Noah's Ark vs running a zoo

[atheist buddy]

The directory of the Bronx Zoo shows that it takes 205 full time professionals to feed, manage and keep safe 650 species of animals. That's 650 out of 8.7 million species of animals and plants in existence.

By rough approximation, we could say that if it takes 205 people to manage 650 species, it would take 2.7 million people to manage all 8.7 million species in a megazoo hosting all known species.

Let's say it would take another million highly qualified professionals to build this megazoo, and another million to gather all the animals.

So, a total of 4.7 million trained experts to maintain and manage 8.7 million species in a man-made environment.

On average, approximately 1 person for every two species.

Assuming Noah had 19 people helping him, he would be operating on a ratio of 1 person for every 435,000 species.

In other words, if you believe in the story of Noah, you believe that a bronze age (600 year old drunk) was 217,500 times better at running a massive zoo than modern people are.

And did I mention this 8.7 million species zoo had to float on water during a massive storm?


In light of these simple empirical facts, can we agree that anybody who believes the story of Noah's Ark actually happened, is victim of such intense delusion that it borders on mental disability?

Why is a professed belief in a flat earth an instant disqualification from public office, or from getting a high level job, or from attaining any kind of social status, but professed belief in Noah's Ark put on a pedestal, and regarded as acceptable if not mainstream?

[OnceConvinced]

...

"Magic"

...

We are speaking about the Creator of the universe are we not? What part of miracle does not apply and should be reduced to (a pejorative) magic when we discuss the Creator of the universe?

What part of the Creator of the universe should be reduced to magic?

You do understand that by dissing my belief in miracles that you are trying to force your belief system on me with this kind of remark, not just discuss the pros and cons of the internal logic of my belief system?

Are you allowed your belief system? Am I not to be allowed the same? When have I scorned your belief system? I thought this was about logic, not emotional bias.

Peace, (still), Ted

I'm sorry, but I am finding it more and more difficult every day to respect beliefs in the supernatural when there are rational scientific explanations and that the "god of the gaps" is shrinking all the time as we learn more. I see nothing that could possibly need a supernatural explanation unless it was simply fantasy.

It seems you are trying to convince me that "miracles" and "magic" are two different things, but how can anyone claim that to be the case? Anything conjured out of nothing by some kind of supernatural power is the same thing. The only difference I can see looking at it from a Christian perspective is that a "miracle" is a result of godly power where as "magic" is usually seen as being the devil's power. As far as I can see they really are just the same thing.

My main problem Ted, is that Christians tend to use the whole magic/miracle thing instead of just saying "I don't know". Why do you think Christans go to so much trouble to try to scientifically explain something, only to resort to declaring magic/miracle as the answer. Don't you see this as intellectually dishonest?

[Clownboat]

Else you wouldn't have used those examples. If, as it turns out, they were bad examples, what does that lead a reader to think about the position you are using them to support?

If you are that unfamiliar with the stories you claim do NOT "praise[] rape, murder and slavery," how familiar can you be, one is tempted to ask, with the book you claim is worse than they are?

Let's let common sense come in to play I would suggest.
He is after all, on a debate site about Christianity and Religion, not the Cinderella story nor Tom and Jerry. Due to this observation, I would assume he is more familiar with the concept he is debating then with the children story for which he alludes to.

Or would it be fair to say you must know more about Cinderella and Tom and Jerry than the Bible due to the knowledge of these stories you have alluded to here? Not a jump that should be made in either case.

Your calling into question has no merit IMO due to this fact.
/quote]

[Haven]

My main problem Ted, is that Christians tend to use the whole magic/miracle thing instead of just saying "I don't know". Why do you think Christans go to so much trouble to try to scientifically explain something, only to resort to declaring magic/miracle as the answer. Don't you see this as intellectually dishonest?

It's both intellectually dishonest and shockingly childish (adults believing in magic--pathetic).

Which one is it? If there's scientific evidence for your beliefs, then please produce it and defend it, preferably in the peer-reviewed journals. If it's "God-magic," then just say that, keep your magical, faith-based beliefs out of the education system, and let the rest of us get on with our lives. But for reason's sake, don't move the goalposts from "I have evidence" to "it's just faith" when you get challenged on your beliefs. That's the very definition of intellectual duplicitousness and dishonesty.

[atheist buddy]

I've never claimed to be able to prove that God exists, empirically. I only believe He does. I don't do so for 'a reason.'

Well, I'm sorry but that terrifies me.

With the exception of the modern industrialized world, I'm pretty sure there's never been a time and place where it was safe for somebody to publicly declare distaste for the dogmatic belief of the majority.

Whenever large groups of people believe something without an actual reason, bad things happen.

Don't believe me?

Yell that you reject islam in 1900 AD Mecca
Yell that you reject communism in 2nd world war Moscow
Yell that you reject Christ in 1400 AD Spain
Yell that you reject the intrinsic benignity of Kim Jung Un in modern north korea

Seriously. Close your eyes and point at a random place on a world map. Select a date at random. Chances are good that you will have pointed at an ocean, just because the world is like 70% oceans. But, if you happen to strike land, chances are good that at any given place and time, speaking against the dogmatic beliefs (beliefs for no good reason) of the majority, is equivalent to suicide.

If you believe crazy stuff for no good reason, you're only a few steps away from believing that it's justified to kill somebody for no good reason.

This is not speculation, this is an observation of irrefutable fully documented historic facts.


So, no, you don't have unlimited rights to express absurd beliefs in invisible friends in a civilized society. You have as much right to that, as a convicted felon with a history of domestic violence has a right to parental visitations with the child he sired upon his rape victim. Or, if you want a less macabre analogy, as much right to your wacky beliefs, as a person with multiple DUIs has the right to drive a car.


Dogmatic people who believe random things for no good reason, have a history of committing the most brutal atrocities imaginable as a direct consequence of their crazy beliefs.

Every time we see a "God hates fags" sign at a funeral, or every time mormons mount a massive financial campaign to deny gays their constitutional right to marry, or anytime a child dies becuase his Jehova's Witness parents refused a blood transfusion, anytime an abortion clinic is bombed, anytime some creationist sues a school board, every time a nun tells african school children that condoms only have a 30% chance of preventing pregnancy, every time the manifest actions punctually rear their ugly head as a result of stadfast beliefs in unjustifiable claims, the small minority amoung us who actually form beliefs based on evidence and reason.... we get really really worried.


I'm not saying that people who believe random stuff for no good reason should be incarcerated or anything like that, but they definitely shouldn't be given the codes to nuclear missile launches.

If you believe things there is no good reason to believe, your brain is not functioning properly. Much like people with arms that don't work properly can't play basketball, people with brains that don't work properly shouldn't be making decisions.

Opinions about empirical testable claims, should be based on the empirical tests. Opinions about virgin births, should be based on biology, opinions about flying horses should be based on physics. Opinions about water turning to wine should be based on chemisty.

You have as much right to believe that prayer is an effective cure for cancer, as you have the right to believe that water is three parts hydrogen, one part carbon.

You have that right, but if you're a chemist who believes water is made of hydrogen and carbon, expect to lose your job the instant you tell your boss of your belief, and if you're a doctor who believes in the power of prayer, you should lose your job as well.

and you are here, telling me that I have no right to believe in God because YOU see no sense in it?

I'm not saying you have no right to believe in God. Thought control is the province of religion, not of critical thinking.

And I'm not saying that it's because I see no sense in it.

I'm not saying you cant, and I'm not saying it's becuase I don't see sense in it.

I'm saying you shouldnt, because you admit there is no sense in it!

You yourself admit you "believe in God without a reason". All I'm saying is you shouldn't do that. It's a really bad idea. Historically it's led to suffering and barbarity. Stop it. Believe something only if there is a good reason.

[Wootah]

We don't believe in billions of years or 'goo to you' or 'molecules to man' because we feel the bible clearly doesn't indicate that creation was this way and because philosophically one can't reconcile billions of years of death with a loving God.

I agree with this, but that's a reason for rejecting theism, not science.

No, I don't like death cults. Evolution is the belief that death makes us stronger. It's a death cult.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 12 by DanieltheDragon]

philosophically whats the difference between a billion or 10,000 years? in terms of death.

Is there a particular X number of deaths that you find philosophically irreconcilable?\

is 10,000 deaths ok but not 10,0001?

1 pre fall death would be irreconcilable.

Based on your response I'm not sure you understand my position.

[atheist buddy]

We don't believe in billions of years or 'goo to you' or 'molecules to man' because we feel the bible clearly doesn't indicate that creation was this way and because philosophically one can't reconcile billions of years of death with a loving God.

I agree with this, but that's a reason for rejecting theism, not science.

No, I don't like death cults. Evolution is the belief that death makes us stronger. It's a death cult.

Ladies and gentleman.... we got it! We finally have the single most absurd sequence of words ever spoken.

To say that evolution is the belief that death makes us strong, is as insane as saying that gravity is the belief that jumping from buildings makes us stronger.

It's completely and utterly nonsensical. It's also highly offensive and disrespectful to all the brave Americans (such as all the astronauts that died in failed launches) who willingly sacrificed their life in the pursuit of scientific knowledge.

The very fact that you uttered these words ensures that you will not be interested in understanding what I'm about to write, but I'll write it anyway, in case third parties see your inane statement and don't quite know in how many different ways it's wrong.


The portion of evolution that you refer to in making your highly offensive remark (natural selection) truly is nothing more than the empirical observation that animals that are better at surviving are more likely to get to the age at which they reproduce. In essence: If you don't die as a pre-teen, you are more likely to get a girl pregnant. That's all.

If somebody has genes that make him more likely to die before he gets a chance to have sex, then his genes will not be passed on.

Evolution, much like gravity, is descriptive, not prescriptive. It simply describes the way the natural world is. It doesn't give social or cultural opinions or jusgements, it just observes empirical facts. It doesn't make phiolosophical observations about whether you should or shouldn't survive, doesn't make cultural observations about whether or not you should get a girl pregnant. It simply observes the purely mechanical fact that if you die a virgin, then your genes were not passed on. That's all.


You are getting confused with "social darwinism", a misguided right-wing social movement whereby the poor and the week and the disabled and the less fortunate are just left to die, and the rich and powerful get to call all the shots.

That is absoutely despicable, and it's why I didn't vote for Romney, despite hating Obama. The law of the jungle (survival of the fittest) should NOT apply to modern society. Humanity is stronger as a whole if we care for our weaker brothers and sisters.

[Haven]

No, I don't like death cults. Evolution is the belief that death makes us stronger. It's a death cult.

I'm sorry, but this is absolutely absurd.

AB already explained what evolution is, so I don't feel like rehashing that.

I'll just say this: reality doesn't care one bit whether or not you like it. I would prefer to believe that war didn't exist, sentient beings didn't starve, and no one lost loved ones, but I don't believe these things because they aren't true.

Knowingly adopting false beliefs because they make you feel better is both puerile and foolish, and I'd rather not behave like a foolish child.

[Wordleymaster1]

We don't believe in billions of years or 'goo to you' or 'molecules to man' because we feel the bible clearly doesn't indicate that creation was this way and because philosophically one can't reconcile billions of years of death with a loving God.

I agree with this, but that's a reason for rejecting theism, not science.

No, I don't like death cults. Evolution is the belief that death makes us stronger. It's a death cult.

I hope you're joking!
If evolution is a death cult so it life
Even Christianity could be considered a death cult because dying 'to this world' makes us stronger in the end
Silly ain't it?

[Clownboat]

We don't believe in billions of years or 'goo to you' or 'molecules to man' because we feel the bible clearly doesn't indicate that creation was this way and because philosophically one can't reconcile billions of years of death with a loving God.

I agree with this, but that's a reason for rejecting theism, not science.

No, I don't like death cults. Evolution is the belief that death makes us stronger. It's a death cult.

"Evolution is the belief that death makes us stronger".

No wonder why you are confused. If you are serious, I pity you for fear that you might try to kill yourself or someone else to make them stronger. Do you even understand what you wrote?

"It's a death cult".

The change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift is a cult?

Why not call it a religion too with high priests and faith, why stop at cult?
Are you a member of the gravity cult?
How many times has your god killed off the planet? The god of your religion, yet a theory is a cult to you? Have you considered your words from the outside?
Do you not care if you are taken seriously?