Poll of the Day > So, Noah's ark...

(+) Yeah! (+)

Gaawa_chan posted...

"perfect genes."

:-/

Yeah, I'm not going to the Bible to learn about biology- a book that says that if you put a pregnant animal in front of a fence, the animal's baby will come out striped. It's a book of parables and fables primarily designed to either fill in explanatory gaps with (mostly incorrect) answers or control a person's behavior via magic carrot and stick philosophy. Stop taking it literally and maybe you won't have to treat reality as the enemy of your faith.

The only thing that the Bible is useful for in a literal sense is neither science nor a historical account of events, but an analysis of the culture of the times+places that its various texts were written in.

I think most people take the bible too literally.

I don't think it's meant to be an account of things that actually happened and we need to believe that -- I always saw it as a collection of stories that are meant to get across a point. Like the story of Abraham and Isaac -- none of it was true but the point is to not question God. It isn't about the reality of it, it's about the message it conveys.

When people take the bible literally to the full extent then we actually have a problem.
Some of the most atrocious things done by man were done in the name of God. We invoke his name to justify our hatred and violence, and to me THAT'S a sin.

---

Revelation34 posted...

Bullshit.

That's pretty much what is believed in parts of Orthodox Judaism. In fact, there was an argument that the "Benei Elohim" mentioned in Genesis were men from the direct line of Seth. The "Sons of God" were more pure and less fallen than the daughters of Cain which manifested as their superhuman attributes. Their children, the Nephilim, inherited these traits but with the depravity of Cain's line.

Of course this is all Biblical fan fiction to try to explain things away.

---

Flappers posted...

I think most people take the bible too literally.

I don't think it's meant to be an account of things that actually happened and we need to believe that -- I always saw it as a collection of stories that are meant to get across a point. Like the story of Abraham and Isaac -- none of it was true but the point is to not question God. It isn't about the reality of it, it's about the message it conveys.

When people take the bible literally to the full extent then we actually have a problem.
Some of the most atrocious things done by man were done in the name of God. We invoke his name to justify our hatred and violence, and to me THAT'S a sin.

Fun fact about the Bible. There used to be a TON of 'books' regarding the Bible detailing a bunch of different things. Some of them mostly 'sane' and others... well... 'man-eating seals' IIRC. This caused a ton of religious disputes and there were massive issues over things like what the Holy Trinity actually was which lead to a series of Councils to determine what, exactly, the Bible actually WAS. Thing is that the councils were... more political that religious. One of them even being flat-out referred to as 'the Robbers Council' because of how it was used to basically rob opposing viewpoints of the opportunity to even object. Even after the Bible was agreed on there were numerous disputes, revisions, translation issues (surprisingly ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Latin are not easy to translate), and the like. IIRC the schism that lead to Protestantism also saw the removal of, like, two or three books that are in the Catholic Bible or something but not the Protestant one (though I know very little about the Catholic Bible). Even then the majority of the New Testament is basically the letters of Paul and much of the Old Testament is Jewish lore/oral history condensed into written form.

So if anyone says the Bible is 100% perfect or infallible they're simply wrong regardless of the exitance of God or not. The Bible is a creation of man with texts that were never meant to be in the Bible and full of things like oral histories.

On the plus side, according to at least some interpretations, anal is A-Okay according to the Bible!

Unbridled9 posted...

Some of them mostly 'sane' and others... well... 'man-eating seals' IIRC.

Book of Tobit. The demon Asmodeus, the unstoppable killing machine of the "Paranormal Activity" franchise who wanted to bring the end of the world, was defeated by burning a pile of rotting fish guts. One of the weirdest story plots about exorcism around and Asmodeus's motives paint him as a supreme loser.

Also, here's a pretty good lecture by renowned Near East archeologist Irving Finkel that he gave at the British Museum comparing the Flood stories from Mesopotamia and the Bible. He used an ancient Mesopotamian tablet to recreate a seaworthy model of the type of vessel both the Mesopotamians and the ancient Israelites probably imagined their arcs to be. It uses materials those civilizations might have had at the time the stories were written.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_fkpZSnz2I

---

Noah's ark is awesome. I love what they did with pomp and circumstance.

---

wolfy42 posted...

Science as we know it IS magic.

No, your lack of understanding on a subject does not make it magic.

There are so many failures baked into this assertion I don't even know where to begin, so I will just say that you're proving my point, that if you think these are even remotely comparable, then you understand neither of the things you're talking about.

Much like treating the text literally is an affront both to the purpose of the text and to actual history, equivocating the natural world with the supernatural displays a fundamental failure of your understanding. Both are rooted in ignorance.

This apologia does nothing but harm the faith.

---

Gaawa_chan posted...

No, your lack of understanding on a subject does not make it magic.

There are so many failures baked into this assertion I don't even know where to begin, so I will just say that you're proving my point, that if you think these are even remotely comparable, then you understand neither of the things you're talking about.

Much like treating the text literally is an affront both to the purpose of the text and to actual history, equivocating the natural world with the supernatural displays a fundamental failure of your understanding. Both are rooted in ignorance.

This apologia does nothing but harm the faith.

We'll said, brother.

---

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

The Bible:
A spiritual being created the material universe. That being is all knowing but was still disappointed in the outcome. That being is all powerful but chooses the least direct way of dealing with problems. That being is perfect but problems with its creation still arise.

This topic:
The part about repopulating a species from only 2 specimens is a little far fetched.

Some of the bible may be created in a way for humans to understand, especially at that time, but doesn't mean that the being that created everything knew exactly how things were going to turn out etc.

My own theory on the subject is that the universe was created by an entity that was extremely bored to give it something to watch/be entertained by. The laws/physics etc were all there as a sort of "program" to watch, but eventually that got quite boring as well.

Then life was created, that too was interesting for awhile but anything eventually gets old, so "god" split up his conciousness amoung all sentient living things (with memories), isolating each part so that it did not remember/know any past "lives" this gave an infinite amount of entertainment and pushed boredom back as much as possible (still individuals can be bored, but it's not endless).

The bible (and many other religions) actually touch apon some of those concepts basically stating god is in all of us, do unto others as you would do unto yourself etc.

So the general ideas of a god that created everything, but didn't do it perfectly etc, are not that far fetched.

Even noah's ark isn't that hard to swallow with science if you go back far enough, considering that we all evolved from the same animals (all land animals did, and if you go back far enough all sea animals). You only needed 2 animals all together initially to create all life (in theory), so 2 of each animal for noahs ark, with a little godly intervention, would easily do the trick based on the science we know.

Wouldn't need to be 5million types of animals or even 500 either, could be two general types, 2 cats, 2 birds, 2 doggos, 2 snakes (heh). Just need a basic type for everything else to eventually grow from, in fact, it could be the godly creation of evolution lol, perhaps before that point there were many different types of animals but evolution didn't exist, but then god was like Boom, take a long shower planet, and afterwards he added evolution to shake things up.

---

Gaawa_chan posted...

No, your lack of understanding on a subject does not make it magic.

There are so many failures baked into this assertion I don't even know where to begin, so I will just say that you're proving my point, that if you think these are even remotely comparable, then you understand neither of the things you're talking about.

Much like treating the text literally is an affront both to the purpose of the text and to actual history, equivocating the natural world with the supernatural displays a fundamental failure of your understanding. Both are rooted in ignorance.

This apologia does nothing but harm the faith.

It's not lack of understanding, it's acknowledging that you don't know everything, and that there is no explanation that will currently explain how the laws of the universe were created from nothing (that is any better than a eternal being created them).

It is far more likely that intelligent design was used to create such logical laws, then that they just happened randomly.

And "Magic" may seem like a dirty word to you, but it's generally used to designate a system (usually logical that works the same way or close every time) to change the laws of nature or create things out of nothing).

How are the laws of nature being created themselves, out of nothing mind you, not magic?

Science can only go so far, and again, eventually going back, science BECOMES magic because there is no scientific way to explain the creation of the universe. If you can not explain it with science, then it is unknown, and generally that has been designated either as (god) or (magic) by mankind throughout history.


---

wolfy42 posted...

It's not lack of understanding, it's acknowledging that you don't know everything, and that there is no explanation that will currently explain how the laws of the universe were created from nothing (that is any better than a eternal being created them).

But that doesn't make it magic.

And "Magic" may seem like a dirty word to you, but it's generally used to designate a system (usually logical that works the same way or close every time) to change the laws of nature or create things out of nothing).

Yeah, maybe hundreds of years ago it was.


---

Flappers posted...

But that doesn't make it magic.

It doesn't, but that's how it's seen since when people don't understand something. Which could, in theory, be how many of the stories from the bible could take place...

For example, if you don't mind the sci-fi route, many people believe the angel from the bible are aliens. One reason being the "magic" they seemed to have coupled with all the apparent "flying saucers" in religious paintings. If that's true, that could make all the magic happening in those stories true, as aliens would probably have better technology than us that could probably do some crazy stuff... As an example...
---

LinkPizza posted...

It doesn't, but that's how it's seen since when people don't understand something. Which could, in theory, be how many of the stories from the bible could take place...

For example, if you don't mind the sci-fi route, many people believe the angel from the bible are aliens. One reason being the "magic" they seemed to have coupled with all the apparent "flying saucers" in religious paintings. If that's true, that could make all the magic happening in those stories true, as aliens would probably have better technology than us that could probably do some crazy stuff... As an example...

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/870/345/a47.jpg
---

wolfy42 posted...

It is far more likely that intelligent design was used to create such logical laws, then that they just happened randomly.

Here's the thing, though: "Far more likely" becomes completely meaningless when we're dealing with eternity. Literally every possible outcome has already happened an infinite number of times and will happen another infinite times in the future. Operating on an infinite scale, being improbable can't prevent something from ever happening. Something has to be genuinely impossible to end up with that outcome.

---

captpackrat posted...

Ahhh... The joys of terrible handwriting/forethought.

Sulugnaz posted...

Pssst, maybe its Maybaline but its photoshop

Don't ruin the illusion please. I rather enjoy it.

Noah must have really trusted the two termites he brought on the ark

---

Action53 posted...

Noah must have really trusted the two termites he brought on the ark

I mean, two termites aren't going to be able to do much on their own (especially where one would have to be a queen and therefore not be doing any damage), and 40 days isn't going to be enough time to form enough of a colony to pose a real threat. Bringing just two members of a eusocial species on board is kind of odd, though. They don't exactly form "couples."

---

adjl posted...

Bringing just two members of a eusocial species on board is kind of odd, though. They don't exactly form "couples."

But they'll mate when they need to -- which they do.

---

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6iG_CMuMvQ
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6iG_CMuMvQ

This is why blind faith is stupid.
---

adjl posted...

I mean, two termites aren't going to be able to do much on their own (especially where one would have to be a queen and therefore not be doing any damage), and 40 days isn't going to be enough time to form enough of a colony to pose a real threat. Bringing just two members of a eusocial species on board is kind of odd, though. They don't exactly form "couples."

I mean, they followed a divine mandate to arrive at the ark. I think they'll follow a divine mandate to get busy.

Oh. That video! Now I remember something. When he said seven, it reminded me that some animals have up to 7 pairs instead of just two. That could probably help with the inbreeding and stuff
---

LinkPizza posted...

Oh. That video! Now I remember something. When he said seven, it reminded me that some animals have up to 7 pairs instead of just two. That could probably help with the inbreeding and stuff

Did it say that? Hell, I'd believe it. 'Cause in biblical numerology 7 is said to be a holy number symbolizing completeness.
On a side note, 40 is said to be the number of death -- that's why it rained for forty days.

This shit also has me thinking now about the movie Stigmata.
Anyone remember that? They say it got poor reviews, but bullshit, I think it was good...

---

Genesis 7:2... Though, only the clean animals got 7 pairs, so...
---

adjl posted...

Inbreeding depression results in a population that's generally less fit than other populations with less inbreeding, due to the lack of genetic diversity, but if every population is equally inbred, that's no longer a disadvantage and the population in question is just as competitive as every other one.

Isn't that just a short-term issue? Once a population grows again, there should be increasing genetic variation until you eventually start to see diversity.

Otherwise, it's not like inbreeding impacts each species the same way and then a lot of it is still left to chance so everything being inbred doesn't necessarily mean a level playing field, and that's not even getting into the difference in litters and the inevitable hybridization when some animals wind up with related animals because they can't find a partner within their own species.

---

Zeus posted...

Isn't that just a short-term issue? Once a population grows again, there should be increasing genetic variation again.

No. Especially if it's prolonged. The defects pile up and up and it can be very difficult to repair; especially if there is very little or no outside genes.

Unbridled9 posted...

No. Especially if it's prolonged. The defects pile up and up and it can be very difficult to repair; especially if there is very little or no outside genes.

Then I'm kinda surprised feeder bugs don't all come out missing heads and legs, since those populations usually start from a very small number of breeding pairs and don't incorporate outside mates.

---

According to Scientific Creationists when God created the world everything was genetically perfect, and by the time of the Flood, it was still close to perfect, therefore inbreeding would have little effect.

One of their theories is that the earth had a protective barrier of water vapor that blocked most of the UV light from the sun. Gen 1:7, "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament"

During the Flood "the windows of heaven were opened" (Gen 7:11) destroying this barrier and bombarding the earth with UV light, over time corrupting the DNA of all living creatures.



---

All things are possible through Jesus!

---

Zeus posted...

Then I'm kinda surprised feeder bugs don't all come out missing heads and legs, since those populations usually start from a very small number of breeding pairs and don't incorporate outside mates.

I am not an expert at all in feeder bug biology. However I can safely say that this is not true for most other animals. See: The Hapsburg line, fruit fly experiment, etc.

Zeus posted...

Isn't that just a short-term issue? Once a population grows again, there should be increasing genetic variation until you eventually start to see diversity.

Otherwise, it's not like inbreeding impacts each species the same way and then a lot of it is still left to chance so everything being inbred doesn't necessarily mean a level playing field, and that's not even getting into the difference in litters and the inevitable hybridization when some animals wind up with related animals because they can't find a partner within their own species.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain

captpackrat posted...

According to Scientific Creationists when God created the world everything was genetically perfect, and by the time of the Flood, it was still close to perfect, therefore inbreeding would have little effect.

One of their theories is that the earth had a protective barrier of water vapor that blocked most of the UV light from the sun. Gen 1:7, "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament"

During the Flood "the windows of heaven were opened" (Gen 7:11) destroying this barrier and bombarding the earth with UV light, over time corrupting the DNA of all living creatures.

How would the sun affect DNA?
---

papercup posted...

All things are possible through Jesus!

except hitting a curve ball
---

Revelation34 posted...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain

How would the sun affect DNA?

Certain wavelengths of sunlight can damage the cells in your body. The magnetosphere keeps most of it out currently but some gets through. IIRC a sunburn is a low-level form of this (think things like cancer). I've never heard of it being hereditary but I certainly wouldn't doubt it would provide damage DNA.

papercup posted...

All things are possible through Jesus!

Can you milk jesus Falker? Can you?

---

Revelation34 posted...

How would the sun affect DNA?

When DNA is exposed to UV radiation, adjacent thymine molecules (the "T" of the "ACGT" used to refer to nucleotide bases) undergo what's called a dimerization reaction, linking them together more or less irreversibly (at least, so stably that they won't spontaneously repair) in a manner that causes the DNA strand to bend and become unreadable in that section. Cells are generally pretty good at detecting these dimers and repairing them (which entails chopping out the affected section and rewriting it), but any time DNA needs to be repaired, there's a chance that the repair ends up making a mistake and introducing a mutation into the genome.

If the damage is too extensive, the repair mechanisms may also be unable to fix it, which normally causes the cell to kill itself (apoptosis). If the mechanisms for detecting that are also broken, though, the cell will continue to replicate with its damaged genome, which can result in cancer.

Now, is there any basis for thinking that humanity's genome was once "perfect" and increased UV radiation has single-handedly spoiled that such that we can no longer live for centuries? No. There's absolutely no archaeological evidence to suggest that humans have ever lived appreciably longer than they do now (quite the contrary, in fact), nor is UV radiation the only reason humanity's genome has changed over time. The concept of "perfect genes" has always been ridiculous, given that fitness is so overwhelmingly dependent on one's environment and a the only way to actually maintain "perfection" (even with all possible sources of mutation eliminated) would be for everyone to be perfect clones of each other (since sexual recombination between differing genomes is inevitably going to result in deleterious combinations of alleles that were not present in their parents).

---