Noah and the Animals

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 311 here:

Noah did not take a lab and a terrier and a wolf and a fox and a coyote aboard the Ark. He took a pair of canines, male and female, and from them come all the different groups of canines that you see today.

For debate:

Please offer some means to confirm the above statement is true and factual.

[Jax Agnesson]

But as far as semantics goes, is there any special reason for using the word magic in place of miracle?

No special reason that I know of. And no special reason, AFAICS, for avoiding it. Apart from the medieval witch-hunt thing. Which is why I'm asking.

When speaking with those who adhere to some belief system, I have found it a more effective way of challenging those beliefs to work within their own contexts. Otherwise they are not listening.

Totally agree with you on that one. For me the point of discussion is understanding. Persuasion is good if it happens, but not necessary, and often not possible. But mutual understanding is worth a lot.
So when an atheist of the more shouty kind calls God's work 'magic', I'm wondering why the Christians don't calmly reply 'Yes it is'? After all, His own actions can hardly be performed without His permission or support, can they?

[Haven]

Good enough for me TGA. Hello, by the way. I'm new here. Looking for intelligent, mutually respectful discussion. In which respects, this forum looks good so far.

Welcome to the forum, Jax!

This is, by far, the most intellectual, stimulating, and civil internet forum I've ever been a part of. I think you'll like it here.

As for a Protestant perspective on "magic," I used to be an evangelical Southern Baptist, so I can provide some perspective. "Magic," at least in a religious context, referred to Paganism or Satanism and implied "the devil's doing," although in secular context it referred to "fairy tales" and myths and carried no Satanic connotations.

[Moses Yoder]

Yes. I am finding that is also true of the atheists and agnostics in this forum. Maybe we should start labeling them. All those who are fundamental atheists please stand up!

The reference was to all the different kinds of creationism. There are no different kinds of atheism. Atheism simply means non-belief in deities. What differs are attitudes.

Are you claiming that all the atheists agree on how the universe and life on earth came into being? This is the prejudice we live against. Because I believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, and somebody else who calls themselves a Christian doesn't, there must be a label for me. On the other hand, one atheist believes the earth is several billion years old, another believes it is only millions of years old, no labels.

I believe there is only one kind of Christian. Those who are born again. Everyone else who says they are Christian are misled. There are not numerous kinds of Christians, only one.

[Moses Yoder]

You obviously lack faith. God could easily have brought these animals together and fed them.

If God could create the universe He could easily have stopped the hearts of every person he wanted dead without drowning anyone causing no unnecessary suffering to humans or animals. The only conclusion must be that He actually wanted all these humans and animals to suffer the agony of drowning.

This is a very good point. According to the story, God told Noah to build an ark, and Noah started. I'm sure his neighbors asked him what he was doing and he told them. I think it was probably known far and wide that Noah was building an ark, and people came from miles around to see the funny sight. A huge boat built miles from the nearest water. You see, they did not believe him simply because it had never rained before. There was no evidence that it was going to rain either, other than the crazy man with the boat telling them to join him or die. So they made their choice, based on the evidence.

[Moses Yoder]

You say it would not be possible to populate the earth from two of each species, and yet you most likely believe in evolution, from the context. So basically you believe the entire earth was entirely populated from nothing.

Moses Yoder criticizes us for not believing that two of each kind, enough to fit on one boat, could populate the whole earth in a few thousand years. Because we do believe that in conditions far different from the current earth, abiogenesis could occur naturally over a few billion years. Do I understand correctly?

Yes, that is correct. Actually, if you can prove the earth is a few billion years old, I might believe in abiogenesis and evolution myself. I just don't have that much faith.

That has been proven, quite conclusively. However, no evidence is powerful enough for people if they have refuse to look at it and dismiss it because of their preconceptions. When people get their 'science' from groups dedicated to lie about it for religious purposes, then they get misinformation, rather than information.

Isn't a large portion of modern "science" supported by government grants and other large company grants? Don't they profit from making an impact on science? So essentially, they are motivated by money to do whatever it takes to make "discoveries."

[Bust Nak]

Isn't a large portion of modern "science" supported by government grants and other large company grants? Don't they profit from making an impact on science? So essentially, they are motivated by money to do whatever it takes to make "discoveries."

Including discoveries such as exposing each other's fraud. Motivated by money, maybe, but any implication that scientists have an interest in covering for each other is unfounded.

[Artie]

Are you claiming that all the atheists agree on how the universe and life on earth came into being?

No. How the universe and life on earth came into being has nothing to do with atheism. Atheism is just a non-belief in deities.

This is the prejudice we live against. Because I believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, and somebody else who calls themselves a Christian doesn't, there must be a label for me.

Because there are so many kinds of creationism it is helpful to use the labels to find out approximately what a person believes.

On the other hand, one atheist believes the earth is several billion years old, another believes it is only millions of years old, no labels.

Because atheism has nothing to do with how old a person believes the earth to be.

I believe there is only one kind of Christian. Those who are born again. Everyone else who says they are Christian are misled. There are not numerous kinds of Christians, only one.

What are the criteria a person should fulfill to be regarded "born again"?

[Artie]

You obviously lack faith. God could easily have brought these animals together and fed them.

If God could create the universe He could easily have stopped the hearts of every person he wanted dead without drowning anyone causing no unnecessary suffering to humans or animals. The only conclusion must be that He actually wanted all these humans and animals to suffer the agony of drowning.

This is a very good point. According to the story, God told Noah to build an ark, and Noah started. I'm sure his neighbors asked him what he was doing and he told them. I think it was probably known far and wide that Noah was building an ark, and people came from miles around to see the funny sight. A huge boat built miles from the nearest water. You see, they did not believe him simply because it had never rained before. There was no evidence that it was going to rain either, other than the crazy man with the boat telling them to join him or die. So they made their choice, based on the evidence.

So it's morally right to drown all people (and innocent animals) who base their choices on available evidence instead of faith and belief in God?

[Student]

A literal interpretation of the Noah's Ark myth is one of the most ludicrous beliefs of conservative Christianity. Ignoring the fact that the Noah story is really just a reworked version of the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, the events it discusses are completely physically impossible. Additionally, there is no evidence of a global flood whatsoever. Plus, it would be impossible to repopulate the earth from just two members of each species / genus / whatever a "kind" is of animal, because there would not be enough genetic diversity to sustain a healthy population.

Read this for more information: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

You say it would not be possible to populate the earth from two of each species, and yet you most likely believe in evolution, from the context. So basically you believe the entire earth was entirely populated from nothing. That would not be from 2 of each species, it would mean from where there were no prior species.

I go to a Bible study with one of the architects who helped design a replication of Noah's ark. You will be able to visit it in Kentucky if plans are accomplished. I look forward to having some of my questions answered there. It is being built full scale from what I heard.

http://creationmuseum.org/whats-here/exhibits/

Does it float?

To be fair, it's only a "replication" of the Ark. The original was built of Gopher wood.

My research has revealed that Gopher wood combined the qualities of spring steel, carbon fibre, pre-stressed concrete, Kevlar and balsawood. Water proof and fire resistant, coupled with its propensity to grow to regular pre-cut, formed lengths made it the ideal Ark building material. Inexplicably the last of the once extensive Gopher wood forests appear to have disappeared just prior to the flood.

[Goat]

You say it would not be possible to populate the earth from two of each species, and yet you most likely believe in evolution, from the context. So basically you believe the entire earth was entirely populated from nothing.

Moses Yoder criticizes us for not believing that two of each kind, enough to fit on one boat, could populate the whole earth in a few thousand years. Because we do believe that in conditions far different from the current earth, abiogenesis could occur naturally over a few billion years. Do I understand correctly?

Yes, that is correct. Actually, if you can prove the earth is a few billion years old, I might believe in abiogenesis and evolution myself. I just don't have that much faith.

That has been proven, quite conclusively. However, no evidence is powerful enough for people if they have refuse to look at it and dismiss it because of their preconceptions. When people get their 'science' from groups dedicated to lie about it for religious purposes, then they get misinformation, rather than information.

Isn't a large portion of modern "science" supported by government grants and other large company grants? Don't they profit from making an impact on science? So essentially, they are motivated by money to do whatever it takes to make "discoveries."

The amount of money the average researcher makes is not as much as you might think. Plus, modern science is based on peer review, which is an adversarial process. After someone gets published, people review (and attempt to replicate) results, and then they try to tear the process and conclusions to shreds. That tends to filter out the bad results. That is quite unlike theology , where it take a splintering for alternate theologies to get established, and conformity is rewarded.