Merged (edited) General thoughts about Christianity and the bible

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I was told that they ONLY looked at the site. (no research)
Seems generous to call that research. (non-event)

"If you skip this you will never see it again"? So there IS a god?

 

[Foster Zygote]

You were 'told' and you uncritically accept anything that fits your dogma.

Seems generous to call that research.

 

[Steve]

I might have mentioned it before, but the ark would have also needed fish tanks for all the fish in the sea and probably most squid and jellyfish too. The reason is that rain water does not contain salt. Enough water to go past the tops of the tallest mountains (presumably Everest) would dilute the sea to the point of killing most things that live in the sea by osmotic pressure exploding their cells. And some of those tanks would have to be pressurised to match the ones living, say, in the Mariana Trench.

And actually, come to think of it, better include river fish as well, since in the first days of the flood the influx of sea water would be lethal to a lot of those.

And you can't just release them all afterwards and let them find their way back. You have to go put them where you found them.

Plus, how would that work even for animals? You can't just release a giant panda and let it find its way back to China, because those barely move. Or good luck letting a koala find its way back to Australia

And note how none of that needs any fancy science to think about. It's just stuff that is around. You can go to the local zoo to see a panda.

You are just not thinking creatively. The koalas travelled in the kangaroos' pouches, of course. And all that other stuff is just miracles. If the god can conjure up all that water from nothing then the other stuff is just child's play.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

You were 'told' and you uncritically accept anything that fits your dogma.

That saw cuts both ways.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

Seems generous to call that research.

What was it that did not seem like research to you?

 

[Rusty Tyler]

You are just not thinking creatively.

Is that what evolution is? Creative thinking?

 

[sinnikal]

That saw cuts both ways.

You've used that line about 3 times too many in the last coupla days. And never explained how it cuts both ways.
I guess that's explained by your lack of critical thinking.

 

[Steve]

Is that what evolution is? Creative thinking?

Context, my friend. Do not snip my post in order to make it into something you think you can criticize. That is just more dishonesty displayed by the religious in lieu of an actual argument.

 

[SteveAitch]

Not that it discounts the point (and makes the logistical problems seven times worse).
...

Well, slightly less than 7 times - depending on the number of unclean animal species.

But I think it's best to be accurate with the arguments you are dismantling - doesn't give the other person a get-out.

That saw cuts both ways.

IIRC Most saws cut on the forward-stroke, Japanese saws on the back-stroke. Neither is designed to cut on both strokes.

 

[zooterkin]

You haven't listened to her? Oh you are in for a treat.

And if you get a chance to see her live, take it. She's fabulous. (I've seen her a couple of times, at Skeptics in the Pub, and QEDCon.)

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

But it's all over now?

I have fallen for another,
She can make her own way home

 

[P.J. Denyer]

That saw cuts both ways.

It doesn't matter how often you post that, it won't magically make it true or clever.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Well, slightly less than 7 times - depending on the number of unclean animal species.

But I think it's best to be accurate with the arguments you are dismantling - doesn't give the other person a get-out.


IIRC Most saws cut on the forward-stroke, Japanese saws on the back-stroke. Neither is designed to cut on both strokes.

I agree, just pointing out that the difference doesn't make any difference to the plausibility.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

So I married my god???

Actual Canadians get all the hot girls.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, just not to risk that's taken seriously by our religious friend: that still doesn't solve the problem for the kangaroos either, since there's still a bloody big ocean in between

 

[Steve]

Well, just not to risk that's taken seriously by our religious friend: that still doesn't solve the problem for the kangaroos either, since there's still a bloody big ocean in between

The world was a lot smaller then .

 

[Steve]

Actual Canadians get all the hot girls.

But my wife god says we are only allowed one each.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Well, just not to risk that's taken seriously by our religious friend: that still doesn't solve the problem for the kangaroos either, since there's still a bloody big ocean in between

BIG hops...

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I'd also like to point out that even the 7 pairs for clean animals still leaves us with a problem for humans. There were only 4 pairs of humans on Noah's ark;: Noah, his wife, their three sons, and their three wives. And out of those we can cross out Noah and his wife for future reproduction, and one of their sons Ham and his wife produced all the black Africans, leaving just two pairs for European and middle eastern.

So effectively we have just one pair of humans to produce all the dark skinned, and just two pairs for everyone else. And from those two pairs the males are brothers. (And we don't know about the females, it wouldn't be unusual, but let's assume not.)

So yes, the assertion that we'd all look like the Habsburgs is still correct. In fact, probably it's insulting to the Habsburgs, since even those occasionally introduced some new blood into the gene pool. Not by much, but still more than the Genesis would cause if it were true

I mean, on the black side the next generation would literally have no choice but to marry siblings, and on the other side at best marry a first cousin.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That saw cuts both ways.

But one way is toothless. Get over yourself.