"God cannot create a square circle"

[rhutchin]

There is no faith in nature. Nature will not intervene if we pray. We can't speak of the will of nature. Or condemn certain acts (other than perpetual motion) because nature forbids it. Nature just is. There is no faith about it.

Sure there is. People have faith that nature (natural laws) can lead to the creation of life that evolution can then manipulate. People have faith that evolution - mutation, natural selection, etc. - could actually take some simple form of life and create, over time, the variety of life we observe today. People who adhere to evolutionary processes as the force behind all life have a belief system based on nothing but faith.

You seem to be confusing empirical evidence for faith.

Given that there is no empirical evidence for non-life to beget life, and there is no empirical evidence for universal common descent, might we not wonder why so many people believe in evolution beyond speciation.

There is plenty of evidence for common descent. In fact, we are learning these days, the mutations that led to the divergence of specifies.

Common descent is not the issue. We have common descent from Noah's ark to the present time. Evidence is needed for universal common descent - the idea that all life comes from that one miraculous life that miraculously appeared way back when. That is lacking.

You need more than just divergence of species. We have divergence of species from Noah's ark down to today.

The only empirical evidence biology produces substantiates speciation which basically tells us how the few animals getting off Noah's ark expanded into the great number we observe today. Thus, the Biblical account of the flood forward is well grounded in biology.

Okay, you are just trolling now, right? Evolution is a lie, but animals can diverge in record time thanks to mutations.

Record time? Speciation tends to occur quickly, doesn't it? Animal breeders get results pretty quickly.

Given the lack of empirical evidence for a mechanism to account for the appearance of the universe or life, belief in a god who would have to create the universe and life for either to exist is as reasonable as anything else out there.

Not really, as god only begs the question one step further back. Everything must have a cause, except for my extraordinary exception to that rule!

Logic requires an uncaused cause or else we would not be here regardless whether one says God is the uncaused cause or nature incorporates an uncaused cause.

 

[Rhea]

The only empirical evidence biology produces substantiates speciation which basically tells us how the few animals getting off Noah's ark expanded into the great number we observe today. Thus, the Biblical account of the flood forward is well grounded in biology.

It turns out that you kind of make a fool of yourself for saying this.

Everything that we observe in nature demonstrates that the Noah story is a total fairy tale. There IS NO WAY both migration and speciation can move fast enough to support the flood story.

(not to mention the absurd and ridiculous lengths christians will go to in avoiding a list of what species were actually on this "ark" so that they can avoid being shown their folly)

Evolution, everything about it that we have learned from evidence that is right in front of us and that is predictable and repeatable and demonstrable proves beyond a shodow of a doubt that the flood story is a farce, and a rather shallow and comical one, at that.

Since you know so little about what evolution actually says and is, you have a couple of choices.

1. You can block your ears and pretend you have never seen this and continue to tell people that evolution proves Noah when it clearly doesn't. This enables you to tell it to people who also don't know evolution and might believe you. You'd know in your heart that you are spreading an untruth, but you are willing to do it anyway because it sounds so good to you (see genesis 3), you're just like Eve there, feeding lies to the unsuspecting because the tale sounded good and you are ambitious, but it's not the truth.
2. You can educate yourself more on evolution with an open and honest mind and refrain from spreading untruths from your lips while you learn how evolution actually disproves the flood story
3. You can realize your error regarding the theory of evolution and refrain from spreading lies (whose work is this that you do, in the end?) but still maintain your belief without calling on falsehoods to back it up and just stop talking about evolution altogether. Talk about faith only.

Your call.

But every time you tell anyone that evolution supports the flood story, you are saying something that is not true, you are doing Satan's work, you are an agent of deceit. How does it feel being a mouthpiece for Lucifer?

That's actually a serious question. When you realize you are completely wrong about evolution, does it make you squirm that you've been telling an untruth all this time?

 

[rhutchin]

I think you already knew that god exists.

Now you're claiming to know my thoughts, and I have no reason to discuss anything with you.

Guess I got it right. Intimidating isn't it?

 

[Rhea]

Okay, you are just trolling now, right? Evolution is a lie, but animals can diverge in record time thanks to mutations.

Record time? Speciation tends to occur quickly, doesn't it? Animal breeders get results pretty quickly.

rhutchin, to make this claim you MUST show what species you believe were on the ark so that we can compare them with today.

Just for example, All of these on the ark or all of those speciated since then from a single one - and if so, which one?

• Which felines? Tigers, leopards, cheetahs, domestic shorthairs, cloud leopards, siamese, puma, panther and bobcat.
• Which marsupials Opposums, Kangaroos, Wallabies, Tasmanian Devils, Bilbies, Moles, Koalas.

Part of the deception that you practice is to never admit a list of what was on the ark so we can show you how that fits the actual theory of evolution. It's a cute trick of deception, but it's not honest.

Evolution completely disproves the flood story. Totally destroys it. Are you willing to see the proof? Or are you content to continue spreading the untruth for Satan?

 

[Rhea]

I think you already knew that god exists.

Now you're claiming to know my thoughts, and I have no reason to discuss anything with you.

Guess I got it right. Intimidating isn't it?

no, rhutchin, it's silly. It makes you look like a fool to not understand why people look at the world around them and find that belief in a god (especially the one you describe) is just not believable.

Then to make some quip about being a mind-reader... and suggesting you really are one? Surely you jest.

 

[rhutchin]

The only empirical evidence biology produces substantiates speciation which basically tells us how the few animals getting off Noah's ark expanded into the great number we observe today. Thus, the Biblical account of the flood forward is well grounded in biology.

It turns out that you kind of make a fool of yourself for saying this.

Everything that we observe in nature demonstrates that the Noah story is a total fairy tale. There IS NO WAY both migration and speciation can move fast enough to support the flood story.

(not to mention the absurd and ridiculous lengths christians will go to in avoiding a list of what species were actually on this "ark" so that they can avoid being shown their folly)

Evolution, everything about it that we have learned from evidence that is right in front of us and that is predictable and repeatable and demonstrable proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the flood story is a farce, and a rather shallow and comical one, at that.

Since you know so little about what evolution actually says and is, you have a couple of choices.

1. You can block your ears and pretend you have never seen this and continue to tell people that evolution proves Noah when it clearly doesn't. This enables you to tell it to people who also don't know evolution and might believe you. You'd know in your heart that you are spreading an untruth, but you are willing to do it anyway because it sounds so good to you (see genesis 3), you're just like Eve there, feeding lies to the unsuspecting because the tale sounded good and you are ambitious, but it's not the truth.
2. You can educate yourself more on evolution with an open and honest mind and refrain from spreading untruths from your lips while you learn how evolution actually disproves the flood story
3. You can realize your error regarding the theory of evolution and refrain from spreading lies (whose work is this that you do, in the end?) but still maintain your belief without calling on falsehoods to back it up and just stop talking about evolution altogether. Talk about faith only.

Your call.

But every time you tell anyone that evolution supports the flood story, you are saying something that is not true, you are doing Satan's work, you are an agent of deceit. How does it feel being a mouthpiece for Lucifer?

That's actually a serious question. When you realize you are completely wrong about evolution, does it make you squirm that you've been telling an untruth all this time?

I guess we disagree on what biology is really able to tell us.

When you say, "(not to mention the absurd and ridiculous lengths christians will go to in avoiding a list of what species were actually on this "ark" so that they can avoid being shown their folly)," the issue is not really species as only the Biblical "kinds" need be represented on the ark and "kind" corresponds more with order or family. So, if you get a list of orders and families, you will have a rough approximation of kinds (I think). However, even biologists are still trying to sort out what belongs where aren't they?

 

[Rhea]

I guess we disagree on what biology is really able to tell us.

I suppose you could call it that. I'd get an A on the test and you would fail. That does constitute a disagreement. But only one of us would be truly representing what biology (and evolution) tells us. The other would be telling something that is NOT TRUE about what biology and evolution claims.

It's fine if you don't agree with biology and evolution. But at this point you can't even say that you disagree because you have shown that you do not understand it. What you have said about biology and evolution is NOT TRUE according to biology and evolution. (It's true according to the bible and you should stick with saying that if you want to be a truth-teller)

When you say, "(not to mention the absurd and ridiculous lengths christians will go to in avoiding a list of what species were actually on this "ark" so that they can avoid being shown their folly)," the issue is not really species as only the Biblical "kinds" need be represented on the ark and "kind" corresponds more with order or family. So, if you get a list of orders and families, you will have a rough approximation of kinds (I think). However, even biologists are still trying to sort out what belongs where aren't they?

Then it sould be easy for you to answer my question. In my list, which of the felines and which of the marsupials were on the boat? Then we can apply biology and evolution and see if the rest could have evolved in that time and migrated back to where we currently see them in that time.

So. Easy peasy. Which feline(s) and which marsupial(s) were on the boat? Go ahead and be honest and answer that.

• Which felines? Tigers, leopards, cheetahs, domestic shorthairs, cloud leopards, siamese, puma, panther and bobcat.
• Which marsupials Opposums, Kangaroos, Wallabies, Tasmanian Devils, Bilbies, Moles, Koalas.

Part of the deception that you practice is to never admit a list of what was on the ark so we can show you how that fits the actual theory of evolution. It's a cute trick of deception, but it's not honest.

 

[Rhea]

I am still waiting after all these years for ONE SINGLE CHRISTIAN ANYWHERE to actually name the animals in a "family" or "order" or "kind" that are on the boat. Just a simple definitive claim like, "It was the puma, and all felines came from that". Or even, "it was one of the big cats and they all came from that." Or _even_ "it was 4 big cats and one small one and they all came from those". But so far in this life, nuthin' from the Noahites. Just a big dodge and weave with smoke and mirrors then they claim to have proven something. Silliness. Laughed out of the lab.

rhutchin says,

the issue is not really species as only the Biblical "kinds" need be represented on the ark and "kind" corresponds more with order or family. So, if you get a list of orders and families, you will have a rough approximation of kinds (I think).

"I think" ?


Seriously? You don't KNOW yet you are willing to claim that sepciation can come from it to produce all that we see today? How can you even say what you expect today when you don't even know what you claim it came from! Doesn't that make you feel kind of nervous carrying someone else's water like that?

 

[Rhea]

One charming aspect of this dodge and weave is that they need to numbers of animals to be small to fit them on the ark, but then they simultaneously need them large so they don't have to admit to tigers having tabby cat offspring in order to speciate fast enough to match what we have today.


It's a cute and funny dance.

Go ahead, put a stake in the ground. WHAT EXACTLY was on the ark? (ProTip: any answer you give is debunked by either geometry or biology, or both - but give it an honest try if you value honesty.)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Logic requires an uncaused cause or else we would not be here regardless whether one says God is the uncaused cause or nature incorporates an uncaused cause.

If logic isn't working, it may be the improper use of logic that is the problem.

You say all things must be created, well except for your arbitrary solution to a logic problem which may not even exist.

More to the point, you say all things that are created must have a cause. Except one problem. We have never witnessed matter being created. So your initial premise is setting a condition that may be entirely irrelevant. If all things never started to exist, they then didn't need a creator.

 

[rhutchin]

You say all things must be created...you say all things that are created must have a cause. Except one problem. We have never witnessed matter being created. So your initial premise is setting a condition that may be entirely irrelevant. If all things never started to exist, they then didn't need a creator.

All things have a starting point except for the initial cause. Our universe has a starting point. Life has a starting point. How does the universe or life start? One way is for a living entity to create the universe and life. Thus, God.

Can the universe come into existence out of nothing and spontaneously. Given the speculation about the beginning of the universe all of which require some form of non-living eternally existing matter, the answer seems to be, no. So, basically people speculate about a natural cause whose existence, like God, cannot be explained. Belief in God or some eternal matter as the source of the universe is a faith position.

 

[rhutchin]

One charming aspect of this dodge and weave is that they need to numbers of animals to be small to fit them on the ark, but then they simultaneously need them large so they don't have to admit to tigers having tabby cat offspring in order to speciate fast enough to match what we have today.

Seems like we have a basic math problem. Given the number and variety of animals in the world today, how many common descendants would have to be on the ark.

Here is a link to a creation analysis of the issue: http://creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-ark It says--

" The Ark measured 300x50x30 cubits (Genesis 6:15), which is about 140x23x13.5 metres or 459x75x44 feet, so its volume was 43,500 m3 (cubic metres) or 1.54 million cubic feet. To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard American railroad stock cars, each of which can hold 240 sheep.

If the animals were kept in cages with an average size of 50x50x30 centimetres (20x20x12 inches), that is 75,000 cm3 (cubic centimetres) or 4800 cubic inches, the 16,000 animals would only occupy 1200 m3 (42,000 cubic feet) or 14.4 stock cars. Even if a million insect species had to be on board, it would not be a problem, because they require little space. If each pair was kept in cages of 10 cm (four inches) per side, or 1000 cm3, all the insect species would occupy a total volume of only 1000 m3, or another 12 cars. This would leave room for five trains of 99 cars each for food, Noah’s family and ‘range’ for the animals. However, insects are not included in the meaning of behemah or remes in Genesis 6:19-20, so Noah probably would not have taken them on board as passengers anyway.

Tabulating the total volume is fair enough, since this shows that there would be plenty of room on the Ark for the animals with plenty left over for food, range etc. It would be possible to stack cages, with food on top or nearby (to minimize the amount of food carrying the humans had to do), to fill up more of the Ark space, while still allowing plenty of room for gaps for air circulation. We are discussing an emergency situation, not necessarily luxury accommodation. Although there is plenty of room for exercise, skeptics have overstated animals’ needs for exercise anyway.

Even if we don’t allow stacking one cage on top of another to save floor space, there would be no problem. Woodmorappe [who did the analysis] shows from standard recommended floor space requirements for animals that all of them together would have needed less than half the available floor space of the Ark’s three decks. This arrangement allows for the maximum amount of food and water storage on top of the cages close to the animals."

 

[Rhea]

One charming aspect of this dodge and weave is that they need to numbers of animals to be small to fit them on the ark, but then they simultaneously need them large so they don't have to admit to tigers having tabby cat offspring in order to speciate fast enough to match what we have today.

Seems like we have a basic math problem.

Yes. it will require just basic math to solve. AFTER YOU NAME THE ANIMALS.

If the animals were kept in cages with an average size of 50x50x30 centimetres (20x20x12 inches), that is 75,000 cm3 (cubic centimetres) or 4800 cubic inches, the 16,000 animals would only occupy 1200 m3 (42,000 cubic feet) or 14.4 stock cars. Even if a million insect species had to be on board, it would not be a problem, because they require little space. If each pair was kept in cages of 10 cm (four inches) per side, or 1000 cm3, all the insect species would occupy a total volume of only 1000 m3, or another 12 cars. This would leave room for five trains of 99 cars each for food, Noah’s family and ‘range’ for the animals. However, insects are not included in the meaning of behemah or remes in Genesis 6:19-20, so Noah probably would not have taken them on board as passengers anyway.

Tabulating the total volume is fair enough, since this shows that there would be plenty of room on the Ark for the animals with plenty left over for food, range etc. It would be possible to stack cages, with food on top or nearby (to minimize the amount of food carrying the humans had to do), to fill up more of the Ark space, while still allowing plenty of room for gaps for air circulation. We are discussing an emergency situation, not necessarily luxury accommodation. Although there is plenty of room for exercise, skeptics have overstated animals’ needs for exercise anyway.

How in the name of reason did you get from average 20' x 20" x 12" cages
to
"plenty of room for all the animals and their food"
without naming the animals as I outlined as the first required step? Until you name them, how on earth can you claim that size cage will fit them, on average?


NAME THE ANIMALS. It should not be hard for you. They, their food and their ranging area for 150 days all have to fit into 522 stock cars (which can be moved a mile with one gallon of fuel by CSX, by the way)

Then how, in the name of reason did you get from there
to
and they all would have speciated in 4000 years to the number we have today plus migrated over oceans and mountains and deserts to wind up where we see them today.

NAME THE ANIMALS ON THE ARK. Until you do that, all the rest is shallow and deceitful smoke and mirrors. As we expect from your ilk.

 

[Rhea]

'kay. I read this thing and it's just childish. You believe this?

And here's example 1 in your math problem

For example, horses, zebras and donkeys are probably descended from an equine (horse-like) kind, since they can interbreed, although the offspring are sterile. Dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals are probably from a canine (dog-like) kind. All different types of domestic cattle (which are clean animals) are descended from the Aurochs, so there were probably at most seven (or fourteen) domestic cattle aboard. The Aurochs itself may have been descended from a cattle kind including bisons and water buffaloes. We know that tigers and lions can produce hybrids called tigons and ligers, so it is likely that they are descended from the same original kind.

Okay. Prove that horses, zebras and donkeys and every other equine are descended from a single equine (horse-like) pair in less than 4000 years AND propagated to the number of individuals on the planet today AND without the help of humans migrated from the middle east to Africa to China and to Norway.


That math problem is sub-high school level math.

Then do the same with your canines. One pair of canines, 4000 years to today's species diversity, 10,000 miles and millions of individuals. It's just pathetic. You believe this?

 

[Rhea]

Conclusion

This article has shown that the Bible can be trusted on testable matters like Noah’s Ark.

uh, no. Not even close.

NAME THE ANIMALS ON THE ARK.

 

[Rhea]

Here's another laughable fact.

You say that "Order" or "Family" represent what was on the boat. Your laughably uneducated link friend says "genus". So you two will need to NAME THE ANIMALS in order to make any coherent claims. So far = incoherent.

You claim that the one ancestor gave rise to all of the current species in the whole order, or family or genus (wholly shit that's a really big difference! You should learn the difference between those three words!)

But here's some fun. Say it's Genus. That means Noah's family spawned, in just 4000 year all of:
Homo sapiens
†Homo gautengensis
†Homo habilis
†Homo erectus
†Homo antecessor
†Homo ergaster
†Homo rhodesiensis
†Homo heidelbergensis
†Homo neanderthalensis
†Homo floresiensis
†Denisova hominin
†Red Deer Cave people

(and then they all went extinct after leaving some fossils)

Which one of his kids had the neanderthal baby?

Or in your view, the "family" question, this means Noah's kids spawned all of these:

Subfamily Ponginae
Pongo – orangutans
Subfamily Homininae
Australopithecina
Gorilla – gorillas
Homo – humans
Pan – chimpanzees and bonobos



LOL! So which of Noah's daughters-in-law gave birth to the gorillas?

I'm not even gonna do the "Order" that you "think" might be the common ancestor, because that would...


aw, shucks, I can't resist. If the Noah family were the representatives for the ORDER, here's their offspring:
Order Primates
Suborder Strepsirrhini: lemurs, galagos and lorisids
Infraorder Lemuriformes
Superfamily Lemuroidea
Family Cheirogaleidae: dwarf lemurs and mouse-lemurs (34 species)
Family Daubentoniidae: aye-aye (one species)
Family Lemuridae: ring-tailed lemur and allies (21 species)
Family Lepilemuridae: sportive lemurs (26 species)
Family Indriidae: woolly lemurs and allies (19 species)
Superfamily Lorisoidea
Family Lorisidae: lorisids (14 species)
Family Galagidae: galagos (19 species)
Suborder Haplorhini: tarsiers, monkeys and apes
Infraorder Tarsiiformes
Family Tarsiidae: tarsiers (11 species)
Infraorder Simiiformes (or Anthropoidea)
Parvorder Platyrrhini: New World monkeys
Family Callitrichidae: marmosets and tamarins (42 species)
Family Cebidae: capuchins and squirrel monkeys (14 species)
Family Aotidae: night or owl monkeys (douroucoulis) (11 species)
Family Pitheciidae: titis, sakis and uakaris (43 species)
Family Atelidae: howler, spider, woolly spider and woolly monkeys (29 species)
Parvorder Catarrhini
Superfamily Cercopithecoidea
Family Cercopithecidae: Old World monkeys (138 species)
Superfamily Hominoidea
Family Hylobatidae: gibbons or "lesser apes" (17 species)
Family Hominidae: great apes, including humans (seven species)



it seems eminently appropriate that Noah is the great granddad of the howler monkey - because this sure is a howler.



NAME THE ANIMALS ON THE BOAT.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

No. I don't believe in god. It's a fairly simple thing to accept. For some reason you refuse to accept that. Also, you're implying I'm lying about my non-belief. You cannot provide any evidence that I am lying. It is impossible to read people's minds. You cannot know my own thoughts.

 

[rhutchin]

No. I don't believe in god. It's a fairly simple thing to accept. For some reason you refuse to accept that. Also, you're implying I'm lying about my non-belief. You cannot provide any evidence that I am lying. It is impossible to read people's minds. You cannot know my own thoughts.

I believe you. However, if your non-belief is legitimate, then you should react no differently to God than you do to Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, or the flying spaghetti monster. You react differently to God. It's not a matter of reading your thoughts - we need only read the comments you post.

 

[rhutchin]

Here's another laughable fact.

You say that "Order" or "Family" represent what was on the boat. Your laughably uneducated link friend says "genus". So you two will need to NAME THE ANIMALS in order to make any coherent claims. So far = incoherent.

I guess more work needs to be done.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No. I don't believe in god. It's a fairly simple thing to accept. For some reason you refuse to accept that. Also, you're implying I'm lying about my non-belief. You cannot provide any evidence that I am lying. It is impossible to read people's minds. You cannot know my own thoughts.

I believe you. However, if your non-belief is legitimate,

There's a quick switchback.

then you should react no differently to God than you do to Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, or the flying spaghetti monster. You react differently to God. It's not a matter of reading your thoughts - we need only read the comments you post.

Does he react differently to God or to God believers? No one's trying to legislate my observance of Pasta Wednesday at work. No one wants egg dye to be tax exempt.

No one's ever denied to fill my prescription because they thought i might have gotten hurt celebrating Yule, thus threatening Santa Claus with smoke and flame and the law allows them to conscientiously object to doing their job if i don't believe in their winter gift spirit.

Kansas hasn't gotten national headlines for wanting to 'teach the controversy' of la Befana or Saint Nick.

You think the only justification for having a different response to claims of God is that deep down inside, he believes? What a PRATT.