Here’s Atheist Comedy’s take on Noah’s Ark.
They make some excellent points:
- Even if Noah took out all the “variations” and only stuck with “kinds,” that would still have been over 2 billion animals.
- For a year in the ark, two elephants alone would require 365,000 lbs of food and 65,000 gal of water;
two giraffes would require 54,740 lbs of food
two lions would require 16,000 lbs of fresh meat. - If Noah took all baby animals, how would all the babies get there from around the world at the same time? Or how would all the animals have babies at the exact same time?
- If the flood covered the mountains, that would put the sea level at at 29,055 ft, where everything on the ark would have frozen to death & not had enough oxygen to breathe.
- Not even most of the sea life could survive due to the changes in temperature, pressure, sunlight, filtration, salt.
- After the flood, there would have been no vegetation for the herbivores to eat. And every time the carnivores ate, a species would go extinct.
- Two lone members of species aren’t enough to re-propagate a species. There needs to be at least 50 animals for there to be a proper amount of genetic diversity.
- So what’s the solution? MAGIC, of course!
It’s just a metaphor! You’re taking it all too seriously!
And if all Christians believed that, we wouldn’t have to show how stupid this stuff is. Unfortunately, though…
What’s it a metaphor for?
Seriously – I’ve tried to puzzle out a metaphoric reading for the story of Noah’s Ark and about the only one I can come up with is that it’s yet another iteration of Israel getting the shaft from God. It follows the same pattern as a ton of the other stories in the OT – the people turn away from God, God punishes them via slaughter or exile or something else, and after a period of time God lets up and lets them rebuild. This one has the benefit of having both a horrible vicious death for most of humanity AND a period of exile for the “chosen people” – the family of Noah – who even though God lets them live still have to live in exile for 40 days and nights while God destroys everyone else. (Kind of a foreshadowing of Exodus in that respect – God slaughters the Egyptians in a flood and then makes the Israelites wait 40 years before they can stop their desert wanderings.)
So I suppose it could be another metaphor for God’s treatment of his “chosen” people. It certainly plays into the central theme of the OT as a whole. But the metaphor of a capricious, mostly powerless God who has to slaughter people to get their attention doesn’t sound like the kind of metaphor most Christians would embrace.
YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND, IT’S A METAPHOR!
The problem, DDM, is that Bible-believers inconsistently interpret said book. To some people, the flood myth is metaphor, but to others it’s historical fact; both groups have the same level of conviction as to the validity of their interpretation.
So, where does that leave us? Well for starters, it makes videos like the one here both amusing and serious. You can claim it’s metaphor all you want, but your religion in general doesn’t necessarily support this view.
I’m more poking fun at the fact that if, taken as a metaphor, there’s no moral, meaning, or purpose to the story. It only has weight if it’s true.
Well, that’s not right. I guess the moral would be “DON’T FUCK WITH GOD” but there’s countless other stories about that. Hell, you could rename the whole OT “DON’T FUCK WITH GOD” and no one would notice the difference at all.
My apologies if I incorrectly assumed you to be Christian. It’s easy to misunderstand tongue-in-cheek humor and sarcasm on the intarwebz.
This exchange illustrates, once again, why it’s often difficult to sift the Christians from the Critics on the intertube thingies. :)
Tell that to these folks:
http://www.daniellesplace.com/html/bible_themes_noah.html
Well, it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, but it was another year before the floodwaters receeded and they could land. And even after that, they were the only humans alive, so their “exile” didn’t really end until they’d had enough kids to rebuild society.
Where did that water recede to, anyway?
Duh! Magic-and-loving father take it away to drown another planet.
Wintermute, you surely don’t mean that we descend from cousins having sex between them, do you?
Well, the Bible says that the only humans alive were Noah, his wife, their three sons and their wives. And Ham (and presumably his wife) is driven off because he saw his father passed out drunk and naked. The next we hear, there are entire nations.
Draw your own conclusions.
It wouldn’t have been inter-cousin for several years.
MAGIC.
The same place it came from: through the windows in the sky into the waters of heaven.
I don’t understand 1-6.
7: Genetic Diversity is a myth created by stupid evolutionistic darwinists!
That must be either meant as satire or it’s a rather pathetic attempt at trolling.
Point four is just plain wrong. If the sea level rises, so does the air above it. The air would be somewhat thinner, because the same volume of air is spread over a larger sphere, but it would be nowhere near as thin as the air at 29K feet is for the current sea level.
All of the numbers in point #2 are way too high. I live in Africa and see elephants, giraffe, and lions on a regular basis. None of them require that much food or water. You don’t disprove a ridiculous claim (that the flood is a historical event) by exaggerating the numbers. You just make yourself look as ridiculous as them.
That’s in a year, chief. Personally I think those numbers are a bit low. But what can you do if not speculate?
> “what can you do if not speculate?”
Ask a zoo-keeper?
Got one handy?
Search the internet:
A lion eats an average of 8.5kg a day, which is about 7,000lb in a year. Multiply by two lions and 16,000lb sounds about right. (http://www.lionresearch.org/faq.html)
Elephants would eat about 150lb each daily, which is about 110,000lb on zoo diets (http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/AsianElephants/elephantfaq.cfm). In the wild they might eat up to 320,000lb at 440lb daily each (http://www.african-elephant.org/faq/elefaq.html#FeedingHabits).
And giraffes would eat about 55,000 lbs at 75lb each daily. (http://www.sandiegozoo.org/animalbytes/t-giraffe.html)
It depends on the amount of time spent in the ark. The Bible isn’t really clear on how long they all stay on board. It’s either 40, 150, or 40+150 days, depending on your interpretation.
Gardens, snakes, and floods, oh my! This must be Sumeria, Toto.
No need to speculate on mythopoeic connections —
Many symbolic meanings attach to ’snake’. because snakes molt — they break out of their old skins all bright and glossy — they have been used as a symbol of rebirth, regeneration for more than 4,500 years.
In the Sumerian epic Gilgamesh (2500 BCE) — it is a snake which eats a plant giving immortality. It also contains the first occurrence of “the” flood — with a Sumerian “Noah” and his family in a purpose built great boat (”ark”) the only human survivors. (Unapishtim the mariner and family)
Even earlier in “Old Europe” the snake appears not as a symbol, but as one living manifestation of a life-giving goddess, associated with drenching rain and lightning.
She comes down to us as the great goddess of Crete — bare breasted, covered waist down by a flounced skirt indicative of flowing water; in her upraised hands she hold aloft two snakes representing lightning.
See Marja Gimbutus. Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe. 1982. See: currently on-going exhibition on Old Europe, http://www.nyu.edu/isaw/exhibitions/oldeurope/introduction.html
anti_supernaturalist
Somebody should point out to Christians that they haven’t invented the wheel, I mean, the flood. :D Sadly they don’t read books on mythology instead of da book.
This would be an excellent argumentative tool if it weren’t for all the obscenities. I shudder even at the thought of showing this to my parents or other people of like mind. After the first “fuck” they’d just tune out and insist I shut the nasty thing off. So much for making the case.
I do question some of the figures about how much food the animals would eat in a year. Seem a little high to me.
“# If the flood covered the mountains, that would put the sea level at at 29,055 ft, where everything on the ark would have frozen to death & not had enough oxygen to breathe.”
I don’t think that’s true; oxygen levels at that altitude are low now, but there’s nothing underneath but air. If you filled that space with water, it would be displacing air, so air at 30,000 feet wouldn’t be significantly below atmospheric pressure – it would follow Boyles law subject to the increase in volume required for the hollow sphere of atmosphere getting bigger (I’d do the maths, but I can’t be bothered – it’s 4/3 Pi r^3 if anybody wants to work it out).
Not that I think the “great flood” is anything other than total bullshit, but I don’t like to use arguments I can pick holes in myself…
Good points.
That air thing bugged me too, but I’m pretty sure he has a point with that freezing uh…point.
Mmmmm, not really. It’s so cold up there partly because the air is so thin. It would be colder because the Sun’s rays would be incident on a larger surface area, and because the ground wouldn’t absorb heat during the day and re-radiate heat at night, but I don’t think it would be that much colder. Remember, heat is just molecules wobbling – less molecules, less heat. There and again, the extra gravity due to that extra mass of water might be enough to make the air denser (and the animals knackered due to the increase in their apparent weight), so maybe it wouldn’t be colder at all.
It does not in any way follow that if there are fewer molecules, the temperature is lower. Of course, there will be less thermal energy, but that is not relevant.
There are a number of reasons the upper stratosphere is very cold, including that it is far from the surface of the Earth where thermal energy radiates out. It would not be trivial attempting to calculate the temperature at the surface of a planet covered in water more than eight kilometers higher than current levels, but it probably wouldn’t even be relevant, given the incredibly extreme weathers resulting from forty days of heavy rain (and by “heavy,” I mean two hundred meters per day. That’s more than eight meters an hour, or two millimeters per second. At that rate, the rain would exceed the average annual rainfall of Louisiana, the rainiest U.S. state, in less than thirteen minutes.).
Among other things, flood geology would result mercury poisoning for everyone:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/mercury.htm
The numbers for the food and water required are skewed indeed. Lions for example eat about 5 – 7 kg of meat per day (or well, 20-30 kg every 3-4 days or so, they like to binge out). The Youtube clip claims they’d eat about 10 kg a day = way too much, even for a lion. I didn’t google what elephants or giraffes eat, but I’m guessing those numbers are a tad high too. Nevertheless, there’s no way that Noah could have fit all that food on his boat, even if the numbers were slashed by half.
We are allowing for a pair…?
10kg per day = right for TWO lions, though. Wouldn’t be much point in only taking the one :D
Nono, 16.000 lbs of meat for a pair of lions = 10 kg of meat for each one per day. I checked! :P The numbers are too high, unless he wants to really fatten them up.
Buuut doesn’t really matter anyway, since the amount of food needed for all those animals is the least of Noah’s problems…
Um… 2.2 lbs per kilo, so 16/2.2 = 7.27 KG
Methinks your maths has gone squiffy!
Argh, this is how I did it (with the help of google..), point out the squiffiness please, I’m more of a linguist than a mathematician
16000 pounds to kg = approx. 7257 kg of meat for 2 lions for 1 year
7257 kg / 2 = 3628 kg of meat for 1 lion for 1 year
3628 kg / 365 = 9.9 kg of meat for 1 lion for 1 year
The elephants are a bit easier to calculate, I’m pretty sure an elephant does NOT eat 500 lbs of food per day, even if they are big animals. Especially not if it doesn’t have to move at all, just stand in its place for a year inside that ark (unless Noah took the animals for a walk sometimes?)
*3628 / 365 = 9.9 kg of meat for 1 lion for 1 DAY* not year
Ah, confusion because you said 16.000 instead of 16,000 and you followed it with a “per day”/
You’ve got to home he took all the animals for a walk every day. After all, spending a year cooped up in a small box unable to move would basically mean that their leg muscles would atrophy, requiring serious physical therapy before they could walk of the ark…
Arg. “You’ve got to hope“. Sorry.
The ‘overestimate’ will be reduced by increasing the number of animals : Gen 7:2 says 7 pairs of animals (clean) ; the 2 number is only unclean….as I understand,the additional were to be used for eating and sacricial offerings….
The number may not be exact but even if you cut them 10 fold you still wont be able to fit them on the ark.
Look it can be very easily explained.
The ark uses Timelord technology like the TARDIS and is bigger in the inside. LOL
I have a problem wit the amount of water. If you fill the Earth with water as high as the highest mountain then it also means it gains mass and will change orbit around the sun I think. It should orbit faster since the gravitational pull gets bigger of the added mass towards the sun.
Um no. The orbit of the earth is solely based on the distance from the sun. A star is just so massive that the mass of the planet is insignificant. I’m not entierly sure what it would do to surface gracity as you are both adding more mass and increasing the diameter of the planet at the same time.
Well, the orbit of the Earth is based on its distance from the sun, then sun’s mass, and the Earth’s orbital speed. The three are related by GM/r = v^2, where G is the gravitational constant, M is the sun’s mass, r is the orbital radius, and v is the speed.
Well, technically that is assuming Newtonian mechanics and a roughly circular orbit, both of which are very good approximations of the Earth-sun system.
However, I do think adding so much mass would greatly affect the moon’s orbit, not to mention the tides.
Indeed. And we haven’t even touched on the problem of where all the extra water came from or where it is supposed to go when the flood subsides. Genesis is not so big on conservation of mass here.
Let’s calculate it.
The Earth’s mean radius is 6371 km. Disregard the retarded “flood geology” that claims pre-Flood mountains were lower than today, let’s add 10 km of water (making the radius 6381 km) in order to cover the tallest mountains, fulfilling the Bible’s claims.
There’s a 0.47 % difference between the volumes of the two spheres. But more interestingly, if we subtract the smallest sphere we find that we’ve added
3,831,491,207 km3 of water ~ 3.83*10^21 kg. Earth’s estimated mass is 5.9736*10^24 kg (thanks, Wikipedia), so we’ve added 0.064 % to the mass. I doubt this makes much of a difference to the Moon’s orbit.
Actually the ark would be cooked not frozen. Adding 29,055 ft of water would displace 29,055 ft of air. Doing this in 40 days would mean very rapid increases in temperature and pressure at the ocean surface.
This thread demonstrates why atheists are just so fecking right: We’re willing to demolish our own arguments if we think they’re erroneous.
We rule. Yes, we do.
Group atheist hug!
Stop touching me.
That’s Catholics you’re thinking of.
My pants are tight.
That’s sort of part of the problem that I have with the video. It makes some good points but the science behind them doesn’t seem to be water tight (no pun intended). I think in the comments, that the author admits this but it’s the sort of thing that creationists will jump on to prove that the great flood really did happen.
What would atheists do without religion? I suppose they would find another group to obsess over. ;)
Happy new year brothers and sisters!
They’d probably get on with non-collecting stamps. You’re question speaks volumes.
And you’re spelling speaks volumes.
/schizophrenia
Troll Troll Troll, trying to drive up your site hits I see.
The dwade school of marketing I think it’s know as …
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again:
When you guys stop trying to teach this crap in schools, when you stop wanting it treated on equal footing with science, when it stops being a litmus test for public office, and when no one is killing anyone else over differences of interpretation. . .
Honestly? I won’t give a shit what you guys believe anymore.
Until theb? Yeah, we’ll keep pointing out how stupid it all is.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again:
When you guys stop trying to teach this crap in schools, when you stop wanting it treated on equal footing with science, when it stops being a litmus test for public office, and when no one is killing anyone else over differences of interpretation. . .
Honestly? I won’t give a shit what you guys believe anymore.
Until then? Yeah, we’ll keep pointing out how stupid it all is.
Its worth saying twice. :)
That was a funny mistake, I admit. :)
Bleh, this Dino clown is a hit and run artist. The minute someone bothers to answer his silly drive by posts with actual substance, he vanishes like a roach when the lights are flipped on.
“What would atheists do without religion?”
Any collective group has a need for conflict and enemies, the need for more, the need to be right against others who are wrong and so on. Sooner or later, the collective ie (Atheists, Catholics, Lutherans etc.) will come into conflict with other collectives, because it unconsciously seeks conflict and it needs opposition to define its boundary and thus its identity. The same question could be worded, what would religious groups do without non-believers, abortionists, devils or hell for that matter? Good verses evil – eternal bliss verses eternal suffering. It is “Us” against “Them”. It is the “Them” that defines “Us”.
BTW on this topic, I’m surprised insects weren’t mentioned. Let alone catching them, keeping a very, very small fraction of insects alive would be an unbelievable problem, so unimaginable that there would have to be a good dose of magic involved to accomplish it.
Regarding #2:
One of my professors got the chance to interview Ken Ham (the founder of Answers in Genesis, the group responsible for the Creation Museum). To paraphrase my professor:
“I was asking him questions that were increasingly ridiculous. It got to the point where I asked him, and I quote, ‘how many sheep would a T-Rex have to eat per day to say alive on the ark?’ He looked at me with a straight face and said ‘Well, before The Fall, all animals were herbivores, so they have the capabilities to revert back to that state if necessary. So Noah just took enough grain to feed them, which took up less space and resources.’ Of course, how silly of me.”
First off God parted the waters. There wasn’t as much water on the earth as the is today. It was stored under ground. Over time presure built up and the moon was also pulling on it. God has seen it all he has already been there so in a way he cause the flood by putting the water under the ground but in another he didn’t cause it. Well it finally burst from the ground creating a massive earthquake around the world. And just the shier force of the shock wave when all the water burst from the ground killed millions most likely. Anyway the crack started on land (that is why the continent look like they fit together) and went about halfway around the earth (you can see the remnence of it in the atlantic oh and the whole tectonic plates theory is total crap). The water spread over the earth and the force of the water coming out of the ground sent debree and water into the air that is why it rained. Also the land wasn’t as high as it is now the highest it was was probably 1000ft. The debree went into space and hit the moon ( that is why we see alot of craters on the moon and also that is why the moon is moving very slowly away from us but it is moving less and less ) others went out into space. The water they say the find on mars is most likely from earth ( comets that have landed there ). The mass of the earth is smaller than it was from the debree that went out into space ( oh for those of you who don’t know the evolutionists who created the super continent Pangea couldn’t figure out how the make Africa fit with South America so they made it smaller). The earthquakes aren’t from the tectonic plates moving its from the earth trying to recover from the flood and still trying to settle. It may be from the gravity still trying to pull everything back together. The evolutionists have to keep making ajustments to there retarted tectonic plate theory because it doesn’t quite fit don’t you know. Duuu.
I am not making this up. My dad is reading a book called “In the Beginning” and the guy who wrote it tells his theory of what he thinks really happend and that is were I got alot of this from and frankly I think this really did happen and sounds way better than the evolutionists theory. I am going to read this book after he is done and I reckemend it to anyone who wants to now what really happend during the most catastrophic natural disaster in history “The Flood” writen by a guy name Wall Brown
And yeah I know my spelling sucks.
Also they find fish fossils on top of mountains all the time so they came up with a stupid theory that puts the water above the land at times. Oh and the plant seeds get carried pretty easily my dad says so the water carried the seeds and when it was over the seeds settled and new plant life starts to grow.
If you want to know how god got so many animals on the ark and the food you can ask him when you meet him when you die or you can come to the conclusion that God is just amazing.
Also if you notice how T-Rex heads always seem to be pointed upward almost as if they were trying to get to air. Hmmmmmm…
I’m not even bothering with this one. You’re just being a retard now.
Ye Gods you’re stupid… Your last post scoffed at plate tectonics (for no other reason than… Well, because you don’t like it, apparently) and in this post you’re talking about fish fossils on mountains being evidence of the global flood. What are now mountain tops used to be sea-bed until continental plates crashing into each other forced the land upwards. We can see this happening, for goodness sake!
Tim, it’s not just your spelling that sucks – it’s your thinking. Or rather your lack of it. “The moon was pulling on the underground water” – Google inverse square law of gravity, and tell me how much more gravitational influence the Earth has on the water than the moon. If the moon was pulling on the water hard enough for that to happen, we wouldn’t have tides now because the seas would be so much interstellar ice.
All the water that you say was stored underground, for a global flood that covered everything would have required the Earth to be hollow from the surface to a depth of about 120 kilometers. And the thing is, you see – It’s not. Of course, it would then have had to perform the neat trick of actually staying above the huge pockets of air that would now be in the big underground hollows. Here’s an experiment: Take a jar, half fill it with water and screw the lid on. You’ll notice that whichever way you turn the jar, the water always stays below the air. That’s because water is what we scientifically minded people call heavier than the air.
And out of interest… Where is all that water now?! If it sank back into its underground storage, why is said storage still so notable by its absence?
The continents look like they fit together because of continental drift. Now, you can blandly assert that “tectonic plates theory is total crap”, but the thing is, you’re wrong. We’re in the middle of one of the most active Earthquake periods in decades, Earthquakes being caused by plate tectonics, plus we’ve been accurately measuring the rates at which verious continents are moving together / apart for decades – but it’s all wrong just because you say so?! Come on boy, don’t be so stupid!
Oh, and there are craters on the moon because it gets hit by asteroids and meteorites.
Where do I even start with this? Evolutionary science belongs with biologists, continental drift is for geologists. They’re totally unrelated from each other except for the fact that the data each collects from the real world supports the prevailing theories of the other.
Tim, your dad is reading a book written by an idiot desperate to squeeze his theology into a gap it doesn’t fit into – that gap being the real world.
His Dad is reading a book written by someone who has a PhD from MIT so he must be right … and just for good measure here’s point one of The Evolution Position:
“Over billions of years, the universe, the solar system, the earth, and finally life developed from disordered matter through natural processes.”
… and another quote from the book itself:
“For example, after the $20,000,000,000 lunar exploration program, no evolutionist can explain with any knowledge and confidence how the Moon formed.”
… and some more:
“Likewise, no natural process has ever been observed to produce a program. A program is a planned sequence of steps to accomplish some goal. Computer programs are common examples. Because programs require foresight, they are not produced by chance or natural processes. The information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs.”
“No isolated system has ever been shown to increase its information content significantly.”
… and the stupidty goes on and on and on.
Yeah, that’s pretty much why I stopped replying. Sadly Tim is being taught bullshit by his idiot father based on an appeal to the authority of another idiot who does not, in fact, have any authority. It may be too late for him.
“Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science.”
Sorry… how is this guy’s PhD relevant to geological or biological sciences? Oh yeah, it’s not.
So, in short this guy lacks any relevant credentials and clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
I mean, really??? Debris from the flood flew into outerspace and hit the moon????
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaahaahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!
Actually from a guy who claims to have taught physics, that is quite scary.
Wouldn’t shock me if he taught “intelligent falling” at some creationist school…
:-)
What pisses me off, as someone who writes software for a living, is that programs can be written by chance it’s called genetic algorithms and you give them a frame work and a selection criteria and by “random” processes they come up with a program. They’re interesting little buggers and play around with.
Of course Tim “nice but dim” will claim … well who made the framework? If you going to propose a god at least try and give some predictive power to what that means. If god created life on Earth then X will be true not waiting until X is true and then saying that’s how god planned it.
First off God parted the waters. [citation needed] There wasn’t as much water on the earth as the is today. [citation needed] It was stored under ground. [citation needed] Over time presure built up and the moon was also pulling on it. [citation needed] God has seen it all he has already been there so in a way he cause the flood by putting the water under the ground but in another he didn’t cause it. [citation needed] Well it finally burst from the ground creating a massive earthquake around the world. [citation needed] And just the shier force of the shock wave when all the water burst from the ground killed millions most likely. [citation needed] Anyway the crack started on land [citation needed] (that is why the continent look like they fit together [citation needed]) and went about halfway around the earth [citation needed] (you can see the remnence of it in the atlantic oh and the whole tectonic plates theory is total crap [citation needed] ). The water spread over the earth and the force of the water coming out of the ground sent debree and water into the air that is why it rained [citation needed]. Also the land wasn’t as high as it is now the highest it was was probably 1000ft. [citation needed] The debree went into space and hit the moon [citation needed] ( that is why we see alot of craters on the moon and also that is why the moon is moving very slowly away from us but it is moving less and less[citation needed] ) others went out into space[citation needed]. The water they say the find on mars is most likely from earth[citation needed] ( comets that have landed there [citation needed]). The mass of the earth is smaller than it was from the debree that went out into space[citation needed] ( oh for those of you who don’t know the evolutionists who created the super continent Pangea couldn’t figure out how the make Africa fit with South America so they made it smaller[citation needed]). The earthquakes aren’t from the tectonic plates moving its from the earth trying to recover from the flood and still trying to settle[citation needed]. It may be from the gravity still trying to pull everything back together.[citation needed] The evolutionists have to keep making ajustments to there retarted tectonic plate theory because it doesn’t quite fit don’t you know[citation needed].
It’s cute when children talk about their faerie tales and imaginary friends as if they are real.
It’s sad when an adult does it.
That or mental illness.
I knew I shouldn’t have commented. I am sorry if I offended anybody. This is why I don’t usually comment on stuff online. I sounded stupid and retarded. Man I feel like a loser write now. I am not going to ever post a comment ever again after this one. Sorry
Ok, Tim: Nobody was offended by you. You did make yourself look stupid by posting about stuff you’re in dire need of learning more about, but we all start somewhere. And right now I’m wondering if you’re being a very good Poe…
I hope you have some questions you can ask. Here’s one, If the craters on the moon were caused by ejecta from the waters, why does the moon have craters all over and not just on one side.
Good shout. And why are there more craters on the side that faces away from the Earth.
OMG – because the moon used to spin, of course! Goes without saying, but it’s true, it’s in this book my dad’s reading.
The Moon does spin you know …
The Moon doesn’t spin fast enough for the ejecta to coat it like a paint gun.
I’m not saying it does, but it does spin.
The same side of the moon is always facing the Earth, though.
I didn’t say it didn’t, I was referring to Kodie’s comment “… because the moon used to spin, …”
Cm’on we all know (and by we all I mean creaturd Henry Morris) that the craters on the moon were created during the fight between Michael and Lucifer.
Ok some of that stuff I said may have not been from Brown it is what my dad said and please don’t say my dad is and idiot he is actually a very smart person. sometimes i take his ideas and mess them up unintentionaly and make me and him look stupid. I am only 16 so cut me some slack. I haven’t lived that long. I have only just begun to read Brown’s book. Look Brown has some very good theories and I think they could very well have happened. Nobody knows what happened during the flood but I know that the evolutions theories have a lot of wholes in them and there is a lot of evidence that supports creationism and Browns theories. Brown use to be and atheist until he started asking questions then he became a creationist and has been in a lot of debates and know I have heard that scientist won’t debate him they just ridicule him because they lose. So don’t say that Brown is a dumb person either because he knows what he is talking about. It is me that doesn’t know what I am talking about. Look I am not going to debate how the flood happened and what cause the earthquakes we have today I am just going to believe what I believe and you can believe what you want to believe.
@Tim: Sorry, but there isn’t a creationist out there who can befuddle scientists with evidence. If you care to post any of Brown’s arguments, I’m sure members of this board can dismantle them in short order. Just to give you some perspective, I used to be an extreme creationist until reading some of Richard Dawkins work. Properly presented evolution is a powerful theory, one that creationists must misrepresent to extreme lengths to “disprove.” When I saw the actual evidence and theory, it was nothing like what I had learned that evolution supposedly was from creationist books.
Also, the “you believe what you want I believe what I want” card doesn’t lend any credibility to your belief. There are people out there that believe the earth is flat (some of them based on biblical references)… there may be people who believe we’re run by little green gnomes. :P
Tim – I’m sure your dad isn’t an idiot, nor probably is Brown, but you seem unaware of the power that wishful thinking has to make otherwise intelligent people believe really stupid things. Like you, your dad and Brown just believe what they want to believe, and when the facts don’t fit, they dismiss them. This is not stupidity, it is delusion. The question we all have to face is, do we have the courage to put our beliefs to the challenge of fact, and change our beliefs if they fail the test? Do you? You have come onto this blog, into an atmosphere not exactly friendly to creationists, and put your point across as best you can, so I have hope that you DO have the courage. Good luck.
“I’m sure your dad isn’t an idiot, nor probably is Brown, …” I’ve read some of the book online and yes Brown is an idiot or at least wilfully ignorant. If he’s spent as long studying the field as he claims you’d expect that he would know what evolution was but he doesn’t. The rest of his book is littered with the general creationist stupidity. Now, of course, maybe Brown is just a complete liar but his book is certainly idiotic. If you want to take a browse then here’s a link:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html
The difference between him and Tim’s Dad is the latter is just ignorant so maybe Tim could learn something here and pass it on to his Dad.
Jabster – did you read to the end of the sentence?
I did but unfortunately English being my first language means that I was taught by people who thought that “expressing” myself was far more important than actually being able to spell or understand grammar. What have I missed?
Ah hah … “learn something here” where here means this blog. Of course you can learn something from the online version of Brown’s book but it would be filed under mis-use of science.
“Look Brown has some very good theories …”
Brown doesn’t have a single scientific theory and from what I’ve read of his book online it’s just re-hashing some tired creationists arguments. So here’s a little teaser why does Venus spin backwards. Now with google you can do some basic “research” into why this may be. Now what does Brown do? He claims that “According to these evolutionary theories: … All planets should spin in the same direction, …”. Now compare what you’ve read about possible reasons for Venus’ rotation with Brown’s claim (we’ll discard regard that evolution has nothing to do with planet formation at this point) which pretty much boils down to “evolutionists” don’t know for certain therefore creationism is right. That’s the whole book Tim – scientific theories stand on the evidence that supports them; Brown has zero evidence for the creationist’s theory and therefore he chooses to find gaps in existing theories (whether they exist or not and a lot of what Brown says if just wrong) to prove his “theory”. A second task; do some reading up on evidence for the Big Bang and compare it to this book. What you’ll find is that the Big Bang is accepted as a scientific theory because it has evidence to support it and the theory was predictive. What it doesn’t do is take the Steady State model explain why evidence doesn’t support it and that is can’t explain how life began on Earth therefore the Big Bang theory must be true.
” … but I know that the evolutions theories have a lot of wholes in them and there is a lot of evidence that supports creationism and Browns theories.”
Again saying that The Theory of Evolution has holes in it doesn’t mean that creationism and Browns theories are correct, it just means that the Theory of Evolution doesn’t explain everything (I would suggest doing some reading up of what the Theory of Evolution actually is as Brown’s book butchers the usage in a vain attempt to show why it’s wrong). Secondly, as already stated, there is no evidence for creationism or Brown’s theories. He may claim that there are, but there just aren’t.
“So don’t say that Brown is a dumb person either because he knows what he is talking about.”
If he knows what he’s talking about then he’s either a liar or wilfully ignorant as his book contains many “facts” which are just plain wrong and even the most basic research can show this.
“Look I am not going to debate how the flood happened and what cause the earthquakes we have today I am just going to believe what I believe and you can believe what you want to believe.”
Don’t you think that’s sad that you don’t want to gain knowledge or even challenge your own ideas? Is your faith that weak that you dare not open it up to enquiry? How does the human race advance its knowledge if everybody took your position?
As a last little pointer why not check out this site http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Tim, you’re assuming that the flood actually occurred. There is no real evidence for this. As Jabster said, be prepared to question things.
Check sources that are relevant to the subject you want to learn about – eg, don’t expect to learn about something from someone with credentials in an unrelated field. Their views may be correct, but they may also be as ignorant as you on that subject and they’re just spouting their own beliefs. And by the way, ignorant doesn’t mean stupid – it just means that someone hasn’t learned something, not that they can’t.
Good luck with learning.
Normally I have no time for creationists but when someone is just 16 it seems easy to understand why they can end up be ignorant when they have a number of authority figures telling them the “truth” and they haven’t had the education required to learn critical thinking skills. I think that this should be compulsory in secondary education. If you can learn basic maths, physics and chemistry I don’t see why you can’t learn thinking skills. This seems especially important as its application is across the board (well almost) and doesn’t apply just to science subjects.
If I had been taught them at a much younger age then maybe I wouldn’t have spent of few years thinking my Dad flew a Spitfire in the Battle of Britain (he was born in 1946) or that he was building a castle in the back garden (it was actually a raised flower bed).