Slashdot Mirror
Researchers To Climb Ararat To Seek Noah's Ark
fudgefactor7 writes "CNN/AP has a story about researchers that plan on ascending Mt. Ararat in search of the Ark of Noah. My favorite quote: ''We are not excavating it. We are not taking any artifacts. We're going to photograph it and, God willing, you're all going to see it,' McGivern said.' As if pictures can't be doctored and are absolute proof...."
10 to 1 they're going to bring back pictures. 100 to 1 says that others will try and find what they've taken pictures of but it will have "mysteriously disappeared" ...
WANNAWIKI Wannawiki WannaWiki WANNAWIKI!
A picture of a chunk of an arc and the text "we got it" isn't absolute proof either.
Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
Kangaroos in Australia? Did they just swim there?
I'd rather read an arkful of Chick tracts than be force-fed this kind of tripe from CNN.
I have been pwned because my
I'll be heading an exciting expedition into the bogs of Ireland to search for the little people.
"Noah wuz here" - Spraypaint
Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
Finding a boat at that altitude would raise some significant questions as to how it got there.
What?
Clearly their expedition will fail... they're going after a find of "tremendous historical significance," particularly to Biblical studies, and they're not bringing along Indiana Jones?! What were they thinking?
Pictures were enough proof for, Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, the Yeti, and that the moon is made of cheese.
You go Beavis!!!
These explorers will reveal once and for all that the B arc crashed on this planet and we are all ancestors of the Golgafinchan.
- Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
I wouldn't want to take any artifacts from the ark either, given that most of it would probably consist of thousands of different kinds of coprolites.
Hrm? I'm ready to believe that there genuinely exists a boat roughly the dimensions specified that the myth was based off of. Now, that this boat was used to ensure the survival of all the creatures of Earth during a giant flood -- maybe not. But that there exists a really damn big boat with an even bigger myth surrounding it? If there's reasonable evidence, I have no trouble with it.
Honestly -- would you have a problem with an expidition set off to find a really old boat if it weren't for that boat being part of Christian mythology?
And when they reach this structure high on the mountain one of three things will occur.
1) It is not Noah's ark, we will go on with our regular lives, and the people who believe in it will say that it doesn't prove anything, they simply have not found it yet.
2) We don't know if its Noah's ark, we will go on with our regular lives, and still argue the existance of such a thing.
3) It is Noah's ark, we will go on with our regular lives, and the scientists say "Umm... can we have a closer look at that book of yours?"
But in the end... regardless of what happens, I'll go back to playing World of Warcraft.
This is not a sig.
I love how he assumes that he is going to find a large boat, and he assumes that any large boat he happens to find is going to be the one and only Noah's Ark. In his mind, "It" is Noah's Ark. He isn't looking for evidence that whatever it is on top of Mt. Ararat is Noah's Ark, he is already firmly convinced that it is.
Compare this with an arcaeologist excavating a tomb of someone. Who? I don't know, anyone: "Well, we're going to go inside the tomb, and hopefully we will find stuff. We hope we will find things that can prove who this person was, and what thier daily life was like, and maybe what their beliefs were; and maybe we'll find something really cool."
See the difference? This guy is no archaeologist. He is a christian on a quest for the 21st century holy grail.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Both Arafat and Sharon took their last name from geographical locations that have historical connotations for their respective peoples.
But I agree, it'd be quite difficult to climb Arafat ...
The Raven
...NASA is preparing a deep-space mission to the planet Magrathea, to take pictures of Slartibartfast.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
I think we need to mod this story Flamebait and be done with it. I'd be surprised if we can garner 5 posts that don't offend somebody.
G
Ironically, people thought that Troy were just figments of the imagination 150 years ago, and now they have pretty good proof of where it is.
I don't think that everybody should be so closed-minded about such things, just because a religious text mentions it.
If they do find real proof, that's pretty cool. If not, no big deal. I mean, there was and are millions of hours of research that pretty much amount to nothing, yet I wouldn't call that all wasted time. Science should not be afraid to explore, period.
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "Noah's Ark is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have occurred by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed at the next zebra crossing.
Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book, 'Well That About Wraps It Up for God.'
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot
If it was there it would have been found by now. You have millions of christians all over the world who have everything to gain by finding it. Many people have trekked up the mountain and flown around it and nobody has found anything yet.
even if they found it there it would not mean anything. I don't think there is any doubt there was a huge flood in the are. There is geologic evidence for it, every single culture records it, and there is even a pretty solid theory as to how it came about (hint it was not due to 40 days and nights of rain). All it proves is that there was a flood (we already knew that) and that some boat floated in the flood and got lodged somewhere on the mountain.
None of that proves that there was a boat containing two of every single creature on earth and a handful of people who then proceeded to populate the entire earth. That story is ridiculus on the face of it.
evil is as evil does
I've done a lot of research for school into the search for Noah's ark, and I think this mission is doomed to fail. Every documented mission to find the ark has failed. Three major factors have kept searchers from looking on Mt. Ararat-- #1. The frigid weather, #2. The Turkish Government (security concerns, blah blah blah) #3.Kurdish people who have the nasty habit of killing people who want to go up the mountain. I find it amazing that nobody has been able to check out this 'anomaly' on the mountain that has been documented by the CIA and was classified for 50 years, especially in the day and age of technology that we live in-- able to get to the moon, but not to a mountain. Personally, and go ahead and mod me down for this, but I believe God has kept people from checking out the location. Cool stuff, to me.
Like "Why would someone build a boat at this altitiude?"
I'm not even going to bother. Those of you with a bit of logic and reasoning skills can already figure the impossibility of the whole idea.
So, for a some more fun, check out this cute rebuttal of the scientific arguments against the story. It boggles the mind how people can accept this as truth.
So it he does find something, its a big deal, for one reason or another. Why not just keep an open mind about it until he gets back? My understanding is that its his buck. No hurry to write the guy off. Maybe he really did see something, be it the ark or no, that bears investigating.
Step 1: purchase the Ark of the Covenant on eBay
Step 2: travel up Ararat with your purchase
Step 3: Seek the power of the Ark to find the Ark
Step 4: use the Ark to ask for another flood in which you use the other Ark to live (repaired) provided the first Ark works and you find the Ark with the Ark in the first place.
Ark Ark Ark
Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right. --Isaac Asimov
No, you blasphemer! It proves that EVERY WORD IN THE BIBLE IS TRUE!!! And if you don't accept THIS CLEAR PROOF OF THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH OF THE WORD OF GOD, then clearly you are an ATHEIST SATANIST GOD-HATING AMERICA-HATING TERRORIST COMMUNIST
<wipes froth off mouth>
Oops, I must have been channeling Jack Chick for a moment. Anyway
Seriously, of course, "people knew how to build boats" is exactly what it proves, and all it proves. But that won't stop the fundies from reacting as above. A while back, someone -- wish I could remember who it was (maybe I should pray harder?) -- came up with the best answer I've ever heard to the absurd claims made by ideologues masquerading as archaeologists in regards to "proof"-by-artifact of a literal interpretation of the Bible. It goes roughly like this:
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
In the past there have been quite a number of similar investigations:
1. It was said for many years Pontius Pilate never existed, until digs started turning up roman coins & carvings with his name on them.
2. It was said that Ur never existed, until they found it a few years ago.
Up to now, bibilical texts have proven to be a remarkably good resource, and every bit as reliable as other texts from the periods in question. I'm really very interested to see what, if anything this investigation turns up. Biblically the Ark should be less than ten thousand years old, and even myths often start with some grain of truth.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
If you want to help people buy books like this on tape, and than lock them in a car and drive around till they realize how foolish it is to believe that their are dinosaurs at the bottom of lakes and secret nazi occult space temples on the dark side of the moon.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Sea level has never been that high since humans have been around.
What?
...they may find the lost first page of the Bible.
The one where's written this text:
"All the characters and facts explained in this book are fictive."
Iraq: war to save the U
Interesting, the idea of a cleansing flood is pretty much a world-wide thing. The Babylonians had the Epic of Gilgamesh with a flood, the jews with the story of Noah, there are even stories in east Asia and in Central and South America among the Incans and Aztecs and the other local civilizations. Such a widespread story probably means it has some historical basis in the distant pass; perhaps a brief but intense period of global warming, melting the ice caps for just a few years? As for the expedition, well, I'm not a religious fellow, but I am interested in the outcome.
Atlantis?
Been there, done that.
Nice place to visit, excellent seafood restaurants, pleasant friendly people, beautiful women (if a little bit scaly).
Eventually, it was the little things that got me down and made me come back home: Not being able to put my base unit under the desk due to the water level, the constant wading, the never-ending drone of UFO's coming in to land at the Pythagorus Intergalaxy space port. I suppose the last is my own fault for renting a crib right under the flightpath, but it seemed cheap at the time.
Happy days, but I'm glad I left when the contract was ended. The boss offered me a permanent position, but if I was to stay I'd have to go through the whole getting-gills-implanted thing and vowing to "forsake dry land forever" at the citizenship ceremony. At the time, with Josh (my brother) having smashed his car up and Dad losing his job, I simply didn't need the extra hassle.
T&K.
Political language
Alexander the Great sacrificed at Troy when he invaded Asia in 335 BCE. It was no secret where Troy was. Heinrich Schliemann gets credit for figuring out which of many lumps of dirt in that neighborhood contained an ancient city, but the "Troy" he excavated was far too old to have been the site of a Trojan War. So no one thought "Troy" was a figment of anyone's imagination, and we still dont have any reason to believe the historicity of the war that Homer describes.
> then that prooves what
One thing it proves is that you have the literacy skills of a 6 year old.
consistent with archaeological evidence. Nothing in the Bible has ever been disproven based on ancient findings by any reputable scientific investigation.
/. there is such open hatred for Judeo-Christian beliefs when just about anything else goes? If this were an Egyptian dig, no one here would denigrate it. If this were Mayan or Aztec, or Hindu or ancient Sumerian, it would be taken at face value. Why the hatred, then, for what has been shown time and time again to be the most accurate and most studied ancient historical text in the world?
Supposing that Noah's ark actually exists (which I believe is the case), its sheer size and climatological conditions would suggest that there should be at least some respectable quantity of wood left above the timber line of some mountain in the Ararat range that could be identifiable as being (1) about 4300 years old; (2) quite probably above the timberline; and (3) showing signs of having been worked with tools.
Why is it, therefore, here at
Was I the only one that read that "Researchers to climb 'Arafat' to Seek Noah's Ark"
Lead Scientist - "Lets get a move on. We're only at the armpit and I hear Israeli helicopters coming!"
I really need more sleep.
Matt
About 4000 years ago, not too long after the world was created, God looked down at the people and was a little disappointed. They were mostly doing their own thing and not paying much attention to doing God's will (they played a lot of D&D and listened to rock music mostly). Among the people was a family headed up by Noah that was trying to be good and follow God's laws.
So God said to Himself, "Well, it looks like all of humanity except for this Noah cat seems to be completely fucked up. I think I'll just wipe everyone out and start over." That wasn't the end of it, he then proceeded to test Noah's faith by giving him boils and killing off most of his flocks (not that bad, most everything died later anyway).
Then God said to Noah, "You go and build an Arky Arky." And Noah said to God, "WTF is an Arky Arky?" To which God replied, "Build a big ass wooden box and paint it black. If anyone asks you what you're doing, tell them to fuck off because they had their chance to please me and they blew it. I'm only saving you and your family Noah."
So Noah, realizing that he was dealing with a kind and merciful God, went ahead chopping down trees and eating his lunch and going to the lavatry. He built a big-ass wooden box using only his forearms as measuring devices and '3' as the value of pi when calculating circular arcs for the corners so that no one accidentally stubbed their toe on anything sharp.
This was important because God then said to Noah, "Take your kids, Ham, Shemp, and Japheth, and their wives and your wife and a shitload of animals with you on the Ark."
"A shitload, huh? Is that the offical term?"
"Okay, okay. Take 2 of every animal except for animals not found in this area. Oh, and for some animals take 7. You'll probably get hungry later."
So Noah went and gathered up all known animals because we all know that at that time the great Diaspora hadn't happened yet and some animals hadn't appeared in far away places that couldn't possibly have been reachable from the Mideast.
Once Noah was done doing all these jobs, he pulled up the door to the Ark and sealed everyone in for a long passage. God, for His part, started rain. It should be noted that until this story occured, rain didn't exist. The plants were watered by a very light mist that arose every morning.
And the rain started, and it continued raining for 40 days and 40 nights. The windows on the ark were sealed too, so it must have smelled really nice inside.
After 40 days, Noah's kids started complaining about the elephants and rhinos crapping all over the place and decided to open a window. They cracked one of the windows open and saw that they were surrounded by water on all sides. An eagle also took the opportunity to get the fuck out of there. The eagle never returned. It's thought he went over the mountain and married a nice girl eagle on the other side.
Later, the kids decided that they'd send a pigeon out to survey the area because pigeons always fly home. It flew off and came back with a branch from an olive tree. Apparently, the water was everywhere but only a few feet deep.
Next thing they know, they crash onto Mount Arafat and everyone slowly disembarked into their new home, just like their old home.
God realized that maybe killing everyone and everything with water was a pretty shitty thing to do and made a covenant with Noah that He wouldn't do it again. Next time the world would end with fire. To seal the deal, He made a nice rainbow and everyone who saw it automatically realized how good God was and stuff.
From these four families (Noah and his three sons), all of us are derived. Following our family tree back up, we can all trace our lineage back to one of these four families.
Praise the Lord!
I have been pwned because my
The small percentage of the world that are atheist or agnostic
About 14%.
What?
Canadian scientists have announced an expedition to the North Pole in search of Santa's Workshop (TM).
http://skepdic.com/noahsark.html
Noah's Ark
Noah's Ark is the boat built by the Biblical character Noah. At the command of God, according to the story, Noah was to build a boat that could accommodate his extended family, about 50,000 species of animals, and about one million species of insects. The craft had to be constructed to endure a divinely planned universal flood aimed at destroying every other person and animal on earth (except, I suppose, those animals whose habitat is liquid). This was no problem, according to Dr. Max D. Younce, who says by his calculations from Genesis 6:15 that the ark was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet deep. He says this is equivalent to "522 standard stock cars or 8 freight trains of 65 cars each." By some divine calculation he figures that all the insect species and the worms could fit in 21 box cars. He could be right, though Dr. Younce does not address the issue of how the big boxcar filled with its cargo rose with the rainwater level instead of staying put beneath the floodwaters.
Those not familiar with the story might wonder why God would destroy nearly all the descendants of all of the creatures he had created. The story is that God was displeased with all of his human creations, except for Noah and his family. Annihilating those one is displeased with has become a familiar tactic of the followers of this and many other gods.
Despite the bad example God set for Noah's descendants--imagine a human parent drowning his or her children because they were "not righteous"--the story remains a favorite among children. God likes good people. He lets them ride on a boat with a bunch of friendly animals. He shows them a great rainbow after the storm. And they all live happily ever after. Even adults like the story, though they might see it as an allegory with some sort of spiritual message, such as God is all-powerful and we owe everything, even our very existence to the Creator. Furthermore, the Creator expects us to behave ourselves. But there are many who take the story literally.
According to the story told in chapter 7 of Genesis, Noah, his crew, and the animals lived together for more than 6 months before the floodwaters receded. There are a few minor logistical problems with this arrangement, but before getting to them, there is one other thing that needs commenting on. It is obvious that floods are no laughing matter. The destruction of life and property caused by floods has plagued many animals, not just humans, from time immemorial. To watch one's family or home swept away in floodwaters must be a terrible spectacle. To see one's children drown, one's life and dreams washed away in an instant, must be a devastating experience. But if one were to discover that the flood was not a whimsical effect of chance natural events, not unplanned and purposeless, but rather the malicious and willful act of a conscious being, one might add rage to the feelings of devastation. I suppose one could argue that it is God's world; he created it, so he can destroy it if he feels like it. But such an attitude seems inappropriate for an All-Good, Loving God.
the "finding" of the Ark
Yet, as preposterous as this story seems, there are people in the twentieth century who claim they have found Noah's ark. They call themselves "arkeologists." Yes, they say that when the flood receded, Noah and his zoo were perched upon the top of Mt. Ararat in Turkey. Presumably, at that time, all the animals dispersed to the far recesses of the earth. How the animals got to the different continents, we are not told. Perhaps they floated there on debris. More problematic is how so many species survived when they had been reduced to just one pair or seven pairs of creatures. Also, you would think that the successful species that had the furthest to travel, would have left a trail of offspring along the way. What evidence is there that all species originated in Turkey? That's what the record should look like if the ark landed on Mt. Ararat.
Still, none of t
>Science should not be afraid to explore, period.
Science doesn't explore; people do. Science is just a method, and sometimes people use it to refer to the body of knowledge that we currently hold to be true that was acquired via the scientific method. Scientists also peer-review each others' work, unless somebody is trying to hide something. That might mean that the researchers know their work won't hold up under scrutiny, or it might mean that the reviewers have an interest in the status quo and are trying to silence the new research. After all, if the work is bogus, it's a lot more powerful to bring it out in the open and point out all of the things that are wrong with it, than to say "nope, can't be true, lalalalalalala." Just because somebody thinks that the expedition won't find anything doesn't stop the people from going, provided somebody is willing to fund it and they can get whatever permits are necessary to go explore their target site.
When things get ugly is when someone claims to have performed an experiment that proves something new, and no respected scientific journals will publish it for whatever reason. Then you get cries of "conspiracy" which may or may not be true (it certainly has been true in the past). Sometimes the experiment is extremely badly designed and obviously can't prove anything, or maybe the researchers are pulling some kind of scam and don't want to subject themselves to scrutiny, but sometimes it's just plain resistance to change on the part of the science establishment.
Better than photos of something they claim to be the ark would be photos plus carbon dating results (and the results from a few other accepted dating techniques) a precise location of what they found. "It's up there somewhere; it was a miracle we found it" doesn't count.
Now that you mention it-
From the story text;
As if pictures can't be doctored and are absolute proof....
If that is not a "troll" I do not know what is. What if they do come back with pictures, does that automatically make them liars?
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Something that I think gets lost frequently in the Noah's ark discussion is the fact that most relegions have a flood myth in one form or another. Off the top of my head I can recall a Roman myth, a Norse myth, a Chinese myth and a Native (or whatever the politically correct term is) myth that involve the Earth's destruction by a flood followed by a re-building by a man-woman team. Therefore any finding of a boat proves that something majorly wrong involving water and a boat happened early on in human history. We already knew that from geological surveys of the areas where early humans resided, any proof for or against the presence of the ark answers nothing one way or the other for or against the Judeo-Christian point of view.
I would never want to discourage anyone from such an endevour, whether it is about something from the Bible or studying creatures in the Galapagos.
Who knows, maybe they'll find something totally unrelated...oh that's "never" happened.
Acutally there was a Nova on this. Around 3000 years ago there was a huge flood creating the black sea. this flood would have created a wall of water high enough to place a boat on top of mt. ararat. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/fram e.html
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
>He also prepared other fake wood by frying a piece of California pine on his kitchen stove in a mix of wine, iodine, sweet-and-sour and teriyaki sauces
I think my mum used to make that!
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
Incorrect. Borderline psycho tradition depends on the bible being the infallible word of God. Most SANE followers of the bible see it as a collection of stories, some true others myth, that act as a guide.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
You are falling for the god of the gaps fallacy.
You claim that someplace or something isnt known then it must be the work of the gods. This argument keeps getting killed everytime a rational/scientific explanation comes about for such things as the weather, evolution, gravity, etc.
Now your just taking the god of the gaps to a friggin mountain. Not terribly convicing.
So today its a mountain, will your grandchildren be telling us that its in a far off galaxy (just interpret the ark as being a spaceship) when this is debunked/explained? When will the "gappers" stand-down and not take some ancient script as fact, but as interpration of events through the eyes of highly religious and uneducated peoples?
During the Ice Age, Ryan and Pitman argue, the Black Sea was an isolated freshwater lake surrounded by farmland. ? About 12,000 years ago, toward the end of the Ice Age, Earth began growing warmer. Vast sheets of ice that sprawled over the Northern Hemisphere began to melt. Oceans and seas grew deeper as a result. ? About 7,000 years ago the Mediterranean Sea swelled. Seawater pushed northward, slicing through what is now Turkey. ? Funneled through the narrow Bosporus, the water hit the Black Sea with 200 times the force of Niagara Falls. Each day the Black Sea rose about six inches (15 centimeters), and coastal farms were flooded. ? Seared into the memories of terrified survivors, the tale of the flood was passed down through the generations and eventually became the Noah story. from: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/fram e.html
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Once again, stupid people in search of fantasy because they can't handle reality.
Where did all the water go to?
How did Noah and family manage to get all the animals from the Western Hemisphere?
How come Noah save fleas and ticks?
How come Noah save poisonous snakes and man eating tigers?
How many Bigfoots were there on the Ark?
How large was it and for how long did they sail and if there were only 2 of each animal did any of the animals die and then did they just die out?
If we ignore science, anything is possible.
I have this vague recollection of some Discovery or History Channel show which pointed out that what is today called "Ararat" is not the same mountain as the one the Bible refers to.
But it's all moot anyway, since the biblical flood is just an adaptation of the Gilgamesh story.
I don't think that writer of the CNN article has --ahem-- RTFB. (Sorry bout that.) In Genesis 8:4 it says that the ark "rested upon the mountains of Ararat." (NASB) Ergo, it did not necessarily rest upon the particular peak that we call "Mount Ararat", but rather upon one of the peaks in that region.
I'll take you to the ball, Barbara Manitee!!!
The space.com have the satellite image of the object that they suspect the Noah Ark. The enlarge imagecan be seen here.
It Would be Funnier than Hell if they found an Ark and proof that the version in the Epic of Gilgamesh was the true story instead of the Noah version.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
Of this, a couple of years ago:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/21/jesus.It was pretty thoroughly and harshly debunked within a few months afterwards by most experts in dating, and deemed a forgery to some extent, but there are still people who refuse to accept that explanation.
They have been debating the "dark splotches" in photos on top of that mountain for years now. I'm fairly certain at one point they even dated samples, and it wasn't old enough, but I'm not positive on that. I know there have been many, many photo expeditions there before.
My Webcomic: Asylum on 5th Street
The Bible of Christ's time, is not the bible of today. In fact, a great portion of it was written after his death.
Nevermind that the Bible in any form doesn't contain *ANYTHING* that purports to be Christ's own words. You take it as "gospel" that Christ though so, through the words of his disciples.
There's a reason Corporations don't let their employees speak for them...
Yeah, I don't care what you say. All I know is that right now, there is a man all alone up there in the sky driving his chariot around .. and the flame wheels give us LIGHT during the day. You can disprove that with your "there's a 'sun' made of hydrogen and helium, and we're on earth and we rotate around it" all you want, but, Buddy, I BELIEVE in the flame wagon driver. YOU ARE WRONG.
What would he think if he heard you talking like that? WWAD. What would Apollo do?
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
The Bible is not a science textbook. That said, it isn't inaccurate on scientific matters.
There are plenty of fossils buried in silt deposits in Nevada at altitudes where no river could possibly have been, in areas where the average rainfall is a mere fraction of an inch each year. Geology, right?
The Sphinx in Egypt shows signs of water erosion, again in an area where annual rainfall is negligible. More geology.
Meanwhile, any dead tree matter (read: wood) from an ark that existed 4500 years ago is probably long gone. This expedition will prove nothing.
On another note, I was under the impression that the "four corners of the Earth" referred to compass points. True, compasses haven't been around that long, but the concept of North, South, East, and West have been around for millenia.
Meanwhile, the prophet Isaiah speaks of "One dwelling above the circle of the Earth." The Hebrew word translated as "circle" can also mean "ball" or "sphere". Note that a sphere is the only shape that looks like a circle from any angle. And for all you folks out there that wish to nitpick, yes, the Earth is actually an oblate spheroid, being slightly flattened at the poles. It still looks round from space... and Isaiah didn't need to go there to find that out. Isaiah's writings date back to approximately 800 to 850 B.C.E., by the way.
that I, for one, welcome our new Ark-tic Overlords.
I don't know where you got that idea from. The mountain is a popular tourist destination and there have been many expeditions to find the ark already.
If somebody found the ark it would be the biggest tourist destination in the world and the Turkish govt would make billions off of it. It's in their interest to find something.
evil is as evil does
Don't you suppose that the money spent on finding the ark might be better spent feeding someone who is starving? Hell, they are going all the way to Turkey. It's just about as far to some starving kids in Africa.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
why be so dead-set against religion
Most of what's wrong in this world stems from religions. Not the beliefs that state "be kind/loving/generous to your fellow man", but the zealots who blindly follow, believe, and misinterpret everything that they've been told/read.
I know 100% for a fact this will fail, but that won't stop people from bringing up counter-arguments against it.. and how that these events really took place, yadda yadda.
No, they aren't taking my money, but they're definitely taking someone else's money. Not only that, but I have to live in a world and witness things turn to shit due to religion.
For example, President GWB doesn't want Gay Marriages because... *gasp* religion says it's bad. I'm not gay, but if that isn't some closed minded thinking, I don't know what is. Any extremist (terrorists in particular).. it seems that most of the closed minded events that take place in this world are driven by misinterpreted religions, but religions nonetheless.
Spouting off about it on a "Researchers look for Noah's Ark" is probably not the best of places for it, but I like to speak my mind when given the slightest opportunity to do so.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
Not to say that this Bible story is wrong or Evolution is wrong but can you really say that "two of every single creature on earth and a handful of people who then proceeded to populate the entire earth" is less probable than Evolution? Would you also say that Evolution is "ridiculous on the face of it"? Different people find different things ridiculous. Think about other things that you may not find ridiculous that could be to others - possibly with some good, although maybe questionable, reason.
You're right. A god would be able to do this - break all natural laws and put a boat on Ararat. A god could also pull the sun across the sky and shift the waves in the ocean to make tides. The problem is that they don't make good explanations for natural phenomenon. Explaining anything (an event, why the sun rises, why we exist etc..) by inventing a god is a weak answer because anyone can make it up and it shifts the question from 'how did the boat get there?' to 'how do you know that your version of god is correct?' which is a harder question to answer. Fortunately the scientific method is able to do that and has proved itself over and over again with countless examples.
What influence would this have? Christians, Jews, and Muslims share the Noah story.
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
*sigh*
It's pretty hard to reconcile the bible with the abundance of archaeoligcal evidence that shows that dinosaurs ruled the earth for millions of years before the first humans showed up.
Reading and believing in the Bible doesn't require the reader to take it literally. Some random and eclectic examples of people who don't read the Bible literally.
These fairy tales don't fly on slashdot because the people here are educated enough to know better.
No, they really aren't; I read views on Christianity and other religions that are chock full of misconceptions or misunderstandings all the time.
There's a major tendency by various posters on Slashdot to overgeneralize American Protestant fundamentalism into Christian orthodoxy. If you don't know the differences between fundamentalism and orthodoxy, realize that your knowledge of Christianity ranks fairly low. (Which is to say that people can't be experts on everything. Even on Slashdot.)
My opinion, having been a Slash reader since the site's infancy, is that there's actually a fairly low level of religious knowledge amongst the learned Slashdot crowd. This tends to [unfortunately] manifest itself in haughty arrogance. QED indeed.
Exactly. I've always asked people why they're so all fired up to find Noah's Ark.
Wouldn't it be much easier to just go find Jerusalem?
The finds are exactly equal in their significance.
KFG
**Different people find different things ridiculous. Think about other things that you may not find ridiculous that could be to others**
Yeah, like this 'magic box' infront of me.
It's a trick....get an axe.
Trust is built from a person's knowledge and experience with someone else. (Your parents, friends, teachers, etc.) Faith, on the otherhand, is at best only second-hand trust for most people. You trust in the bible, God, Allah, Jesus, because someone else that you trust has said they trust in it. It's very hard to evaluate and build that trust first-hand yourself. With the different translations and interpretations of the bible, even RTFB doesn't always build trust. Trying to somehow "verify" the Bible with science is so sought after because people trust science more than they actually trust the bible (their faith may prevent them from admitting this though).
I have to say that it more than bugs me when I see the bible refer to pi as 3.0. This one mistake really blows my trust, but not my faith. Seeing more and more contradictions really makes me start to question how my parents reconciled these discrepencies. After reading enough of them it really makes me question my faith.
I don't pretend to give answers. But I recently started to read one of the best "intellectual examinations" on the Jewish version of the Old Testament. It's called God, A Biography and it's "agenda" is to explain God as an evolving character in a book. Quite deservedly, it won the pulitzer prize in biography because its quirky title is more than just a marketing effort. It really does try to be a good biography of God.
It doesn't try to explain away contradictions in the bible other than saying that God can change just as man can (and yes, I know some people who will find that fact alone to be sacrilege). The author doesn't seem to push either a pro or anti religious agenda. God is just a character. If you want, you can read it like you'd read the Cliff's Notes version of Hamlet strictly for a deeper understanding of the character portrayed in this book whether you "beleive" the book is the truth or not.
Having been nastily betrayed by two life long friends in the name of Christianity, I still don't feel that I'm ready to accept most churches as anything other than as organized political organizations. But I still have theological questions myself and this biography has been able to make more sense of the Bible and God. No clue where this will lead me in my spiritual journey (heck, I may even go back to agnosticism or athiesm), but it was a very helpful read.
No expeditions to Mt. Arrarat or carbon datings of the pollen found in the shroud of Turin is really going to come up with as satisfactory an answer. My apologies in advance if this is considered off-topic.
Yeah, I wish religious people would do that.
You want an example? How about the story of Onan? Homosexuals get a lot of trouble from that one today. I doubt many of them decide to be homosexuals, they can't help it and the bible says to treat them... the way it says to treat lepers, which is another part that led to tremendous pain on the part of innocents.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
A few reasons. First, these gentlemen, as far as I can tell, are doing this in an attempt to prove Christianity. They are not out to learn anything they do not already know, and if they are, they are not intending to share it with the rest of the world by any verifiable means (pictures, are as the story points out, weak as evidence for anything). Their ultimate purpose is to deliver a conclusion, not facts. Your typical archaelogist visits a location to learn more about an unknown culture, not to offer conclusions, but simply to offer knowledge and let the information speak.
Do you see the subtle distinction here? On one hand, we have the scientist that assumes something to be true then goes looking only for evidence that supports it. On the other hand, we have the scientist that that explores and records only what is observed and lets the facts speak for themselves. Which of these categories is likely to get the most cynical reaction? Which category do you think these guys fall into?
There is also a negative reaction from many rational people to the heavy-weight evangelistic nature of Christianity. Rational people usually want evidence to back up claims, evidence which is often not offered by evangelism. This can put people at odds against an idealogy. Would you dislike it if people of other religions came thumping you with their religious beliefs using threats of punishment and slander? Would it make you uncomfortable? Also, many active religions today (key point to remember with your claim--many ancient religions of noteworthy attention are no longer practiced) use fear and coersion to recruit new members. Fear of eternal suffering or punishment is commen. Religions often do this at great financial benefit to themselves.
I could go on and on, but I digress. Nevertheless, I think when you look at all this, you find that there is a great deal of cause for people to express hostility towards religion. Perhaps you should take these things into consideration before you feel like you or your belief system are being picked on.
Join Tor today!
Satellite-Imagery
More...
Here's some historical background on the Ark and how it relates to Iraq which should concern us today... Iraq and Noah's Ark
Get into God's Word people, you won't regret it.
Romana: "How did you know?" Doctor Who: "Ah, well, knowing is easy. Everyone does THAT ad nauseum. I just sort of hope"
> They laughed at Galileo, and Copernicus.
No.
"They" censored Galileo and killed Bruno. Copernicus published on his deathbed in fear.
"They" were the Catholic Church.
The good thing is that now that adults are more or less in charge the worst we can do is laugh at them. There is no secular police that will kill these men for being heretics and its thanks to the pioneers, western enlightenment, etc who went AGAINST the grain and fought for human rights that we are allowed to live in a secular state.
>popular thoughts of the society of the day.
What "popular thoughts" are you talking about? Most Americans believe in a creation and in various biblical myths. These people are the status quo defending "popular thoughts" not rugged individualists like the great minds of the past.
5,000 or however many years ago, there wasn't the distinction between freshwater and saltwater fish, but that over the last 5,000 years of natural selection, you ended up with fish that can only survive in fresh water and fish that can only survive in salt water.
Except such a change would almost certainly be enough to ensure that the evolved population would be unable to breed with the original population, if for no other reason than the two would not be able to meet to breed. That would be speciation, and thus macro-evolution. What's more, it wouldn't be as though a new species or two evolved, it would be every water-dwelling species! I would think that this would leave significant genetic evidence.
The argument is that the the seismic activity that led to the breakup of the continents and the formation of the large mountain ranges took place at the end of the flood,
The energies required to move so much of the Earth around in a few days or weeks rather than eons would liquefy the surface. Of course, sticky problems such as this is where creationists will generally invoke another ad-hoc miracle.
Who says that what is recorded in the Bible as Ararat is the same mountain we know of today as Ararat?
I'd like to take small exception to your assumptions about flooding in the area. Non-literialist biblical researchers had long thought that flooding in Mesopotamia led to the story of the Flood, as a major flood is recorded in the Summerian Epic Of Gilgamesh. More recently, a case has been made that the flooding of the Black Sea basin, which previously held a smaller fresh water lake, would have provided the seed for the story.
Compare this localized 1000 foot (300m) flood with the 17000 foot (5000m) global flood posited by the biblical story. Now, before someone lays into me for discounting the power of the Lord, consider how scientific research approaches this.
1. make observations of nature.
2. based on those observations, make an informed guess about why something came to be what was observed.
3. develop series of tests that might support your assertion, tests that other people can make independently.
4. collate data collected from many such tests, and see if the results support the theory.
For a localized Black Sea flood, there is previously collected evidence that due to the end of the last ice age, ice sheet melt flooded the eastern Med area, and what is now the Bosporus strait was breached about 7000 years ago. Salt water added 300m to the level of the Black Sea within a matter of months, drowning hundreds of square miles of land. Recent archeological dives along this now submerged land seem to show paleolithic human settlements. Further research is needed before strong conclusions can be drawn.
For a global 5000m+ flood, the very first thing we need to account for is the lack of suitable debris that would have washed ashore at high elevations as the waters subsided. If the Ark survived, some of the other wood left floating around might be expected to. The next thing would be to account for the volume of the ocean being doubled, and then halved, all in the course of a few months. Where did it come from, and where did it go?
As a biblical literalist, if your answer is basically that the Lord gave, and the Lord took away, then you've provided faith as evidence. While one's faith can be tested, it can't be independently checked and verified. The scientific method of investigating the works of the Lord assumes - baring evidence to the contrary - that the Lord maintains His creation in a consistent state: hot air rises, the sun sets, gravity sucks. If He doesn't, then the method will need to adjust.
So far, however, the method has proved useful at measuring the nature of Nature, such that we can reliably do things based on many of the conclusions we've drawn so far.
Luke, help me take this mask off
[atheist or agnostic]... About 14%
From the above link I see that:
67% of the world's population are doomed to spend their afterlife in the Christian hell.
78% of the world's population are doomed to spend their afterlife in the Islamic hell.
97% of the world's population are doomed to spend their afterlife in the "Other" hell.
-kgj
-kgj
> Yeah, I don't care what you say. All I know is that right now, there is a man all alone up there in the sky driving his chariot around [...] What would Apollo do?
At least the "What Would Appolo Drive" variant makes sense...
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I'm a theology-reading, bona-fide, for-real Christian...
Are you, really? To me, the for-real Christians are the ones on the street corner with a loudspeaker, extolling all to repent and find God before it is too late. The original Christians believed that the world was going to "end" and be judged within their own lifetime, not thousands of years later. I don't understand those modern "Christians" who go about their lives normally, even tolerantly permit their children to choose a different faith. If they seriously believed in God, judgement, and damnation and the real possibility of the hour of judgement being, oh, in ten minutes, they'd be doing every possible thing they could in their power to convert their children, and every last person they met about whom they cared the tiniest tiny bit.
Those people on the street corner with the loudspeakers, the ones going door to door, rudely interrupting people during dinner, those are the ones I can respect. They actually are for-real believers. Not the lame, tolerant, believe-what-you-want I-respect-other-religions Sunday Christians.
Larry
I suppose if they want to go and prove it to themselves, that's one thing. But if they are trying to go and prove it to the world, they are totally messed up about the way human beings really think and this expedition is a waste of time and other resources that could be better spent puruing more productive goals.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
First of all, there are fossils on top of mountains all over the world. I have seen Ordivician fossils in the Rockies, and been to the Burgess Shale, both localites over 1500m above sea level. Gee, funny, at one time these places were UNDERNEATH the sea! Gasp! And in the miles of sandstone on the west coast of south america... hmm, whale fossils! Rock moves - get over it.
Meanwhile, the Sphinx shows water erosion because IT's ACTUALLY RAINED THERE BEFORE!! Wow!!! Unbelievable! You know, climate doesn't stay the same forever! The Nazca lines are only 300 - 400 years old, and even they have water damage. Average annual rainfall in Nazca: 0! I would suggest looking up some studies on the egyptian climate.
Additionally, wood can exist for many thousands of years. Peat bogs, isomorphism, replacement and even volcanic flows (especially a tuff or nuees ardente) can all preserve wood for long periods of time. In an anoxic environment wood will be preserved indefinitely.
Geology, biology, chemistry and anthropology has time and again proved the bible wrong. It will continue to do so, because religion was developed as a defensive mechanism for the things that people could not understand.
I would highly suggest reading a book called "Cosmos" by Carl Sagan.
I doubt many of them decide to be homosexuals, they can't help it and the bible says to treat them... the way it says to treat lepers, which is another part that led to tremendous pain on the part of innocents.
Bruce, check out the second half of the Bible. There is this one guy who hangs out with lepers, prostitutes and even tax collectors (much worse than homosexuals, in my book). He had this funny habit of loving everyone despite their sins or social status. Of course, the powers that be kill him for this but it all works out in the end.
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
Disclaimer: Staunch athei-ostic (I don't believe in religion).
"If one believes in God, Christ, and The Holy Spirit then one has to believe that The Bible is the Word of God."
Now this is an obvious logical fallacy. Even working from an assumption that God, Christ, et al are true deities there is no assertion that they have ensured the validity of the bible.
I think the standard response by believers is "do you know the mind of God?". Implying that God could have written a pile of crap as a test or some-such...
Q.
Insert Signature Here
The Lord knew what he doing?
Take off every 'ark'. Move 'ark'. For great superstition.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
...this looks like a boat how?
That's right. All your base.
You're missing the point. It's not a troll. The burden of proof lies on them. What would make others believe that it is truthful? Pictures can be doctored easily and even video clips. So how would one prove it? I can think of a few things. For one, bring back DNA samples (as someone else already mentioned) and bring back part -- or better yet, all -- of the boat (eventually).
When are they going to the North Pole to take pictures of Santa's House?
Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.
Now, I actually believe there was a literal ark. However, I don't believe they'll ever find it, at least not there.
Why? Because according to Genesis 8:4, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.
That would be like saying that I own a moderate-sized building somewhere in the Rocky Mountains; now go find it. That's a BIG region to cover -- a whole mountain range....
Ararat is only one mountain in the mountains of Ararat. I think they're looking in the wrong place, assuming that 5,000 years of decay has left anything standing, in the first place.
Amen to that. People should act according to their beliefs. If you believe in Christ, why do you act the opposite?
Yes, I am Christian, specifically Catholic. I am tolerant of other views, and am one of the few "true believers"* that doesn't believe you all are going to hell for being of a different religion.
* True believers (for my definition) believe that Jesus is The Way, the Truth and the Light, meaning the way to heaven is through Him. There is much argument as to whether that means you have to partake of the eucharist to be "through Him" or if that phrase is meant as if your actions follow his teachings (more or less, at least, in the case of other religions).
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
As all the Tim Powers fans engage in a collective shudder...
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
also assuming, that they didn't tear the bitch down for firewood, and building materials.
i mean, after 40 days floating around, you _will_ build some solid accommodations.
If you're going to use an ancient text to launch an expedition like this, you should understand what you are reading. The genre of the first 11 chapters of Genesis is myth. It is best read within the context of neo-Babylonian mythology, in which humanity is created as an afterthought and destroyed in a flood because they were making too much noise and annoying the gods. In the Genesis account, however, mankind is the pinnacle of creation and companion of God. When man fails to live up to his potential and is thoroughly evil and violent, creation is uncreated then recreated so humanity has a chance to start again.
Note that calling the story a myth is not the same as calling it fiction. It is the genre of literature. My point is that it does not have to be historical in order to be true. (In fact, an argument about historicity would have been puzzling to the Jewish community living in exile in Babylon that gave us the story in its current form.) OK, so you've decided that the story of Noah is in fact historical, or at least there is enough of a possibility that it is worth trying to find the ark? Read the text more closely: "the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (Gen. 8.4). The Hebrew text is definitely plural. When the waters of chaos recede, the ark would naturally come to rest on high ground, such as the mountainous region of Urartu (called Ararat in Hebrew) to the north, rather than the plains of Mesopotamia. Mount Ararat is one mountain in the range, but the ancient text does not specify a particular mountain.
He who reflects on another man`s want of breeding, shows he wants it as much himself --Julius Caesar, per Plutarch
But also - remember the quote "Extraodinary claims require extraodinary proof".
I've seen no proof, even ordinary "proof" for the existance of a god, therefore I'm disinclined to believe in it.
Lots of the comments revolve around a few themes
:)
1. the bible is all made up
2. there's no way $situation could happen
3. this wont prove anything
To which i have a few short responses. Please give them some consideration before flaming me
1. This is a hard argument to make. The bible talks about lots of different things. Some of these things have been verified via archalogical evidence. Insofar as a recording of ancient history, the bible is surprisingly accurate in all of the things it depicts which are verifiable
Note that this is sort of the same as me writing a book with 100 pages, and on 3 randomly distributed pages, i describe newtonian physics, and the other 97 pages contain stuff that doesn't make sense to anybody, and can't be proven or disproven using any known technique
From a scientific perspective, my book isn't very interesting.
Until somebody figure's out page 4. And then in another 50 years, maybe someone figures out what page 5 means. And so on.
There's lots of stuff described in the bible that has been shown to be historically consistant. Much more than has shown to be historically inconsistant.
2. This won't be a very satisfying answer, but here goes.
the bible is sort of axiomatic. If you beleive
- that god is all powerful
- always does what is right
- is smarter than you
- the bible is the inerrant word of god as transcribed via people divinely inspired to do so
then a lot of what happens in the bible can be swallowed. Still, some things are hard to beleive. It's hard to beleive that somebody could part a body of water so that people could walk through it unharmed. It's hard to beleive because we've never seen anything like it, and because we cant explain how it would work.
There are lots of things in the bible that we have a hard time buying for those reasons - we've never experienced it, and we can't understand/explain how it would work.
The first "Reason" isn't a reason at all. We never experienced the creation of planet earth, but we know it happened. None of us were alive when president lincoln was shot, but most of us know it happened. The issue of never experiencing something personaly is really not an effective argument against unbeleivable things depicted in the bible.
The more interesting and common argument is the second one - there's no way that could happen. This usually revolves around some scientific argument, or rather, some lack of a scientific explanation for how it _could_ have happened. Parting seas, turning water into blood, feeding thousands with just a little food, healing blindless/leprosy/etc.
This is where the axiomatic nature of things comes into play.
If you buy that God is all powerful, then god can do whatever he wants to, certainly any of the above mentioned things.
The part is what people _Really_ dont like to hear. Just because _you_ cant explain something, doesn't mean god doesn't know how it works. Your inability to come up with a thoery or explanation for how something could have happened isn't standing in the way of an all powerful smarter-than-you god in the slightest.
So, if you buy the basic axioms of god, the rest sort of comes out in the wash. It's nice when science or achaeology catches up with what the bible has already described, but its not necessary.
3. Of course not. The point isn't to prove god exists. You either think he does or you don't. If it was factually obvious that god existed then you having a choice in the matter of wether to beleive or not wouldn't be very useful, now would it ?
I'm frankly not sure what the point of this trip is, but it won't prove god does or doesn't exist. People that refuse to beleive in god will read the results of this journey how they want to. People that refuse to beleive in anyting but god will read the results of this journey how they want to.
But there's the ever important swing vote.
W
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Researchers To Explore North Pole In Search Of Santa Claus.
I'm going to safely assume you are not a zoologist or botanist.
What do you think is the first thing the lions would do when they left the ark?
EAT THE MEASLEY TWO GAZELLES. Oops, no more gazelles.
You can argue it all you want, but the gestation period of any 3 generations of gazelles, zebras, or whatever required to even begin feeding the a single generation of lions or other carnivores would mean a lot of carnivores would go hungry if everyone started with a PAIR at the same time.
You can't just "start up" the food chain like that. Ever do a "rabbit and foxes" related rates problem in diff eq? The stable state is impossible to achieve with a deficit of prey in the initial conditions.
A little thought is dangerous.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
faith is complete belief in something without question with NO EVIDENCE.
Um.... no.
Hebrews 11:1
Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.
Much like the wind, "evident demonstration" is given and expectations assured by observing the effects.
Also, I looked at the quiz. What a pile of uneducated crap. Thats an understatement. So many things twisted and mutilated to make it sound as if Gods own commandments are evil. Symbolism taken as reality, and reality taken as symbolism. Several of the "answers" are just plain wrong. As an example, the writer had the audacity to say that Jeph'thah had his daughter sacrificed on the alter, when clearly if you read the passage further you would find that she lived a good long life, and that the daughters of the land would commend her for her devotion from "year to year". She was given to God to serve him. This was the same thing that Han'nah did with her son, Samuel.
(1 Samuel 1:9-28) Imagine that! A *Woman* having the authority to give her son as a servant of God! With all the crap that "Quiz" has about the bible saying that women should be treated as dirt, even...
Maybe the author should have read Proverbs 31:10-31 where it talks about a "Capable Wife". You wouldn't believe the things that these so-called repressed women were allowed to do!
They owned land!
They did business!
They were teachers!
And More!
Maybe if they read Mathew 19:3-9 they would find out that the provisions the Jews had for marrying more then one wife, divorce, etc. was "out of regard for [their] hardheartedness". I could go on and on.
Wow... I can't believe I've read and studied the bible all these years and I haven't come to the conclusion that God is a barbaric, inhumane, sonofabitch...
I think I'll read it again to make sure I'm not missing something...
You want to make up your own morals instead of following God's? You want to be able to say "I don't believe that!" when someone points out something you are doing wrong? FINE! But don't think for one minute that you can take the example of all the people who have committed atrocities in Gods name, or misapplied scripture, or twisted it to fit their own agenda (and there are millions of them, including the author of that "Quiz"), and use them to dismiss the bibles message, as if it's God's fault. Talk about uneducated.
It makes me sick...
Why is it so hot? Where am I going? What am I doing in this handbasket?
As if pictures can't be doctored and are absolute proof....
Wow, they haven't started and it's already a big conspiracy cover-up!
*Puts on a tinfoil hat*
Thought I'd join in on the fun. We're all in the matrix!
I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
However, I have pieced together pretty good circumstantial evidence over the years for a flood in ancient times, just as described all over the world by people who had no (or very little) contact with each other.
About 11,400 years ago, we know from glacial core samples that the earth's mean temperature raised anywhere from 5-7 degrees in just a few decades (though some paleoclimatologists say as much as 10 degrees in just a few years). Before the glacial evidence, scientists believed that the temperature changed very slightly over a long period of time, a theory known as steady state earth which is increasingly being discarded in the paleoclimatological community.
Furthermore, as I said earlier, people all over the world have recounted stories of a great flood, the native americans had such a myth, the natives of the mid-atlantic ridge had such a myth, the natives of Australia had a myth, etc.
This global pervasiveness of the flood myth scientists have long explained as a "racial memory", with little or no evidence to support this assertion, because steady-state earth held that such things a global floods could not happen.
We now know that Earth goes through cataclysms periodically, such as the one which wiped out the dinosaurs, and that sometimes really scary global things happen. Scientists have yet to outright admit that there was a great flood, but have begund to tacitly admit it.
For example, we know for certain that before 11,400 years ago, the level of the ocean was 300-500 feet lower than it is today. Accepted wisdom holds that this changed gradually, but this theory may not last now that we know the mean temperature changed so drastically so rapidly.
Given the proclivity of humans to band around the coast, such a rapid rise would lead to massive casualties the likes of which are unknown to us today. It might indeed seem as though the whole earth flooded. Furthermore, quite interesting archaeological finds are likely to be buried underwater.
Well, here comes the circumstantial evidence I mentioned in the start of the post. Plato said that Atlantis sank about 9000 years before his time. It just so happens that he lived about 2400 years ago. Add up those two numbers, and you get 11,400.
It's quite a coincidence, and it's true.
There is a chain of mountains in the middle of the atlantic ocean called the "Mid-Atlantic-Ridge". If you examine a contour map, you'll see that if the sea were lowered about 300-500 feet, it would be a huge chunk of land, not quite as big as a continent, but not quite as small as what we call an island either.
To my knowledge, I am the only person to put this data together in this way. Those scientists who consider Atlantis to be a possibility place it in the mediteranean ocean.
I'm not saying there were telepathic pyramid building Atlanteans, but I think it is very possible Atlantis existed, and traces will be discovered under the ocean.
WWJD? JWRTFA!
The new testaments were originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek. From there they were translated into Latin and remained so for many centuries. The English King James had a group of scholars translate it into English (one of them reputedly Shakespeare - good arguments both for and against). The KJV is the translation that's used across much of the english speaking Christian world.
Both biblical Greek and Hebrew are very expressive (someone studying them would say vague) languages, written passages can be vastly open to interpretation (much like Arabic). That's why many biblical scholars study the biblical languages, so they can look up their favourite passages and translate them themselves.
So for the purest stream of the testaments, you must read them in their original language. The Greek(Attic), Latin, and English translations are simpler expressions of the original. That's not heretical - go to any seminary or serious bible college and you'll see that's what's what biblical research is all about. The original poster was still being particially correct when he sarcastically called it an interpretation, because it IS an interpretation, of a relative few translators who were highly religious, though probably very educated for their time.
I'd say there's no need to rush out and buy the "First Hebrew Primer" grammar book or anything. It mostly checks out to the KJV with some notable exceptions. But I had to study Biblical Hebrew for my majors and can say it's not very hard to learn. The first year basically just teaches some pronunciation, aleph-bet(alphabet), grammar, and how to use a dictionary. That's all anyone needs to read the Hebrew Bible.
Right, slashdotters aren't talking about what most christians believe, just a minority. It's not "us" who are nutbags, it's those fundamentalists over there. No matter how it comes accross to you, what people are criticizing is belief in the supernatural. Without the supernatural, you are making the agnostics argument. Belief in god is not just a philosophy, even to non-fundamentalist. I doubt most people would care one way or the other if christians just felt that the Bible should be read as philosophy. That, however, is not the case.
Here is a quote from one of your links:
"There is something about people who are in touch with the sacred that can be felt by those around them; it evokes awe and amazement and impresses people with the feeling of another world."
What does that mean? I don't find it to be true, I find people "in touch with the sacred" to be either annoying or in need of help. Define "in touch with the sacred". Describe how you measure how someone is "in touch with the sacred". The point of course is that "being in touch with the sacred" is a fairy tale no different than the fundamentalist fairy tales. From my experience, religious "scholars" avoid discussion through meta-argument, that is, arguing about arguing. The issue isn't literal vs non-literal, it's that you ascribe anything to the bible at all other than a collection of stories. If you bother to respond, explain please what value you think one should get from a specific quote from the bible and why one needs to read the bible and have a christian viewpoint in order to hold that value.
plurvert
Bruce, check out the second half of the Bible. There is this one guy who hangs out with lepers, prostitutes and even tax collectors (much worse than homosexuals, in my book). He had this funny habit of loving everyone despite their sins or social status. Of course, the powers that be kill him for this but it all works out in the end.
Huh, sounds interesting. It'd a shame most modern christians haven't heard much of this- sounds like pretty revolutionary stuff! I suppose they just skim for the stuff about "hell" or "make others accept me, or you will die."
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Do you people realize you are acting like religious zealots, in dismissing the findings of an expedition that hasn't started yet?
Mount Ararat is named in the Bible as the resting place of the Ark. That section of the Bible was written more than 2000 years ago. Scientific principles absolutely demand that someone must go up there and search for it.
If they find what looks like the remnants of a big wooden ship then whoopee, we get to debate what it really is and launch further expeditions and employ other technology and analysis to see if this is true.
If they find nothing, Someone will claim that they looked in the wrong place and try again. (Ararat is a big mountain)
If they die trying; tough luck. That happens sometimes to people trying to test an important theory.
At the very least searching for the Arc on Ararat is more important than going back to the Moon or climbing Everest again. It is roughly on par with searching for signs of life on Mars and the SETI program. I.e. Published and authenticated success would revolutionize thinking.
For the record There were many attempts to launch such an expedition in the 20th century, They all suffered political trauma. I.e. Ararat, sat on a border between enemies. The political climate has changed and former enemies are now tolerant neighbors.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Anyone who believes that there was a major rise in ocean levels anytime in the past 10,000 years does not know the first thing about coastal glaciation patterns.
If there was any evidence at all that such a flood occured in the recent glacier movements, the creationists would be all over it.
Accepting the plain-as-day proof of Geology is the first step to seeing Genesis as either the religious metaphor or myth that it is.
Thanks to the wonders of the Internet, you can look at Mount Ararat for yourself. Happy ark hunting!
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
This is definitely my second or third post on Slashdot. After not commenting for a long time, I think I'll step in for a bit. So what is this tolerance stuff that I keep hearing about? As in, tolerate gay marriage. Tolerate all religions. Tolerate points of view that are different from your own. And yet when I come on Slashdot and read this article, and all the (I read at +4) comments, my face turns sour because of the horrendous amount of crap that I see from people here. Look, you don't believe Christianity, fine. You think the ark idea is crap, and that science proves yadda yadda yadda, fine. At least have the guts to refrain from bashing those who do. It takes a mature individual to let people have their say without exploding in anger or cracking up in laughter. You have to understand that most people have developed for themselves a framework for how they view life. Most /. readers, I'm guessing, are scientifically minded. So they believe in all the things that science has accomplished. Good work. Hooray for you. Then there are those who believe that a God exists and has made everything we see, and created laws that science is discovering and utilizing. Good work, hooray for you. If you were really tolerant, and if you were really following what you believe you should be doing, then you'd have a solid discussion with them based on the facts, based on what you've seen, etc. etc. But... no. All we see are lousy jokes and other definitive statements - "the Bible is crap," "the Bible has contradictions," etc. etc.
I just don't understand how some /. readers can force Christians onto a pedestal ("You have to be perfect, you Christian moron, and aren't you supposed to LOVE everybody?!") and cannot subject themselves to any sort of standards.
If you're going to argue that the Bible has bad teachings, or that it has contradictions, read the Bible yourself before you make a decision. Actually, don't do just that - be a real student and go and find commentaries from Christian writers. Find commentaries from non-Christian writers. (Why commentaries? Have you ever really been able to explore a book without seeing what lots of people thought about it?) Read it with an unbiased eye. If you think you've found a contradiction, then see what the other side has to say. Read it for yourself. If you end up unconvinced the Bible is true, then great. If you don't find contradictions, then great too. Decide for yourself what you want to believe.
What astounds me is how FEW people actually take that offer. Personally, I don't know of anyone who has. Why? Because they're lazy. Too lazy to go and find out things for themselves. In the meantime, they (non-Christians AND Christians) rely on a few lousy articles and information (which are debunked by different people, depending on who you ask), and then post knowingly uninformed, uneducated entries on /. to the approval (and subsequent positive moderation) of their knowingly uninformed, uneducated peers.
Watch people read this comment and ask, "Is the author of this comment a Christian?" If the answer is yes, they immediately go and trash it because suddenly none of my arguments and comments make any sense. "Those moronic Christians, what a bunch of idiots, they must not believe in science..." right?
So maybe I am, or maybe I'm not. I will say that I HAVE taken up my own challenge. That should be enough for you.
Firstly, at the time of writing an ark the size described would have been impossible to build due to the building materials available. Only wood was used and an ark of biblical proportions would simply fall apart. Secondly, there's not enough water on the planet to cover the entire earth, especially to the height of a mountain!!! It has been found that noah was infact just a trader and that the 'flood that covered the earth' was simply the local river flooding. The story has been basically dramatised for the bible. What a waste of time trying to find the thing...
http://www.frenchgeek.com/
This expedition has about as much credibility as an expedition to the North Pole for Santa's Workshop.
On the other hand, *MY* religion is the 100% truth. My cat, Queen Maeve, created the universe with the appearance of age Last Thursday. You can wave your "scientific method" or "Bible" around but it won't change the Truth and I dare anyone to prove she didn't.
Absent a rebuttal, you must convert to the Church of Last Thursday or face an afterlife in the Eternal Litterbox!
Why are you going to such great lengths to explain how the world could have flooded? Don't you think God could just make more water appear out of nowhere? He willed the entire universe into existence apparently.
Personally, I think it would have been easier to make the water appear and then make it disappear, than to re-shape the entire surface area of the planet. And if you think the Rocky mountains could have been formed by 40 days or 40,000 years of continuous rain erosion, I question the value of this conversation.
- HOORAY!
Once he'd and his mates had accomplished this amazing feat of nautical engineering never to be equalled before or since, he then went around the world rounding up 2 of every type of animal and loaded them on this Ark, and somehow it didn't sink? Whats more, Noah was able to identify the sexes of hundreds of different species, and even identify those that reproduced asexually thousands of years before the enlightenment.
Then you believe that somehow it rained so much, that the entire earth was covered, something which would involve the melting and evaporation of the entire polar ice caps.
Now, once this boat of his was afloat, you seriously believe he managed to survive for 40 days and 40 nights on what food could be stored in the ship, as well as keeping his mates and all the animals alive durinmg this period.
Then you believe that the flood waters receeded leaving no trace of this world covering flood.
Even the most die hard christian fundamentalists would have a job believing so much patent bullcrap. Please, if you want to be christian then at least be one of the ones that whines "well, you ren't supposed to take it all litterally" every time you are challenged.
There's no shortage of really horrific barbaric passages in the Bible, but I don't think the story of Onan fits that lot. It's traditionally been (very badly) misinterpreted by Christians to condemn masturbation or even homosexuality, yes, but if you read the thing that's clearly not what it was about.
Onans brother married, but died before he could produce offspring. Under Hebrew law, Onan therefore became guardian of this property, including his wife. Under Hebrew law, however, he was supposed to impregnate that wife, and then his offspring through her were to be treated as his brothers offspring - to preserve his brothers name and line, which were very important things. Only in the event that the woman were sterile and no offspring could be reproduced was Onans line to retain his brothers property.
But Onan deliberately withdrew at the last moment, deliberately trying to avoid getting her pregnant, out of greed so he could keep what was his brothers. He was trying to keep the letter of the law but defeat its purpose, and in the context of the Hebrew law at the time, he was attempting to destroy his own brothers line and name in order to take his land. This was his sin.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
The legend of the Ark is not solely a Christian tradition! Refer to Surah 11 of the Qu'ran
011.040 (Thus it was) till, when Our commandment came to pass and the oven gushed forth water, We said: Load therein two of every kind, a pair (the male and female), and thy household, save him against whom the word hath gone forth already, and those who believe. And but a few were they who believed with him.
011.041 And he said: Embark therein! In the name of Allah be its course and its mooring. Lo! my Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.
011.042 And it sailed with them amid waves like mountains, and Noah cried unto his son - and he was standing aloof - O my son! Come ride with us, and be not with the disbelievers.
011.043 He said: I shall betake me to some mountain that will save me from the water. (Noah) said: This day there is none that saveth from the commandment of Allah save him on whom He hath had mercy. And the wave came in between them, so he was among the drowned.
011.044 And it was said: O earth! Swallow thy water and, O sky! be cleared of clouds! And the water was made to subside. And the commandment was fulfilled. And it (the ship) came to rest upon (the mount) Al-Judi and it was said: A far removal for wrongdoing folk!
Link for further reading: Surah 11 at Islam.tc
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
Christianity relies on the accuracy of the Bible. If you start doubting certain passages and disregarding others, the entire deck of cards comes crashing down. How can the word of God be inaccurate? If you can ignore certain parts, why not all of it?
This is what drove Thomas Paine to write The Age of Reason, a thorough debunking of this have-your-cake-and-eat-it approach to religion.
The only religious positions that have *any* solid philosophical or logical foundations are deism, atheism and agnosticism. Everything else has as much credulity as me saying "last night while I was watching TV an angel appeared and told me the word of God!!!!!!! Check out my rough draft of what it said on my AOL homepage!! Praise Ungdor who died for us while orbiting the moon bathed in the blood of his enemies!!"
- HOORAY!
What happens if they Find The Ark the same Day they find life on Mars ? Would we all come to the conculsion that God has a sence of humor ?
Then why'd he let those "dirty apes" onto the ark in the first place?
(I am still growing in Christ).
I grew before I entered Christ. That's the right way to do it. You don't even have to wear a rubber on that guy, he's frickin' perfect. No disease, not that it matters. I fear the day when he turns to me and says "You've got AIDS now, and I refuse to cure you. I found someone else."
Hmmm, no lightning yet. How blasphemous do I have to get before He Takes Notice of me? ;)
Like what I said? You might like my music
I mean, you'd have to be some kind of God to create that much ra - oh, never mind.
I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
To take it as face value is being blindly lead by all those people.
Why do some people keep on saying it's all 100% accurate? It's hard to find a book printed in the last 5 years that's 100% accurate, let alone one "written" 5,000 years ago. Maybe, instead of "mountains", they meant "biggest 7-11". It's not as if everything else in the bible is spot on.
It makes the mind boggle. Sheesh. It's the 21st century. Sure - take the bible and use it as inspiration to live a better life. It's great for that - Jesus is a cool guy. Don't, however, take it as an accurate record of the zeitgeist of the biblical ages. Like you wouldn't think of it as the Zagat survey of falafel shacks in Arabia c.-4000. I could go on for hours about how it's supposed to inspire, not instruct, but it usually annoys people.
It's a myth. There's a larger truth going on that trancends geological proofs. You either believe it or you don't.
It's scientifically impossible for someone to turn water into wine or raise the dead, but you don't see people spouting off technical explanations about why it can't be done. Everyone agrees it's impossible. It has to be -- shit, if the bible said "Noah then took his dog Patches and went to the beach for 40 minutes," what would be the sense in that?
Yes, it's impossible. Obviously. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
c-hack.com |
I think that's listed under "Reasons you don't get to worship anyone else." I suppose that's easily explained by revisions and mistranslations, but it's a little odd.
So God allows suffering because it causes us to turn to him? That's really not a healthy relationship, not even in a parent-child context. That's like secretly burning your kid's homework at the last minute so he has to beg you for help.
And why do we need to turn to him? Because believing in him is the only way to stay out of Hell. Why is Hell there? He allowed it to be there, and apprently he tossed some asshole in to be the DM, so he must have a reason for it. Whoever this devil fellow is, he seems to get a kick out of his job, so it doesn't sound like much of a punishment. But maybe it is, what do I know. The result is that a God who claims to love us and can run the show just about any way he wants to was directly involved in the creation of a place of such evil, pain, and eternal horror that it would be morally wrong of him NOT to fill the world with cancer, man-eating tigers, and asteroids that crush dogs, just so we have to to pray to him for mercy.
Why does disbelief in God warrant eternal suffering? Because he's smarter than me, and I wouldn't understand? You know, I consider myself to be more loving and merciful than most, but I'm certainly not up there with any God worth praying to for any but the most selfish and calculated reasons, and -I- think that's fucking extreme. He's God. If he REALLY wants to keep someone from crashing Heaven's parties and spiking the bunch, he's got Ultimate RBL power. As a last resort, just erase the poor bastards.
When a rottweiler eats a child, you don't put it on life support and torture it for ten years, you put it to sleep.
And you don't let a rottweiler eat a child now and then just so the rest have to beg you to keep them leashed.
I would hope they are careful not to disturb the footprints of all the animals disembarking 2 by 2. They may not be very fresh after 5000 years, but it would be a shame to loose that important scientific evidence forever.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
my blood pressure is going through the roof because of the extreme lack of COMMON SENSE of the people who are supporting this expidition. some argue that there's no way that the waters could rise that much, others say there's no way he could have gotten around the world to get all of the animals. but damnit, how the hell did the animals get back to where they were from? oh yes... MAGIC. god damn son of a als;kdjfjksadfl;j heart attack... bbl
Canada built a space needle, it has as far as I can tell no practicle purpose what-so-ever, but they built it to have a really tall building I think.
That'd be wrong.
"Defining the Toronto skyline, the CN Tower is Canada's most recognizable and celebrated icon. At a height of 553.33m (1,815 ft., 5 inches), it is the World's Tallest Building, an important telecommunications hub, and the centre of tourism in Toronto."
"Although the CN Tower inspires a sense of pride and inspiration for Canadians and a sense of awe for tourists, its origins are firmly rooted in practicality. The construction boom in Toronto in the 1960's transformed the skyline characterized by relatively low buildings into one dotted with skyscrapers. These new buildings caused serious communication problems. With its microwave receptors at 338 m (1,109 ft.) and 553.33m (1,815 ft., 5 inches) antenna, the CN Tower swiftly solved the communication problems with room to spare. As a result people living in the Toronto area now enjoy some of the clearest reception in North America."
Information from the official CN Tower website.
The story of "Noah" (probably not his real name) may have had some basis in fact. This is my best (and probably the best you'll ever hear) theory on what really happened.
/.
a pril/28_ marshes.html
/.AC, the Least Reverend Unbeliever
I hope it doesn't get moderated into oblivion simply because I don't have an account at
In Reality, "Noah's Ark" was probably nothing more than a reed raft built or used to evacuate farm animals, family, etc. from the middle of the Tigris/Euphrates river.
The Noah mentioned in the various religious texts most probably belonged to the Madan or "Marsh Arab" tribe, which then and to this day are a group of river people living among the reeds that grow near the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in what is now Iraq.
See:
http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/d
The Madan build their shelters, rafts, etc., from local materials, which consisted mainly of tall reeds. Their entire village probably consisted of one or more floating reed mats, held in place by reeds still attached to the river bottom.
Any extended period of rain *upriver* would cause flooding in the Madan village, even if no rain occurred locally. If seasonal (how long - 40 days?) rains were expected, the resultant flooding could be predicted. It would certainly cause some to consider moving out of the river to higher, safer, ground.
According to the story, Noah decided in favor of safety, even though few if any other villagers made the same decision. The other villagers may have felt that it was more important to remain in the village working to prevent it from being uprooted and washed downstream.
As for "Noah's Ark" being found on a 17,000 ft. high mountain, here's some simple math:
Taking most of the biblical story at face value, "Noah's Ark" could actually have come to rest on almost any land area with an elevation of around 960 ft. above Noah's original elevation.
A very heavy rainfall would be in the area of 4+ inches of accumulation per hour. Assuming 12 inches/hour for 40 days+nights:
12*24*40 = 11520 inches
11520/12 = 960 feet.
So you don't really need a big mountain to beach your craft. Many smaller hills will do.
Signed,
Some take the bible
For what it's worth
When it says that the meek
Shall inherit the Earth
Well, I heard that some sheik
Has bought New Jersey last week
'N you suckers ain't gettin' nothin'
Is Hare Rama really wrong ...
If you wander around
With a napkin on
With a bell on a stick
An' your hair is all gone
(The geek shall inherit nothin')
You say yer life's a bum deal ...
'N yer up against the wall
Well, people, you ain't even got no kinda
Deal at all
'Cause what they do
In Washington
They just takes care of NUMBER ONE
An' NUMBER ONE ain't YOU
You ain't even NUMBER TWO
Those Jesus Freaks ...
Well, they're friendly but
The shit they believe
Has got their minds all shut
An' they don't even care
When the church takes a cut
Ain't it bleak when you got so much nothin'
(So whaddya do? Hey!)
Eat that pork
Eat that ham
Laugh till ya choke
On Billy Graham
Moses, Aaron 'n Abraham
They're all a waste of time
'N it's your ass that's on the line
(IT'S YOUR ASS THAT'S ON THE LINE)
Do what you wanna ... ...
Do what you will
Just don't mess up
Your neighbor's thrill
'N when you pay the bill
Kindly leave a little tip
And help the next poor sucker
On his one way trip
SOME TAKE THE BIBLE
(Aw gimme a half a dozen for the hotel room!)
Religion is fine until people insist there is a basis in reality. If I asked you to believe in a computer program that speeds up dialup connections 1000x what would you say? "Show me the code". Yet way, way too many accept religion with zero physical proof. Guess what kids: they won't find Noah's Ark because there is no Noah's Ark.
Look at what religion has done to the the US: Bush has wrapped himself in the bible and the flag and see what mess he's gotten us in. Without his money, flag and bible he'd be washing dishes at Dennys. I'll die fighting to support one's right to pray to whatever God or Gods they wish but please don't try to make me believe in your shared hallucinations.
And remember to kindly leave a little tip to help that next poor sucker on his one way trip ...
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
...their lack of faith disturbing.
Thank you for observing all safety precautions.
Now onto the fun. If you go ahead and actually read Genesis 7, instead of listening to what your minister/priest told you, you'll find two complete stories completey interwoven with different details. It is believed that there were two main authors of Genesis, one from Judea in the south, and one from Israel in the north. Convienently, they used different names for God (Yahweh and Elohim). The King James Version, thankfully, keeps these names separate by referring them to as "the Lord" and "God". Which makes separating the two flood stories a little easier.
In one version, "God" asks for two of every animal, and they go on the ark two by two. So far so good, right? But it then says the rains kept up for 150 days. And what kind of bird brings back the olive branch proving the land is appearing again? A raven.
The next version, with "the Lord", fills in the gaps we're all used to. In this version, seven pairs of animals are to be loaded up (!?). But it then rains for the familiar 40 days and 40 nights. And then Noah sends out a dove, which returns with the branch.
So the version we learn is a simple hybrid of the two stories that were almost certainly written by different authors at different times.
Sure, one of the stories could be true, but it is most likely based on an older flood myth. From what I've heard, many religions have a flood story, so some people believe there was a great flood, but we just don't have enough evidence.
Any local school will do - or university for that matter. Just look at the controversies surrounding the preposterous idea of trying to get schools to teach the scientific problems with the theory of evolution. No, we can't have that. We must indoctrinate our little children to believe evolution even though it has known problems.
The origins of life and the earth are a matter of faith, whether you believe the Bible or you believe in evolution. No person was there and no person can scientifically prove molecules to man, goo to you via the zoo evolution - just as no man can scientifically prove the 6 day creation account. Creationists and evolutionists both have the same facts, the same evidence. It's just a matter of how you try to fit that evidence into your worldview.
If you believe the Bible account of creation, then you believe that by faith in God. If you believe in the big bang or any other of the assorted theories, then you believe those by faith in man. You either trust God and what he said about it, or you trust man and what he says.
Borrow money from a pessimist - they don't expect it back.
Ok...the vikings and others had shipburials. Due to the immense differences in practicality between:
I) hauling a ship out of water onto land and into a pre-dug hole, and
II) hauling a ship out of water and thousands of meters up a mountainside, I'd assume most people here (moderators included) would consider the above post less than insightful.
Before anyone even considers the "What if it was built on-site, for this particular purpose?"-nonsense, it appears that this would be well above the tree-line, even in nice'n'hot Turkey, and it's not the sort of altitude that people would like to do hard work in.
To further debunk your middle-of-England analogy: The middle of England is never too far from navigable rivers. Viking ships had very shallow keels, allowing them to navigate many of them.
Furthermore, viking shipbuilding skills were wide-spread after conquests to the East, West and South. Any rich fuck could commision a few people knowledgeable in the art to chop down some lumber and make a boat on-site.
Your argument has no relevance to the matter at hand. Sorry if mine has a sort of neurotic twist to it...the coffee got to me hours ago.
In one of the God themed episodes of the Simpsons, the Flanders family sings "God said to Noah there's gonna be a floody floody". So I looked it up, and it turns out that this is a real Christian rock song.
: |
---
Rise and Shine
God said to Noah there's gonna be a floody floody
God said to Noah there's gonna be a floody floody
Get those children out of the muddy muddy
Children of the Lord
CHORUS:
So rise and shine
And give God your glory, glory.
Rise and shine
And give God your glory, glory
Rise and shine and HEY!!
Children of the Lord
So Noah he built him he built him an arky arky
Noah he built him he built him an arky
Made it out of hickory barky barky
CHORUS
The animals they came on came on by twoosies twoosies
Animals they came on came on by twoosies twoosies
Elephants and Kangaroosies-roosies,
Children of the Lord
CHORUS
It rained and poured for forty daysies daysies
Rained and poured for forty daysies daysies
Drove those animals nearly crazy crazy
Children of the Lord
CHORUS
The sun came out and dried up the landy landy
Sun came out and dried up the landy landy
Everything was fine and dandy dandy
Children of the Lord
CHORUS
Noah he sent out sent out a dovey dovey
Noah he sent out sent out a dovey dovey
Everything was peace and lovey lovey
Children of the Lord
CHORUS
The animals they came out came out by threesies threesies
Animals they came out came out by threesies threesies
Must have been those birds and beesees beesees
Children of the Lord
CHORUS
This is the end of end of the story story
This is the end of end of the story story
Everything was hunky dory dory
Children of the Lord
CHORUS
---
If you are interested or curious you can find out a LOT of interesting information at my Uncle's site. He has a country place that no one knows about!
Here
Uncle B has been on several expeditions to "the mountains of Ararat" and has co-authored a book on the subject.
Many of the "facts" that have been presented on Slashdot are... well... this is Slashdot!
For open minded individuals, the abusive distortion of facts by ANY dogmatic belief (creation, evolution, humanism, christianity, islam, ufos, atheism, whatever!) is pathetic.
Facts are facts. The problem is always interpretation. As Rush said, "you can twist perceptions, reality won't budge." The problem is that many people accept the interpretation of data as FACT and that's just as dogmatic and foolish as someone who doesn't question the beliefs (or total lack thereof) that were imparted to them.
I find it interesting that the most "open minded" people turn out to be the most zealously dogmatic when confronted with something that is contrary to their opinion and beliefs, because let's face it: it is all a system of belief. Every factual interpretation is based on assumptions. Those assumptions probably seemed reasonable at the time. But they were wrong. It turns out that the Earth orbits the Sun, not the other way around!
As a Christian, I'm classified by a lot of people as ignorant or simple. The truth is that I choose to believe in Christ for one simple reason: if you want to know what it is, you can read my reply to this message. If you don't want to know, I won't proselytize. I give you the choice to read it or not.
The reason nobody can find it is because it's probably not there. The modern mountains in Turkey were named from the account in the Bible as people thought that was the place, but in actuality the real location isn't known for sure. It's just the "traditional" site. Just like Mount Sinai is actually just across the Red Sea in Saudi Arabia. But anyway, that's just my opinion, for some interesting research look at:
/ /www.noahsarksearch.com/iran.htm
http://www.ldolphin.org/franz-sinai.html
http:
I know you shouldn't feed the trolls, but I'll bite..
I must say I'm surprised there weren't any dinosaur questions.
What if this *does* turn out to be the Ark, putting asside all the arguments for why it isn't possible and what not. Wouldn't that just be the wildest thing. I mean a story (that I personally took as just a tale) suddenly becomes true. I mean holy shit, thats pretty mind blowing if you ask me.
E.
Never rub another man's rhubarb - The Joker
"As an example, the writer had the audacity to say that Jeph'thah had his daughter sacrificed on the alter, when clearly if you read the passage further you would find that she lived a good long life, and that the daughters of the land would commend her for her devotion from "year to year". She was given to God to serve him. This was the same thing that Han'nah did with her son, Samuel."
This is completely false. This is a story I know better than almost any other; I'm a choral music director and there have been more oratorios written on this story than almost any other. Please look at the entirety of the last verses of Judges 11:
35: And when he saw her, he rent his clothes, and said, "Alas, my daughter! you have brought me very low, and you have become the cause of great trouble to me; for I have opened my mouth to the LORD, and I cannot take back my vow." 36: And she said to him, "My father, if you have opened your mouth to the LORD, do to me according to what has gone forth from your mouth, now that the LORD has avenged you on your enemies, on the Ammonites." 37: And she said to her father, "Let this thing be done for me; let me alone two months, that I may go and wander on the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my companions." 38: And he said, "Go." And he sent her away for two months; and she departed, she and her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains. 39: And at the end of two months, she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had made. She had never known a man. And it became a custom in Israel 40: that the daughters of Israel went year by year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year.
End of chapter. Jepthah's daughter is not mentioned from there onward. Jephthah's vow was:
30: And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD, and said, "If thou wilt give the Ammonites into my hand, 31: then whoever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the LORD's, and I will offer him up for a burnt offering."
I used the Revised Standard Version for the quotes above. It's a harsh story, I admit, but Jephthah's daughter died. And of course, if you have any biblical documentation to back up what you said, I definitely want to read it; I am big enough to admit that I was wrong if you can show me the evidence.
modern choral music...
The written history of the Jews (which Christians call the Old Testament) was compiled during their exile in Babylon, with the intent of solidifying the Jewish identity against absorbtion by the Babylonians. As such, it made many exagerated claims about Israel's military prowess, to instill a sense of nationalistic pride. But no one has ever found any evidence of great wars or the exodus. In this case, lack of evidence is evidence--as one Biblical archeologist put it, "If it had actually happened, we would have found something." So the vast conquests probably amounted to a few tribal skirmishes. But hell, the Trojan war was a tribal skirmish. The rest is myth. We do know that the Jewish tribes probably originated in Egypt (though probably not as slaves), because most of the myths in the Old Testament are almost exact copies of older Egyptian myths (as is Christianity.)
Judaism is not and never has been a triumphalist religion. It does not proseletize and has no interest in converting others unless they become affiliated by marriage. It is first and formost a tribal religion providing an ancestral memory. To this end, it has been wildly successful, and has avoided most of the excesses of the triumphalist religions, Islam and Christianity.
As for Noah's Ark, this too is a much older myth predating Judaism (Atlantis is one version of it.) The story of the flood may have a historical basis; at the end of the last ice age, the melting of European glaciers flooded the Mediterranean Sea until a natural barrier collapsed. The water flooded the Black Sea in a massive rush, with water levels rising hundreds of feet in a matter of months. There is evidence that this displaced a lot of people living on the shores of the Black Sea. The flood myth may have originated with this event.
"''We are not excavating it. We are not taking any artifacts. We're going to photograph it and, God willing, you're all going to see it,' McGivern said.' As if pictures can't be doctored and are absolute proof...."
They're certain they're going to see it; you're certain they're not. You're both two sides of the same irrational coin. Me? I'm a real scientist. I believe anything is possible, and, realizing many ancient stories are based upon a real, however romanticized, person or event, I try not to have presuppositions. And when I may have a presupposition, I don't gloat it as a source of pride.
I can't tell you how long I've been waiting to use the IAAT tag :)
So here's the deal folks, I've got a B.Theology with majors in systematic theology and biblical studies, I read/write biblical greek and ecclesiastical latin and I'm a soon-to-be candidate for ordination. I have some Christian street-cred.
Also, look at my /. user ID number, and compare it to your own. I'm a professional software developer and I've worked with some of the biggest names in the industry.
Also, for the record, I love science and see no conflict between it and religion, just as long as they keep out of each others hair. If science tries to tell me the meaning of my existance or if religion tries to tell me the true value of Pi, I yell bullshit and bitch-slap 'em back where they came from.
So what I want to say, and hopefully my short intro is enough to make some of you pause for a moment to listen, is that many people here seem to have an innacurate idea of what Christianity is all about.
I come from the Catholic tradition, and about 1 in 5 people on this planet identify themselves as Catholic so I think I'm safe in saying that official Catholic doctrine would be a safe place to start if we are looking at 'what do Christians believe?' I'll let the smaller denominations speak for themselves rather than attempt to cover their views too, but here is the official Catholic view on whether we should take the bible literally.
The following quotes come from the document, Verbum Dei (Latin, "The Word of God") which has the status of being an 'Apostolic Constitution' of the Second Vatican Council. Basically, it doesn't come any more official than this folks - All Catholics are required to adhere to these guidelines or otherwise get out of dodge, so this is what a numerical majority of Christians on the planet believe.
Is the bible history?
Sorry if your neighbourhood or country is full of Christians who are sure that the true value of pi is 3.0 because that's the figure that the bible gives, but you can be rest assured that the vast majority of Christians do not hold anything like that view.
Noah's Ark is clearly a literary form (flood story) that is documented to have existed all over the ancient world. The official methodology that Catholics would use to understand this story involves looking at the ways in which the Jewish version is different from say, the Sumerian version, thereby gaining some insight into what the Old Testament authors thought was important about it. Also, we'd look at it to see if it can shed any light on our understanding of the New testament too, because, well shucks, we're Christians not Jews and we like to see eveything in terms of Christ - even the Old Testament.
But you won't find any Catholic theologians freezing their ass off on top of
# grep slashdot access.log | grep html | sort | uniq | wc -l 2604
I will immediately and readily acknowledge that I know very, very little about "modern" Christianity. But I did double major in history in college, as well as it being an avocation. I studied and recall the interactions of the original Christians with the Roman Empire (ever heard of the Name?). So, I'll ask what do you know about Christianity, the 2000 years ago original REAL version?
The Empire was a heterogenous place. There were lots and lots and lots of gods and religions. One more, the Christian verison (a stoic Judeaism preaching eventual salvation for the downtrodden), would have easily been absorbed. Many, many other religions were. However, those original Christians were persecuted. Why? They were hated, by the people. Why? Because they were not tolerant. They actively worked to convert people. They actively tried to disrupt families, to disrupt the common observance of family deities (ancestor worship). They caused turmoil, violated law.
The Roman authorities originally considered Christians to be Jews (after all, they were). The Romans had a "special understanding" with the Jews. The province of Judea had an arrangement unlike nearly any other province. The Jews were protected by the Roman authorities and given a great deal of autonomy. Recall Paul, a Jew and a citizen, protected as he travelled. The Roman authorities actually protected early Christians from popular anger.
However, eventually, due to inquiries by provincial authorities asking how to deal with these people, the Romans decided that Christians were not Jews. They lost their protection. At popular DEMAND. Not because they were tolerant, peaceful, introspective religious people. They then were persecuted, not without some cause.
And what happened later? Christianity supplanted other religions in the Empire, by law. Wars were fought to spread it. Crusades. The Spanish in the New World. Uncounted numbers of people killed.
That is a tolerant religion? Sure, 2000 years later, modern "Christians" may have decided that now that they are dominant and have supplanted basically all other forms of religion in their western societies, they can be peaceful, quiet and tolerant. But I assure you, that is NOT the origin or history of Christianity.
Therefore, I ask again, are you a "for-real" Christian if you aren't on the street corner with that loud speaker? Do you truly believe in the Day of Judgement and the possibility of it happening tomorrow? Or are you some comfortable, 2000 long years later, tolerant pervision/derivitive of a Christian? Which is more "for-real?" The one practiced within mere years of the death of Christ, or today?
Larry
Since the Bible is a book of religion and not a history book, and since some of the stories like "Adam and Eve" and "Noah and the Ark" could have been handed down for eons before they were ever transcribed to writing, these early Bible stories may be hundreds of thousands of years older than recorded history. The actual water depth, and mountain height could be wrong, and even the name of the mountain could be wrong. However, a flood event is recorded in many cultures other than just the bible. So, perhaps something happened that is not outside the laws of nature, but still is within the events of the Bible as a book of religion. There may be an ark on some mountain, and there may be an "Ark of the Covenant" somewhere. The existance or non-existance of either will not explain nor disprove any parts of a "book of religion". Discovery of something, like the remnants of an ark, will give historians and scientists something to talk about. Being able to date parts of a boat back to about 1-5 million years would really give some credulance to the flood story, regardless of how it happened, yet it would not change the "miracle" event as recorded in the Bible. It's easy to believe in science. It's hard to believe in miracles.
[javac] 100 errors
there are many well known _objections_ to some things in the bible, but i'm not aware of anything that is universally understood to be simply incorrect. are you ?
No I'm not aware of anything universally understood, yet alone of anything universally understood to be incorrect. :-) So once you set the bar that high I have to stop arguing with you - you'll always find at least one person (apart from yourself) which will disagree. If the validity of their position does not matter, I have no chance
in convincing you.
if there was anything in the bible that was uncontestably false, nobody would believe in the bible anymore.
Well you can contest anything, even if your objection has no observable merit. In the case of the cited post you could just say "what do archeologists know?". However if you use any archeological evidence to support the claim that parts of the bible can be proven to be correct, then the archeological evidence showing that other parts of the bible can be proven to be incorrect need to be considered, too. You need to use the same criteria to decide which archeological evidence is credible, no matter whether it proves or disproves.
So you'll need to retract "part of the bible can be proven" or you'll need to accept "part of the bible can be disproven" - or you need to show that the archeological investigations pointing to the latter are somehow flawed. And showing these flaws you need to use the same standards for both kinds of archeological investigations.
Did those same creation scientists bother to mention the list of animals that did contain all the DNA needed to produce the offspring we have now? Please explain to me how only a pair of dogs is able to father the complete dog genus as we know it now, and make sure you take into account the age of the Noah story being ~6000 years ago.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
Let's try that again..
You either trust man and what he says about what God said about creation, or you trust man and what he says of it.
The difference is only one concerning which person or group you trust to be more honest.I don't know about you, but I like the honesty that's integral to science.
This will be technically offtopic, but so is almost half of the postings here (not that I mind - lots of fun to be found).
Here's some gristle for you religionists out there -- I'm not calling you Christians, for its rather silly to give southern American fundamentists the impression that they represent THE Christianity.
Here we have the story of das Boot that survived the wrath of god about a dozen generations after the earth was created.
Apparently god, a supernatural superpowerful spirit that refers to itself in the plural, decides that the entire world, except for this one family, was too "evil". He decides to kill every last thing on the plate (not planet - its flat), while Noah races against time before the god kills him along with everything else before the deadline. Fair's fair; if Noah is too slow, EVERYTHING dies. The god is a bit of a sportsman here. Move it or lose it, human!
Now, here's the thing. This god apparently wants more than anything else to be flattered. To be begged, cajoled, importuned, deferred to,have animals sliced up and charcoaled (a bit of a Texan). People just aren't properly on their knees (both meanings intended).
The angry god kills everyone. Noah and his terrified and emotionally destroyed brood find dry land and tell the god that they will do what he wants, please don't hurt us.
The now appeased god promises never to do it again.
Now, what is the difference between a Luciferian embodiment of all evil and this murdering psychotic all-powerful spirit?
If I lived in a world controlled by such a lunatic power, I'd deny its divinity and work to take the motherfucker DOWN every minute of my life!
The true measure of a god is to compare its actions with that of a good man.
What kind of man would murder a plate of people and animals because they weren't paying attention to him?
A man who ain't no god, that for sure. And I expect better behavior from all-powerful Yahweh -- or it's just an evil demonic power, to be opposed at all costs.
The Great Flood was inspired by the creation of the Black Sea. Before 5600BC, it used to be a much, much smaller lake below sea level. In short order, the Mediterranean broke through and flooded vast amounts of farmland. This is the kind of event that could trigger enough content for an epic. Unfortunately, the best reference I can find on this at the moment is this amazon link.
There have been similar studies done on other events, such as how Moses parted the Red Sea. It was on Discover or one of those shows, where some university was attempting to explain how a specific combination of high winds and tidal forces combined with the shape of the bottom of the Red Sea could have possibly temporarily cleared a wide channel/sandbar across the way. Sounds a bit more tenuous, and I can't find an online reference, but it seems plausible that someone with mastery of astronomical calendaring back then could have predicted an extremely low tide and used to to pull off such a feat.
The Bible was certainly written over interesting times... back when books were made by hand of expensive materials (vellum doesn't come cheap, back at a time when wealth was expressed in livestock). Having something written down in a book laborously by monks was just as well as having it carved in stone -- it had enough proofreading and checking to have been taken as the ultimate truth. There was a time when judges used to literally carry around The Book of The Law, and pass judgements based strictly on what was written.
After inventions like the Gutenberg press made books, journals, and newspapers a commodity, did people realize that what was written was not always true, and begin to look at such things critically as they should.
For some reason, the religious communities have managed to shield their sacred texts from the same sort of transformation in the way we deal with sources of information. But it's doing what they're good at, aligning and organizing people along some lines of belief to accomplish some goal that they probably wouldn't have attained on their own or if they were liberals :P
I like the way Neal Stephenson presents this kind of idea in Snow Crash. A bit exaggerated and fantastical, but altogether tangible and chilling.
"If it comes from a source that I think is credible,"
then you believe it. The word "belief" doesn't automatically invoke religion. I believe that when I go out into the parking lot my car will be sitting there because the battery is dead. I have no *proof* of this, my car could have been towed or stolen or destroyed. But I believe that it will be in the parking lot when I walk out the door. So far I'm batting 1000.
"A scientist *thinks* that the earth is round, because somebody else explained it and it makes sense."
OK, now I see the problem. You have a semantic hangup with the word "believe". Fine, use the word "think". It's the same thing. If you *think* something is true, then you believe it to be true. And if you believe something to be true, it's because you think that it's true. Christians *think* the Bible makes sense, this is the same thing as saying they believe it.
And let's not forget that the actual scientist thinks that the Earth is round because of measurements and observations he's made. You, having heard the scientist and found him credible, choose to *believe* what he is saying, since you didn't make these measurements and observations and have no first-hand scientific knowledge that would lead you to that conclusion independantly.
Face it man, a vast portion of who you are is what you've been told. When you were five, did you not cross the street without looking both ways because you had personally experimented and obtained unfavorable results - or did you *believe* your mother when she told you it was a bad idea? Did you personally try talking to the nice stranger in the trenchcoat with the candy and find out through personal experimentation that he was a child molestor - or did you *believe* your parents and teachers when they told you he was a sicko? We all hold that murder is wrong (hopefully) not because we've tried it and been dissatisfied with the results, but because other people who have been involved with actual murders tell us it tends to not work out too well, and we choose to *believe* them. We subscribe to the theory of relativity not because we've proved it ourselves - we *believe* Einstein.
There are two sources of knowledge in the world - what you prove yourself to be true and what you accept from others to be true.
That's why, when asked a question to which one might not definately know the answer but is pretty sure, a common response is "I believe so", or "I believe not". Those are not inherently religious statements.
Anybody who tells anybody anything is either believed, disbelieved, or held in reserve judgement. (assuming they speak the same language, have the same mental capacity, blah blah blah).
Don't like the word? Don't use it. But it has a well-established meaning completely divorced from faith or religion. But hey, look it up yourself, don't *believe* me...
They will never stop until somebody makes the
rounding up 2 of every type of animal
:)
I take exception to that statement. The Bible states that two of every living thing and seven of every clean beast and two of every unclean beast were taken aboard. Most people just think it was two of everything.
Even the most die hard christian fundamentalists would have a job believing so much patent bullcrap. Please, if you want to be christian then at least be one of the ones that whines "well, you ren't supposed to take it all litterally" every time you are challenged.
I am a die-hard Christian fundamentalist. I believe the Bible to be inerrant and I take the Bible very literally. If you read it you can see when the writer is speaking figuratively or literally. So I won't whine about not taking it literally if you challenge me.
thousands of years before the enlightenment.
The who?
Noah was able to identify the sexes of hundreds of different species, and even identify those that reproduced asexually
Noah didn't. God did.
Putting this into context, god commanded the Ark to be 300 cubits in length, which is roughly 140 metres, whereas at the battle of Trafalgar Nelson's flagship was about 65 metres in length.
Amazing, isn't it? Of course, there's always been God around that created the heavens and the earth. He did that before ANYONE even thought about building anything.
You seriously believe that thousands of years before the industrial revolution, god commanded Noah and his nearest and dearest to build a boat entirely of wood, that would be larger than any later wooden battleships.
He had 120 years to build it. Remember that God told Noah that man's days were numbered to 120. Noah was the only person found righteous in the eyes of the Lord so he and his family were told to build the ark.
I'll defend my faith until the day I die.
When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
In the case of the scientist believing that the world is round, the scientist is not taking this fact on faith - it's an explanation that makes sense and that meshes well with everything else that the scientist has seen and learned about the world around him. The scientist accepts it as true and works from there, until he learns otherwise. In the case of a religous person believing in the bible, believing that God dumped a miraculous amount of water on the planet requires absolute faith. It requires believing in something that *cannot* be tested, that is outside of the bounds of the observable universe. That's a very different kind of belief, and I would argue that it's not a very useful tool for living in the universe.
In my previous post I was purposely using a narrow definition of the word in order to make my point, but I suppose that just makes my point confusing.
You say that all knowledge comes from yourself or from others, which I agree with. You also say that anything you hear from others is either believed or not believed. This statement I either agree with or disagree with, depending on which definition of "believe" you are using.
It's the difference between "I believe that's a storm blowing in." and "I believe in ghosts." You hear people make the claim that everything requires belief, but they don't qualify what kind of belief they're talking about. I assume they mean the second (I believe in ghosts) kind of belief, in which case they're wrong. I can apply the scientific method and easily come up with evidence that such and such a scientific article is "believable." I highly doubt that any amount of effort could produce scientific evidence of ghosts. If it did, then ghosts would be outside of the realm of the second-kind-of-belief (see above), and faith would no longer be required to "believe" in them. In other words, nothing that is actually real (interacts with the universe) requires second-kind-of-belief for justification.
Now you see why I like to use only one of the definitions of "believe!" Maybe we need another word... in fact, we probably already have one. Maybe there's a better way to put it?
[javac] 100 errors
The real point is not whether you call scientific evidence "belief". The real point is that theories that don't have "evidence" have to be taken on faith, even in scientific circles until we can find some evidence. Somethings cannot be explained by science as we know it. Are you sure that your brain or some other part of you does not communicate to others? Can one explain what causes some twins to do things at the same time even when they have no direct communication? Point is that there is lots we don't know and cannot explain.
Especially since science is not at all about finding an absolute truth and is forever seeking to discredit its own work as a means to either strengthen the position, or destroy it by replacing it with a new, stronger idea. After all, at one time, Ether was a good explanation for the gap between heavenly bodies. Now, we know better. But, we have things like dark matter that are just kind of stop gap solutions to problems we haven't solved yet. It's a pretty good bet that will be debunked eventually and replaced with a better explanation for extra gravity.
Science doesn't require anymore faith than you have in humanity anyway. The fact is, any goober with a degree in some "scientific" field can come out with a wild theory. That's why other scientists set out to discredit it. If they can't discredit it, you have a pretty good reason to believe it... for now.
The difference between real science and psuedo-science or religion, of course, is that those two things require you to simply have faith in the "truth" that an individual is speaking. Whereas science says, "here, I believe this and I can back it up! Come and get me!", religion says "Uh... here... I believe this, but you just have to believe me, because there's no way to prove what I'm saying".
Big difference in the type of faith science requires and the type of faith religion requires.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Assuming something is true for practical purposes, or hoping that something is true because it seems like it *should* be true, are not the same as being absolutely convinced that it is true. We must always remain skeptical of even the most well tested theories, not to mention the ones that don't even have any evidence!
No, I am not sure that my brain doesn't communicate with others via some undiscovered phenomenon. However, it would be stupid of me to assume that it *does* do so, without a good explanation.
As you say, there are lots we don't know and cannot explain. The point of science is to know and explain as much as we can. We shouldn't expect to be able to explain everything, and we also shouldn't go around believing in things that don't have an explanation.
[javac] 100 errors
Huh??. which is it 2 of everything or 7 of some and 2 of the rest.
:) Ask God to open your heart to understanding the Bible. He will if you mean it.
Genesis 7:2 reads "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female."
Genesis 7:8-9 reads, "Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah."
It was two of every unclean and seven of every clean. Gen. 7:2 says that clearly. In Gen. 7:8-9, it is stating the way the beasts boarded the ark - in pairs - two at a time. It isn't talking about the number of each type of animal.
If the bible is inerrant than Gen 7:8-9 must be a misprint in my copies.
So your Bible doesn't have a misprint.
If the former, then the "clean" species were extincted when Noah offered on his newly built altar: (Gen 8:20). So I guess the two of everything _must_ be true since _clean_ beasts appear after the flood.
Gen. 8:20 reads, "And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar."
So Noah used CLEAN animals (there were seven of those taken aboard) and made an offering. So no species were forced into extinction because Noah made a sacrifice on the altar. There were some people who got in trouble in the Bible for using unclean animals for sacrifices.
Oops, Excuse me for using logic to question this. I'm averse to using fantasy and superstition when I try to think logically.
No problem. I don't believe in superstition anyway.
All through your life, I Me Mine, I Me Mine, I Me Mine. -- John Lennon
Beatles fan? Me too! My favorite band! You quoted a George Harrison song, though, not a Lennon one. Might want to update your sig.
When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.