An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

[PLAYER57832]

So a hundred years to build a huge Ark? Only a few people actually working on that huge dry dock?

It's possible!

Well the Titanic took about 9,000 man-years.

Uuuuhhh Yeah; Sure thing buddy.


[Note]
No need to provide any references here???

Actually, yes you do. You keep referring to "the Bible", but a lot of what you quote does not appear in original translations of that document. Much actually is just inferences you or other people try to make based on the words within the Bible, not words in the Bible itself.

[Viceroy63]

So a hundred years to build a huge Ark? Only a few people actually working on that huge dry dock?

It's possible!

Well the Titanic took about 9,000 man-years.

Uuuuhhh Yeah; Sure thing buddy.


[Note]
No need to provide any references here???

Actually, yes you do. You keep referring to "the Bible", but a lot of what you quote does not appear in original translations of that document. Much actually is just inferences you or other people try to make based on the words within the Bible, not words in the Bible itself.

I agree! References should be posted at all times and for my part I always try and provide scripture passage and verse as well as other links to other sites as well also.

But what I don't get is where is the reference for "Man-Years?" If "Man Hours" is the total number of hours that a man works on something then "Man-Years" must also be referring to the same thing. The Total Number of years that it literally takes to do some without sleeping, eating, spending time with your family and what ever else we do on our own time. Don't you agree? So where is the reference that the titanic took exactly 9,000 "Man-Years" to construct? That's what I would like to know.

[jonesthecurl]

Mirriam-Webster

Definition of MAN-YEAR
: a unit of the work done by one person in a year composed of a standard number of working days

Now if you want to use a different definition, that's fine. But if you use words in a different way to other people, don't expect to achieve any communication at all.

"There's glory for you!"
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,' " Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is, " said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty. "which is to be master—that's all."

[PLAYER57832]

Who gathered and looked after the animals, insects, plants, etc? How much time did that take?

This one is obvious. God did it.

[jonesthecurl]

Now what about those fountains?

[Viceroy63]

Mirriam-Webster

Definition of MAN-YEAR
: a unit of the work done by one person in a year composed of a standard number of working days

Now if you want to use a different definition, that's fine. But if you use words in a different way to other people, don't expect to achieve any communication at all.

"There's glory for you!"
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,' " Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is, " said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty. "which is to be master—that's all."

OH, PLEASE! That may be in the dictionary but it doesn't mean anything.

OK; Let me ask you this; What's the average number of "Man Years" that a human being spends masturbating before reaching the age of maturity?

Isn't that a unit of the work done by one person in a year composed of a standard number of working days? Each time is a whole "Man Year" gone by because each time is a unit of the work done.

That definition is meaningless!

Shit! If we go by this definition then we've all spent countless of thousands of "Man Years" masturbating while growing up. Each one of us got the Titanic beat by a fracking long shot and a half. Together, we have billions if not trillions of wasted "Man Years" in the fruitless endeavor and I'm just saying, this thread alone.

So that definition of the word "Man Years," even if it is found in Merriam Webster's Dictionary, for any truly intelligent person,...
... is absolutely worthless.

They'll just print anything these days???

[PLAYER57832]

...and what are the "fountains of the deep"?

Ancient Hebrews believed the world existed as three planes. They thought the circular, flat Earth was us, then the heavens above, and underneath was the waters of the deep or underworld. Something to do with creation, iirc. So, it was arranged like floors in a building with creation separating the three.

This is reflected in the Ark's construction of three decks.

-TG

You're being way too liberal with the word "Flat." No where is it even indicated that the Hebrews believed in a flat earth. In fact the opposite, they knew that the earth was round like a ball and the language tends to lean in that direction.

BTW: This marks my one thousandths (1,000) post.

UH... references? Verification?

[PLAYER57832]

So a hundred years to build a huge Ark? Only a few people actually working on that huge dry dock?

It's possible!

Well the Titanic took about 9,000 man-years.

Uuuuhhh Yeah; Sure thing buddy.


[Note]
No need to provide any references here???

Actually, yes you do. You keep referring to "the Bible", but a lot of what you quote does not appear in original translations of that document. Much actually is just inferences you or other people try to make based on the words within the Bible, not words in the Bible itself.

I agree! References should be posted at all times and for my part I always try and provide scripture passage and verse as well as other links to other sites as well also.

No you post your version of what you have read, not which version of the Bible you are referencing or anything else. In fact, your answer seems to indicate you don't know what a real reference entails.

But what I don't get is where is the reference for "Man-Years?"

Its a semi-standardized average of what it would take an average man a year to complete, similar to horsepower. I can be an exact measure, as in "it took the contractor 60 man hours..." or it can be a more relative measure, used mostly for comparing jobs or estimates of time to complete a job.

If "Man Hours" is the total number of hours that a man works on something then "Man-Years" must also be referring to the same thing. The Total Number of years that it literally takes to do some without sleeping, eating, spending time with your family and what ever else we do on our own time. Don't you agree? So where is the reference that the titanic took exactly 9,000 "Man-Years" to construct? That's what I would like to know.

I never mentioned the Titanic. I simply asked you where you get your information. You are making a lot of assumptions without any real basis. I am asking where YOUR data came from, not anyone else's.

[Viceroy63]

What "assumptions" are you talking about?

If it's about the theory of evolution not being factual, That is not an assumption.

[Viceroy63]

A Cubit is approximately 18 inches or 1.5 feet.

At 300 Cubits Long, the Ark would be approximately 450 feet Long.
At 50 Cubits Wide, the Ark would have a width of approximately 75 feet.
At 30 Cubits High, the Ark would have a Height of 45 feet.

That's as tall if not taller than a modern four story apartment building and as wide and as long as a city block. Or put another way, it would have more than half the volume of space then the HMS Titanic. I would estimate 70 to 80 percent because the Ark is much more wider than the Titanic.

The Ark is definitely larger than a foot ball field at 300 feet Long from goal post to goal post and almost as wide.

So get your facts straight people. That's...

BIIIIG!!!

How much would Noah's Ark weigh, and how much water would it displace?

--Andy

The displacement tonnage of the ark, which is the weight of water it would displace at a draught of 15 cubits, would be more than 22,000 tons. By comparison the U.S.S. Salem, a 716 foot long (218 meters) heavy cruiser commissioned in 1949, has a displacement tonnage of 21,500 tons. The gross tonnage, which is a measure of cubic space (100 cubic feet is one gross ton), would be 15,100 tons.
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/was- ... imals.html

BIG FAT REFERENCE JUST ABOVE! SEE?

[Neoteny]

Holy christ, the ark is the most boring creationist nonsense.

[jonesthecurl]

More maths:

50,000 species = 100,000 creatures, not including births.
A sheep eats about 4-5 pounds of food a day, a lion 10-20. (note: smaller specimens often eat more because they are are growing.
Let's assume 4 pounds of food per creature per day.
That's 400,000 pounds of food per day. And a similar amount of crap.
So the eight people each need to deliver 50,000 lbs of food per day, and muck out 50,000 pounds of crap.
If they work 24 hours a day, never sleeping or eating themselves, then they need to deliver about 34 lbs per minute each.
And take away a lot of crap.

[tzor]

You're being way too liberal with the word "Flat." No where is it even indicated that the Hebrews believed in a flat earth. In fact the opposite, they knew that the earth was round like a ball and the language tends to lean in that direction.

As are you.

The Jewish Encyclopedia describes the firmament as follows:
The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse.

So while the earth is curved, it is clearly not a sphere.

[jonesthecurl]

OK; Let me ask you this; What's the average number of "Man Years" that a human being spends masturbating before reaching the age of maturity?

Is masturbating hard work for you?

[PLAYER57832]

What "assumptions" are you talking about?

If it's about the theory of evolution not being factual, That is not an assumption.

Sure it is, unless you actually back it up with real facts. Even when you cite the Bible, by not specifying which Bible translation and simply insisting that it is "in the Bible", you show a lack of knowledge of the subject. You seem unaware that other ideas even exist, never mind that they have real basis.

Ignoring data is not the same as proving things false. Ignoring data that exists is just as much a lie as presenting falsehoods directly. In fact, in many times far more harm is caused by simply not presenting data than by actual false information.

That you even think you have come close to proving that evolution is false shows how little you understand of what proof means or what science actually does.

Most of the problems you present, even if absolutely accurate, merely show issues in dispute. They show that science works, not the opposit. That so many of your examples are, when tracked down, not even truly as you claim.... well, you need to do a LOT more research if you wish to present your views to an audience that has not been already endoctrinated to similar views without facing complete disdain.

[AAFitz]

I think this quote sums up this thread in a nutshell, and even in a balanced way, depending upon your...err...volume level.

So no, there's no shortage of keen scientific minds in America. We just can't build enough scientist playpens to hold them all, even though the U.S. still has more research institutes than anywhere else in the world. But it's not just colleges. Everyone's favorite whipping boy, the American education system, is also doing way better than you might think. Based on the K-12 Trends in International Math and Science Study tests, the U.S. has more high-scoring kids than any other country, rivaling Japan and Korea in math, of all subjects. So the U.S. has a whole closet full of smarty pants, thank you. It's just that we have a lot of dumb people, too, and our dumb people are really, really loud.

From Cracked.

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_20230_5- ... z2K2DxmUm2

[chang50]

I think this quote sums up this thread in a nutshell, and even in a balanced way, depending upon your...err...volume level.

So no, there's no shortage of keen scientific minds in America. We just can't build enough scientist playpens to hold them all, even though the U.S. still has more research institutes than anywhere else in the world. But it's not just colleges. Everyone's favorite whipping boy, the American education system, is also doing way better than you might think. Based on the K-12 Trends in International Math and Science Study tests, the U.S. has more high-scoring kids than any other country, rivaling Japan and Korea in math, of all subjects. So the U.S. has a whole closet full of smarty pants, thank you. It's just that we have a lot of dumb people, too, and our dumb people are really, really loud.

From Cracked.

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_20230_5- ... z2K2DxmUm2

This tallies with my personal experience,all the Americans I have met on my travels have been really nice,but you step into cyberspace and wow..

[AAFitz]

I think this quote sums up this thread in a nutshell, and even in a balanced way, depending upon your...err...volume level.

So no, there's no shortage of keen scientific minds in America. We just can't build enough scientist playpens to hold them all, even though the U.S. still has more research institutes than anywhere else in the world. But it's not just colleges. Everyone's favorite whipping boy, the American education system, is also doing way better than you might think. Based on the K-12 Trends in International Math and Science Study tests, the U.S. has more high-scoring kids than any other country, rivaling Japan and Korea in math, of all subjects. So the U.S. has a whole closet full of smarty pants, thank you. It's just that we have a lot of dumb people, too, and our dumb people are really, really loud.

From Cracked.

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_20230_5- ... z2K2DxmUm2

This tallies with my personal experience,all the Americans I have met on my travels have been really nice,but you step into cyberspace and wow..

To be fair, I presume the age level drops quite a bit too. And at the same time, with a few exceptions, I dont think anyone is as exaggerated in real life as they are in here. I can more or less relate and get along with anyone, and almost none of these subjects come up in real life.

[chang50]

I think this quote sums up this thread in a nutshell, and even in a balanced way, depending upon your...err...volume level.

So no, there's no shortage of keen scientific minds in America. We just can't build enough scientist playpens to hold them all, even though the U.S. still has more research institutes than anywhere else in the world. But it's not just colleges. Everyone's favorite whipping boy, the American education system, is also doing way better than you might think. Based on the K-12 Trends in International Math and Science Study tests, the U.S. has more high-scoring kids than any other country, rivaling Japan and Korea in math, of all subjects. So the U.S. has a whole closet full of smarty pants, thank you. It's just that we have a lot of dumb people, too, and our dumb people are really, really loud.

From Cracked.

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_20230_5- ... z2K2DxmUm2

This tallies with my personal experience,all the Americans I have met on my travels have been really nice,but you step into cyberspace and wow..

To be fair, I presume the age level drops quite a bit too. And at the same time, with a few exceptions, I dont think anyone is as exaggerated in real life as they are in here. I can more or less relate and get along with anyone, and almost none of these subjects come up in real life.

Fair points...perhaps the loud dumb people stay at home more,possibly..

[jonesthecurl]

More maths:

50,000 species = 100,000 creatures, not including births.
A sheep eats about 4-5 pounds of food a day, a lion 10-20. (note: smaller specimens often eat more because they are are growing.
Let's assume 4 pounds of food per creature per day.
That's 400,000 pounds of food per day. And a similar amount of crap.
So the eight people each need to deliver 50,000 lbs of food per day, and muck out 50,000 pounds of crap.
If they work 24 hours a day, never sleeping or eating themselves, then they need to deliver about 34 lbs per minute each.
And take away a lot of crap.

Hmmm. Gone a bit quiet, hasn't it?

[PLAYER57832]

A Cubit is approximately 18 inches or 1.5 feet.

At 300 Cubits Long, the Ark would be approximately 450 feet Long.
At 50 Cubits Wide, the Ark would have a width of approximately 75 feet.
At 30 Cubits High, the Ark would have a Height of 45 feet.

That's as tall if not taller than a modern four story apartment building and as wide and as long as a city block. Or put another way, it would have more than half the volume of space then the HMS Titanic. I would estimate 70 to 80 percent because the Ark is much more wider than the Titanic.

The Ark is definitely larger than a foot ball field at 300 feet Long from goal post to goal post and almost as wide.

So get your facts straight people. That's...

BIIIIG!!!

How much would Noah's Ark weigh, and how much water would it displace?

--Andy

The displacement tonnage of the ark, which is the weight of water it would displace at a draught of 15 cubits, would be more than 22,000 tons. By comparison the U.S.S. Salem, a 716 foot long (218 meters) heavy cruiser commissioned in 1949, has a displacement tonnage of 21,500 tons. The gross tonnage, which is a measure of cubic space (100 cubic feet is one gross ton), would be 15,100 tons.
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/was- ... imals.html

BIG FAT REFERENCE JUST ABOVE! SEE?

Regardless, this is not even close to being large enough to contain 2 of every living species on Earth. The story you believe the Bible tells is not possible.

There are several other real possibilities.

1. That the ark was something like Snoopy's doghouse or Mary Poppin's bag... outside of time and place so that the space available was greater than that visible from the outside. Possible, certainly, given God.. but not what the Bible says.

2. The Bible is just wrong. An easy answer and favored by people who are neither Christian or Jewish, but not acceptable to those of the faiths. Though favored by some non-Crhistians, it is not worth debating in Christianity.

3. The story was never intended to be taken entirely literally. The point was that people sinned and God took action, but it was such a destructive action he won't do it again. Some say that the details were put in, really by humans, because they needed those details to understand God's story/message. Others say that the details are true, but not in the way literalists tend to think. Again, this one gives a lot of Christians and Jews pause. Some within the faith do believe this, but many don't.

4.That the story is true, but because the awareness of others, outside areas was minimal or non-existant, the people would truly understand the "world" to be their whole world of experience, not the whole round ball that we today know is the entire world. This would be consistant with the Babylonian text, because true stories will often permeate through mutliple societies. That the Jews did not write it down is irrelevant because they had a strong oral tradition at that time. Not all was written down.

5. That the story refers to true events, but many details were distorted over the very, very, very long time. It might have been included within the Bible because it gave an important lesson and was considered too true by the people for them to consider it might not be accurate. That, too, is not an easy idea for many Christians.


NOT included:
That the flood did away with dinosaurs. There are many reasons this is not true, beginning with the fact that almost all, if not all dinosaurs were gone when humans came onto the scene. A more important religious reason is that dinosaurs were not mentioned at all in the Bible. Early people had no real awareness of Dinosaurs. (no, references to "behemouths' and the like are not referring to dinosaurs.. certainly not in the numbers that were prevalent at one time on Earth). The Bible gives a very good record of modern, known animals, but not ancient ones. That is because the Bible is a history of humanity and faith, not a natural history of the world, not a scientific text.

[PLAYER57832]

What "assumptions" are you talking about?

If it's about the theory of evolution not being factual, That is not an assumption.

Here we begin with your misunderstandings.

Set aside that you are the only one claiming that the full theory evolution is proven fact. No scientists does that. Parts of it have been proven, but again, that is not even relevant to your statement, per se.

The problem is that what you call "proof" is really just assumptions and accusations made by people who have mostly not studied the science involved. Simply saying "nyah, nyah.. you are wrong and stupid for thinking you are correct" just is not evidence, sorry.

Beyond that, several of us actually have some direct experience with proofs of evolution. You dismiss our first hand accounts as if we were idiots... then point to some website with a supposed "expert" as if anyone posting on the internet must be more knowledgable.

And, most of your critiques are just plain wrong when tracked down.. not that you bother to do that tracking. You just plain ASSUME you have been told the truth... and then try to laugh at our "ignorance".

[Neoteny]

A serious question for Viceroy or Premio or whoever: what is the creationist rationalization for ring species like the Ensatina salamanders?

[PLAYER57832]

A serious question for Viceroy or Premio or whoever: what is the creationist rationalization for ring species like the Ensatina salamanders?

What do you mean (I ask because if I am confused, I am guessing others might be as well?)

[Viceroy63]

What "assumptions" are you talking about?

If it's about the theory of evolution not being factual, That is not an assumption.

Here we begin with your misunderstandings.

Set aside that you are the only one claiming that the full theory evolution is proven fact. No scientists does that. Parts of it have been proven, but again, that is not even relevant to your statement, per se.

The problem is that what you call "proof" is really just assumptions and accusations made by people who have mostly not studied the science involved. Simply saying "nyah, nyah.. you are wrong and stupid for thinking you are correct" just is not evidence, sorry.

Beyond that, several of us actually have some direct experience with proofs of evolution. You dismiss our first hand accounts as if we were idiots... then point to some website with a supposed "expert" as if anyone posting on the internet must be more knowledgable.

And, most of your critiques are just plain wrong when tracked down.. not that you bother to do that tracking. You just plain ASSUME you have been told the truth... and then try to laugh at our "ignorance".

If you want to call yourself an idiot then that's your prerogative. Ignorance is not an insult and I am certainly not trying to insult anyone. It sounds to me like you have not even read the Original Post because you are not arguing the data and info provided but instead making up allegation that I am assuming all of this and providing no resources for my words. All of my words are backed with sources and links right in the OP and it is not what I am say but what other scientist are saying also. I just happen to agree with the available and observable facts of the data provided. The examples of evolution found in text books and museums are just a hoax for money.


If evolution was a fact then there would not be a division or even a controversy!