Noah's Ark

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

If you believe/accept the story of Noah's ark, how did Noah get from Mesopotamia(modern Iraq) to the Arctic to get polar bears for example?

I think animals in the ark is a later redaction. Hindu version says seven persons on the boat. This matches with the Bible.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Here is the original myth as told by Plato The Myth of Atlantis and the Universal Flood - New Acropolis Library

Could it be sinking of dwarka?

 

[soulsurvivor]

Could it be sinking of Dwarka?

This is the story of the Matsya Avatar - long before Krishna and Dwarka.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If people can believe that from Noah's family we have the variety of people that we can see nowadays, why would it be difficult to accept that in animal families similar differentiation has happened?

The crucial thing is, in Biblical point of view, everything was good when it was created. Then it started to become corrupted, or degenerate. All that we can see in nature supports the idea of degeneration. And nothing supports the opposite, that things would develop, become more complex, as the evolution theory suggests.

If the evolution theory would be true, we should see things become more complex, single cell organisms evolving to organisms that have legs, eyes and other complex systems. All we can see is DNA getting more errors, "whales losing their legs"... ...this means, it could easily be that in the ark there was about 460 animal families and their offspring has deteriorated to this variety that we now can see. And the speed of deteriorating seems to be increasing.

You talk out of both sides of your mouth. For purposes of defending the ark myth, you're all about evolution generating diversity, although you won't use the word. Differentiate is your word.

Then, in the same post where you talk about the tree of life generating all kinds of new branches since Noah's day, you describe a planet that has been degenerating at an accelerating rate since it was made. Everything in nature cries degeneration to you despite growth everywhere. Yes, living things eventually die and decompose, but you seem to have missed the phase where they grew and developed first both individually and as populations across generations.

This is what happens when your belief set is a patchwork of things people just made up. It's internally self-contradictory and it contradicts the evidence.

Believers have to contend with that in multiple areas of study, such as biblical prophecy. If these prophecies came from some prescient source able to see the future, then you wouldn't have to invent all kinds of just-so apologetics to explain it away. Likewise with the contradictions between the Gospels. Likewise with the perfect god that regretted its creation, and which allows gratuitous suffering. Likewise with the god that sees the future perfectly but allows free will. Everywhere, we see evidence of human creativity rather than accurate reporting, and mistakes made in the inventing as various writers tell varying tales that often are impossible or contradict one another.

The believer has to spin multiple intricate explanations to try to reconcile all of this and maintain the illusion that scripture is what it claims to be - of divine provenance, and therefore true and accurate - but the unbeliever has a single, simple explanation that explains it all. That fact alone tells you that the supernaturalistic explanation is likely wrong and the other correct.

An interesting example of that from history involves early explanations for what is called retrograde motion in the planets. Ptolemy's proposed epicycles for explaining the retrograde motion of Mars in his erroneous geocentric model, where from earth, Mars appears to move in one direction, reverse direction for a while, and then reverse again (see dotted blue line below). So, he proposed so-called epicycles (shown in solid blue) to account for that.

But this ad hoc and incorrect invention added considerable complexity to his model. To keep the earth in the center and the other planets orbiting about it, he added these phantom movements that had planets orbiting around nothing and the earth simultaneously:

But put the sun in the center as Copernicus did and watch what happens. The paths of the planets are greatly simplified. A simpler mathematical treatment is always a preferred one according to Occam's parsimony principle, and if no new evidence surfaces that requires this extra complexity to account for, the simpler narrative is likelier to be correct as was the case with apparent retrograde planetary motion. Look at how much simpler and consistent with reality the heliocentric model is, where everything is orbiting the sun rather than the earth and nothing needs to be orbiting around empty space:

All of the problems with the flood story are easily explained once we recognize it for what it is - something humanity invented.

 

[Tamino]

If the evolution theory would be true, we should see things become more complex, single cell organisms evolving to organisms that have legs, eyes and other complex systems.

... Uhhhmm, what? This is EXACTLY what can be observed in evolution!

All we can see is DNA getting more errors, "whales losing their legs"...

Are you in any way aware how mutation and selection work? Where did the whales get their handy flippers and blowholes then, if DNA would be getting "more errors"?

...this means, it could easily be that in the ark there was about 460 animal families and their offspring has deteriorated to this variety that we now can see. And the speed of deteriorating seems to be increasing.

"Deteriorate into variety"? What now? Didn't you say that you only accept small diversification auch as in color?

Can you present any coherent theory as to how DNA works, or are you just freely associating as you please, in order to bend reality into fitting your preconceived storyline?

 

[Audie]

"Modern creationists seem to think these ancient people used their cell phones and checked global maps to witness the massive flooding"

No. That is your thinking and exaggerated BS.
Sadly sometimes it seems to be all you post and or can produce.

If you want an example.. Here's one.

I've seen you many times poke fun at people that pray, tell them its a waste of time, even call them uneducated or stupid but yet turn around and post this..

A little humour, obviously in no way
intended as serious, applied to the
utterly deluded bs of the flood story,
and look at the anger and accusations* that result.

Almost like a " tell".

Who would get sooo defensive when they have
God, angels, bible, and all of reality on their side?

* the accusations don't ring true.
It's a banning offense, just for one lil detail.

 

[Audie]

You talk out of both sides of your mouth. For purposes of defending the ark myth, you're all about evolution generating diversity, although you won't use the word. Differentiate is your word.

Then, in the same post where you talk about the tree of life generating all kinds of new branches since Noah's day, you describe a planet that has been degenerating at an accelerating since it was made. Everything you see in nature cries degeneration to you despite growth everywhere. Yes, living things eventually die and decompose, but you seem to have missed the phase where they grew and developed first both individually and as populations across generations.

This is what happens when your belief set is a patchwork of things people just made up. It's internally self-contradictory and it contradicts the evidence.

Believers have to contend with that in multiple areas of study, such as biblical prophecy. If these prophecies came from some prescient source able to see the future, then you wouldn't have to invent all kinds of just-so apologetics to explain it away. Likewise with the contradictions between the Gospels. Likewise with the perfect god that regretted its creation, and which allows gratuitous suffering. Likewise with the god that sees the future perfectly but allows free will. Everywhere, we see evidence of human creativity rather than accurate reporting, and mistakes made in the inventing as various writers tell varying tales that often are impossible or contradict one another.

The believer has to spin multiple intricate explanations to try to reconcile all of this and maintain the illusion that is what it claims to be - of divine provenance, and therefore true and accurate - but the unbeliever has a single, simple explanation that explains it all. That fact alone tells you that the supernaturalistic explanation is likely wrong and the other correct.

An interesting example of that from history involves early explanations for what is called retrograde motion in the planets. Ptolemy's proposed epicycles for explaining the retrograde motion of Mars in his erroneous geocentric model, where from earth, Mars appears to move in one direction, reverse direction for a while, and then reverse again (see dotted blue line below). So, he proposed so-called epicycles (shown in solid blue) to account for that.

But this ad hoc and incorrect invention added considerable complexity to his model. To keep the earth in the center and the other planets orbiting about it, he added these phantom movements that had planets orbiting around nothing and the earth simultaneously:

But put the sun in the center as Copernicus did and watch what happens. The paths of the planets are greatly simplified. A simpler mathematical treatment is always a preferred one according to Occam's parsimony principle, and if no new evidence surfaces that requires this extra complexity to account for, the simpler narrative is likelier to be correct as was the case with apparent retrograde planetary motion. Look at how much simpler and consistent with reality the heliocentric model is, where everything is orbiting the sun rather than the earth and nothing needs to be orbiting around empty space:

All of the problems with the flood story are easily explained once we recognize it for what it is - something humanity invented.

I doubt a real god would want anyone
" defending" them with garbage.

 

[Audie]

To pray for the sake of resolving stress and trauma is sound coping method. This has nothing to do with ancient myths like Noah's Ark.

You've evidence this is so?
I remember, as a teen in Hong Kong and
little exposure to Christianity, asking a
Mormon who was hoping to convert me.
" How can you believe such a ridiculous story?^


He said he prayed for days for God to tell him.

And eventually, he did.

Later imlearned how that works, trying to decide
which grad school. I'd get the Answer, " all unbidden"
suddenly and with great decisive clarity.

But I'd keep stewing about it and, after a while,
I'd get a different Answer.

What is the benefit of prayer?

 

[F1fan]

You've evidence this is so?
I remember, as a teen in Hong Kong and
little exposure to Christianity, asking a
Mormon who was hoping to convert me.
" How can you believe such a ridiculous story?^


He said he prayed for days for God to tell him.

And eventually, he did.

Later imlearned how that works, trying to decide
which grad school. I'd get the Answer, " all unbidden"
suddenly and with great decisive clarity.

But I'd keep stewing about it and, after a while,
I'd get a different Answer.

What is the benefit of prayer?

When I was in college for psychology we learned that people use all sorts of techniques and methods to cope with trauma, anxiety, and stress. This includes prayer as a way to mitigate negative emotions. I'm not saying prayer works magically in changing outcomes, I'm just saying many use prayer as a means to cope. Think of the saying "There are no atheists in foxholes." Heck, even Stalin allowed churches to reopen during WW2 because the public was so scared of the Germans.

 

[Audie]

When I was in college for psychology we learned that people use all sorts of techniques and methods to cope with trauma, anxiety, and stress. This includes prayer as a way to mitigate negative emotions. I'm not saying prayer works magically in changing outcomes, I'm just saying many use prayer as a means to cope. Think of the saying "There are no atheists in foxholes." Heck, even Stalin allowed churches to reopen during WW2 because the public was so scared of the Germans.

Coping with negative emotions
seems sound.

As for foxholes, I doubt there's any who
say "Glory be, i'm about to reveive eternal
life" when the artillary starts landing.

 

[metis]

Many primitive eople were only familiar with 20-30 square miles. That was their universe. When it flooded of course they saw it as the "world". Modern creationists seem to think these ancient people used their cell phones and checked global maps to witness the massive flooding.

And on top of that, words of such flooding can spread to other areas, such as the Gilgamesh narrative.

 

[Ajax]

By creative counting.

Why do you think "black" and "white" people are not called different species, when in animal kingdom similar difference would mean different species?

You must be joking, right? We have different colored dogs, cats, chicken, lions, tigers, leopards, wolves, foxes. and many more.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

This is the story of the Matsya Avatar - long before Krishna and Dwarka.

There is no sinking in matsya. Krishna at 1500 bce. Atlantis could be it's memory at 4c bce. One would have to find the earliest reference to Atlantis.

 

[1213]

You must be joking, right? We have different colored dogs, cats, chicken, lions, tigers, leopards, wolves, foxes. and many more.

I think that is a good addition, but doesn't answer to the question, why in some cases small differences means a different species, but not in all cases.

 

[1213]

... Uhhhmm, what? This is EXACTLY what can be observed in evolution!

Please give one example of a such observation.

Are you in any way aware how mutation and selection work? Where did the whales get their handy flippers and blowholes then, if DNA would be getting "more errors"?

All those changes happen allegedly because of changes in DNA, and those changes are because of error in the copy.

 

[1213]

You talk out of both sides of your mouth. For purposes of defending the ark myth, you're all about evolution generating diversity, although you won't use the word. Differentiate is your word.

Evolution suggests more than just small changes. That is why I rather use the word differentiation. All the small changes can be just because of Epigenetics, DNA activating in different ways in different conditions, which doesn't really mean that DNA is changing, it is just activated differently, resulting different outlooks.

If these prophecies came from some prescient source able to see the future, then you wouldn't have to invent all kinds of just-so apologetics to explain it away. Likewise with the contradictions between the Gospels.

Why do you think people have to invent apologetics about prophesies?

There is no real contradictions between Gospels, if you understand them correctly.

Likewise with the perfect god that regretted its creation, and which allows gratuitous suffering. Likewise with the god that sees the future perfectly but allows free will.

That God gave free will, makes Him great in my opinion. By what I see, most would not do so. And I think the right word is, was sad, not regretting.

Everywhere, we see evidence of human creativity

Please give one example?

An interesting example of that from history involves early explanations for what is called retrograde motion in the planets. Ptolemy's proposed epicycles for explaining the retrograde motion of Mars in his erroneous geocentric model, where from earth, Mars appears to move in one direction, reverse direction for a while, and then reverse again (see dotted blue line below). So, he proposed so-called epicycles (shown in solid blue) to account for that.

But this ad hoc and incorrect invention added considerable complexity to his model....
But put the sun in the center as Copernicus did and watch what happens. The paths of the planets are greatly simplified....

I think simple is not a good reason to select something as the truth. The complex system can be possible. And by how poorly people know actually, I believe the complex system is more likely.

All of the problems with the flood story are easily explained once we recognize it for what it is - something humanity invented.

Why do you think humans would have invented the story, if it would not have happened, especially when it can be found in some form all around the world?

 

[1213]

Not sure how you can believe pandas wouldn't die without bamboo when they are currently dying out due primarily to their food source, bamboo forests, shrinking.

Is it because lack of food, or because their environment is destroyed? Could it be, that pandas just don't understand to eat anything else normally, or that they don't have anything else?

Can you show me examples of pandas in captivity being fed anything besides bamboo for long periods of time and surviving?

Unfortunately I can't. But, it would be nice to see, if a panda would have all kind of other food available, but not bamboo, would it die, or would it eat something else. And if pandas would start to eat other things, would they start to look more like regular bears eventually.

It is interesting that Science news says that this bamboo habit is relatively new.

"The switch to a bamboo diet occurred some 5,000 years ago, not 2 million years ago as thought"

Giant pandas may have only recently switched to eating mostly bamboo

Giant pandas may have switched to an exclusive bamboo diet some 5,000 years ago, not 2 million years ago as previously thought.

www.sciencenews.org

Maybe all allegedly monophagous animals have developed that habit lately.

 

[1213]

And where would you draw that line between small diversification that you believe, and big changes you don't?

Colors, size, outlook. For example Caucasian human, African human, Indonesian human. Or, polar bear, grizzly bear, sun bear...

Bears don't spontaneously hibernate for an entire year.

It could have been helpful, even if not the whole year.

 

[Audie]

There is no sinking in matsya. Krishna at 1500 bce. Atlantis could be it's memory at 4c bce. One would have to find the earliest reference to Atlantis.

What does that have to do with noahs ark

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Evolution suggests more than just small changes.

Yes. Small changes over shorter periods of time accrue into large changes over longer periods of time.

All the small changes can be just because of Epigenetics, DNA activating in different ways in different conditions, which doesn't really mean that DNA is changing

But they're not. Genomes evolve, which means that the DNA of offspring varies from that of their parents. It's a fact.

Why do you think people have to invent apologetics about prophesies?

Because biblical prophecy is weak.

I think the right word is, was sad, not regretting.

They mean the same thing.

I think simple is not a good reason to select something as the truth.

Agreed, but that's not what Occam's Razor recommends. It's not a rule for choosing truth.

Why do you think humans would have invented the story

The flood story? To account for marine fossils and seashells on the highest mountain tops.