# Good news everyone... They're building an Ark in Kentucky.



## pnome (Jan 3, 2011)

This is good news:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40805405/ns/us_news-life/


No, not the part where Kentucky taxpayers will be forking over $37 million for the project via tax incentives...

But we will finally be able to put the entire creationist argument to rest!   All we have to do is run one simple experiment.  Once it's built, we try to load two of every species on Earth into it, and if they don't fit.  Well... that answers that!

I can't wait!  I think technically we will have to try loading dinosaurs on it as well.  Since we don't have any, we can use skeletons from natural history museums.


----------



## Madman (Jan 3, 2011)

pnome said:


> This is good news:
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40805405/ns/us_news-life/
> 
> ...



How many animal "kinds" were alive at that time?
What were they?
Are you going to use adult dinos or very young ones?

Might want to think this out,  I'm sure God did.


----------



## pnome (Jan 3, 2011)

Madman said:


> How many animal "kinds" were alive at that time?



Surely you are not trying to suggest that other "kinds" of animals may have _evolved_ since then....


----------



## Madman (Jan 3, 2011)

pnome said:


> Surely you are not trying to suggest that other "kinds" of animals may have _evolved_ since then....



Nope.

How many were in existance in the day of Noah?


----------



## TTom (Jan 3, 2011)

Well if we use the assumption that no new species have been created since Noah's time we have only that some species have become extinct, so lets just use all the currently living species first.

My bet is that they won't fit. If we have any room left over I propose a scientific approach by which we add in species in roughly the order we think they reached extinction.


----------



## Madman (Jan 3, 2011)

TTom said:


> Well if we use the assumption that no new species have been created since Noah's time we have only that some species have become extinct, so lets just use all the currently living species first.
> 
> My bet is that they won't fit. If we have any room left over I propose a scientific approach by which we add in species in roughly the order we think they reached extinction.



Really!!!

Noah had Basset hounds on the Ark?


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 3, 2011)

Madman said:


> Really!!!
> 
> Noah had Basset hounds on the Ark?



Do you know what constitutes a species?


----------



## pnome (Jan 3, 2011)

Madman said:


> Really!!!
> 
> Noah had Basset hounds on the Ark?



Let's just make it: Any two animals that can interbreed and produce offspring.   That seems to be the only real criteria we need.  

One other thing to consider that I hadn't thought of at first was: do you think we need to include aquatic species?  They wouldn't need saving from a flood.   So, I'm inclined to say no.   Not including whales would be key.   I'm sure someone more versed than I in the relevant passages of the True Bible™ could clarify.


----------



## TTom (Jan 3, 2011)

Basset Hounds are not a species, they are a breed. (Canus Lupis is the species)

To be a species you have to be able to successfully breed and produce the same species as the parents. 

A wolf and a fox cannot breed and are thus a separate and distinct species. A Mule Deer and a Whitetail Deer and a Blacktail deer are three separate species.

Horses and Donkeys are separate species they breed but produce mules who are sterile and neither horses nor donkeys but something entirely different.

5,490 species of mammals are known. ( would need to separate out whales and dolphins that don't need land)
9,998 species of birds
9,084 species of reptiles
6,433 species of amphibians

(we skip the 10,000 + species of fish cause they don't need an ark although salinity changes involved in a world wide flood would kill many if not most of them.)

1,000,000 + species of insects,
102,248 species of spiders and scorpions

Species would mean that the offspring must be the same species as the parents and a mixture of species produces a hybrid which may or may not be sterile.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 3, 2011)

TTom said:


> Basset Hounds are not a species, they are a breed. (Canus Lupis is the species)
> 
> To be a species you have to be able to successfully breed and produce the same species as the parents.
> 
> ...



Was it 39 days to assemble all the critters or 40?


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 3, 2011)

If it rained for 40 days and forty nights would it be enough water to flood the whole world?  Maybe the miracle here was that God knew the sewers would back up.  Can any of these animals swim? What is a cubit? Is there such a thing as gopher wood?

It is called a miracle for a reason, because it cannot be explained.


----------



## TTom (Jan 3, 2011)

Swim for 40 day and nights? 
Well name the ones you believe can swim that long without resting on land and we could consider eliminating them from the list.

A cubit is a measured length and at the time of Noah it was roughly 18 inches. Roughly because it was generally a body length measurement. However Egyptian cubit rulers have been dug up from the second dynasty pre Moses. 

Gopher wood is a misdirection question designed only to side track the issue since the type of wood use would not change the dimensions of an Ark in a significant way.So make the Ark f Pine or Oak or Maple the dimensions were specified and don't change based on the type of wood used. But nice try.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jan 3, 2011)

TTom said:


> Swim for 40 day and nights?
> Well name the ones you believe can swim that long without resting on land and we could consider eliminating them from the list.
> 
> A cubit is a measured length and at the time of Noah it was roughly 18 inches. Roughly because it was generally a body length measurement. However Egyptian cubit rulers have been dug up from the second dynasty pre Moses.
> ...



You are trying to explain it.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 3, 2011)

Ted,

The miracle is that grown adults believe it really happened.


----------



## TTom (Jan 3, 2011)

On further review a lunar year passed with Noah on the Ark so nope not willing to count seals or other swimmers who also walk/ rest upon the land.


----------



## TTom (Jan 3, 2011)

I'm proving it to be a myth not a miracle.

The measurements if they mean nothing and offer no proof why were they included? If they are true measurements and two of every animal that walks and flies are to be rounded up and kept there for a year then they should all fit.

Otherwise it s simply denial of the conflict and dismissing it as a miracle. A dishonest dodge of a man cornered by the facts not fitting together.

It is a myth a work of fiction.


----------



## Crubear (Jan 3, 2011)

Factor in it was one pair of unclean animals and seven pairs of each clean animal. (Genesis 7:2).

Caveat, it doesn't say adults


----------



## pnome (Jan 4, 2011)

Crubear said:


> Factor in it was one pair of unclean animals and seven pairs of each clean animal. (Genesis 7:2).



I'm showing my biblical ignorance here... 

Which animals were considered "clean"?


----------



## dawg2 (Jan 4, 2011)

pnome said:


> I'm showing my biblical ignorance here...
> 
> Which animals were considered "clean"?



Cloven hoof AND that ruminate (chew their cud)

I wonder how many atheists they put on the ark


----------



## TTom (Jan 4, 2011)

hmmm considering that this was pre Leviticus if you want to stretch credibility you might say Noah was given a preview list of "clean" animals when he was given the assignment. But the clean and unclean animals were not clearly defined biblicaly until Moses and Leviticus. 

I'd be willing to stipulate to the Levitical definitions being previewed for Noah, just in the interest of not being a legalist in this area.

Although to be fair that just really cut the potential for room for all to fit significantly.

So we now have to fit 7 pairs of every species of Deer and Elk and Moose and Antelope and Sheep and Goats and Ox and Cattle and Buffalo... It's quite a long list.


----------



## Madman (Jan 4, 2011)

TTom said:


> Basset Hounds are not a species, they are a breed. (Canus Lupis is the species)
> 
> To be a species you have to be able to successfully breed and produce the same species as the parents.
> 
> ...



Thank you for the science lesson.  I simply asked if basset hounds were on the ark.  I Like ‘em!!!

You have yet to answer the number of species in existence in the day of Noah.  You might as well say  “I don’t have a clue”, because you don’t.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 4, 2011)

dawg2 said:


> Cloven hoof AND that ruminate (chew their cud)
> 
> I wonder how many atheists they put on the ark



Every single creature except for the ones who built it. 

There are so many problems with this story it isn't even funny.


----------



## crbrumbelow (Jan 4, 2011)

Look up the videos.  The Ark is on Mount Ararrat.


----------



## pnome (Jan 4, 2011)

crbrumbelow said:


> Look up the videos.  The Ark is on Mount Ararrat.



That may be, but it's beside the point.  We're just wondering if we can fit all the required animals in there or not.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Ted,
> 
> The miracle is that grown adults believe it really happened.



I see it not as a miracle but quite a tragedy.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 4, 2011)

Madman said:


> Thank you for the science lesson.  I simply asked if basset hounds were on the ark.  I Like ‘em!!!
> 
> You have yet to answer the number of species in existence in the day of Noah.  You might as well say  “I don’t have a clue”, because you don’t.



If the creationists are right, then it can't be any less than the current number of species in existence. And because we know of many extinct species, if we only went with the current number we would have to assume that all extinct species went extinct in the short time frame between Adam and Noah. Which begs the question, why would god care about preserving any species on the ark if he let 99% of all species that ever lived on this planet go extinct prior to that?

What a tangled web we weave...


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> If the creationists are right, then it can't be any less than the current number of species in existence. And because we know of many extinct species, if we only went with the current number we would have to assume that all extinct species went extinct in the short time frame between Adam and Noah. *Which begs the question, why would god care about preserving any species on the ark if he let 99% of all species that ever lived on this planet go extinct prior to that?*What a tangled web we weave...



Dont know atlashunter, maybe He should have asked you in all your infinite wisdom.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 4, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Dont know atlashunter, maybe He should have asked you in all your infinite wisdom.



Maybe the guys that wrote the Bible should have done some research before they made up such ridiculous stories.


----------



## TTom (Jan 4, 2011)

Madman, you asked a question you already knew the answer to hoping to set a trap, when that failed you felt compelled to fabricate the idea that you were simply asking an innocent question. 

You are welcome for the science lesson.

I stipulated to the fact that I didn't know the number of species alive at the time back in my post that you first replied to. Perhaps it is too much memory to ask for that you read comprehend and remember such things, so here is the quotation.

TTom Said: "Well if we use the assumption that no new species have been created since Noah's time we have only that some species have become extinct, so lets just use all the currently living species first."

It is an inferred answer, saying since we can't know that number without a ton of research, lets use some deductive reasoning. We do know that IF IF IF the total number of species were created at once at the creation and no new species evolved then the number of species has only declined since Noah.

So I answered your question, you simply didn't like the answer.


Thus the question remains could the one million one hundred thirty three thousand two hundred fifty three species on earth today fit and live on an ark of the specified dimensions for over a year?

My contention is they could not fit, and if the lower number of species alive today would not fit, logic says the larger number of species alive at the time of Noah would not have fit either.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 4, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> If it rained for 40 days and forty nights would it be enough water to flood the whole world?  Maybe the miracle here was that God knew the sewers would back up.  Can any of these animals swim? What is a cubit? Is there such a thing as gopher wood?
> 
> It is called a miracle for a reason, because it cannot be explained.



"There's a sucker born every minute."
                     -- P.T. Barnum


----------



## Madman (Jan 4, 2011)

TTom said:


> You are welcome for the science lesson.
> 
> I stipulated to the fact that I didn't know the number of species alive at the time back in my post that you first replied to. Perhaps it is too much memory to ask for that you read comprehend and remember such things, so here is the quotation.
> 
> TTom Said: "Well if we use the assumption that no new species have been created since Noah's time we have only that some species have become extinct, so lets just use all the currently living species first."So I answered your question, you simply didn't like the answer.



Rude is not very becoming.

My contension is that you do not know and are therefore making some assumptions. If my "limited memory" serves me I asked for a number.  The best you could provide is a WAG.  



Maybe you should read John Woodmorappe's book Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, perhaps there would be something of interest to you, seeing how you are such a “science groupie”.

One of the notes he makes is that the vast numbers of species we see today did not exist in Noah’s day.  All that would have been needed were the parent “kinds” of these species were needed to repopulate the earth.

Be careful.  Creationist believe God created hundreds or thousands of “kinds” but evolutionists believe we all came from a “sponge” that is only one “kind” that could have been kept safe in bottle for the duration of the flood.

Believe it or don’t, it makes no difference to me.  All I was asked to defend is a big boat full of animals.  Let’s not get off track by making the ridiculous assertion that something “came from nothing”.


----------



## Madman (Jan 4, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> I see it not as a miracle but quite a tragedy.



I like mtnwoman's signature:

You tell children a frog turning into a prince is a fairy tale.You tell adults a frog turning into a prince is science.


----------



## TTom (Jan 4, 2011)

No you are right rude was not becoming in the condescension in a false front question about basset hounds in your post, nor in the false font thanking me for the science lesson. Glad we can agree on something. 

You set the tone, I followed along. 

So the question comes to mind in a blinding flash of the obvious 

"One of the notes he makes is that the vast numbers of species we see today did not exist in Noah’s day. All that would have been needed were the parent “kinds” of these species were needed to repopulate the earth."

To change from one (parent kind) species of animal to another species of animal, isn't that the exact thing evolution says happens?


----------



## Madman (Jan 4, 2011)

TTom said:


> To change from one (parent kind) species of animal to another species of animal, isn't that the exact thing evolution says happens?



Nope.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 4, 2011)

Madman said:


> Nope.


----------



## Madman (Jan 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


>



Macro or micro?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 4, 2011)

Madman said:


> I like mtnwoman's signature:
> 
> You tell children a frog turning into a prince is a fairy tale.You tell adults a frog turning into a prince is science.



This simplistic notion is akin to the idea that atoms are like balls held together by sticks.  Perhaps that's as sophisticated a model for an atom that someone might need to go about their daily business.  Some people don't want to even try to understand how things work.  "If the good book says so, then I believe it" is good enough for many.  Perhaps they are incapable of processing complicated ideas.  I suppose that may not be entirely their own fault.  

Fare thee well with your talking donkeys.


----------



## TTom (Jan 4, 2011)

So a change from one species/ kind of animal to another is called what in your world madman? because in everyone elses that's evolution.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 5, 2011)

Evolution is still a theory no matter how much you people beat us over the head with a 3rd grade science book....  You can't prove it any more than we can prove creation to you.  Hey besides it could be a combo platter of both.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 5, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> This simplistic notion is akin to the idea that atoms are like balls held together by sticks.  Perhaps that's as sophisticated a model for an atom that someone might need to go about their daily business.  Some people don't want to even try to understand how things work.  "If the good book says so, then I believe it" is good enough for many.  Perhaps they are incapable of processing complicated ideas.  I suppose that may not be entirely their own fault.
> 
> Fare thee well with your talking donkeys.



What do popsicle sticks and atoms have to do with evolution? I don't have a problem with atoms.

I have a problem with people telling their daughters when they go to see snow white that turning a toad into a prince isn't real it's just a fairy tale, but when they get in school, they are taught that frogs, monkeys, whatever finally turned into people.  I guess some monkeys don't get that luxury. Wonder what the qualifications would've had to be, since we still have monkeys. Part of each species evolved and the other part got left behind....ok. What did the monkey evolve from? or the toad, or the fish? Everything came from one lonely little ol' cell...alrighty then.


----------



## pnome (Jan 5, 2011)

mtnwoman said:


> Evolution is still a theory no matter how much you people beat us over the head with a 3rd grade science book....  You can't prove it any more than we can prove creation to you.  Hey besides it could be a combo platter of both.



The scientific definition of the word "theory" is different from the colloquial sense of the word. Colloquially, "theory" can mean a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts or make testable predictions.  (blatant copy and paste)

Tell me how we can test the book of Genesis and we'll get started.


----------



## TTom (Jan 5, 2011)

mtnwoman, the thing is we (those of us on the lets test if they all fit side) have been willing to stipulate for the purposes of this experiment that evolution is not true. Note this is a stipulation for the purpose of this specific time and argument. it is Madman who put forth the idea that parent animals changed species to become other kinds of animals in this discussion. So it was a nice deflection job on his part. He succeeded in changing the direction of the thread so that the original question gets swept aside and you focus on the truth or falsehood of evolution instead.

It's a common tactic when one realizes that their position is not defensible to shift the topic. 

Logic requires some levels of assumptions they are stipulated to as "if" statements at the beginning of a proposition.

If all species on earth were created at one time and none have ever evolved is a presumption stipulated to.

If no species have evolved from other parent species and we know that some species have become extinct between the time of Noah and today, then the total number of species on the Ark would have to be greater than the total number of species alive today. 

The assumption that the number of species alive at Noah's time was less than those alive today requires that evolution be a correct theory to work. Because in order for one species to change into a new and different species within that Genus that is by definition evolution.

I'm not debating evolution there I am destroying the theory put forth that the number of animal species alive at Noah's time was less than those alive today, but using the presumed falsehood of evolution that was stipulated to earlier to do that.


----------



## dawg2 (Jan 5, 2011)

This is the problem with regarding every story in the Bible "literally."

In Noah's "world" everything was flooded and everything was killed by that flood.

It is possible for something to be truthful but not necessarily factual.


----------



## TTom (Jan 5, 2011)

Oh and Ambush80 it rained 40 days and nights the building of the Ark and collection of the animals took place over about 98 years if you do the background study and make some basic assumptions. So other than those who existed on continents not connected to Noah's Arabia/ Asia minor who can't swim 10 thousand miles the animals all had time to get to Noah.

Dawg you just disarmed my argument with one or two easy statements.
A non literal reading of the story and a regional flood that wipes out the "known to Noah world".

No fair being reasonable.


----------



## Madman (Jan 5, 2011)

TTom said:


> it is Madman who put forth the idea that parent animals changed species to become other kinds of animals in this discussion.



You sure do assume a lot.  I  would suggest you learn to ask questions.



> It's a common tactic when one realizes that their position is not defensible to shift the topic.



I made no mention of evolution you did.  I felt that would be off topic.  If you want to "beat that dead horse" start another thread.

It appears you are the one who made the "can't defend my numbers so I will shift the topic" move.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 5, 2011)

dawg2 said:


> This is the problem with regarding every story in the Bible "literally."
> 
> In Noah's "world" everything was flooded and everything was killed by that flood.
> 
> It is possible for something to be truthful but not necessarily factual.




The writers of the Bible would have done well to footnote such stories.  Perhaps someone today should use their discernment powers and go through the Bible and asterisk the parts that should not be taken literally.


----------



## TTom (Jan 5, 2011)

Madman I asked the question you failed to address it 

your statement about

"One of the notes he makes is that the vast numbers of species we see today did not exist in Noah’s day. All that would have been needed were the parent “kinds” of these species were needed to repopulate the earth."

Fits the definition of evolution that the entire scientific world uses.

Parent kinds = evolution.

So yes YOU brought it up by trying to quote from Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study.

Using the non scientific and non specific term "kinds" shows your intent to deflect the discussion. (species is the scientific term because it is definable) So if you insist on using "kinds and "parent kinds" then you have to define them.

So you are obliged to define what constitutes a Kind and a Parent Kind.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 5, 2011)

dawg2 said:


> This is the problem with regarding every story in the Bible "literally."
> 
> In Noah's "world" everything was flooded and everything was killed by that flood.
> 
> It is possible for something to be truthful but not necessarily factual.



If it was a regional flood then why the need for an ark and would it have achieved the objective in Genesis 6:7?

And the Lord said,
    I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth;
    both man,
    and beast,
    and the creeping thing,
    and the fowls of the air;
    for it repenteth me that I have made them.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 5, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> The writers of the Bible would have done well to footnote such stories.  Perhaps someone today should use their discernment powers and go through the Bible and asterisk the parts that should not be taken literally.



Ambush, is that you in you avatar? Cause it seems like it might be.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 5, 2011)

TTom said:


> Oh and Ambush80 it rained 40 days and nights the building of the Ark and collection of the animals took place over about 98 years if you do the background study and make some basic assumptions. So other than those who existed on continents not connected to Noah's Arabia/ Asia minor who can't swim 10 thousand miles the animals all had time to get to Noah.
> 
> Dawg you just disarmed my argument with one or two easy statements.
> A non literal reading of the story and a regional flood that wipes out the "known to Noah world".
> ...



Wow. 98 years.  I suppose someone could gather them all up in 98 years.  If they had some cargo planes or tanker ships. I digress.

So I guess you would start with things like Galapagos tortoises and Snapping turtles, which could possibly live the 98 years it would take to get the rest of the critters.  Or I guess you could get some, maintain them and breed them till you were ready to sail.  Some of those critters have pretty specific dietary requirements.  I guess you would have to find a way to cultivate those specific foods for them to eat, which might be tricky since some of them wouldn't grow in a Middle Eastern climate.  

Perhaps they were supplied by God with some sort of "Manna-Chow" that all the creatures could digest.  How many people were taking care of all these critters over the 98 years? Just Noah and his family, right?  

Praise Jesus!  That certainly was a miracle!  I'm gonna go tell my dog the story of Noah's ark now.  Lord willing she sees the light as well.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 5, 2011)

I know I have posted something like this before, but everyone who is having trouble with all the animals on the ark. Take a second and pretend God of the Bible is real, do you think that He could put some animals on a boat? When one comes from a perspective that God is not real but yet tries to understand Gods miracles by humanizing Him, its never going to get anywhere.

 When one says "I dont belive in God" what is that person actually saying that they dont believe in?


----------



## Madman (Jan 5, 2011)

TTom said:


> Madman I asked the question ...



The only question I see is non-sequitur, it therefore deserves no answer.

By the simple reading of the thread it is evident you attempted to derail the discussion by changing the topic to evolution.

I repeat:  If you want to discuss that start another thread.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 5, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I know I have posted something like this before, but everyone who is having trouble with all the animals on the ark. Take a second and pretend God of the Bible is real, do you think that He could put some animals on a boat? When one comes from a perspective that God is not real but yet tries to understand Gods miracles by humanizing Him, its never going to get anywhere.
> 
> When one says "I dont belive in God" what is that person actually saying that they dont believe in?



Someone can believe in God, even the God of the Bible and still not believe that the ark story actually happened.

I think that everyone will concede that a God could put all the animals of the Earth on a boat.  He could also make someone "fall" up if they jumped off a church steeple.  Volunteers?  C'mon...where's your faith?


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 5, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Someone can believe in God, even the God of the Bible and still not believe that the ark story actually happened.


No they cant, If you believe in God of the Bible, then why would someone not believe He can do anything?



> I think that everyone will concede that a God could put all the animals of the Earth on a boat.


ok then, end of thread.






> He could also make someone "fall" up if they jumped off a church steeple.  Volunteers?  C'mon...where's your faith?


Faith, is not having to jump off that building.


----------



## TTom (Jan 5, 2011)

I get your argument Ambush I simply was not trying to address arguments beyond could they all fit.

You asked about the 40 days though and I felt since nobody else had answered you and I had the answer at hand...

Part of the trouble with debating such things is there is an endless supply of miracles available by which to elude the need to follow logic.

Whenever the facts they supply and logic and science don't fit the miracle tool is brought out to adjust the story.


----------



## TTom (Jan 5, 2011)

Your source that you provided stated in your post

Parent kinds brought forth new species.

"One of the notes he makes is that the vast numbers of species we see today did not exist in Noah’s day. All that would have been needed were the parent “kinds” of these species were needed to repopulate the earth."

Up until that time I had stipulated for the purpose of this debate that evolution didn't happen. which is available in post #5, #29 (quoting my #5) 


The first time where the idea that evolution might have occured is put forth in that post. All other references were made stipulating or agreeing to the stipulation that evolution was going to be considered not to have happened. I only pointed out that your source statement fit the definition of evolution that had been agreed not to have happened.

Now you have accused me of being the first to bring it forth prove it with a better case than the one I have just provided or retract the false accusation.

Your post 31 is in fact the first post to bring forth the idea that new species came from some other kind of animal.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 5, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> No they cant, If you believe in God of the Bible, then why would someone not believe He can do anything?



The God of the Bible or any God for that matter could conceivably cause such a fantastic event to occur.  Doesn't mean it happened.

I know many people who call themselves Christian that don't take the story literally.  (See post #43)




stringmusic said:


> ok then, end of thread.



Maybe for you, since you don't require that things make sense.



stringmusic said:


> Faith, is not having to jump off that building.



Oh, what a testament it would be.  It would certainly get my attention.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 5, 2011)

TTom said:


> I get your argument Ambush I simply was not trying to address arguments beyond could they all fit.
> 
> You asked about the 40 days though and I felt since nobody else had answered you and I had the answer at hand...
> 
> ...



Thanks for your answer!   

The miracle tool is indeed a full stop impasse.  How do you argue against a miracle?  

How does one look in the mirror and say with a straight face "I believe that's exactly how it happened"?  It's just weird.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 5, 2011)

mtnwoman said:


> What do popsicle sticks and atoms have to do with evolution? I don't have a problem with atoms.
> 
> I have a problem with people telling their daughters when they go to see snow white that turning a toad into a prince isn't real it's just a fairy tale, but when they get in school, they are taught that frogs, monkeys, whatever finally turned into people.  I guess some monkeys don't get that luxury. Wonder what the qualifications would've had to be, since we still have monkeys. Part of each species evolved and the other part got left behind....ok. What did the monkey evolve from? or the toad, or the fish? Everything came from one lonely little ol' cell...alrighty then.



Do you really want to know or are these rhetorical questions?  I can PM you source material and discuss it with you to the best of my abilities if you like.


----------



## pnome (Jan 5, 2011)

It's true we can't prove a negative.  I.E. We can't prove Noah didn't fit them all in.  

We can only prove that we can't fit them all in.

Still, I hope that some of the visitors to this Ark, once it's constructed, take a good look around and think to themselves, "This is big!  But it's not _that_ big."


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 5, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I know I have posted something like this before, but everyone who is having trouble with all the animals on the ark. Take a second and pretend God of the Bible is real, do you think that He could put some animals on a boat? When one comes from a perspective that God is not real but yet tries to understand Gods miracles by humanizing Him, its never going to get anywhere.
> 
> When one says "I dont belive in God" what is that person actually saying that they dont believe in?



The story itself humanizes God. He is regretful of his creation. That would make sense if he were human. We don't know the future and we aren't all powerful so things don't always go as planned. But that can't be true of an all knowing all powerful god. He would have known everything that was going to happen to the very last detail, including his regret, before and during creation, and could have changed things at that point if he wanted to so that he wouldn't have had any regrets. If he knows all and has the power to change all then there can be no surprises and everything must be exactly as he intended it because he chose not to change it. But if all things go exactly as planned then regret makes no sense. Regret is very much a human emotion.

Also notice that god is acting as if he is constrained by nature. An all powerful god would not need to have a flood to kill what he wanted dead, nor would he need a boat to preserve what he didn't want dead, or a man to build the boat for him. He sure isn't acting as if he is all powerful in this story.

This story would have made more sense to an ancient man that didn't comprehend the size of the earth, the vast diversity of life on this planet, or the geographical distribution of animals. It would have been a believable explanation for a massive flood. But now we know enough to know that getting the animals spread across the globe required a miracle and fitting them all on the ark required a miracle. And if you're going to assume those miracles then why the need to build a large boat or any boat at all for that matter?

I also question the premise of the story. Man is so evil that every man, woman, and child on the planet has to be killed and presumably sent to that bad place with the devil (why is the "h" word filtered???), except for one family. Oh and nearly every other creature on earth that is incapable of good or evil must also be killed because of evil men. And God knew this is how it would all play out from the very beginning. Really?

And in the end what would this have achieved? Are men somehow now less evil to God because they descended from Noah? Did it change the nature of humankind?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 5, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Ambush, is that you in you avatar? Cause it seems like it might be.



Yeah.  I'm the blonde.  Are you the brunette?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 5, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> The story itself humanizes God. He is regretful of his creation. That would make sense if he were human. We don't know the future and we aren't all powerful so things don't always go as planned. But that can't be true of an all knowing all powerful god. He would have known everything that was going to happen to the very last detail, including his regret, before and during creation, and could have changed things at that point if he wanted to so that he wouldn't have had any regrets. If he knows all and has the power to change all then there can be no surprises and everything must be exactly as he intended it because he chose not to change it. But if all things go exactly as planned then regret makes no sense. Regret is very much a human emotion.
> 
> Also notice that god is acting as if he is constrained by nature. An all powerful god would not need to have a flood to kill what he wanted dead, nor would he need a boat to preserve what he didn't want dead, or a man to build the boat for him. He sure isn't acting as if he is all powerful in this story.
> 
> ...



Your post is a bit of a derail, but I do so love watching people try to reconcile omniscience, omnipotence and free will (they brought it upon themselves and the like).  It never gets old.  

(psst...10 bucks says they can be reconciled with a miracle.)


----------



## TTom (Jan 5, 2011)

Atlashunter yep the question of why the flood and why the Ark is compelling.

A God who has the power to create the universe in 7 days seeing the need to start over chooses a 100 year plan to undo half his work and start over?

Unless they needed a story to explain the fossils of fish found in the mountains at elevations far above any non miracle explanation they had available.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 5, 2011)

Well done, all.  I believe this debunking exercise has been a success.

The more important question to me is:  What are the psychological implications of someone believing wholeheartedly that such a fantastic tale actually took place and how would they manifest themselves in one's daily life?

I think this would cut to the heart of why some people (like myself) find belief in such things to be unpalatable.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 5, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> The God of the Bible or any God for that matter could conceivably cause such a fantastic event to occur.  Doesn't mean it happened.


Doesn't mean it didnt happen, I guess thats all I have left to say.



> I know many people who call themselves Christian that don't take the story literally.  (See post #43)


I can call myself a fish, doesn't mean I'm a fish.






> Maybe for you, since you don't require that things make sense.


Yes I know, athiesm makes total sense.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 5, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> The story itself humanizes God. He is regretful of his creation. That would make sense if he were human. We don't know the future and we aren't all powerful so things don't always go as planned. But that can't be true of an all knowing all powerful god. He would have known everything that was going to happen to the very last detail, including his regret, before and during creation, and could have changed things at that point if he wanted to so that he wouldn't have had any regrets. If he knows all and has the power to change all then there can be no surprises and everything must be exactly as he intended it because he chose not to change it. But if all things go exactly as planned then regret makes no sense. Regret is very much a human emotion.
> 
> Also notice that god is acting as if he is constrained by nature. An all powerful god would not need to have a flood to kill what he wanted dead, nor would he need a boat to preserve what he didn't want dead, or a man to build the boat for him. He sure isn't acting as if he is all powerful in this story.
> 
> ...



I have asked myself some of these same questions, I dont know the answers to them yet. I just choose not to let every unanswered question that I have derail my faith.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 5, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Yeah.  I'm the blonde.  Are you the brunette?



YES I AM.....I thought we had meet before.


----------



## pnome (Jan 5, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I have asked myself some of these same questions, I dont know the answers to them yet. I just choose not to let every unanswered question that I have derail my faith.



Interesting.

Then why MUST you have answers to these questions?

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=583804

It seems that you let unanswered questions be the basis for your faith.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 5, 2011)

> The more important question to me is:  What are the psychological implications of someone* believing wholeheartedly that such a fantastic tale actually took place* and how would they manifest themselves in one's daily life?


kinda like the big bang


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 5, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I have asked myself some of these same questions, I dont know the answers to them yet. I just choose not to let every unanswered question that I have derail my faith.



Maybe you can't  bring yourself to accept the answer that makes the most sense, that it's a man made myth. I've been there so I know how difficult it is.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 5, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> kinda like the big bang



I can think of at least two very prominent christian apologists (one catholic, one evangelical) who readily admit that the big bang happened. You should write them and let them know they are conceding too much ground.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 5, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Maybe you can't  bring yourself to accept the answer that makes the most sense, that it's a man made myth. I've been there so I know how difficult it is.



What did the prophets of the Bible have to gain from making up a myth?


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 5, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> What did the prophets of the Bible have to gain from making up a myth?



What makes the prophets different from any other man or group of men that have created myths?


----------



## TTom (Jan 5, 2011)

String the answer is simple, as mentioned they had an explanation for the fish fossils found on mountains before people understood how mountain ranges were formed.

prophets plural???? only one Prophet Moses wrote down the story of Noah before that it was only a campfire story in an oral tradition.

(crediting Moses with writing down Genesis where the story of Noah is found.) 

What other prophet are you attributing the story to in addition to Moses?


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 5, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> What makes the prophets different from any other man or group of men that have created myths?



You answer my question and I'll answer yours.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 5, 2011)

TTom said:


> String the answer is simple, as mentioned they had an explanation for the fish fossils found on mountains before people understood how mountain ranges were formed.
> 
> prophets plural???? only one Prophet Moses wrote down the story of Noah before that it was only a campfire story in an oral tradition.
> 
> ...


None, I was speaking of the prophets of Bible in general when I ask atlashunter the question. Maybe a little of topic.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 5, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> kinda like the big bang




I have witnessed for myself that things described by a "Big Bang" theory (chemical reactions, magnetism, gravity) have more to do with how things work than a God blowing snot into the dirt and people popping up. 

It's just too fantastic for me to accept as a reasonable possibility.  Same with an ark.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 5, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> You answer my question and I'll answer yours.



I already have. All you need to know is that myths were widespread in the ancient world. The reasons why people created them are many.


----------



## TTom (Jan 5, 2011)

To illustrate my point a short story.

Caleb: Hey Grandpa, how did those fish bones get trapped in the rocks way up here at the top of Mt Toldyaso

Grandpa: I don't know Caleb lets ask the Priests

Priest: Well Caleb once upon a time there was a great flood that covered the entire earth even these very high mountains.

Caleb: and Grandpa together: WOWWWWW Really So how did all the animals survive?

Priest: Well God told Noah to build this BIG Boat........


----------



## dawg2 (Jan 5, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> I have witnessed for myself that things described by a "Big Bang" theory (chemical reactions, magnetism, gravity) have more to do with how things work than a God blowing snot into the dirt and people popping up.
> 
> It's just too fantastic for me to accept as a reasonable possibility.  Same with an ark.



Genesis is metaphorical.  Not to be taken entirely "literally."


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 5, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Doesn't mean it didnt happen, I guess thats all I have left to say.



Is it likely to have happened?  Have you any evidence, even anecdotal, an experience in your lifetime that would indicate to you that something like that could actually happen?




stringmusic said:


> I can call myself a fish, doesn't mean I'm a fish.
> 
> Yes I know, athiesm makes total sense.



It often makes more sense than the alternative.  I'm not an atheist, by the way (getting closer every day, though).


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 5, 2011)

dawg2 said:


> Genesis is metaphorical.  Not to be taken entirely "literally."



I should hope so.  How do you, if you don't mind me asking, make the distinction between the things in the Bible that should be taken literally and those that should be considered metaphor.  PM me an answer if you prefer.


----------



## pnome (Jan 5, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> I'm not an atheist, by the way (getting closer every day, though).


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 5, 2011)

pnome said:


>



Father?


----------



## VisionCasting (Jan 6, 2011)

pnome said:


> But we will finally be able to put the entire creationist argument to rest!   All we have to do is run one simple experiment.



Would disproving the Ark really settle creation v. evolution? That seems like poor scientific method to me.


----------



## VisionCasting (Jan 6, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> He could also make someone "fall" up if they jumped off a church steeple.  Volunteers?  C'mon...where's your faith?



Volunteers or nominations? My faith just may be strong enough to save others.    We should try that.


----------



## pnome (Jan 7, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> Would disproving the Ark really settle creation v. evolution? That seems like poor scientific method to me.



Yes, alas, we cannot "disprove" anything.  Certainly not Creationism.   

Creationism is unfalsifiable.  Which is why it should never be mixed with actual science.


----------



## lazybate (Jan 7, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Maybe the guys that wrote the Bible should have done some research before they made up such ridiculous stories.



:


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 7, 2011)

Still waiting for your answer stringmusic.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Still waiting for your answer stringmusic.



read the thread " can somebody answer"


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 7, 2011)

That's what I thought.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> That's what I thought.



would you like to copy and paste it for you? Thats the best answer I have, I have never been ask that question before, I would have to read and ponder a little on that one.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 7, 2011)

Well without a good answer to that question it isn't un reasonable to chalk the story up to myth.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Well without a good answer to that question it isn't un reasonable to chalk the story up to myth.



You could say that exact statement to just about anything.


----------



## VisionCasting (Jan 7, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Your post is a bit of a derail, but I do so love watching people try to reconcile omniscience, omnipotence and free will (they brought it upon themselves and the like).  It never gets old.
> 
> (psst...10 bucks says they can be reconciled with a miracle.)



Don't think mutual exclusion. That is limited thinking. God hasn't any issue reconciling free will v. the omnis.  

There ya go.  No miracle necessary. Now wheres my $10? Certainly you won't be a hypocrite and fail to pay up? I take PayPal.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 7, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> Don't think mutual exclusion. That is limited thinking. God hasn't any issue reconciling free will v. the omnis.
> 
> There ya go.  No miracle necessary. Now wheres my $10? Certainly you won't be a hypocrite and fail to pay up? I take PayPal.



I say he does.  Now you pay up.  This is a fun game.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 7, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> I say he does.  Now you pay up.  This is a fun game.


Remember



VisionCasting said:


> *Don't think mutual exclusion. That is limited thinking.*


  



 BTW, I didnt see VisionC throwing out any bets.


----------



## TTom (Jan 7, 2011)

Disproving the Ark story only proves that the Bible is not a realiabe source for a literal history of the earth. 

It doesn't prove evolution or disprove it, it does to an extent discredit the assertion that Creation as written in the bible is an accurate and complete history of how the earth was formed and how life on earth began.

If an Ark of the size the Bible describes in detail does not fit all the species currently on the face of the earth.

Then one of two things must be true:

One a lesser number of species were around at Noah's time and by some means the additional species have come about since that time. (evolution or an undocumented second round of magical animal species creation)

Or Two the Story of Noah and a world wide flood covering even Mount Everest is a myth.

Considering the number of things that must be explained away by another miraculous aspect being added to the story that are not documented in the bible, I am inclined to believe that the story is a myth.

If the story of Noah is a myth then the other stories of Genesis might also be myth.

This in no way disproves God.


----------



## pnome (Jan 7, 2011)

or the Epic of Gilgamesh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh#Parallels_to_Noah_and_the_Flood


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 7, 2011)

TTom said:


> Disproving the Ark story only proves that the Bible is not a realiabe source for a literal history of the earth.
> 
> It doesn't prove evolution or disprove it, it does to an extent discredit the assertion that Creation as written in the bible is an accurate and complete history of how the earth was formed and how life on earth began.
> 
> ...


----------



## TTom (Jan 7, 2011)

Thanks for proving my point.

Considering the number of things that must be explained away by another miraculous aspect being added to the story that is not documented in the bible, I am inclined to believe that the story is a myth.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 7, 2011)

TTom said:


> Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> Considering the number of things that must be explained away by another miraculous aspect being added to the story that is not documented in the bible, I am inclined to believe that the story is a myth.



Your point is only proved by bounding God to the laws of physics.


----------



## TTom (Jan 7, 2011)

I;'m not trying to bind God to anything. I am binding the bible to being an accurate and complete history or not.


YOU are trying to change my argument to one limiting God.
My argument is with the Bible not God.

as proven by the start and finish of the quoted post.

Start "Disproving the Ark story only proves that the Bible is not a realiabe source for a literal history of the earth."

Finish  "This in no way disproves God."


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 7, 2011)

TTom said:


> I;'m not trying to bind God to anything. I am binding the bible to being an accurate and complete history or not.
> 
> 
> YOU are trying to change my argument to one limiting God.
> ...


What are you doing to try to disprove the story.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 7, 2011)

String,

God appears to binding himself by the laws of physics because he wants the boat to be very large. Don't need a large boat if you're going to convert all the animals into shrinky dinks to make them fit. Come on string THINK. I know you want to defend the story but think through the implications of what you're making up before you offer it to us.


----------



## TTom (Jan 7, 2011)

You need only the rest of the sentence to answer that question.

I am taking the literalist approach that so many fundies try to force down our throats and turning it on it's head.

I am taking the Bible at face value and then subjecting it to tests to see that there are at least a dozen unspecified and undocumented miracles that would have to happen to make the Ark story true.

And thus showing that the Bible is either incomplete in it's explanation of history of the earth or inaccurate or both.


----------



## VisionCasting (Jan 7, 2011)

pnome said:


> or the Epic of Gilgamesh.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh#Parallels_to_Noah_and_the_Flood



All hail the god of Wiki. I know it's true because I've read it on the intrwebz.

The Epic of G wouldn't be the last, even it was the first, story to take it's theme from the early manuscripts that would make up the Bible.  Watch The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe. Does it then disprove God because it carries similar themes? Certainly not.


----------



## VisionCasting (Jan 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> God appears to binding himself by the laws of physics



I prefer 'restraining' to 'binding'. But yes, God works within the natural laws. He authored them, after all. When He doesn't, it's what is known as a miracle.


----------



## pnome (Jan 7, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> The Epic of G wouldn't be the last, even it was the first, story to take it's theme from the early manuscripts that would make up the Bible.



Other way around my friend. 

Epic of Gilgamesh is older than the Bible.


----------



## TTom (Jan 7, 2011)

Actually with a margin of error of  couple hundred years the flood stories from Gilgamesh and Noah are about the same time.

Gilgamesh is dated to 2500 BC by historians
Noah is dated to 2300 BC by Bible scholars.


----------



## VisionCasting (Jan 7, 2011)

TTom said:


> Actually with a margin of error of  couple hundred years the flood stories from Gilgamesh and Noah are about the same time.
> 
> Gilgamesh is dated to 2500 BC by historians
> Noah is dated to 2300 BC by Bible scholars.



Given the inexact nature of this type of dating I am sure we can agree that no one knows with 100% certainty when either was written nor when the events they [supposedly] recall took place. 

Most of this tradition was handed down orally before written language was commonly accessible. It's possible or even likely there are/were earlier manuscripts/etchings that predate anything known of either of these stories.


----------



## TTom (Jan 7, 2011)

The cuniform Epic of Gilgamesh is in the earliest known language and format of writing. Vison so the "oral tradition leads to error" statement actually works against your side, since the Hebrews were still using oral tradition for several centuries after the Summerians were writing things down.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 7, 2011)

TTom said:


> The cuniform Epic of Gilgamesh is in the earliest known language and format of writing. Vison so the "oral tradition leads to error" statement actually works against your side, since the Hebrews were still using oral tradition for several centuries after the Summerians were writing things down.



I dont see that statement.


----------



## TTom (Jan 7, 2011)

"...when either was written nor when the events they [supposedly] recall took place. "

(supposedly, infers faulty recall)

"Most of this tradition was handed down orally before written language was commonly accessible."

(gives a solution to faulty recall in written language.)


----------



## VisionCasting (Jan 7, 2011)

TTom said:


> "...when either was written nor when the events they [supposedly] recall took place. "
> 
> (supposedly, infers faulty recall)".)



Not intended. Rather 'supposedly' was meant the infer the events recalled in one or more of these orally passed traditions may not have even happened - completely false, and contrived - not simply faulty (slight errors or omissions) recall.


----------



## VisionCasting (Jan 7, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I dont see that statement.



Correct. I don't assert that oral tradition is more or less accurate than early written language. I could argue either way.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 7, 2011)

pnome said:


> Other way around my friend.
> 
> Epic of Gilgamesh is older than the Bible.


----------



## TTom (Jan 8, 2011)

Well since you want to play it all hardball and not budge, I'll retract my margin of error gift and place the burden of proof on you to prove my dates incorrect.

Noah 2300 BC
Gilgamesh 2500 BC

And the position that oral tradition is as accurate and consistent as written documentation is laughable.


----------



## VisionCasting (Jan 8, 2011)

TTom said:


> And the position that oral tradition is as accurate and consistent as written documentation is laughable.



I have a 3yo son. He can communicate fairly well through the spoken word. He is unable to write. 

Do you assert that as man invented the written word, that on day 1 everyone was instantly proficient in it? More so than in the spoken word they had been long using?  That would be a MIRACLE!!!!


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 8, 2011)

Hey ttom I've got the answer for you on the oral tradition. Men lived for hundreds of years back then so the information was only passed on a few times.


----------



## TTom (Jan 8, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> I have a 3yo son. He can communicate fairly well through the spoken word. He is unable to write.



Well that is nice, it doesn't make his communication either more consistent than writing nor more accurate between the first and 14th time you hear a story from him.




VisionCasting said:


> Do you assert that as man invented the written word, that on day 1 everyone was instantly proficient in it? More so than in the spoken word they had been long using?  That would be a MIRACLE!!!!



Proficiency does not change the accuracy or consistency difference between oral history and written history. So your argument does not apply to the problems cited.

Oral History has always been considered less consistent over time and less accurate because over time the story changes with an oral tradition. Heck we even all had the same lesson in this fact in school. Remember when teacher gave us the lesson/ game telephone.

The clay tablets containing the first Epic of Gilgamesh have not had a change in the story in 4500 years. The details included in the story, the order of the chapters/ tablets, the words chosen, none of those things has changed one bit. 

If you tell the story I can check your accuracy by following along with the written account and call you on it if you change something.

However take even a single sentence and pass it along in a game of telephone and the sentence at the end of 15 people isn't even close to the original sentence.


But Back to the original item here I set a date I can defend that date for both Gilgamesh and for the Noah flood and Noah was 200 years AFTER Gilgamesh's recorded reign in Sumeria.


----------



## VisionCasting (Jan 8, 2011)

TTom said:


> Well that is nice, it doesn't make his communication either more consistent than writing nor more accurate between the first and 14th time you hear a story from him.



You aren't serious, right?  Ask my 3yo what he did at school on Thursday.  Then ask him to write down what he did at school.  Do you assert you'd get a more accurate written than oral answer?


----------



## TTom (Jan 8, 2011)

If I asked him that same question 14 times over the period of 6 hours you seriously contend that the story he tells would be exactly the same story from time 1 to time 14?

Where as if I have the Teacher document what happened in a lesson plan and I read the lesson plan the story would be the same the first time and the 400th time I read it. Not a single word would change.

THAT IS ACCURACY AND CONSISTENCY

Inability to write does not make writing less accurate, it simply makes it not available as a format for that person to use.


----------



## VisionCasting (Jan 8, 2011)

TTom said:


> Oral History has always been considered less consistent over time and less accurate.



That is a seemingly believable, yet debatable statement.  Your example of elementary school games, while nostalgic, has no connection to the period of time where early language language skills were developed.  There was a period of human history where oral recall was a tried and true technology.  Written language was not universally understood or accepted. There was no standard. The oral tradition was a more accurate.


----------



## TTom (Jan 8, 2011)

Vision you'll have to disprove the game of Telephone results to win the argument. Passing along information by word of mouth simply isn't as accurate.

If I give your 3 year old boy directions to my house verbally would you me or anyone else think that you would get the directions correctly and accurately relayed to you?

If I hand your boy a note with the directions written on them, would he be capable of passing that information along to you accurately and consistently even without the ability to read himself?

So which form of communication got you the directions to my house accurately even using your boy who is unable to read at 3 years old.


----------



## VisionCasting (Jan 8, 2011)

TTom said:


> If I asked him that same question 14 times over the period of 6 hours you seriously contend that the story he tells would be exactly the same story from time 1 to time 14.



I contend only that the oral would be more accurate than the written.


----------



## VisionCasting (Jan 8, 2011)

TTom said:


> Vision you'll have to disprove the game of Telephone results to win the argument. Passing along information by word of mouth simply isn't as accurate..



I am not attempting to win an argument, only prove the fallacy of your position.  I've done that.

You are still missing the point that what is true today may not have always been true.


----------



## TTom (Jan 8, 2011)

No you ave not proven any such thing you have mis-defined accuracy and consistency several times but you have not proven that oral history is more accurate only more available to 3 year olds.

You have dodged spun and twisted away from the definition several times.

FACT I hand your boy a note with directions you get accurate directions, I tell your boy the directions you're not going to get accurate directions form the oral history.

Do you contend that your boys 14 times told story would be more accurate than the note the teacher sent home to you detailing the days events that you read 14 times?


----------



## TTom (Jan 8, 2011)

Accurate and consistent means they tell the same story time after time after time with as little change as possible. (Webster can be consulted if we must)

A clay tablet written record from 2500 BC has not changed the story by one word in 4500+ Years. PERFECT 100% consistency and thus accuracy. (We can't prove veracity of either format)

Prove to me one story from oral tradition that has remained 100% not one word changed from the year 2500 BC.

Then and only then will you have proven that oral tradition can be as accurate not more accurate than written  record.


----------



## VisionCasting (Jan 8, 2011)

TTom said:


> A clay tablet written record from 2500 BC has not changed the story by one word in 4500+ Years. PERFECT 100% consistency and thus accuracy. (We can't prove veracity of either format).



Agreed.  That tablet has not changed.  And noted that they've not found all the tablets from a single edition in tact. Like the source docs for the Bible, the story is compiled from fragments sourced from and collected at different moments in history.

Because they did not have word processors at the time, and chiseling tablets was a profession, it's reasonable to assume any documented work from the time, even if originated within minutes of transcription (highly unlikely), would have been passed along through spoken word.  It's more likely that both of these stories started as oral tradition and were, at some future time, scribed.

So we have no idea which story came first, nor which is more accurate to the root.

Case closed.


----------



## VisionCasting (Jan 8, 2011)

TTom said:


> No you ave not proven any such thing you have mis-defined accuracy and consistency several times but you have not proven that oral history is more accurate only more available to 3 year olds.



Now you've got it. Oral history was more available at that time in history. And if we study history we see that there existed at that point in history people whose lifes calling was to accurately and consistently retell oral tradition. They were experts at it.  Enter a new technology, the written word. It's impossible to know if this newly acquired written "art" was initially more accurate or consistent. They weren't Xeroxing stone tablets after all. They were reading, walking over to a new medium, and chiseling with hammer and stone into softer stone.  And you think that process was without margin for error?  Implausible.


----------



## TTom (Jan 8, 2011)

LOL I find your spin laughable still.

The 4,00th telling of a specific story by an expert, is still open to a much larger range of error than the 4,000,000th reading of a specific tablet. Thus writting is more accurate by it's very nature.

You still lack the provable example of a single story in the oral tradition even 200 years old that can be as accurately retold as a reading of Tablet 3 of the Gilgamesh Epic that remains accurately set in stone (funny how that turn of phrase comes about) for over 4,500 years.


----------



## VisionCasting (Jan 8, 2011)

TTom said:


> You still lack the provable example of a single story in the oral tradition even 200 years old that can be as accurately retold as a reading of Tablet 3 of the Gilgamesh Epic that remains accurately set in stone (funny how that turn of phrase comes about) for over 4,500 years.



The Burden of proof lies with you. You claim one stone tablet is more accurate and originates a story older than another. Prove it.


----------

