The supernatural

For the article Supernatural

  • thank you

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I hope my article is reviewed

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I am waiting for your opinion, dear ones

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Hoping for your success and health

    Votes: 1 100.0%
  • Total voters
    1
Status
Not open for further replies.
MarkCorrigan said:
Nope, Noah's Ark s a story. It didn't happen. In fact it was almost certainly cribbed from the Epic of Gilgamesh.

You do realise we can prove that there was no global flood at any time, right?


No, it can't. People have been looking for centuries. It would rather make the news if it was found, but it hasn't been. Please, show me any news story that shows the ark site. Or better yet since you say it can be seen still please show me the wreckage. This should be good.
Click to expand...

I've actually been to this claimed site.
It is clearly a natural formation.
It is obviously far too small to be the Ark. (The dimensions are specified in the Bible). You'd struggle to fit a petting zoo inside it.
One of the 'proofs' offered is that fossilised corals and shells were found on top of it- there's a little museum next to it, with some of the specimens they found. Think about it: the only thing that supposedly didn't sink beneath the waves, has the remains of sea creatures on top of it- thus proving it spent a long time on the bottom of the sea. Hilarious!
One other minor detail is that, according to the myth, Ararat was the first bit of dry land to appear above the waves. This makes sense if you are a Bronze Age writer living in Asia Minor, because Ararat is the highest mountain you know. It makes less sense if you know about such ranges as the Himalayas, the Andes and the Alps.
There's also the slight problem that there isn't enough water in the world to cover it, all the way round, 15 cubits above the summit of Mount Everest. On a globe, where would it drain away to?
In short- don't waste your time on this. It's rubbish.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
I've actually been to this claimed site.
It is clearly a natural formation.
It is obviously far too small to be the Ark. (The dimensions are specified in the Bible). You'd struggle to fit a petting zoo inside it.
One of the 'proofs' offered is that fossilised corals and shells were found on top of it- there's a little museum next to it, with some of the specimens they found. Think about it: the only thing that supposedly didn't sink beneath the waves, has the remains of sea creatures on top of it- thus proving it spent a long time on the bottom of the sea. Hilarious!
One other minor detail is that, according to the myth, Ararat was the first bit of dry land to appear above the waves. This makes sense if you are a Bronze Age writer living in Asia Minor, because Ararat is the highest mountain you know. It makes less sense if you know about such ranges as the Himalayas, the Andes and the Alps.
There's also the slight problem that there isn't enough water in the world to cover it, all the way round, 15 cubits above the summit of Mount Everest. On a globe, where would it drain away to?
In short- don't waste your time on this. It's rubbish.
Click to expand...

Muslims claim it was a local flood, not a global flood.
 
heydarian saeed said:
Hello. Good time. As I asked for Pixel, I ask for you. I want to hear Darwin's theory from you. It is extremely difficult for me to accept this theory. Thank you for your kindness
Click to expand...

It would be pointless any of us trying to explain Darwin, evolution and the rest to you: you have repeatedly said you do not accept it; you have repeatedly denied that humans are animals; you have repeatedly said that the Koran is the only thing which matters to you. You don't want, on the basis of this, to deal with some of the fundamentals of biology.

You've also been pointed in the direction of explanations of evolution.

There is nothing to discuss at present.
 
How could a local flood be big enough to deposit the ark on top of Mount Ararat? That makes no sense at all.

Don't take that the wrong way Scorpion, I believe what you say, but that fact doesn't fit with what Heydarian has said.
 
What's the point in mentioning it in your mythology if it was just a local flood?

That's the problem with Religious Apologetics. All the "Well it was just a normal event" excuses begs the questions of why mention them at all.
 
heydarian saeed said:
My conscience does not accept this theory. Maybe we have read this theory in another way and it is in our minds. Can you tell me what Darwin's theory really is? I am very interested in reading and learning from another language like yours. Although it is difficult for me to accept this theory. Thank you
Click to expand...


Why are you asking Pixel to explain to you what she knows about evolution? Why don't you buy a good book on evolution and read that, which is probably what Pixel and many others here have done.

If you really wanted to know why evolution is true, then you'd buy a couple of books and read them properly.

Try Neil Shubin, Your Inner Fish, Penguin publ., 2009

Link here - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Your-Inner...=1&keywords=neil+shubin&qid=1631109016&sr=8-1
 
Scorpion said:
Muslims claim it was a local flood, not a global flood.
Click to expand...


Cosmic Yak said:
Not so. See my post about the National Museum in Iran.
Click to expand...


Thus quoth the Prophet Whatsitsname (peace be unto it) that Google the Merciful sent forth in response to my supplication:

"Unlike the Biblical narrative, the Quranic narrative does not explicitly state whether the Flood was a global event that drowned all creatures on earth or a local event that only drowned the people to whom Noah was sent (although, as we shall see, the straightforward reading of the Quranic verses seems to suggest the latter). Also unlike the Biblical narrative, the Quranic narrative does not give any genealogical details that would place the Flood at some precise date. Since the Quranic narrative leaves open the possibility that the Flood was local, and since it does not specify a date for the Flood, it does not conflict with modern geology, nor does it conflict with modern biology, nor does it conflict with the radiometric dating of rocks on the surface of the earth and moon.

(...)

The people of the Prophet Noah (upon him be peace) had fallen into idolatry and his mission was to warn them to stop worshiping idols and to worship God alone, lest a punishment from God descend on them.

These people disbelieved in him, mocked him, and disobeyed him. As a result of their rejection of the messenger that God sent them, God unleashed a local flood that encompassed the area that they inhabited. The Flood was divine punishment for their disbelief."​
Link: https://www.basiraeducation.org/blog/was-noahs-flood-global-or-local


Of course, this is one individual's --- or, I don't know, maybe one sect's --- interpretation, and, as it says here itself, many others hold a different view. Both interpretations make sense, linguistically speaking, going by the wording of the Quran.


Incidentally, in the comments, someone asks the obvious question, that I'd myself asked: Why the Ark, then, if this were a local affair? The response is this very wise observation, pointing out why the question itself is absurd and unrighteous: "That's a good question, though if we follow this route there are many other questions we could ask regarding the decisions of Allah (swa)."
 
heydarian saeed said:
The first word he said to Muhammad: Sing. He repeated three times. That is, learn science and in the next four verses he also said for science. Go find out the unknowns. Tell me, what is this word? And who said that? Is it medieval? Or up to date. The Qur'an speaks of the cosmic context. Ten years ago, NASA supercomputers managed to take a small photo of it. The Qur'an speaks of neutron stars - of dark matter and dark energy - of space black holes, and so on. Who could have said that in the seventh century? Muhammad was illiterate! So who told him the Quran? wait ...
Click to expand...


No. the Koran does not speak of "neutron stars, dark matter, or black holes ...".

If you really think the Koran described any of those things, or even anything at all that we have discovered from science in the modern age (i.e. roughly beginning very slowly around the time of Galileo, circa 1600 onwards ... but only really producing 99% of the vital science that we know know since about 1860 with Darwin). if you really believe that sort of thing is actually in the Koran then you are monumentality deluded to the point of completely abandoning any idea of ever telling the truth about any of this (though in saying that, I should also say that a very large number of the worlds 3 billion Christians apparently have the same thoroughly dishonest beliefs about the contents of their holy book the bible).

If either the Koran or the bible had truly described any of those things, then it would be headline news all day every day on every TV & radio station and in every newspaper. But of course, there never has been any credible honest report of any such thing at all, anywhere.

Why do you believe such obvious untrue & frankly childishly naive nonsense?

I can only think that it's because you are so completely obsessed with the belief that the books are so holy that they cannot possibly be wrong …

… but the books were neither written by, or dictated by any God … there is zero evidence for that! The books were most definitely written by ordinary mortal men in an age of almost total educational ignorance. All the actual books that you could hold in your hand, i.e. all those books or scraps of paper that actually exist, were clearly written by men … there is no book, page, or even one single word ever written (or spoken) that could be shown to have even 0.00000000000001% vague possibility of any God producing it.
 
IanS said:
… but the books were neither written by, or dictated by any God … there is zero evidence for that! The books were most definitely written by ordinary mortal men in an age of almost total educational ignorance. All the actual books that you could hold in your hand, i.e. all those books or scraps of paper that actually exist, were clearly written by men … there is no book, page, or even one single word ever written (or spoken) that could be shown to have even 0.00000000000001% vague possibility of any God producing it.
Click to expand...

Its only my personal opinion, but I consider the Quran poorly written, poorly compiled. repetitive and simplistic nonsense that was lashed together from notes written on bark and leaves, and mostly compiled by length of surah not chronology.

It is largely plagiarism from the bible and other sources. But it lacks the rich narratives in the bible.

But worst of all if the Quran is God's word he is a merciless and sadistic monster.
 
Last edited:
I don't disagree with your interpretation of the Quran there Scorpion, my only disagreement is that the Quran is not even remotely unique in those regards. The Bible is likewise poorly written copypasta (often from itself!) that describes a sadistic monster of a god.
 
Scorpion said:
Its only my personal opinion, but I consider the Quran poorly written, poorly compiled. repetitive and simplistic nonsense that was lashed together from notes written on bark and leaves, and mostly compiled by length of surah not chronology.

It is largely plagiarism from the bible and other sources. But it lacks the rich narratives in the bible.

But worst of all if the Quran is God's word he is a merciless and sadistic monster.
Click to expand...


I think the bottom line is that it's just not credible at all for people to believe what men wrote thousands of years ago at a time when they did not understand hardly anything about the world around them.

I think it's unarguably clear that because people did not know what the stars in the sky were, what thunder and lightening were, what earthquakes and volcanoes were, what disease was, what hundreds of such things were that actually affected everyone's daily lives, that they reasoned that an all powerful god must have been the cause ... and that's what they wrote about and preached about in the short sermons that were later compiled together to make holy books ...

... but today in the 21st century we now know (courtesy of modern science) what causes all those things. And none of it was done by any supernatural force such as a God.

As far as I can see, the only way that billions of Christians and Muslims can still believe what it says in their holy books is by blanket denial of science ...

... but that's even less logical, less reasonable, and more deluded, since science has proved itself beyond all argument with almost everything that any of use, do, or encounter every second of our daily lives ... and that includes all those billions of disbelieving theists ... they too live every second of their 21st century lives relying on the fact that the science is true/correct, and that claimed supernatural miracles etc. are no more than bogus ancient superstitions born out of educational ignorance.
 
You can't just say something that's factually wrong, completely unsupported by evidence, or nonsensical but amend a "But that's just my personal opinion" to it.
 
Scorpion said:
It is largely plagiarism from the bible and other sources. But it lacks the rich narratives in the bible....
Click to expand...

This comparison is just simply a variation of whose **** smells better. And coming from a tradition of so called "rich narratives", in my opinion, the Bible is one of the blandest and most simplistic religious texts I have come across.

In fact the Bible is basically is a dumbed down narrative plagiarised from a much richer text text, plagiarized from an even more richer text. You want richness, try the Avesta or the Vedas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom