Noah's Ark

Originally posted by whodey
My whole point to trying to get you to evaluate human worth is to assess what makes us different from the animals. If you say we are mere animals, you make us equal to animals. This is simply not the case. You must believe the same way since you eat them. If we are then above the animals, we are then extraordinary. I dare say this to be miraculous in and ...[text shortened]... evolution with for this superiority, but why do human beings only seem to be in this category?

Many animals eat other animals.

Originally posted by amannion
They were written to make meaning of events rather than accurately describe events.


We can read the biblical stories for the messages they contain and for what lies behind the text rather than for their clearly inconsistent and inaccurate reality.

They were written to make meaning of events rather than accurately describe events.

Yes, I've heard of such a suggestion before. But I'm not happy with such an explanation. I can write books and keep things vague, which are then open for many interpretations. This kind of explanation makes the bible look like Nostradamus' predictions. It is up to you to interpret what's the message behind it. Besides, why bother with the specific 450ft x 75ft x 45ft, being the measurement of the ark? Why bother with the specific details of the olive leaf? If these are not meant to be taken literally, why bother with the details at all? The writer of the bible must have made a mistake there. I suppose that's why the writer of Quran corrected that mistake by omitting the details of the account.


We can read the biblical stories for the messages they contain and for what lies behind the text rather than for their clearly inconsistent and inaccurate reality.

What exactly does that mean? Are we playing the role of judges presiding over a court of law? Are we interpreting a statute where there are ambiguities? When the bible tells us the story about 5,000 people fed with only a few loaves of bread and fish, and yet ended up with 12 baskets of leftover, does the bible mean it literally, or is that suppose to mean something else? For example, a priest once explained to me that this particular story was meant to show that if humans are willing to share with one another, then we would have more than enough in this world. Sounds sensible to me, but other priests did not agree with this explanation.

Originally posted by whodey
My whole point to trying to get you to evaluate human worth is to assess what makes us different from the animals. If you say we are mere animals, you make us equal to animals. This is simply not the case. You must believe the same way since you eat them. If we are then above the animals, we are then extraordinary. I dare say this to be miraculous in and ...[text shortened]... evolution with for this superiority, but why do human beings only seem to be in this category?

Not quite sure I see the logic in this.
I must believe that I'm more than an animal because I eat animals? Is that what you're saying?
So then by that logic, any animal that eats another animal, must also think that they are more than an animal.

You're basing your very flawed position on the mistaken notion that calling us animals makes us somehow less than we are. Calling humans 'animals' is just a label - one of many - and signifies nothing. We are what we are - naturally, we think we're pretty good and like to play up to our strengths. No harm in that - presumably any thinking creature would do the same for themselves.
As for our superiority, what actually is that? In what way are we superior?
I think you'll find our differences with other animals are mostly differences of degree. We are smart, others are smart too, just not quite so.
Our differences have been recently magnified - and by recently I mean, over the last 10 or 20 thousand years - by the development of human culture which is very efficient at passing on knowledge to the next generation. Other creatures do it mind you, just not as efficiently.
Why do human beings seem to be only in this category?
Well I'm sure a dolphin mkight ask, why am I one of such a small number of species that can echolocate, or a bird might ask why am I the only one that can navigate the earth's magnetic fields naturally, or whatever.
We all, all of us plants and animals on this planet have special abilities.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Mitochondrial DNA alone shows the idea that the entire human population decended from 2 people less than 6,000 years ago to be rubbish.

Out of curiousity (which will likely result in nothing more than brain fodder) what does mitochondrial DNA tell us of contemporary variations we find in homo sapien sapiens?

Originally posted by ckoh1965
According to the bible, all but a few of the living things in the world was once killed by the great flood. Those very few who survived were Noah and his immediate family, along with male and female pairs of all the animals in the world. This is the story of Noah and the Ark. This imaginative story is very interesting, but I’d like to hear opinions on some ...[text shortened]... in from making further comments until I read the part about this so-called judgement day myself.

You should start with the book of John.

Originally posted by ckoh1965
[b]They were written to make meaning of events rather than accurately describe events.

Yes, I've heard of such a suggestion before. But I'm not happy with such an explanation. I can write books and keep things vague, which are then open for many interpretations. This kind of explanation makes the bible look like Nostradamus' predictions. It is up to ...[text shortened]... n this world. Sounds sensible to me, but other priests did not agree with this explanation.[/b]

One word:

allegory.

What is wrong with you people? 😠

Originally posted by sjeg
One word:

[b]allegory.

What is wrong with you people? 😠[/b]

Here's another:

Rubbish.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Out of curiousity (which will likely result in nothing more than brain fodder) what does mitochondrial DNA tell us of contemporary variations we find in homo sapien sapiens?

What do you mean?

Originally posted by sugiezd
Here's another:

Rubbish.

Why?

I think it's the business. What don't you like about it?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Out of curiousity (which will likely result in nothing more than brain fodder) what does mitochondrial DNA tell us of contemporary variations we find in homo sapien sapiens?

'My cat's breath smells like cat food.'

Originally posted by sjeg
Why?

I think it's the business. What don't you like about it?

It's soft option.

This garbage was written to impress as a literal account - meant to impress the locals.

Originally posted by ckoh1965
According to the bible, all but a few of the living things in the world was once killed by the great flood. Those very few who survived were Noah and his immediate family, along with male and female pairs of all the animals in the world. This is the story of Noah and the Ark. This imaginative story is very interesting, but I’d like to hear opinions on some ...[text shortened]... in from making further comments until I read the part about this so-called judgement day myself.

Hi.
If you can make the time. Go to drdino.com
click on downloads, and then click on "Dinosaurs and the Bible".

He has a lot of info on the Ark. It may be interesting to you.

Originally posted by Coach Pre
Hi.
If you can make the time. Go to drdino.com
click on downloads, and then click on "Dinosaurs and the Bible".

He has a lot of info on the Ark. It may be interesting to you.

And here it goes again. Dr. Dino isn't a doctor (well not if the word has any meaning), a PhD from a diploma mill in Christian Education (you can read a discussion of his 'dissertation' here: http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm). He isn't credible. Not even to other creationists.
He's also a tax cheat.
If you are uninformed enough to believe any of Dr. Dino's crap you need to read this page:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html

It basically explains exactly what Dr. Dino is wrong in every meaningful way.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
What do you mean?

Scottishinnz has inferred that the DNA in question doesn't allow for the variations we see today, nor does it allow for man to have descended from (ultimately) two people. Unless he meant something different?