Did Noahs Arc Really Happen

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
322

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

…Who here thinks Noah loaded up two of every animal in existence onto his boat…[/quote]

I tried to be nice and make some suggestions so you could help yourself with this subject.

Now, let me draw it up in spray paint for you, you dumb fuck (did I get your attention, now?).

No creationist/Noah’s ark believer believes “Noah loaded up two of every animal in existence onto his boat.”

Now if you’re really interested in this subject get off TN PWI and go do some research. I doubt anyone here including me is going to spoon feed you. Quit whining and go somewhere else for awhile. Come back when you decide you want to play another musical instrument besides the cymbals. You dumb fuck.[/quote]

Nice, my first “Someone is wrong on the internet, I must call them names” response.

So everyone who believes in the Bible, and apparently no one reads it literally, though many still argue that the world is 6,000 years old (or younger). What you’re doing here is selective reasoning, for what you perceive as communal stupidity that would reflect poorly on you.

Have you cliff-noted your Bible for posterity so we’ll all know when to correctly switch from reading literally, to reading almost-literal-but-highly-exaggerated truth, to full blown analogy?

What you’re basically saying is that the Noah story is a silly story when read literally, which no one does (not true, we’ve all encountered them), but must have some great value when read correctly.

Cut through the bullshit. This thread asked a simple question, and according to you, the answer is no, no one believes in the Noah story, but we should spend a really long time being Biblical apologists, and spend pages arguing about how, maybe, possibly, something like this story might have maybe happened, and that is that’s true we might get something valuable from this.

324

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Has this thread moved to the point where no one is arguing on the side of a literal reading of the Noah and his boat story?

Just from the position of being a critical reader of anything (literature, history), one you reject the basic premises that this guy built a boat, put two of each kind of animal on it, and he and his wife, totally repopulated the world, and the two of every animal alive today, totally repopulated the world with their own species… …what are you left with?

You’re going to argue that there actually was at one point a flood, and someone maned Noah built a boat, and put a couple animals on it? Okay… Someone at some point probably got flooded out, and put their animals in a boat… what does that tell us about the world? Or God? Or anything?

Once you loose “every living animal and person on earth is a decedent of Noah’s boat crew because God killed everything else”, you sort of loose the oomph of the story… and then we get there was a guy with a boat who put some animals on it to escape a flood. Not an uncommon occurrence. [/quote]

Basically, they are too ashamed to admit that at one stage it was meant to be literal history. Pretty much everything in that Godforsaken book was meant to be literal history, it’s only now that we are smart enough to realize how absurd the claims are that selective parts are “metaphors”. People DO believe in Noah’s Arc and waste countless months searching for it. It’s ridiculous to say the least.

326

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Basically, they are too ashamed to admit that at one stage it was meant to be literal history. Pretty much everything in that Godforsaken book was meant to be literal history, it’s only now that we are smart enough to realize how absurd the claims are that selective parts are “metaphors”. People DO believe in Noah’s Arc and waste countless months searching for it. It’s ridiculous to say the least.[/quote]

Yeah, I’m sorry if my comment was rude, but the Noah story is a simple, short story in the Bible. And a simple yes or no question was asked.

We are now on page thirteen of a thread, talking about asteroids, where the last ten pages were barely tangentially related to the OP’s question, if at all. Basically because so much effort as been put into pulling truth and meaning from a fairly absurd story about how the first rainbow came to be.

Edit: I guess we’re now on page 14

329

So the answer to the original question is: No.

330

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Basically, they are too ashamed to admit that at one stage it was meant to be literal history. Pretty much everything in that Godforsaken book was meant to be literal history, it’s only now that we are smart enough to realize how absurd the claims are that selective parts are “metaphors”. People DO believe in Noah’s Arc and waste countless months searching for it. It’s ridiculous to say the least.[/quote]

Yeah, I’m sorry if my comment was rude, but the Noah story is a simple, short story in the Bible. And a simple yes or no question was asked.

We are now on page thirteen of a thread, talking about asteroids, where the last ten pages were barely tangentially related to the OP’s question, if at all. Basically because so much effort as been put into pulling truth and meaning from a fairly absurd story about how the first rainbow came to be.

Edit: I guess we’re now on page 14[/quote]

And of course without fail, young pushy will intervene with some smart ass commentary and no argument. Or perhaps a picture.

331

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Mak, I’ve told you this before but it bears repeating, son. Architecture and Sri Lankan pottery. That’s your game.

You’re inept at this other stuff.[/quote]

See I don’t even know where poetry came into this.

You’re losing your touch old man.

335

[quote]espenl wrote:
So the answer to the original question is: No.[/quote]

Seems to be.

337

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Make up your mind, schnookums.[/quote]

That’s just creepy.

338
340

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

I tried to get out, and you pulled me back in. You sir, are a narrow minded intellectually limited idiot. The physical universe no more requires a creator or God than the volcano. By not “requiring God”, he is speaking of unlocking all that is presently unknown by scientific discovery - to explain all physical phenomena presently known and unknown. To do so sir, if it were possible, would still not disprove “God”. Obviously, the lightning and volcano analogies are lost upon you - but to be clear, at one time, man believed them too to be caused by the whims of a God. At present, we cannot explain all the properties of the universe and thus, some, like you, think they are subject to the whims of a God. Hawkings himself has clearly admitted that God may have created the physical laws that the universe follows. And I too say it is perfectly reasonable that “God” sits right outside the physical universe, beyond matter, beyond time, not subject to any physical laws. Am I too an atheist? Because you know, I need YOU to tell me what I believe. And I think one of the most brilliant men on the planet (Hawkings) could use your help too figuring out HIS feelings. Is there a T-shirt somewhere with my name printed on it, proving I too am an atheist?
[/quote]

Now we’re getting somewhere! First, the volcano analogies or what ever you choose to call them were so bad they weren’t worth addressing.
Now, where did the universe come from?..The laws that guide “it” where did they come from? We’ll see if you can prove a self contained uncreated universe.[/quote]

Hawkings clearly acknowledges the possibility of a “god” making the laws of the universe. Or did you miss that in your references? I read his book. Did you? So, given that Hawkings, and myself for that matter, acknowledge a “God” having created the laws, what exactly is your point? If God sits outside space and time (immortality, eternity, etc.), why is this so hard for you to wrap your mind around and why do you automatically equate it with atheism?
[/quote]

The point is, that if that’s true, then something from nothing is bunk. That is the point.
[/quote]

You’re changing the point as you go. Is that now your point?

Do you truly understand what Hawking is musing about? Really? Because I’m not so sure I do but I know he’s not arguing against the existence of God - only that God is not necessary to explain the physical universe. Do you understand that our brightest minds do not really understand the concept of “time” - that is it largely a man made construct and it may be a limiting construct in our quest to understand the universe?

Explain to me what you mean by “something from nothing” and how that is attributable to Hawking…because you seem to be harping on those two things. I’m not sure I’m understanding why you are harping on that subject - so take a moment, breathe and explain it to me.[/quote]

That was the original point before you start berating me. Breathing.

First, what is your “definition” of God. Who or what do you think he is? This is important because we can then derive who or what, you and Hawking are talking about.

Second, something from nothing is integral to his “Theory of Everything” which is his holy grail. If you can prove that ‘something’ can come from nothing, then you can prove there is no creator, or at least one isn’t necessary. Which was his stated goal as it pertains to the “Theory of Everything”.
The problem is that the science at it’s extremes, the lines between the physical and the metaphysical are blurred. So to say that God is only the God of laws, of the metaphysical only is not God. If he is not the creator, he isn’t God. You also take causality as a law and purely physical construct, which it isn’t it applies the to the metaphysical world as well. All metaphysical things are begotten by something else ,just like the physical world. So I disagree with the notion that God sits outside the physical world and has nothing to do with it. He loses God like properties and hence really would not be God.
What I am saying is that the history of creation demands a creator. Whether he created this universe or a trillion that preceded it, it was brought about by something that can bring it about and not be subject to it.

Fortunately, something from nothing has proven elusive to everybody…[/quote]

Seriously, you can keep breathing. We have nothing to discuss.