Noah's ark found

[peasepud 59]

could have been some folk memory about the time the Med and the Black Sea flooded - they reckon that the med was coming up at 10 m a day once the Straits of Gibraltar was breached and the water started to come in from the Atlantic

Folk tales loosely based on fact ascribed to the work of Yahweh at a later date probably sums up most of the Old Testament when you think about it.

You mock an eyewitness now? have you no shame?

[Guest alex]

could have been some folk memory about the time the Med and the Black Sea flooded - they reckon that the med was coming up at 10 m a day once the Straits of Gibraltar was breached and the water started to come in from the Atlantic

Folk tales loosely based on fact ascribed to the work of Yahweh at a later date probably sums up most of the Old Testament when you think about it.

You mock an eyewitness now? have you no shame?

An eyewitness for an eyewitness?

[Rob W 0]

not me.... first thing I can remember is me dad painting some caves in France

[Toonpack 10952]

The trouble with the Old Testament is that (in my opinion) it's mostly meant to be allegorical, which people unfortunately don't understand. So they scurry off looking for Arks and the like that never existed, at least not in the form they expect.

 

I think there was a vast flood and that God told Noah to build a boat and put his family and other necessities on it so he would survive. I don't think the flood wiped out humanity, I don't think the Ark had two of every animal on it, etc etc. Those embellishments are mythology, and the point of the story isn't that Noah and his family repopulated the earth or any of that, but that Noah had faith in God, even though the others mocked him for building his boat in the desert and made him doubt, and that faith was repaid. I could be wrong, but that's what I take away from the Noah story.

 

What do you base the bolded bit on?

 

Do you not think you might be cherrypicking bits you like or seem acceptable to you?

 

Most stories from ancient times have, at their heart, a basis in truth. A vast flood in a (by todays standards) local area would have been seen as a world event thousnads of years ago. Rationalise that out and you can easily come to a view that it happened and why not Noah.

 

People have premonitions all the time. Maybe it's God, maybe it's not. I personally happen to believe it is.

 

Stands by for much ridicule from the godless, science is all crowd.

[Guest alex]

No more outlandish than most of your views.

[NJS 4495]

People have premonitions all the time. Maybe it's God, maybe it's not. I personally happen to believe it is.

 

Hasn't got that good a record at getting his message through then has he?

 

If his messages have prevented some disasters but not others then you have to explain the difference - and that's when it gets tricky - does hw only look after Christians? If so why have so many died in disasters - were they not worthy?

[Renton 23155]

The trouble with the Old Testament is that (in my opinion) it's mostly meant to be allegorical, which people unfortunately don't understand. So they scurry off looking for Arks and the like that never existed, at least not in the form they expect.

 

I think there was a vast flood and that God told Noah to build a boat and put his family and other necessities on it so he would survive. I don't think the flood wiped out humanity, I don't think the Ark had two of every animal on it, etc etc. Those embellishments are mythology, and the point of the story isn't that Noah and his family repopulated the earth or any of that, but that Noah had faith in God, even though the others mocked him for building his boat in the desert and made him doubt, and that faith was repaid. I could be wrong, but that's what I take away from the Noah story.

 

What do you base the bolded bit on?

 

Do you not think you might be cherrypicking bits you like or seem acceptable to you?

 

Most stories from ancient times have, at their heart, a basis in truth. A vast flood in a (by todays standards) local area would have been seen as a world event thousnads of years ago. Rationalise that out and you can easily come to a view that it happened and why not Noah.

 

People have premonitions all the time. Maybe it's God, maybe it's not. I personally happen to believe it is.

 

Stands by for much ridicule from the godless, science is all crowd.

 

You haven't really adressed the point about cherry picking though have you? Can anyone decide what is true or false on their own terms? All the nice bits of the Bible story are true but not the nasty bits, which frankly show Yahweh to be a loathsome, petty, psychopath?

 

In a way evangelical christians are more honest really.

 

As for Science is all, the article proves that Christians cherry pick when to use that too.

[Toonpack 10952]

The trouble with the Old Testament is that (in my opinion) it's mostly meant to be allegorical, which people unfortunately don't understand. So they scurry off looking for Arks and the like that never existed, at least not in the form they expect.

 

I think there was a vast flood and that God told Noah to build a boat and put his family and other necessities on it so he would survive. I don't think the flood wiped out humanity, I don't think the Ark had two of every animal on it, etc etc. Those embellishments are mythology, and the point of the story isn't that Noah and his family repopulated the earth or any of that, but that Noah had faith in God, even though the others mocked him for building his boat in the desert and made him doubt, and that faith was repaid. I could be wrong, but that's what I take away from the Noah story.

 

What do you base the bolded bit on?

 

Do you not think you might be cherrypicking bits you like or seem acceptable to you?

 

Most stories from ancient times have, at their heart, a basis in truth. A vast flood in a (by todays standards) local area would have been seen as a world event thousnads of years ago. Rationalise that out and you can easily come to a view that it happened and why not Noah.

 

People have premonitions all the time. Maybe it's God, maybe it's not. I personally happen to believe it is.

 

Stands by for much ridicule from the godless, science is all crowd.

 

You haven't really adressed the point about cherry picking though have you? Can anyone decide what is true or false on their own terms? All the nice bits of the Bible story are true but not the nasty bits, which frankly show Yahweh to be a loathsome, petty, psychopath?

 

In a way evangelical christians are more honest really.

 

As for Science is all, the article proves that Christians cherry pick when to use that too.

 

As does science, depends where the £££'s are comming from

[Park Life 71]

Science is rubbish, thought I cleared that up a few years back on here.

[Renton 23155]

The trouble with the Old Testament is that (in my opinion) it's mostly meant to be allegorical, which people unfortunately don't understand. So they scurry off looking for Arks and the like that never existed, at least not in the form they expect.

 

I think there was a vast flood and that God told Noah to build a boat and put his family and other necessities on it so he would survive. I don't think the flood wiped out humanity, I don't think the Ark had two of every animal on it, etc etc. Those embellishments are mythology, and the point of the story isn't that Noah and his family repopulated the earth or any of that, but that Noah had faith in God, even though the others mocked him for building his boat in the desert and made him doubt, and that faith was repaid. I could be wrong, but that's what I take away from the Noah story.

 

What do you base the bolded bit on?

 

Do you not think you might be cherrypicking bits you like or seem acceptable to you?

 

Most stories from ancient times have, at their heart, a basis in truth. A vast flood in a (by todays standards) local area would have been seen as a world event thousnads of years ago. Rationalise that out and you can easily come to a view that it happened and why not Noah.

 

People have premonitions all the time. Maybe it's God, maybe it's not. I personally happen to believe it is.

 

Stands by for much ridicule from the godless, science is all crowd.

 

You haven't really adressed the point about cherry picking though have you? Can anyone decide what is true or false on their own terms? All the nice bits of the Bible story are true but not the nasty bits, which frankly show Yahweh to be a loathsome, petty, psychopath?

 

In a way evangelical christians are more honest really.

 

As for Science is all, the article proves that Christians cherry pick when to use that too.

 

As does science, depends where the £££'s are comming from

 

You're confusing human bias with science. Good science is neutral and unbiased - that's kind of the point of it - and something I'm not sure can be claimed by a single religion. If I perform a scientific study and select only the results that prove my point, then it's a crap study, and can be shown to be so by my peers. What about religion though?

[Renton 23155]

Science is rubbish, thought I cleared that up a few years back on here.

 

He says, typing on his computer over the internet, without a trace of irony.

 

To be honest Parky, you've never really demonstrated you understand the principles of science.

[Park Life 71]

Science is rubbish, thought I cleared that up a few years back on here.

 

He says, typing on his computer over the internet, without a trace of irony.

 

To be honest Parky, you've never really demonstrated you understand the principles of science.

 

[Toonpack 10952]

The trouble with the Old Testament is that (in my opinion) it's mostly meant to be allegorical, which people unfortunately don't understand. So they scurry off looking for Arks and the like that never existed, at least not in the form they expect.

 

I think there was a vast flood and that God told Noah to build a boat and put his family and other necessities on it so he would survive. I don't think the flood wiped out humanity, I don't think the Ark had two of every animal on it, etc etc. Those embellishments are mythology, and the point of the story isn't that Noah and his family repopulated the earth or any of that, but that Noah had faith in God, even though the others mocked him for building his boat in the desert and made him doubt, and that faith was repaid. I could be wrong, but that's what I take away from the Noah story.

 

What do you base the bolded bit on?

 

Do you not think you might be cherrypicking bits you like or seem acceptable to you?

 

Most stories from ancient times have, at their heart, a basis in truth. A vast flood in a (by todays standards) local area would have been seen as a world event thousnads of years ago. Rationalise that out and you can easily come to a view that it happened and why not Noah.

 

People have premonitions all the time. Maybe it's God, maybe it's not. I personally happen to believe it is.

 

Stands by for much ridicule from the godless, science is all crowd.

 

You haven't really adressed the point about cherry picking though have you? Can anyone decide what is true or false on their own terms? All the nice bits of the Bible story are true but not the nasty bits, which frankly show Yahweh to be a loathsome, petty, psychopath?

 

In a way evangelical christians are more honest really.

 

As for Science is all, the article proves that Christians cherry pick when to use that too.

 

As does science, depends where the £££'s are comming from

 

You're confusing human bias with science. Good science is neutral and unbiased - that's kind of the point of it - and something I'm not sure can be claimed by a single religion. If I perform a scientific study and select only the results that prove my point, then it's a crap study, and can be shown to be so by my peers. What about religion though?

 

There's no such thing as Good science then, there is always an agenda or grant to be won

 

Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive.

 

Not getting into a long discussion on this, you won't convince me and I won't convince you.

[Renton 23155]

There's no such thing as Good science then, there is always an agenda or grant to be won

 

Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive.

 

Not getting into a long discussion on this, you won't convince me and I won't convince you.

 

Well no, you're not going to convince me of anything when you seem to have either completely ignored, or cannot answer, my perfectly reasonable question of how you select what to believe and what not to.

 

It's perfectly possible not to have a prior agenda in science and not all science is grant funded. What do you make of the work of Newton, Einstein, and Darwin? Anyway, as I suggested to Parky, technology is really just the application of science, and it works, end of story. Science is not completely incompatible with belief in the Abrahamic God only if you decide all the particularly absurd stuff is a metaphor. Which brings us back to my question, which you won't answer...........

[Kitman 2228]

Science is rubbish, thought I cleared that up a few years back on here.

 

He says, typing on his computer over the internet, without a trace of irony.

 

To be honest Parky, you've never really demonstrated you understand the principles of science.

 

Scientific principles are one thing, the implementation of those principles is quite another. The latter happens via human beings, so may not always be as perfect as people might wish. Look at the scientific community's treatment of Tesla vs Edison for instance.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Kitman

[peasepud 59]

Science is rubbish, thought I cleared that up a few years back on here.

 

He says, typing on his computer over the internet, without a trace of irony.

 

To be honest Parky, you've never really demonstrated you understand the principles of science.

 

Scientific principles are one thing, the implementation of those principles is quite another. The latter happens via human beings, so may not always be as perfect as people might wish. Look at the scientific community's treatment of Tesla vs Edison for instance.

 

You wouldn't believe them if they said the things they've seen went over their heads, they've been patient heaven knows they seem to care and so it goes. They can't sit still or settle down and when they walk they don't touch the ground, see those girls they're heaven blessed. I guess it's so they know best.

 

[Toonpack 10952]

There's no such thing as Good science then, there is always an agenda or grant to be won

 

Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive.

 

Not getting into a long discussion on this, you won't convince me and I won't convince you.

 

Well no, you're not going to convince me of anything when you seem to have either completely ignored, or cannot answer, my perfectly reasonable question of how you select what to believe and what not to.

 

It's perfectly possible not to have a prior agenda in science and not all science is grant funded. What do you make of the work of Newton, Einstein, and Darwin? Anyway, as I suggested to Parky, technology is really just the application of science, and it works, end of story. Science is not completely incompatible with belief in the Abrahamic God only if you decide all the particularly absurd stuff is a metaphor. Which brings us back to my question, which you won't answer...........

 

 

Well you either believe in God or you don't, quite simple really. I would add that whilst I do, I also don't have much faith in organised religion, which is in essence the industrialisation of faith for profit IMO.

 

The scientists you mention are from the era before science became a truly big business, let alone the corporate monster it is today, when the quest for knowledge was more "pure" for want of a better word.

 

Just look at some of the BIG science subjects, they are in fact just theories, not proven in fact, Big bang, Dark matter etc. There's a lot of science done to support these theories, but where's the contra-science to disprove them??. There isn't any, because once a theory gathers pace the research grants and kudos come pouring in.

 

Best thing any scientist could come up with is a theory that sounds fucking great, could be possible, but is unprovable in fact, becasue the striving for that fact is what makes science the money machine it is. Dark matter and Big Bang, being a cases in point.

 

As an analogy to what I'm trying to say. I'm an IT project manager, when I get into a project test phase, I don't want my test teams to tell me it works (if everyone has done their jobs right of course it fucking works!!), I want them to tell be it doesn't, I want them to try and break every single important element of the functionality, I don't want to know what's good about it, I want to know what's bad and how bad. Because when they can't, job's a good'un.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Toonpack

[spongebob toonpants 4230]

There's no such thing as Good science then, there is always an agenda or grant to be won

 

Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive.

 

Not getting into a long discussion on this, you won't convince me and I won't convince you.

 

Well no, you're not going to convince me of anything when you seem to have either completely ignored, or cannot answer, my perfectly reasonable question of how you select what to believe and what not to.

 

It's perfectly possible not to have a prior agenda in science and not all science is grant funded. What do you make of the work of Newton, Einstein, and Darwin? Anyway, as I suggested to Parky, technology is really just the application of science, and it works, end of story. Science is not completely incompatible with belief in the Abrahamic God only if you decide all the particularly absurd stuff is a metaphor. Which brings us back to my question, which you won't answer...........

 

 

Well you either believe in God or you don't, quite simple really. I would add that whilst I do, I also don't have much faith in organised religion, which is in essence the industrialisation of faith for profit IMO.

 

The scientists you mention are from the era before science became a truly big business, let alone the corporate monster it is today, when the quest for knowledge was more "pure" for want of a better word.

 

Just look at some of the BIG science subjects, they are in fact just theories, not proven in fact, Big bang, Dark matter etc. There's a lot of science done to support these theories, but where's the contra-science to disprove them??. There isn't any, because once a theory gathers pace the research grants and kudos come pouring in.

 

Best thing any scientist could come up with is a theory that sounds fucking great, could be possible, but is unprovable in fact, becasue the striving for that fact is what makes science the money machine it is. Dark matter and Big Bang, being a cases in point.

 

As an analogy to what I'm trying to say. I'm an IT project manager, when I get into a project test phase, I don't want my test teams to tell me it works (if everyone has done their jobs right of course it fucking works!!), I want them to tell be it doesn't, I want them to try and break every single important element of the functionality, I don't want to know what's good about it, I want to know what's bad and how bad. Because when they can't, job's a good'un.

 

I won't hear a word against funding the research into dark matter - its paying my daughters rent this summer

[Renton 23155]

There's no such thing as Good science then, there is always an agenda or grant to be won

 

Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive.

 

Not getting into a long discussion on this, you won't convince me and I won't convince you.

 

Well no, you're not going to convince me of anything when you seem to have either completely ignored, or cannot answer, my perfectly reasonable question of how you select what to believe and what not to.

 

It's perfectly possible not to have a prior agenda in science and not all science is grant funded. What do you make of the work of Newton, Einstein, and Darwin? Anyway, as I suggested to Parky, technology is really just the application of science, and it works, end of story. Science is not completely incompatible with belief in the Abrahamic God only if you decide all the particularly absurd stuff is a metaphor. Which brings us back to my question, which you won't answer...........

 

 

Well you either believe in God or you don't, quite simple really. I would add that whilst I do, I also don't have much faith in organised religion, which is in essence the industrialisation of faith for profit IMO.

 

The scientists you mention are from the era before science became a truly big business, let alone the corporate monster it is today, when the quest for knowledge was more "pure" for want of a better word.

 

Just look at some of the BIG science subjects, they are in fact just theories, not proven in fact, Big bang, Dark matter etc. There's a lot of science done to support these theories, but where's the contra-science to disprove them??. There isn't any, because once a theory gathers pace the research grants and kudos come pouring in.

 

Best thing any scientist could come up with is a theory that sounds fucking great, could be possible, but is unprovable in fact, becasue the striving for that fact is what makes science the money machine it is. Dark matter and Big Bang, being a cases in point.

 

As an analogy to what I'm trying to say. I'm an IT project manager, when I get into a project test phase, I don't want my test teams to tell me it works (if everyone has done their jobs right of course it fucking works!!), I want them to tell be it doesn't, I want them to try and break every single important element of the functionality, I don't want to know what's good about it, I want to know what's bad and how bad. Because when they can't, job's a good'un.

 

Aye, but again you're really talking about human and political failings, not scientific principle per se. And the point is, these theories can be tested and refuted, and gradually we get nearer and nearer the truth. That's why it's so important to me. Religion instead just has an unchanging book which is infallible and can't be tested. Instead, to reconcile the Bible with proven scientific fact, changing moral standards, and good old common sense, people such as yourself have decided that parts of the Bible are actually metaphors.

 

What I'm interested in is how you decide which parts are and which parts aren't. For instance, non-evangelical christians now accept that the reported deluge did not flood the world, and is in fact probably inspired by an ancient localised flood of some sort (which the Bible shares with many other cultures). It's also thought by most christians that Noah didn't literally gather two of each species etc, and the human race was not almost completely extinguished (as can be proved with DNA evidence etc). Yet you're saying that you believe Noah existed and was in communication with God. Why do you accept this and not the rest? Is it because this part of the story isn't testable? Genuine question, I'm not trying to be provocative here.

[Renton 23155]

There's no such thing as Good science then, there is always an agenda or grant to be won

 

Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive.

 

Not getting into a long discussion on this, you won't convince me and I won't convince you.

 

Well no, you're not going to convince me of anything when you seem to have either completely ignored, or cannot answer, my perfectly reasonable question of how you select what to believe and what not to.

 

It's perfectly possible not to have a prior agenda in science and not all science is grant funded. What do you make of the work of Newton, Einstein, and Darwin? Anyway, as I suggested to Parky, technology is really just the application of science, and it works, end of story. Science is not completely incompatible with belief in the Abrahamic God only if you decide all the particularly absurd stuff is a metaphor. Which brings us back to my question, which you won't answer...........

 

 

Well you either believe in God or you don't, quite simple really. I would add that whilst I do, I also don't have much faith in organised religion, which is in essence the industrialisation of faith for profit IMO.

 

The scientists you mention are from the era before science became a truly big business, let alone the corporate monster it is today, when the quest for knowledge was more "pure" for want of a better word.

 

Just look at some of the BIG science subjects, they are in fact just theories, not proven in fact, Big bang, Dark matter etc. There's a lot of science done to support these theories, but where's the contra-science to disprove them??. There isn't any, because once a theory gathers pace the research grants and kudos come pouring in.

 

Best thing any scientist could come up with is a theory that sounds fucking great, could be possible, but is unprovable in fact, becasue the striving for that fact is what makes science the money machine it is. Dark matter and Big Bang, being a cases in point.

 

As an analogy to what I'm trying to say. I'm an IT project manager, when I get into a project test phase, I don't want my test teams to tell me it works (if everyone has done their jobs right of course it fucking works!!), I want them to tell be it doesn't, I want them to try and break every single important element of the functionality, I don't want to know what's good about it, I want to know what's bad and how bad. Because when they can't, job's a good'un.

 

I won't hear a word against funding the research into dark matter - its paying my daughters rent this summer

 

I would have loved to have been bright enough to become an astrophysicist, or a particle physicist, but I'm relatively shit at maths. The dark matter and dark energy story is fascinating, about a million times more interesting than theology. I'd also suggest that despite what toonpack says CERN is a good example of pure science which has little or no political bias or motivation - its pure research for the sake of it and will add knowledge to the world.

[spongebob toonpants 4230]

There's no such thing as Good science then, there is always an agenda or grant to be won

 

Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive.

 

Not getting into a long discussion on this, you won't convince me and I won't convince you.

 

Well no, you're not going to convince me of anything when you seem to have either completely ignored, or cannot answer, my perfectly reasonable question of how you select what to believe and what not to.

 

It's perfectly possible not to have a prior agenda in science and not all science is grant funded. What do you make of the work of Newton, Einstein, and Darwin? Anyway, as I suggested to Parky, technology is really just the application of science, and it works, end of story. Science is not completely incompatible with belief in the Abrahamic God only if you decide all the particularly absurd stuff is a metaphor. Which brings us back to my question, which you won't answer...........

 

 

Well you either believe in God or you don't, quite simple really. I would add that whilst I do, I also don't have much faith in organised religion, which is in essence the industrialisation of faith for profit IMO.

 

The scientists you mention are from the era before science became a truly big business, let alone the corporate monster it is today, when the quest for knowledge was more "pure" for want of a better word.

 

Just look at some of the BIG science subjects, they are in fact just theories, not proven in fact, Big bang, Dark matter etc. There's a lot of science done to support these theories, but where's the contra-science to disprove them??. There isn't any, because once a theory gathers pace the research grants and kudos come pouring in.

 

Best thing any scientist could come up with is a theory that sounds fucking great, could be possible, but is unprovable in fact, becasue the striving for that fact is what makes science the money machine it is. Dark matter and Big Bang, being a cases in point.

 

As an analogy to what I'm trying to say. I'm an IT project manager, when I get into a project test phase, I don't want my test teams to tell me it works (if everyone has done their jobs right of course it fucking works!!), I want them to tell be it doesn't, I want them to try and break every single important element of the functionality, I don't want to know what's good about it, I want to know what's bad and how bad. Because when they can't, job's a good'un.

 

I won't hear a word against funding the research into dark matter - its paying my daughters rent this summer

 

I would have loved to have been bright enough to become an astrophysicist, or a particle physicist, but I'm relatively shit at maths. The dark matter and dark energy story is fascinating, about a million times more interesting than theology. I'd also suggest that despite what toonpack says CERN is a good example of pure science which has little or no political bias or motivation - its pure research for the sake of it and will add knowledge to the world.

 

Its one of my biggest regrets/annoyances that physics and the sciences were taught so badly in my youth I never realised how fascinating they could be. I've taken a strong laymans interest since, but I have to confess I'm not giving her much help with her hiomework anymore

[Toonpack 10952]

There's no such thing as Good science then, there is always an agenda or grant to be won

 

Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive.

 

Not getting into a long discussion on this, you won't convince me and I won't convince you.

 

Well no, you're not going to convince me of anything when you seem to have either completely ignored, or cannot answer, my perfectly reasonable question of how you select what to believe and what not to.

 

It's perfectly possible not to have a prior agenda in science and not all science is grant funded. What do you make of the work of Newton, Einstein, and Darwin? Anyway, as I suggested to Parky, technology is really just the application of science, and it works, end of story. Science is not completely incompatible with belief in the Abrahamic God only if you decide all the particularly absurd stuff is a metaphor. Which brings us back to my question, which you won't answer...........

 

 

Well you either believe in God or you don't, quite simple really. I would add that whilst I do, I also don't have much faith in organised religion, which is in essence the industrialisation of faith for profit IMO.

 

The scientists you mention are from the era before science became a truly big business, let alone the corporate monster it is today, when the quest for knowledge was more "pure" for want of a better word.

 

Just look at some of the BIG science subjects, they are in fact just theories, not proven in fact, Big bang, Dark matter etc. There's a lot of science done to support these theories, but where's the contra-science to disprove them??. There isn't any, because once a theory gathers pace the research grants and kudos come pouring in.

 

Best thing any scientist could come up with is a theory that sounds fucking great, could be possible, but is unprovable in fact, becasue the striving for that fact is what makes science the money machine it is. Dark matter and Big Bang, being a cases in point.

 

As an analogy to what I'm trying to say. I'm an IT project manager, when I get into a project test phase, I don't want my test teams to tell me it works (if everyone has done their jobs right of course it fucking works!!), I want them to tell be it doesn't, I want them to try and break every single important element of the functionality, I don't want to know what's good about it, I want to know what's bad and how bad. Because when they can't, job's a good'un.

 

Aye, but again you're really talking about human and political failings, not scientific principle per se. And the point is, these theories can be tested and refuted, and gradually we get nearer and nearer the truth. That's why it's so important to me. Religion instead just has an unchanging book which is infallible and can't be tested. Instead, to reconcile the Bible with proven scientific fact, changing moral standards, and good old common sense, people such as yourself have decided that parts of the Bible are actually metaphors.

 

What I'm interested in is how you decide which parts are and which parts aren't. For instance, non-evangelical christians now accept that the reported deluge did not flood the world, and is in fact probably inspired by an ancient localised flood of some sort (which the Bible shares with many other cultures). It's also thought by most christians that Noah didn't literally gather two of each species etc, and the human race was not almost completely extinguished (as can be proved with DNA evidence etc). Yet you're saying that you believe Noah existed and was in communication with God. Why do you accept this and not the rest? Is it because this part of the story isn't testable? Genuine question, I'm not trying to be provocative here.

 

I didn't say that, what I said was:

 

Most stories from ancient times have, at their heart, a basis in truth. A vast flood in a (by todays standards) local area would have been seen as a world event thousands of years ago. Rationalise that out and you can easily come to a view that it happened, and why not Noah.

 

Which isn't a lot different to what you said.

[Renton 23155]

Most stories from ancient times have, at their heart, a basis in truth. A vast flood in a (by todays standards) local area would have been seen as a world event thousands of years ago. Rationalise that out and you can easily come to a view that it happened, and why not Noah.

 

Which isn't a lot different to what you said.

 

I could ask for clarification what you do believe but that's not really the point. I was more trying to establish how you choose what to believe and what not to, out of curiousity. I accept a lot of this is personal and/or can't be rationalised at the end of the day though.

[Guest alex]

Love these intolerant, right-wing Christians btw

[Park Life 71]

Renton the cod/faux/gay scientist.