-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
For Christians. Was the flood real or just a myth?
- Thread starter Deeje
- Start date
Good info.
Misunderstood
Active Member
I think that would be a good idea.
Its been over 5 months since I wrote that.....I had forgotten all about it. Have you been away from the forum for a while ST?
.....dogs....wolves....capuchin monkeys..... ? This seems more like displays of jealousy than a sense of fairness. This is a very base emotion demonstrated in many creatures. A moral sense of fairness is not based on jealousy....it should lead to altruism. The ones fairly treated would give their treats to the one who missed out. That is what a true moral sense would move them to do. This was not demonstrated in any of these studies.
As I said, my dogs have no sense of what's fair when it comes to food....first in gets the lion's share.....no altruism just looking after number one....who argues with a lion? The basis for survival in animals is making sure you get the food.
Couldn't be a biased opinion though...? The findings "suggest"...there it is again. Are suggestions facts? What did it prove really?
The children displayed jealousy too. It is a base emotion for many creatures. Children have a natural sense of fairness and grow up to hopefully learn that life is not fair in many ways and they had better get over themselves and learn to live with it. This is why humans are not programmed exclusively by instinct. They pass on knowledge to their offspring on a level that animals cannot, using faculties that animals do not have....and all we can do is hope that our parents or teachers have risen above the base instincts demonstrated by animals or we will never progress to a point of maturity.
So animals can consciously distinguish between our morality and theirs? How do they arrive at this distinction do you think?
How did humans come to have these distinctive moral attributes when most animals do not display them?
You already know that humans and animals do not share a moral sense based on conscious decisions and thoughtful planning. There is no "right or wrong" in their vocabulary. Their decisions are about life and death, not morality.
Animals live in the now. They don't think, they merely respond to the stimuli of the moment. Do they have feelings? Of course they do. One only has to own a pet to see that sentient creatures have a range of feelings but none of them are generated from a conscious decision. They are prompted by instinct to respond to the actions of humans and other animals.They can learn to trust or distrust based on their experience.
Well, one of us does.
.....dogs....wolves....capuchin monkeys..... ? This seems more like displays of jealousy than a sense of fairness. This is a very base emotion demonstrated in many creatures. A moral sense of fairness is not based on jealousy....it should lead to altruism. The ones fairly treated would give their treats to the one who missed out. That is what a true moral sense would move them to do. This was not demonstrated in any of these studies.
As I said, my dogs have no sense of what's fair when it comes to food....first in gets the lion's share.....no altruism just looking after number one....who argues with a lion? The basis for survival in animals is making sure you get the food.
Couldn't be a biased opinion though...? The findings "suggest"...there it is again. Are suggestions facts? What did it prove really?
The children displayed jealousy too. It is a base emotion for many creatures. Children have a natural sense of fairness and grow up to hopefully learn that life is not fair in many ways and they had better get over themselves and learn to live with it. This is why humans are not programmed exclusively by instinct. They pass on knowledge to their offspring on a level that animals cannot, using faculties that animals do not have....and all we can do is hope that our parents or teachers have risen above the base instincts demonstrated by animals or we will never progress to a point of maturity.
So animals can consciously distinguish between our morality and theirs? How do they arrive at this distinction do you think?
How did humans come to have these distinctive moral attributes when most animals do not display them?
You already know that humans and animals do not share a moral sense based on conscious decisions and thoughtful planning. There is no "right or wrong" in their vocabulary. Their decisions are about life and death, not morality.
Animals live in the now. They don't think, they merely respond to the stimuli of the moment. Do they have feelings? Of course they do. One only has to own a pet to see that sentient creatures have a range of feelings but none of them are generated from a conscious decision. They are prompted by instinct to respond to the actions of humans and other animals.They can learn to trust or distrust based on their experience.
Well, one of us does.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
I did. It looks like you did as well.
You may be interested to know that legalized recreational cannabis use officially becomes legal in Canada today. You should come around for a visit.
Social animals tend to have some sense of morality, though it won’t be identical to the morality that humans have developed. Why don’t you think jealousy has anything to do with a sense of fairness? If you’re jealous of something, doesn’t it mean you think what’s happening is unfair to you in some way?
But if it’s altruism you want to focus on, then you should look at vampire bats, which are social animals. A vampire bat will die if it does not feed for two consecutive days. If food is scarce and another bat from the roost doesn’t get enough to eat, other bats who have fed will regurgitate blood and feed it to the starving bat, which obviously comes at a cost to their own well-being. This occurs among bats who are related by blood and those who are not, but are from the same roost. Also, there have been cases where researchers observed bats feeding starving pups that were not their own offspring.
Vervet monkeys are known to give alarm calls to alert fellow monkeys (those related by blood and also those that are not), in the presence of predators, even though it draws attention to themselves and increases their chances of being attacked. Meerkats are known to do something similar, again risking their own lives for the sake of the group.
Food Sharing in Vampire Bats on JSTOR
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0162309588900155
Meerkat predator-scanning behavior is altruistic, research suggests
Have you never seen animals caring for other animals that not only aren’t their kin, but aren’t even from the same species? What would you call that?
Dog named Fred "adopts" 9 baby ducklings - CBS News
My dog used to try sharing her food with me when she ate. She used to put a few pellets of her food on the floor in front of me, and expected me to sit beside her while she ate.
There is a selfish component to altruistic behavior as well. That being that we expect that when we help others, we will receive help when the time comes that we need it. In the case of the vampire bats, the bats who share their food with those who didn’t get enough to eat are doing so at a potential cost to themselves. But, should the time come when they are the starving one, it’s much more likely that another bat will help them out and give them some food.
That is the language of science. What the behavior suggests is that other animals can display some traits we associate with morality.
And it contributes to a sense of fairness. If someone is jealous of something or someone, in essence, they are under the impression that it’s unfair that another person has something that they don’t.
Humans are animals. Animals are capable of passing on knowledge to their offspring. Animals are capable of planning ahead. Animals know what death is.
Are you asking me why humans have different morals than other animals?
Not sharing the exact same morality that humans have does not mean that other animals cannot have a sense of morality. Why would it?
Many of the other great apes and more advanced species like dolphins certainly do share some aspects of morality with humans.
I’m sorry, but your assertions about other animals are simply incorrect.
Animals don’t think? They don’t make conscious decisions? Come on.
I studied this stuff in university. So, I’m good.
I mean, no offense but your idea of research into the animal kingdom involves posting photographs and declaring them to be pretty and therefore designed.
Last edited:
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
The jury seems to be out on this question among those who identify as Christians.....so was the flood a real event or was it just a dramatized myth with a message?
God commanded Noah: “Make for yourself an ark out of wood of a resinous tree.”—Genesis 6:14.
Some might be familiar with children's storybook illustrations like this...
But what is exactly is an ark?
This ark was not a ship, as some assume. It had neither bow nor stern, keel nor rudder—no bends or curves. It was basically a great chest, or box.
More like this....
God gave Noah the precise dimensions of the ark, some details regarding its design, and directions to coat it inside and out with tar. And he told Noah why: “Here I am bringing the deluge of waters upon the earth . . . Everything that is in the earth will expire.” However, Jehovah gave this direction to Noah: “You must go into the ark, you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you.” Noah was also to bring representatives of all kinds of animals. Only those aboard the ark could survive the coming Deluge!—Genesis 6:17-20.
Have we ever stopped to imagine the size of this vessel?
This replica built to Biblical specifications gives us some idea....
Noah faced a gigantic task. This ark was to be enormous—some 437 feet (133 m) long, 73 feet (22 m) wide, and 44 feet (13 m) tall. It was far larger than the largest seagoing wooden ships built even in modern times. Did Noah back off from this assignment, complain about its challenges, or alter the details to make it easier on himself? The Bible answers: “Noah proceeded to do according to all that God had commanded him. He did just so.”—Genesis 6:22.
The work took decades, perhaps 40 to 50 years. There were trees to fell, logs to haul, and beams to hew, shape, and join. The ark was to have three stories, or decks, a number of compartments, and a door in the side. Evidently, there were windows along the top, as well as a roof that likely peaked in the middle with a slight pitch so that water would run off.—Genesis 6:14-16.
On completion of this assignment God told Noah....“Go, you and all your household, into the ark.” At the same time, God told Noah to take all the varieties of animals into the ark—by sevens in the case of the clean ones, fit for sacrificial use, and the rest by twos.—Genesis 7:1-3.
It is assumed by many that just two of every animas that God brought to Noah went on board the ark, but animals designated as "clean" (i.e. suitable for sacrifice and later for food) were taken in by sevens. That was three breeding pairs and one for sacrifice (which is what Noah did upon disembarking from the ark to thank his God for preserving his family alive through such a cataclysmic event.)
It must have been an unforgettable sight. From the horizon they streamed in by the hundreds—walking, flying, crawling, waddling, lumbering—all in a dizzying variety of sizes, shapes, and dispositions. We need not imagine poor Noah trying to corral, wrangle, or somehow cajole all those wild animals into entering the confined space of the ark. The account says that “they went in . . . to Noah inside the ark.”—Genesis 7:9.
And since dinosaurs were long extinct before man came on the scene, there were no dinosaurs on the ark.
Some skeptics might ask: ‘How could such a thing happen? And how could all those animals coexist peacefully in a confined space?’ Consider this: Is it really beyond the power of the Creator of the universe to control his animal creations, even render them tame and docile if needed? Remember, Jehovah is the God who parted the Red Sea and made the sun stand still. Could he not carry out every event described in Noah’s account?
Excerpts from 2013 WATCHTOWER. Pics from Google
That all depends on which flood your referring to.
Are you referring to the first flood or the second of Noah's.
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
Well that would make more logic than people saying the flood of Noah's as being the first.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
There is no evidence for either the Noah's flood or the one that arises from your misunderstanding of the Bible.
PuerAzaelis
Unknown Friend
Real or a myth? Surely if it is a myth it is more real than ordinary life.
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
Noah's ark is a reasonable balance of constructible and stability as shown by the head of a german technology college, Werner Gitt.
It makes way more sense that the cubical ark of Gilgamesh, which would roll all over the ocean like a volleyball and, in fact, the dimension ratios have been profitably been copied and used by modern vessels of many types.
As far as the animals suddenly frozen such as mammoth, that may not be true. Mammoth have been found frozen with plants in their digestion from every season.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sorry but actual ship builders know that it would fail. And you are wrong about the claim of the dimensions being "perfect". There is a wide range in ratios today. Don't listen to dishonest sources.
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
The ship builders copy the ratios of the dimensions all the time
"In 1844, when Isambard K. Brunnel built his giant ship the Great Britain, he constructed it to almost the exact dimensions of the ark —30:5:3. As it turns out, these dimensions are the perfect ratio for a huge boat built for seaworthiness and not for speed."
see Noah’s ship-building wisdom
and from the same source
"In fact, shipbuilders during World War II used that 30:5:3 ratio to build the boat (the S.S. Jeremiah O’Brien)that eventually was nicknamed “the ugly duckling”—a huge, barge-like boat (with the same ratio as the ark) built to carry tremendous amounts of cargo."
"Noah’s Ark was the focus of a major 1993 scientific study headed by Dr. Seon Hong at the world-class ship research center KRISO, based in Daejeon, South Korea. Dr. Hong’s team compared twelve hulls of different proportions to discover which design was most practical. No hull shape was found to significantly outperform the 4,300-year-old biblical design. In fact, the Ark’s careful balance is easily lost if the proportions are modified, rendering the vessel either unstable, prone to fracture, or dangerously uncomfortable." see Scientific Study Endorses Seaworthiness of Ark
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, they vary. What you will find that the dimensions are ruled more by What they are carrying, where they are going,and how they will get there. Any locks a ship has to go through will affect its dimensions. When you look at ship size ratios you will find no hard and fast rules.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
So the ark was iron hulled, screw propelled with a steam engine? Because Brunel's was. (Weird how creationist sites never seem to be able to spell names correctly.)
Your link doesn't contain a reference to the claim that Brunel built the Great Britain with the Ark in mind. Do you have a better link?
The best I can find is from Wikipedia. Apparently he had originally wanted to build the ship out of wood, but that presented some structural strength issues, so they went with iron instead.
"Great Britain's builders recognised a number of advantages of iron over the traditional wooden hull. Wood was becoming more expensive, while iron was getting cheaper. Iron hulls were not subject to dry rot or woodworm, and they were also lighter in weight and less bulky. The chief advantage of the iron hull was its much greater structural strength. The practical limit on the length of a wooden-hulled ship is about 300 feet, after which hogging—the flexing of the hull as waves pass beneath it—becomes too great. Iron hulls are far less subject to hogging, so that the potential size of an iron-hulled ship is much greater.[5] The ship's designers, led by Brunel, were initially cautious in the adaptation of their plans to iron hulled-technology. With each successive draft however, the ship grew ever larger and bolder in conception. By the fifth draft, the vessel had grown to 3,400 tons, over 1,000 tons larger than any ship then in existence.[6]
SS Great Britain - Wikipedia
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
The economics du jour is a red herring.... but the ark was made form Gopher wood and we don't know the properties comparing iron and gopher wood would be red redding deja nous
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I am from Minnesota and the wood from there is no different than from anywhere else. At least we know where the mythical Ark started from.
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
Woods vary a great deal. Walnut, pine, cork.... all from trees...all different.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And all known. If you want to claim magical qualities on wood from Minnesota the burden of proof is on you.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time understanding what you're saying. Could you re-word it?
I was trying to draw your attention to this part:
"The chief advantage of the iron hull was its much greater structural strength. The practical limit on the length of a wooden-hulled ship is about 300 feet, after which hogging—the flexing of the hull as waves pass beneath it—becomes too great. Iron hulls are far less subject to hogging, so that the potential size of an iron-hulled ship is much greater."
They didn't build the Great Britain out of wood because it wouldn't have been structurally sound.