No Lions and Tigers were on Noah’s Ark

[Ouroboros]

And they don't believe in evolution, so there's that little problem too.

Exactly. Since evolution is about how species evolve, and lions and tigers are two different species, then creationists arguing that lions and tigers evolved after the ark agree, in principle, on the definition of evolution and the fact of evolution. The only difference then is the time frame, not the if or how, but only the when. But then we have plenty of evidence to show that evolution takes longer time than the "ark-to-now" hypothesis of creationist-evolution. So creationism fails miserably making these mishmash concepts.

 

[Tumah]

There would be no point in making the ark a specific size if space was not an issue. Your ad hoc rationalization does nothing to resolve this issue.

I guess since you seem to already know all the details of Judaism's view on the ark and the miracle, there's no point in further discussing this with you.

 

[metis]

I don't agree here.

Science is a tool that we use to ascertain truths about the world. Science makes sense only when we do not know things. In other words, science is great when ignorance is the default. Otherwise, it is useless.

i would expect that God does not need tools, but He can say immediately how things are, being the creator and all. A Scientific God is, in my opinion, absurd.

Maybe we can say that God did not want to promulgate truths which were too complicated at the time of the bronze age. But I do not buy that either. How difficult is it to understand something like "day and night are caused by the rotation of the earth around its axis"? I am sure people at that time would have grasped that or, at worst, left it verbatin in scripture for the people to figure it out.

I think the most rational explanation is that people, at that time, simply made things up, or used their obviously unguided intuition.

Ciao

- viole

You are making assumptions about God that I don't, so I think this is where our discrepancy emanates from. Also, I never see science as being "useless", although there are some areas that science does not deal with. OTOH, I very much agree with your last two paragraphs.

 

[Demonslayer]

You can't even get two dogs to behave themselves half the time in the same room.

And people still believe two of every animal calmly lined up and boarded a big boat.

No fighting, no eating each other, just lined up like Star Wars fans waiting for The Force Awakens tickets to go on sale.

LOL

 

[metis]

There would be no point in making the ark a specific size if space was not an issue.

Tumah and I are both Jews, but we see the Flood narrative differently with myself taking the Allegory Path. It seems to have been taken from a Babylonian epic and reworked by us to express our beliefs and morals, and all cultures do this btw.

However, in our tradition, we let different opinions on matters like this and many other issues stand and let others chime in and/or make their own decisions on how they may interpret what they read.

 

[viole]

You are making assumptions about God that I don't, so I think this is where our discrepancy emanates from. Also, I never see science as being "useless", although there are some areas that science does not deal with. OTOH, I very much agree with your last two paragraphs.

I see science as useful only under the condition that we need it. When do we need it? When we do not know things. Which is our natural default. Science is very effective in filtering out errors that only fallible beings can do. And it is, therefore, useless for infallible beings. By definition. You do not need a crosshair if you always hit the bull's eye.

What sense does science make for someone who knows everything? If we knew everything, would we need it? All those peer reviews, experiments, equations, theories, being falsifiable and stuff? Why?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Skwim]

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be thickheaded here, but again, there is no reason to assume that "kind" is synonymous with "species". Consider that according to the Talmud, spelt is a "kind" of wheat, but oat and rye are a "kind" of barely. Clearly, the Sages of the Talmud are using some other classification system to determine "kind". (I'm not using this to prove something about the Sages of the Talmud, just to show that other classification systems exist.) I don't see any reason to assume that compatible breeding was the classification that was being used to distinguish between kinds.

Truthfully, I have no idea what the Bible meant when it used the word מִיןm,miyn. I'm only going by what others claim it is. At one time AiG said it was equivalent to the taxonomic rank of family, now they're saying it's equivalent to genus.

For me personally that's not much of an issue, because we already have a concept of miraculously fitting more than possible into a given space (Avoth 5:5). I don't know what other Creationists will do with this.

Yeah, but when one resorts to miracles to resolve part of a problem then a person has to ask why god didn't resort to a miracle to resolve the entire problem.

 

[Demonslayer]

Yeah, but when one resorts to miracles to resolve part of a problem then a person has to ask why god didn't resort to a miracle to resolve the entire problem.

Or why He created the problem in the first place.

 

[Tumah]

Truthfully, I have no idea what the Bible meant when it used he word מִיןm,miyn. I'm only going by what others claim it is. At one time AiG said it was equivalent to the taxonomic rank of family, now they're saying it's equivalent to genus.

Yeah, I didn't realize that you were basing it on something from AiG. Hopefully, there is the understanding that they don't speak for creationists outside their religious sphere.

Yeah, but when one resorts to miracles to resolve part of a problem then a person has to ask why god didn't resort to a miracle to resolve the entire problem.

I'm given to understand that most of the events in the record are miraculous.
But besides for that, we have a rule that G-d performs miracles on the smallest possible scale while accomplishing all the goals intended. So He had the ark made in specific dimensions because we can derive information from those dimensions, not because they necessarily effect the float-ability of the ark. He used water to destroy the creation because there is something that we can derive from that specific form of punishment. etc. etc.

 

[Skwim]

You silly geezer... That's adaptation; not evolution. Let Kent Hovind set you straight:

Absolutely beautiful video, Thanks for sharing.

 

[metis]

I see science as useful only under the condition that we need it. When do we need it? When we do not know things. Which is our natural default. Science is very effective in filtering out errors that only fallible beings can do. And it is, therefore, useless for infallible beings. By definition. You do not need a crosshair if you always hit the bull's eye.

What sense does science make for someone who knows everything? If we knew everything, would we need it? All those peer reviews, experiments, equations, theories, being falsifiable and stuff? Why?

Ciao

- viole

I do not know of anyone or anything that knows all, so I don't see how that pertains to what I've been posting. You are basing your beliefs on what you believe to be true of God whereas I'm unwilling to do so as I have no such beliefs per se.

 

[Skwim]

Or why He created the problem in the first place.

Well, he did say that he created evil, and he's certainly responsible for putting sin on the card table, so I don't find it out of character at all that he is responsible for a whole slew of problems. It's as if life is a video game wherein the player (god) get's to decide what kind of obstacles are put in front of the game's characters in their quest to get the bag of gold at the end.

 

[Skwim]

I think we tend to make a mistake when we try to force a religious narrative into science, which is sorta like putting a square peg into a round hole. The main purpose of the narrative undoubtedly wasn't written for scientific purposes.

But many creationists, Walt Brown, William Dembski, Duane Gish, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Phillip E. Johnson, Alvin Plantinga, Jonathan Sarfati, and Jonathan Wells,to name a few, have all resorted to science to prove evolution wrong. The working notion being that if evolution is wrong then by default a literal reading of the Bible with its implication, creationism, has to be right.

 

[metis]

But many creationists, Walt Brown, William Dembski, Duane Gish, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Phillip E. Johnson, Alvin Plantinga, Jonathan Sarfati, and Jonathan Wells,to name a few, have all resorted to science to prove evolution wrong. The working notion being that if evolution is wrong then by default a literal reading of the Bible and its implication, creationism, has to be right.

There's money to be made in the arena of pseudo-science as we've seen over the last several decades. And one does not believe in evolution-- either they accept the scientific method or they don't, and most YEC's simply don't.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Of course there were lions and tigers On the Arc.
every Arc I have ever seen has them in the set...

 

[Skwim]

Of course there were lions and tigers On the Arc.
every Arc I have ever seen has them in the set...

By gosh! You're right.

​

And two of each no less.


.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Absolutely beautiful video, Thanks for sharing.

My pleasure.

 

[Skwim]

Just an update.

 

[Draka]

I have it! I get it all now! I know how the ark fit two of every species AND had room to bring food for all of them to boot!

Time Lord technology! It all makes perfect sense now. God is a Time Lord!

 

[Shad]

Tumah and I are both Jews, but we see the Flood narrative differently with myself taking the Allegory Path. It seems to have been taken from a Babylonian epic and reworked by us to express our beliefs and morals, and all cultures do this btw.

However, in our tradition, we let different opinions on matters like this and many other issues stand and let others chime in and/or make their own decisions on how they may interpret what they read.

I can understand the moral story interpretation. I see it this way as well. I understand you let people express their views. However when one express a view that the story is literal then I believe people are obligated to slap down the interpretation as the nonsense it is.