.
Now there are plenty of Christians that believe the Ark story without any magical interventions is literal, but those people are just out to lunch.
I heard one theory to explain the Flood legend. After ice age, sea levels rose and the Mediterranean see entered in the black sea, flooding the whole region, that before was only a small lake. People living in that depressed terrain saw the whole world flooding. It coincided with a major storm, and since they were quite fond of sinning, they though it was the wrath of God.
Well, at least, this is good fiction. A good story must make sense, and Noah's one doesn't.
I'm amusing reading the old testament. It's lots of fun. That God is a wicked bastard. I hope he dies in the end...
Originally posted by telerion Absent many, many magical interventions, the Ark story could not be literal. Some people, like KJ, are comfortable with that. I recognize that there's really no debate to be had with him. He accepts miracle (i.e., magical) solutions. I do not.
Now there are plenty of Christians that believe the Ark story without any magical interventions is literal, but those people are just out to lunch.
Yeah I agree with you on that, once you say God did it and it was a miracle, you've just got to walk away as you have no common ground you have a discussion.
Originally posted by abnoxio Well Kent Hovind and others believe that two of every "kind" of animal, means a for example, a dog, who later spawned wolves, hyenas, yorkshire terriers, coyotes, jackals....etc. This reduces the number of animals on the ark, but not below absurdity. Yet it creates another problem, super evolution. Meaning that within 6000 years or so a "kind" of animal beca ...[text shortened]... sillier. Don't get me started on the flood creating the grand canyon in a couple of weeks.
One also has to ask about the plants and freshwater fish.
Originally posted by abnoxio On the surface it sounds so ridiculous as to be discarded offhand.
So do all miracles from any religion. They are based on the concept of violation of the laws of physics or at a minimum a violation of randomness ie if we do not think an occurrence falls within a reasonable likelihood of occurring by 'chance' then we attribute the cause to God.
My immediate questions for anyone who believes the Noahs ark story are:
1. If it was a miracle, why didn't God simply zap all the people dead? Why the whole fancy ark / flood thing? In fact, why not simply do it the 'humane' way and make everyone except Noah infertile?
2. If it was a miracle, why do so many 'believers' try to prove that it was possible within the laws of physics?
3. If God stays within the laws of physics then it can rightly be discarded offhand.
Originally posted by abnoxio Two of every animal, and 7 of every clean animal rounded up on a boat of that size, then a global flood? You see nothing improbable about that? And dinosaurs? It's silly.
Just a few chapters earlier in the same book, God spoke and there
was light, stars, and on and on. You think the God who could create
the universe by just the power of His Word would have a issue
rounding up a few animals and getting them into a ship, dinosaurs
included?
Kelly
Originally posted by serigado it wouldn't happen even if you melted all the water in the poles.
And to put ALL species , one of each kind in a ship, you would need a ship 100x bigger then titanic.
Good thing Noah lived hundred of years, or else he would never had time to build it.
I wonder how he went to Australia to save the koalas and kangaroos.
Just another made up story from the Bible. It's fun to tell kids, though.
"And to put ALL species " it did not say all species.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay Exactly what evidence do you think you should see that you do not?
Kelly
Interesting question, it implies several things, one being that the lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence. Second it attempts to shift the burden of proof to me. In other words justify your non acceptance of what I consider proof. But I can answer this way; A event such as Noahs Ark and a global flood is so implausible to the point of absurdity that it would require an amazing amount of proof for me to suspend my belief in the natural laws of the universe. I could certainly be convinced though, almost instantly if God chose to provide me with evidence that I could not interpret any other way. As of this writing your God is no more likely to exist than Prometheus, Dionysus, or Mithra.
Originally posted by serigado it wouldn't happen even if you melted all the water in the poles.
And to put ALL species , one of each kind in a ship, you would need a ship 100x bigger then titanic.
Good thing Noah lived hundred of years, or else he would never had time to build it.
I wonder how he went to Australia to save the koalas and kangaroos.
Just another made up story from the Bible. It's fun to tell kids, though.
"God did it. The Bible says it. I believe it."
That's essentially the only "consistent" defense a Noah's Ark literalist can muster.
Is the Noah's Ark story true?
14 Feb '08 20:452 edits
Back to Top