[gadster]

The Great Flood:

given the amount of rain (fresh water) that must have fallen to almost completely immerse the globe, how did Noah keep marine species alive? Any christian aquariumologists like to try THAT experiment with their expensive marine 'pets? Pray heaps and hope they survive? Please let us know the results of your experiments.

Science is ALL about testable theories. It's a free market of models that explain the way the world we live in works. Religion is intellectual Stalinism.

[MacGorilla]

In Before Flamefest�

[ebuddy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gadster:
[B]The Great Flood:

given the amount of rain (fresh water) that must have fallen to almost completely immerse the globe, how did Noah keep marine species alive? Any christian aquariumologists like to try THAT experiment with their expensive marine 'pets? Pray heaps and hope they survive? Please let us know the results of your experiments.

What the heck is this all about gadster? Where does it say that more than one pair of each marine species was to remain alive? You're also assuming all the water came from the skies. Are you familiar with the Genesis Flood account? Me thinks you should try reading it. Water came from above, below, betwixt, and between.

Science is ALL about testable theories. It's a free market of models that explain the way the world we live in works. Religion is intellectual Stalinism.

Right, and science is uncovering some compelling evidence to support a global catastrophic event such as described in Noah's flood. Some interesting stuff regarding this
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/biblicalflood.html

[Millennium]

Why would Noah need to keep marine species alive? They're already in the oceans, after all. While rain alone would certainly upset the salinity of the waters, and that could cause die-offs of some species, ebuddy notes that water seems to have come from multiple sources. It is also possible that in some areas, the water's salinity would be higher or lower on a local scale, compared to other areas. Similar phenomena have been observed in today's oceans.

It's also worth noting that not all species were to have been brought aboard the Ark in pairs. Some species were said to have been brought in groups of seven.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Why would Noah need to keep marine species alive? They're already in the oceans, after all. While rain alone would certainly upset the salinity of the waters, and that could cause die-offs of some species, ebuddy notes that water seems to have come from multiple sources. It is also possible that in some areas, the water's salinity would be higher or lower on a local scale, compared to other areas. Similar phenomena have been observed in today's oceans.

It's also worth noting that not all species were to have been brought aboard the Ark in pairs. Some species were said to have been brought in groups of seven.

and what of insects?

[gadster]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Why would Noah need to keep marine species alive? They're already in the oceans, after all. While rain alone would certainly upset the salinity of the waters, and that could cause die-offs of some species, ebuddy notes that water seems to have come from multiple sources. It is also possible that in some areas, the water's salinity would be higher or lower on a local scale, compared to other areas. Similar phenomena have been observed in today's oceans.

It's also worth noting that not all species were to have been brought aboard the Ark in pairs. Some species were said to have been brought in groups of seven.

Yeah. But the thing is, when I climbed up the hill behind my place, God said to me that his brother-in-law (Fake-God) had played a bit of a practical joke on Moses. He just sprayed Moses with the hose, and Moses freaked out.


Poor old Moses thought he had in his hands the real Word of God. Not so. He had the Readers Digest version. It was just a joke FFS!

It was just a practical joke! God was having a good laugh. Then God punched his Brother-in-law out. (No contest � being the Supreme being etc). Plus it's a sibling thing ....

Then there was an AD break for LandMines...

Apparently killing is OK! So the US invasion of Iraq is given the big A-OK by the big fella, - (God' I mean, not George) same for the death penalty and - surprisingly - abortion and 'assisted suicide'.

Either that or killing is not OK.

God doesn't care at all about gay marriage etc either! In fact, God doesn't care about anything we do down here. He is too busy hanging out with Buddha, Mohammed etc... arguing philosophy, and stuff. And drinking tea.

I can produce the new 9 commandment tablets upon request for a minimal fee, but surely faith will be enough? In fact, how about you send ME money? Sponsors welcome.

Hallelujah!

[BRussell]

I hope ebuddy, the self-proclaimed skeptic of natural history, doesn't start trying to claim that the Genesis flood is factual.

But I wonder where these flood myths came from. Apparently lots of cultures have them. It's fascinating to think there was some great flood that destroyed a civilization - Atlantis? - say, 10,000 years ago, and the stories got spread into different cultures and distorted and turned into different myths.

There are lots of obviously impossible stories in the Bible and other cultures' mythology, so the presence of the story doesn't mean there has to be any truth in it. It probably just represents a common fear among agricultural peoples, due to real (but small) floods that really did hurt them. But it's great to wonder...


[edit] Perhaps a tsunami like the one that just occurred could have set off Great Flood stories. It certainly did enough damage.

[mikellanes]

I was actually just discussing this recently... here is some of that.

"To start, I would just like to ask the people who think this story is factual, the ones that are reading this to look at it seriously, and from a scientific standpoint.

"Noah's Ark" - Dimensions: 450 feet long (135 meters), 75 feet wide (22.5 meters), and 45 feet high (13.5 meters). It would have had an interior space equivilent to 522 railroad boxcars.

Now, the species we are aware were available:

Land mammals: 4,400.

Reptiles: 4,600.

Insects: 750,000. (Are we including these?)

Total: 759,000.

But wait, Noah was supposed to take two of each animal.

Land mammals: 8,800.

Reptiles: 9,200.

Insects: 1,500,000.

Total: 1,518,000.

Now, I know what you're thinking... that number looks way too big! It's actually small
(I didn't count birds - I couldn't get an accurate number)...

Maybe we're forgetting that "God" told Noah to take 7 of each "un-clean" animal, Sorry I'm not even going to try adding that up.

Now, let's talk about food.

The ark floated around for 375 days, according to the Bible.

Let's say that a bear is a "clean" animal, so there should be two of them on the Ark. Let us also say that each bear eats 3 chickens per day (about correct)...

*adding the numbers...*

That's 2,250 chickens just for two bears. Now, how much chicken feed would that take? Bah, nevermind.

Let us not forget the noble Koala. Each day a Koala eats 2.5 pounds of eucalyptus leaves (I'm not guessing, it's true). Two Koalas for 375 days...

*adding the numbers...*

1,875 lbs of eucalyptus leaves! How did Noah keep 1,875 pounds of eucalyptus leaves fresh for 375 days? That is quite an ice-box!"

-----

All in all, perhaps it was a local flood that led to this fable?
Something like this: http://www.piney.com/Gilgamesh.html

But... If the flood was local, why didn't god just tell Noah to move? Why spend over 100 years building a boat when you could simply travel away from the disaster?

----

In response to: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/noah.asp

On first inspection:


0. Editorial comment

This paper was written by people who looked at a naval
architecture text book and did not understand what they
were seeing; it uses terminology from the profession
but not correctly, and does not use the right analysies.
Either the translation was grossly incorrect or the
paper was the work of not particularly attentive undergrad
students, given that the authors were supposedly at the
Korea Research Institute for Ships and Engineering.


1. "Draft and center of gravity" section

Displacement is given as:
(delta) = 1.025 L B d

That is the correct formula, for a brick.
Perhaps a bad sign of things to come.

Real ships are not perfect rectangular prisms;
they have rounded shapes, and the actual
displacement is some fraction depending on
the curvature of the ship, keel deadrise,
and numerous detail factors. These combine
to give a 'block coeficient' Cb which is simply
the actual volume divided by the volume of
the rectangular shape of the same length,
breadth, and depth. Cb varies from about 0.9
(really blocky huge oil tangers) to 0.55
(light destroyers) but is not 1.0 even for
rectangular barges, which have *some* rounded
off parts...


2. also in "draft and center of gravity" section

These guys calculate the height of the center of
gravity... which is good, and they don't seem to
have completely blown it, but the simplicity of the
analysis jumps out.

*No* mention is made of the height of the center
of buoyancy (the geometric centroid of the displaced
volume).

*No* mention is made of the equally important
Metacentric Height. The metacenter (M) is the imaginary
point around which the geometric center of the
waterplane area rotates as the ship rolls and
pitches. As that area shifts, the actual dynamic
stability of a ship depends on how far above
the center of gravity the metacenter is found.
The metacenter is some distance above the center
of buoyancy, and has to be calculated.

No real ship other than a submarine has its
center of gravity under its center of buoyancy.

The actual moment arm for stability calculations
is the height from the center of gravity G to
the metacenter M (GM).


3. "Comparative hull forms" section

Huh?

Comparative hull dimentions table, maybe.
"Hull Form" implies looking at the curvature,
block coeficient, etc.


4. "Method of Evaluation" subsection in "Seakeeping Performance" section

"A widely used strip method"...

These guys have not even determined KB, BM, or GM, and they
are performing computational motions analysis?

Er.

Ok. This fails the scratch and sniff test, but the method used
is not grossly inappropriate.


5. "General" subsection of "Structural Safety" section

These people do not understand wooden shipbuilding.
Using the terms associated with steel ships is
a gross mistake.


6. "Structural analysis of Ark" subsection of "Structural Safety" section

This fails the scratch and sniff test.

They plug the numbers in to a FEA rather than presenting the basic
by hand back of the envelope calculation. Bzzt.

They assume that they could rigidly attach a 2 dimentional girder
structure to a wooden "shell" ... no mention of how this is made
strong in shear, which is why thick hulled wooden ships are not
made that way.

They do not list the scantlings (thickness and dimentions of
the hull, longitudional and transverse frames, etc).
Without knowing what the actual dimentions are nobody
can crosscheck their numbers. Showing computer program
output without scantlings is the equivalent of lying
with graphics.

"Structural Safety Index" is introduced without any
foundation for what it is supposed to represent
in the analysis and optimization.


7. "Righting Arm" calculations in "Overturning Stability" section

Ah, now we get the metacenter. Except they're calling it Z,
instead of M, and they *integrate* to find the height rather
than simply pulling "Principles of Naval Architecture" off the
shelf and plugging the one line formula in... D'oh.


8. "Overturning stability Index" in "Overturning Stability"

What is this 'overturning stability index' and where is it
coming from? The term is not defined, referenced, etc.
It is not a term of the art in the field.


9. "Voyage Limit of the Arc"

Calculated for rolling motion. Never calculate in roll;
always calculate in pitch and sagging/hogging moment.

"Thickness of wood..." thickness *where*?


10. conclusions

Yet more of these imaginary safety indexes, which are not defined.

Yet more graphs without any supporting explanation of what the
axies mean.


11. my conclusion

This paper fails to show its work.
Almost none of its stated conclusions are supported
with enough documentation to review and evaluate for
technical correctness. Were this a student paper
it would fail on that basis, and it would never
be published in a naval architecture journal for
the same reason.

This paper fails to show basic familiarity with the
standard terminology, rules of thumb, and standards
of practicing naval architects, much less student
naval architects.

This paper fails to reference any of the standard
textbooks in ship design (Such as, Principles of
Naval Architecture 1990 ed). While papers have
certainly been written without reference to PNA,
the inclusion of a bunch of more specific references
without any reference to or use of the basic methods
and overview survey in PNA is bizarre.


----

And Finally...
From the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams.

Quote:
The great ships hung motionless in the air, over every nation on
Earth. Motionless they hung, huge, heavy, steady in the sky, a
blasphemy against nature. Many people went straight into shock as
their minds tried to encompass what they were looking at. The
ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't.

[adamk]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Right, and science is uncovering some compelling evidence to support a global catastrophic event such as described in Noah's flood. Some interesting stuff regarding this
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/biblicalflood.html

the first thing that strikes me about this page is their first line of evidence is that historical and cultural accounts of the Flood can be found in numerous civilizations. my bible stories are a little rusty but weren't Noah and his wife the only survivors because of universal destruction by the flood and only their human seed repopulated the earth? therefore i wonder how other civilizations around the world could be there to recount the Flood.

next they try to use geological evidence to support the possibility of the rain being generated due to a massive eruption along the mid-oceanic ridges.

Should greatly increased activity along the plate lines cause heating of the oceans along these lines there would be many large and terrible "super" storms which would greatly disturb the climate of the entire globe. NOAA is currently doing research on the subsurface plate lines and they have discovered many indicators of recent and current subsurface activity. And nearly all scientists agree that the materials along the subsurface spreading ridge lines are of recent origin. It is also possible that the flow could be of such a magnitude as to cause changes in the sea level. For example, the surface flow area of the Columbia lava plateau covers over 200,000 square miles and in places is up to a mile thick

surely, this is evidence in the geological record that supports this theory. nearly 150,000 km^3 of lava erupted in this 'event'. the event did not last only 40 days, but rather, in fact, millions of years. also, the eruption took place on land, not in the ocean, as have the other major volcanic eruptions that can be seen, namely the siberian and deccan traps.

please note that the quoted is not inaccurate, just the conclusions drawn from it (italicized). spreading at the mid-Atlantic ridge has been going on for 150 million years, and evidence of the earths pole-reversals are clearly seen along the entire length.

their other theory about a comet (again a theory not drawn from the bible) with enough mass to deposit the amount of water needed for a global flood requires a very specific conditions to be met. a direct hit on earth of an adequately sized object to release the water, would no doubt leave a large impact crater (not seen). a glancing blow would not deposit the required amount of water and the object would continue out into space.

as always, these web-sites are fun to read, especially with all the fun graphs and figures pulled from various, usually un-related, sources, mashed together like some fourth-graders science fair project.

[Shaddim]

*MacNStein smacks everyone with the Literal stick*

It's allegory, a morality tale. Even the Orthodox Rabbis don't teach it as an actual event.

[zerostar]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
It's allegory, a morality tale. Even the Orthodox Rabbis don't teach it as an actual event.

It would take about 10 seconds to find many teachings of this as a literal event. The posts, I imagine, are directed towards those. I wouldn't doubt anyone with a view as yours would even debate about such things.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
<snip>

Still waiting for your compelling argument in the God a.k.a. I.D. thread...

[macintologist]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

I think if you take the Bible literally, you are insulting the authors and the Bible itself by assuming that it was written like a children's book.

Don't you think maybe the authors of the bible wanted to use metaphorical devices and similes to express their faith and love of God and Jesus?

[budster101]

Gadster = The gadfly wannabee that Michael Moore pretends he actually is.

Chalk this thread up to another waaa-waaa, I hate christianity rant.

[macintologist]

no

[macintologist]

hey budster, guess where I plagarized that graphic from?

[budster101]

your mother?

BTW: I know how to (right-click) to find the source of an image.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by zerostar:
It would take about 10 seconds to find many teachings of this as a literal event. The posts, I imagine, are directed towards those. I wouldn't doubt anyone with a view as yours would even debate about such things.

Wow, fascinating... could you please repeat that in English? Thanks.

[macintologist]

Originally posted by budster101:
your mother?

BTW: I know how to (right-click) to find the source of an image.

Well I obviously passed off that image as my own work.

[budster101]

Originally posted by macintologist:
Well I obviously passed off that image as my own work.

I'm not the one that busted you for passing off other's words as your own to further your own agenda. Yet you seem to have a fixation with me... weird.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Wow, fascinating... could you please repeat that in English? Thanks.

Makes enough sense to me.

Rephrased:

1. Plenty of creationists out there do believe that the biblical account of Noah's ark, as described, is completely true (do a 10 s. Google search to find them). The posts are directed to those people.

2. The post was not directed to you.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Makes enough sense to me.

Rephrased:

1. Plenty of creationists out there do believe that the biblical account of Noah's ark, as described, is completely true (do a 10 s. Google search to find them). The posts are directed to those people.

2. The post was not directed to you.

Yeah, I got that part, what I didn't understand is:

I wouldn't doubt anyone with a view as yours would even debate about such things.

no big deal.

To answer the question, yes, many creationists do believe the story of the ark is factual, but almost all are fundimentalist Christians. Perhaps they should take a cue from their Hasidic cousins and view it within the context it was intended.

[macintologist]

The Bible is not a children's book. It should not be taken literally.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by macintologist:
The OT is not a children's book. It should not be taken literally.

fixed�

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
fixed�

Is the NT a children's book?

[thunderous_funker]

You're asking for rational justification (scientific support) for an irrational exercise (belief in the Noah myth). Are you surprised at the response?

Anyone accepting the story as literal isn't going to be swayed by preponderence of evidence to the contrary since the story itself is quite literally impossible for a host of obvious reasons.

The size of the ark, the number of animals, the necessary provisions for sustaining human and animal life on the ark for a year, the problems of salination, insects, marine life, etc should cause any rational person to reject the story as anything more than myth or allegory.

Belief in the story as literal requires outright rejection of rationality and a total reliance on faith in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. As such, it is literally pointless to even bother to discuss it. It is an article of faith every bit outside the bounds of rational discourse and human language.

[olePigeon]

The Bible is just a myth. Most myths are based on some sort of actual event. Trying to make a scientific rationalization of the Bible will just end up with an anurism.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
The Bible is just a myth. Most myths are based on some sort of actual event. Trying to make a scientific rationalization of the Bible will just end up with an anurism.

If you promise people a wonderful afterlife they will believe any crap you spew at them.

It's all about being selfish and living happily ever after.

[Big Mac]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
*MacNStein smacks everyone with the Literal stick*

It's allegory, a morality tale. Even the Orthodox Rabbis don't teach it as an actual event.

How certain are you about that? Can you point me to some sources? I have to disagree with that assertion.

[Athens]

Originally posted by gadster:
The Great Flood:

given the amount of rain (fresh water) that must have fallen to almost completely immerse the globe, how did Noah keep marine species alive? Any christian aquariumologists like to try THAT experiment with their expensive marine 'pets? Pray heaps and hope they survive? Please let us know the results of your experiments.

Science is ALL about testable theories. It's a free market of models that explain the way the world we live in works. Religion is intellectual Stalinism.

Im not religious but there is science that the great flood happened, well a flood anyways. Its more then possible that one region in the middle east flooded so bad that people of the time could have thought the entire FLAT planet flooded when in fact it didnt.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Still waiting for your compelling argument in the God a.k.a. I.D. thread...

You'll be waiting a long time Stradlater. I don't have enough time to debate people who refuse to look at evidence. You've proven time and again that you will filter all input through Christianophobia and as such your mind is as closed as they get. You've got your gods, I've got mine. I guess we'll leave it at that.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Big Mac:
How certain are you about that? Can you point me to some sources? I have to disagree with that assertion.

I'm certain.


"Common sense overflows in Noah's rules for living"

by Rabbi Stephen Pearce

Genesis 6:9-1132
Isaiah 54:1-55:5

"Readers often dismiss the Bible's flood story as a fairy tale. Whether or not the flood account is true and can or cannot be supported by archaeological evidence is inconsequential. What is important is the message this allegory provides for how individuals ought to live their lives.

Reading the text for its metaphoric meanings yields a number of significant principles that can serve the reader well. Some of Noah's rules for common-sense living have been circulating on the Internet.

This expanded list, with principles in italics, is provided as food for thought for students of the Torah:

The biblical flood story was modeled after the Gilgamesh Epic, the Mesopotamian account featuring Utnapishtim, the Babylonian precursor of Noah."


http://www.jewishsf.com/bk001103/torah.shtml

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
You'll be waiting a long time Stradlater. I don't have enough time to debate people who refuse to look at evidence. You've proven time and again that you will filter all input through Christianophobia and as such your mind is as closed as they get. You've got your gods, I've got mine. I guess we'll leave it at that.

I'll take that as a concession. Look: don't say I refuse to look at evidence when I provided some in the last few posts -- provided it where you sold your soul to wishful speculation. Don't call me a Christianophobe when I have plenty of friends who are Christian (some scientists, no less, that realize you can still be Christian and accept evolution). I look forward to an attempt to argue against what I wrote, but it became more and more obvious, each page, that in your argument you would pick and choose which points you'd actually respond to (ignoring others, which you could not argue against) and then, the answers became vaguer and vaguer, usually not direct rebuttals.

I looked at your evidence, but you did not look at mine. Don't twist the reason why you stopped arguing. If you concede, then you concede. Do you admit defeat?

"Cursed is the man who leads the blind astray on the road."

[BRussell]

Originally posted by gadster:
Science is ALL about testable theories. It's a free market of models that explain the way the world we live in works. Religion is intellectual Stalinism.

Religion isn't necessarily intellectual stalinism. Only the religion of the fundamentalist/literalists. There are quite a number of religious people who don't see their religion as a competition against empiricism.

It's really only a fairly recent and largely American phenomenon, represented on MacNN by a number of posters, who are fundamentalist/literalists. The vast majority of religious history and tradition is not.

[Shaddim]

Thanks for reminding me of that BRussell, I intended to comment on his assertion earlier, but had to leave for a meeting.

Originally posted by gadster:
Science is ALL about testable theories. It's a free market of models that explain the way the world we live in works. Religion is intellectual Stalinism.

That there's a mighty broad brush you're using. Looks like you're ignorantly trying to cover everyone with it. I suppose what scares me, is that you're not just trying to be inflammatory, you actually believe that nonsensical bunk.

Tell ya what. Go find a Sufi or Taoist gathering, go gnosh with them and talk for an evening. It'll likely fix that problem.

[Zimphire]

su�per�nat�u�ral __ (_P_)__Pronunciation Key__(spr-nchr-l)
adj.

Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
If you promise people a wonderful afterlife they will believe any crap you spew at them.

It's all about being selfish and living happily ever after.

SWF showing yet again, he just doesn't get it.

I am not sure if it's willing misunderstanding, or just having a compelte unability to.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Thanks for reminding me of that BRussell, I intended to comment on his assertion earlier, but had to leave for a meeting.



That there's a mighty broad brush you're using. Looks like you're ignorantly trying to cover everyone with it. I suppose what scares me, is that you're not just trying to be inflammatory, you actually believe that nonsensical bunk.

Tell ya what. Go find a Sufi or Taoist gathering, go gnosh with them and talk for an evening. It'll likely fix that problem.

The sad thing is, given today's climate, it's not at all surprising that people have that view. Religion itself seems to be dominated by the literalists, or at least they're the loudest voices. And on the other hand the non-religious are happy to portray religion that way, because that's how they perceive it and that's probably a big part of why they're not religious.

I think there's a conspiracy against religion between the literalists and the non-religious. Between the two, they're going to kill it off completely.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I hope ebuddy, the self-proclaimed skeptic of natural history, doesn't start trying to claim that the Genesis flood is factual.

But I wonder where these flood myths came from. Apparently lots of cultures have them. It's fascinating to think there was some great flood that destroyed a civilization - Atlantis? - say, 10,000 years ago, and the stories got spread into different cultures and distorted and turned into different myths.

There are lots of obviously impossible stories in the Bible and other cultures' mythology, so the presence of the story doesn't mean there has to be any truth in it. It probably just represents a common fear among agricultural peoples, due to real (but small) floods that really did hurt them. But it's great to wonder...


[edit] Perhaps a tsunami like the one that just occurred could have set off Great Flood stories. It certainly did enough damage.

The holy book of Islam, the Quran also talks about the flood Noah and co experienced, but there the flood was meant to be local, set into a whole list of divine punishments for local people that rejected the warnings and messages of their prophets.

Taliesin

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by BRussell:
The sad thing is, given today's climate, it's not at all surprising that people have that view. Religion itself seems to be dominated by the literalists, or at least they're the loudest voices. And on the other hand the non-religious are happy to portray religion that way, because that's how they perceive it and that's probably a big part of why they're not religious.

I think there's a conspiracy against religion between the literalists and the non-religious. Between the two, they're going to kill it off completely.

I don't think they'll kill it, but they will likely force it further underground. But then, I've been following an "underground" belief system for about 20 years now and prefer it that way.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I don't think they'll kill it, but they will likely force it further underground. But then, I've been following an "underground" belief system for about 20 years now and prefer it that way.

It's hard to believe religion will ever really be underground, given its popularity. Maybe it's just Christianity that will suffer.

I attended a Presbyterian church this Sunday, and seriously, 95% of the people there were over 65. That's not an exagerration uh exaggeration, it was quite amazing. The younger folks seem to be attracted to the more fundamentalist or conservative denominations, but it's hard to see that sustaining. But maybe it will.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by BRussell:
It's hard to believe religion will ever really be underground, given its popularity. Maybe it's just Christianity that will suffer.

I attended a Presbyterian church this Sunday, and seriously, 95% of the people there were over 65. That's not an exagerration uh exaggeration, it was quite amazing. The younger folks seem to be attracted to the more fundamentalist or conservative denominations, but it's hard to see that sustaining. But maybe it will.

The cerebral, low-key style of 20th Century Protestantism seems to be dead in the water, or at least in serious decline. I think too many people found it boring and either moved towards surrogates like mysticism, New Age-ism, etc., or towards the more engaging fundamentalist forms. I think people want something more engaging and experiential - they want to see miracles and spectacles, be possessed/reborn, feel the spirit move them, feel Christ's pain, etc. I can't say I blame them - the last time I went to church, I felt as though I might as well have attended a university lecture. There was no emotional (or, as some would call it, spiritual) content. I'm a hopeless atheist but I can still appreciate a rousing sermon or an evening of self-flagellation.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by zigzag:
The cerebral, low-key style of 20th Century Protestantism seems to be dead in the water, or at least in serious decline. I think too many people found it boring and either moved towards surrogates like mysticism, New Age-ism, etc., or towards the more engaging fundamentalist forms. I think people want something more engaging and experiential - they want to see miracles and spectacles, be possessed/reborn, feel the spirit move them, feel Christ's pain, etc. I can't say I blame them - the last time I went to church, I felt as though I might as well have attended a university lecture. There was no emotional (or, as some would call it, spiritual) content. I'm a hopeless atheist but I can still appreciate a rousing sermon or an evening of self-flagellation.

University lecture? Yecchh, how awful!

I think you're right that mainline denominations have been failing, and "crazier" stuff has been increasing. We've had this discussion before just recently, but I'm not sure the emotion explanation really does it. Why do people need more emotion in their religion today than in the past?

My guess is that it has to do with the (perceived) threat of science & technology, and modernism more generally. We're going through pretty rapid change, in science, and medicine, and information, and everything it seems. People want an anchor or they may even want to resist that change. A fundamentalist/literalist religion, heavy on the moralism, may provide that.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by BRussell:
University lecture? Yecchh, how awful!

I think you're right that mainline denominations have been failing, and "crazier" stuff has been increasing. We've had this discussion before just recently, but I'm not sure the emotion explanation really does it. Why do people need more emotion in their religion today than in the past?

My guess is that it has to do with the (perceived) threat of science & technology, and modernism more generally. We're going through pretty rapid change, in science, and medicine, and information, and everything it seems. People want an anchor or they may even want to resist that change. A fundamentalist/literalist religion, heavy on the moralism, may provide that.

I'm sure those things play a part as well, but I would throw your question back at you: Why would they be any more fearful now than in the past, when as many or more threats loomed? My sense is that you're correct, but that in addition to seeking certitude, people want to be more engaged, and the prevailing worshipping styles of the past half-century just haven't been very engaging. Emotional might be too strong a word, but it seems to me that it's an element. More people seem want to have a personal relationship with Jesus. In all my years as a Presbyterian, I never heard anyone talk about having a personal relationship with Jesus.

Oh well, now this has me thinking about the South Park episode where Cartman becomes a Christian rock star. "Jeeeeeeesus, I want you insiiiiiide me . . . "

[Big Mac]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I'm certain.


"Common sense overflows in Noah's rules for living"

by Rabbi Stephen Pearce

Genesis 6:9-1132
Isaiah 54:1-55:5

"Readers often dismiss the Bible's flood story as a fairy tale. Whether or not the flood account is true and can or cannot be supported by archaeological evidence is inconsequential. What is important is the message this allegory provides for how individuals ought to live their lives.

Rabbi Pearce is a reform rabbi. I asked about orthodox sources, in response to your claim about orthodox rabbis. . . Not trying to be argumentative, mind you.

[gadster]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
<snipetty> ... rational justification ... <snipetty> ... the story itself is quite literally impossible for a host of obvious reasons. ... <snipetty> ... a total reliance on faith ... <snip> ... overwhelming contrary evidence

So how is God not allegorical?

[Zimphire]

HAH I am going to prove the supernatural doesn't exist by posting a bunch of secular laws that the supernatural isn't even bound by!

That will show em.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
I'll take that as a concession. Look: don't say I refuse to look at evidence when I provided some in the last few posts -- provided it where you sold your soul to wishful speculation. Don't call me a Christianophobe when I have plenty of friends who are Christian (some scientists, no less, that realize you can still be Christian and accept evolution).

I accept evolution. There's a heap of evidence for it. Where we disagree is whether or not there is a limit to evolution and where evidence is significantly lacking. I posted quotes from numerous scientists in various fields and what they say is happening with the theory of evolution, that scientists (though not as dogmatically as scientific journals and popular media) are embracing "evidence" they would embrace in no other field.

I look forward to an attempt to argue against what I wrote,

That's just it Stradlater, you didn't look forward to anything other than slinging 8 more questions at me. Instead of reading my posts you were busily formulating new questions to ask. When I didn't answer to your liking you'd reword them and try again. It got old, plain and simple. Even one who shares your view asked what the heck it was you were calling for answers on.

but it became more and more obvious, each page, that in your argument you would pick and choose which points you'd actually respond to (ignoring others, which you could not argue against)

No, ignoring ones that wreaked of mere adversarial positions and reworded questions to try and pin me to a corner. When you failed, you ignored what I had said and the numerous posts I offered from those more knowledgeable than you and I-you failed to address them. When I asked you if you believed all we know to exist happened by purely natural phenomena you started talking about aliens. You were trying to get me to say that I believed only the God of the Bible was involved while failing to address my points and while failing to realize that you were basically willing to embrace any concept so long as it didn't match Biblical account. You, likewise had proven too closed minded to even address it. I.D. does not name a god, that is not the purpose of it. There are sound scientific methods used for determining deliberation from archeology, through crime investigation, and forensics. You ignored that I.D. is falsifiable and as such is a viable theory. Because you have nothing to offer in rebuttal doesn't mean other theories are more or less plausible than the one you seek every opportunity to disseminate like an old time gospel hour evangelist.

and then, the answers became vaguer and vaguer, usually not direct rebuttals.

Direct rebuttals weren't working for you. They didn't help your case. Your questions got more and more vague as noted by others in that thread. Not to mention the fact that whenever I engage these debates I find evolutionists crawling out of the woodwork to argue with me. It starts with one, then adds in another like gadster or some other such Christianophobe, trying to tell me using no evidence whatsoever that all we know to exist is the result of purely natural phenomena. When I site statistical probabilities of such a notion I get the same ad hominem attacks against me. I'm sorry if I get tired debating people with closed minds.

I looked at your evidence, but you did not look at mine. Don't twist the reason why you stopped arguing.

I don't have to twist anything Stradlater. You have your gods, I have mine.

If you concede, then you concede.

This post should establish firmly that I do not concede to you. I have merely deemed something a waste of time based on your closed-mindedness and failure to address my points. At some point, you have to believe in something for which there is no evidence. This is faith. At some point, the debate becomes fruitless giving creedence to UFO theories and little green men. This is pretty much when I bailed out. You think by asking questions, you can remain on the offensive w/o having to address my points. Your questions were convoluted, poorly worded, and lacked honesty. You had proven time and again, unwilling to establish any grounds for the debate.

Do you admit defeat?

It's likely neither one of us would. If you're looking to defeat someone, perhaps you should go back to playing Dungeons and Dragons.

"Cursed is the man who leads the blind astray on the road." Deuteronomy 27:18

*fixed.
Since you're quoting from books you don't believe are true, why not quote from my personal apochrypha;
Ignorant is the man who sees a paved road and says; "oh how wonderful that the winds, rain water, dust, and thistles should naturally form this road for us to walk upon." Ebuddy 1:1

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Big Mac:
Rabbi Pearce is a reform rabbi. I asked about orthodox sources, in response to your claim about orthodox rabbis. . . Not trying to be argumentative, mind you.

There are very few Orthodox Rabbi opinions online, let alone one regarding a relatively obscure subject as the Flood.

I recommend Rabbi A. Kaplan's views regarding the Flood in Vol.2 of his commentary of the Torah (unfortunately, it's not online). Another source is Rabbi Benjamin Cooper's book God is a verb. When I get home I'll transcribe a bit from his chapter on the Flood.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by gadster:
So how is God not allegorical?

In many ways, God is. But I don't see that as a problem.