| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/12/2005 10:19:34 PM · #551 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If there were no carnivores around before the Flood, what ate up all the dead herbivores? Doesn't any of the pre-Flood stories mention a lion or wolf? For that matter, snakes are carnivores (or oovores, which should be the same to you), and we know there was at least one of those around before the Flood.. |
Here's an interesting note for you, GeneralE. As I've previously mentioned, humans cannot sythesize ascorbic acid (vitamin C) due to particular pseudogene. Well, you may not know that cats cannot sythesize their own taurine due to a similar pseudogene problem. Incidentally, this taurine pseudogene has also been tested for and found in tigers and cheetahs. Though lions, leopards, and lynxes have not yet been tested (based on an article I read which was published this past July), it is predicted, via evolutionary theory, they will also carry the taurine pseudogene.
Here's the interesting thing about taurine. It's not found in vegetation. Cats must eat meat in order received taurine, just as humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans must eat food containing vitamin C, otherwise they become sick and die.
Simply speaking, members of the cat family must eat meat or die.
Edited for spelling, grammar and clarity.
Message edited by author 2005-11-12 23:23:05. |
|
|
|
11/12/2005 10:29:16 PM · #552 |
Four 600 year old fellas building a boat large enough to accomodate 40000 animals and their food. I'm not exactly a nautical engineer but given the lack of modern equipment, I get the feeling they might have encountered one or two logistical issues during construction - no matter how long it took them to build.
Unless of course, Noah and Co were not only extremely old, but giant in dimension. But I suppose, if you can have a 600 year old, it's not too much of a stretch to suggest he was also 60 feet tall.
I've only read the last page... but this is clearly the best DPC thread I've ever seen! |
|
|
|
11/12/2005 10:41:48 PM · #553 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Water takes up a huge amount of room... |
They did not take it ALL with them, as you say, but enough to make up the deficit. |
...and quite a deficit that would be (enough for many months after the rain stopped). Depending upon whose definition of cubit you use, the ark would be either smaller than or nearly the same size as an aircraft carrier, with up to 96,000 square feet of space (not 1.5 million). Into this space, Noah had to fit 7 PAIRS of every clean beast and fowl, and 2 PAIRS of the unclean versions (not just two of each, look it up), along with enough food and water for a year. Supposedly, the world's plant life was preserved by seed carried by the fowl for over a year. Nevermind that all plants do not produce seed or that many animals and insects can only eat one specific kind of plant (or animal) that would have to be gathered and stored. Actually, you'd need to store well over a year of food because those disembarking would face a moonscape devoid of plants, and every animal would be way up on the endangered species list.
Assuming those problems are overcome, you've got only 8 people on board to feed and care for a group of animals that would dwarf any zoo. Any waste in the lower decks must be carried to the top, and the food mustn't spoil for a year in humid, unrefrigerated conditions. There is no provision for aquatic life despite obvious problems noted earlier with salinity and pressure.
Message edited by author 2005-11-12 23:42:03. |
|
|
|
11/12/2005 10:55:25 PM · #554 |
| I'd like to apologize to Persimon as this thread has gone so far off-topic it's not even funny... but the debate sure is! |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 12:33:39 AM · #555 |
Originally posted by samtrundle:
Four 600 year old fellas building a boat large enough to accomodate 40000 animals and their food. I'm not exactly a nautical engineer but given the lack of modern equipment, I get the feeling they might have encountered one or two logistical issues during construction - no matter how long it took them to build.
Unless of course, Noah and Co were not only extremely old, but giant in dimension. But I suppose, if you can have a 600 year old, it's not too much of a stretch to suggest he was also 60 feet tall.
I've only read the last page... but this is clearly the best DPC thread I've ever seen! |
Yeah not to mention collecting species that did not exist in the quoted part of the world, not to mention a small sample is hardly enough to sustain a gene pool going forward (ever looked at the english royal family and that was short term and a bigger gene sample) e.t.c. How many species was there again?
Beyond me why people think these are anything other than bed-time stories or farytails from a long (oe less so) time ago. This is thread has me rolling on the floor laughing. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 01:34:11 AM · #556 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
...and quite a deficit that would be (enough for many months after the rain stopped). Depending upon whose definition of cubit you use, the ark would be either smaller than or nearly the same size as an aircraft carrier, with up to 96,000 square feet of space (not 1.5 million). |
For what it's worth, Ron said 1.5 million CUBIC feet. I don't know how many cubic feet an aircarft carrier has, but assuming it has 97,000 square feet of deck space under cover, that would be roughly three quarters of a million cubic feet if the average ceiling height were 8 feet... Hell if I know...
R. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 02:22:26 AM · #557 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
this is what YOUR god and YOUR bible says about gay men:
"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. - Leviticus 20:13 (New King James Version)
yeah, there are about 25 translations of this phrase, but they all say basically the same thing. That gay people should be killed.
that's just sick. |
It seems to me that the quote in bold only concerns bisexual males, not pure gays. Don't you agree?
A gay would never lie with a male as he lies with a woman,
:-)
Message edited by author 2005-11-13 02:23:33. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 02:27:07 AM · #558 |
Originally posted by Didymus:
Originally posted by ericlimon:
this is what YOUR god and YOUR bible says about gay men:
"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. - Leviticus 20:13 (New King James Version)
yeah, there are about 25 translations of this phrase, but they all say basically the same thing. That gay people should be killed.
that's just sick. |
. |
It seems to me that the quote in bold only concerns bisexual males, not pure gays. Don't you agree?
A gay would never lie with a male as he lies with a woman,
:-) [/quote]
You may just be funning us, but I think that interpretation's a stretch. Back in those days it was common for people to all sleep together in a single bed, and certainly soldiers in the field would cluster for warmth on cold nights also. There was nothing unusual about men sleeping with other men, in other words. It's a "euphemism"; "To lie with a male as I would lie with a woman" is a polite way od saying "have sex with"... But you know that, of course, right? :-)
R. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 02:34:34 AM · #559 |
Yes, of course I know what 'to lie with ...' means. That's exactly my point. Talmudic jews have always been extremely precise in their interpretations of matters like this so, referring to a jewish authority, we should be, too.
A man does not have sex with a man the same way he has sex with a woman, unless he's bisexual. Heterosexual men would merrily welcome sex with a woman, whereas they would reject even the thought of having to have sex with another man.
It's the same for gays, only vice versa.
Bisexuals are the only ones who don't discriminate on gender basis. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 02:49:40 AM · #560 |
Originally posted by Didymus:
Yes, of course I know what 'to lie with ...' means. That's exactly my point. Talmudic jews have always been extremely precise in their interpretations of matters like this so, referring to a jewish authority, we should be, too.
A man does not have sex with a man the same way he has sex with a woman, unless he's bisexual. Heterosexual men would merrily welcome sex with a woman, whereas they would reject even the thought of having to have sex with another man.
It's the same for gays, only vice versa.
Bisexuals are the only ones who don't discriminate on gender basis. |
I'll buy that (the Talmudic aspect of it) if it can be shown that in the original language this nuance was present. The translators of the bible into English, especially, are famous for bowdlerizing it, using euphemisms and allusions to replace explicit verbs.
The word "fuck", or any earlier variation of it, is not included in the bible anywhere as far as I am aware. All references to sexual intercourse are euphemistic in the bible. And in the time of King James translation, to "lie with a woman" was a common euphemism for intercourse, much the way "to sleep with" is now.
Now, if you're saying that you'd still expect a Talmudic dissection to infer from the passage that it referred to bisexuality if it were translated "to make love to a man as he would to a woman", I guess I can't argue with that :-) You'd THINK, if they wanted to be explicit, they'd just say "for a man to have carnal knowledge of another man", wouldn't you?...
R. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 03:54:39 AM · #561 |
has anyone read the story in the bible about sodom and gamora? look it up. and if man evolved from monkeys why is there still monkeys around today, get real people!!!
|
|
|
|
11/13/2005 04:44:09 AM · #562 |
Originally posted by BigR:
has anyone read the story in the bible about sodom and gamora? look it up. and if man evolved from monkeys why is there still monkeys around today, get real people!!! |
Nothing in the theory of evolution requires that as new species evolve the old species die out. In any event, when it comes to evolutionary theory that "evolved from monkeys" bit is a complete misunderstanding. For one thing, it's the apes not the monkeys. For another, nobody's saying we "evolved from" a chimpanzee in the sense that if you go back far enough a chimp is your ancestor.
Rather, the theory is that the apes, the monkeys, and homo sapiens are three branches of the same tree, as it were; that at some point way back when, our branches diverged from a common ancestral trunk. Big difference.
For the matter of that, current thinking (I believe) is that Homo Sapiens evolved separately from Neanderthal man, who ended up as an evolutionary dead end and died out.
And yes, I believe most of us, if not all, commenting to this thread have read the story of "Sodom and Gommorah".
R. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 04:50:53 AM · #563 |
There is evidence, however, that supports the theory of evolution; as only appropriate for this site, the evidence is presented in form of a photography.
The Neanderthals did look like us - somewhat.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2005 05:37:48 AM · #564 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by Didymus:
Yes, of course I know what 'to lie with ...' means. That's exactly my point. Talmudic jews have always been extremely precise in their interpretations of matters like this so, referring to a jewish authority, we should be, too.
A man does not have sex with a man the same way he has sex with a woman, unless he's bisexual. Heterosexual men would merrily welcome sex with a woman, whereas they would reject even the thought of having to have sex with another man.
It's the same for gays, only vice versa.
Bisexuals are the only ones who don't discriminate on gender basis. |
I'll buy that (the Talmudic aspect of it) if it can be shown that in the original language this nuance was present. The translators of the bible into English, especially, are famous for bowdlerizing it, using euphemisms and allusions to replace explicit verbs.
The word "fuck", or any earlier variation of it, is not included in the bible anywhere as far as I am aware. All references to sexual intercourse are euphemistic in the bible. And in the time of King James translation, to "lie with a woman" was a common euphemism for intercourse, much the way "to sleep with" is now.
Now, if you're saying that you'd still expect a Talmudic dissection to infer from the passage that it referred to bisexuality if it were translated "to make love to a man as he would to a woman", I guess I can't argue with that :-) You'd THINK, if they wanted to be explicit, they'd just say "for a man to have carnal knowledge of another man", wouldn't you?...
R. |
Ah, but that's exactly how we read it, don't we -"to make love to a man as he would to a woman"?
Well, a gay man would not make love to a man as he would to a woman (in fact he would abhor making love to a woman altogether), ergo he can not be condemned under this clause.
I don't think I'm able to make my point much clearer than that. :-) |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 07:29:39 AM · #565 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
For the matter of that, current thinking (I believe) is that Homo Sapiens evolved separately from Neanderthal man, who ended up as an evolutionary dead end and died out.
R. |
As much as I hate to pad the Bear's ego :), Going back to an anthropology course I took about five years ago - I seem to remember that being the case.
Message edited by author 2005-11-13 07:31:11. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 07:56:17 AM · #566 |
Originally posted by samtrundle:
Originally posted by bear_music:
For the matter of that, current thinking (I believe) is that Homo Sapiens evolved separately from Neanderthal man, who ended up as an evolutionary dead end and died out.
R. |
As much as I hate to pad the Bear's ego :), Going back to an anthropology course I took about five years ago - I seem to remember that being the case. |
There were actually quite a few 'versions' of Homo(fill in the blank) that died out rather than evolved. And it didn't always move in a linear progression (A to B to C) but had many branches. And these 'different species' occasionally intermingled and produced offspring.
Hope that made sense.
Anyway, I'm still trying to get my head around God creating the world in 6 days but with only certain types of animals, flooding the world after Noah built an ark to save certain types of animals, and then, SOMEHOW, many more animals than were originally created appear. Either God must have worked an additional day after the flood or the animals that existed evolved into other species. Hmmmm....
|
|
|
|
11/13/2005 08:07:04 AM · #567 |
Good Morning! I am back and raring to go!
Since you have moved on from Noah to a certain degree, to anthropology, I will forgo asking the question that struck me at 4am this morning about koalas and kangaroos.
BUT I will return to my question as to when the Old Testament was first written down. Who first wrote it down, when did this happen and where is there a record of this ( can there be a record?). Anyway since the "stories"/"history" must have been oral tradition up to then, who knows if they are true or have been somewhat dramatised as any storyteller will do to keep audience interest. Also if any of you have played Chinese Whispers you know what happens to words after five minutes let alone 1000 years.
By the way RonB,thank you for taking my bitchy remark so graciously - blame it on late night and wine!
I am also glad to see you actually admit ( How did they get to Australia?) that you do not know something about Noah! I respect this more than you trying to explain the unexplainable ( note I didn't say untrue). Is all the information you said about the water/food/dinosaurs in the Bible in plain language? Or is it implied? Or is it the church scholars trying to answer questions like in this thread?
P
Message edited by author 2005-11-13 08:08:11.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2005 09:53:38 AM · #568 |
Having stayed up til the wee hours, after taking an hour and a half to read the first half of this thread, it is now morning and I decided to just skip to page 23.
I have to say that I am a native Texan and am embarrassed to concede that my ballot of NO to the proposition to ban gay marriage was way out-voted. I am in total agreement with SJCarter and others with like expressions in this thread. BUT I must also say that the articulate nature of most of the postings, along with a relatively minimal amount of bashing and name calling has held this group of folks in my highest regard. It has remained on a relatively upper tier of self expression, with minimal personal lambasting and for that, I salute you!!
Overall, this new "right wing" (as it is being called) attitude of the new morality is very scary to me and the invitations by some of you Canadians is beginning to look better and better. I want to live in a land of tolerance and understanding, where freedom is that of the individual, not mandated by the government. In my recollection, that is what the United States was based on in the Bill of Rights.
It's far too early to stay on this soap box. I'm still in my nightgown and have only had one cup of coffee...... let the discussions continue.
Judy |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 10:02:26 AM · #569 |
Originally posted by BigR:
and if man evolved from monkeys why is there still monkeys around today, get real people!!! |
If you're descended from your grandparents, why do you have cousins around today? You're essentially asking the same question. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 10:04:27 AM · #570 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I don't know what it was like outside the garden, scripture doesn't say - but I would guess that it was less suitable for naked people given to a light workload... |
i think the original topic of this thread is too far gone, but i did have to say this:
if your definition of adam and eve is "people who like to be naked and have a light workload," then they sure sound like gay guys to me. are we SURE it wasn't "adam and steve?" :P
Message edited by author 2005-11-13 10:04:40. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 10:14:18 AM · #571 |
| This is not a NEW right wing thing. IT IS what this country was built on, Has everyone just flat forgot this. Read the BIBLE for yourself dont take someone's opinion on it. IT IS the ONLY book you will ever read that is true,and all predictions HAVE come true and are to this day still coming true to this day! It even talks about what we are going through right now. Thus the reason for this conversation. If you have never experenced the pure presence of God you dont understand. May God Help You All. ( besides Jesus said hate the sin not the sinner) |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 10:33:23 AM · #572 |
Originally posted by BigR:
This is not a NEW right wing thing. IT IS what this country was built on, Has everyone just flat forgot this. Read the BIBLE for yourself dont take someone's opinion on it. IT IS the ONLY book you will ever read that is true,and all predictions HAVE come true and are to this day still coming true to this day! It even talks about what we are going through right now. Thus the reason for this conversation. If you have never experenced the pure presence of God you dont understand. May God Help You All. ( besides Jesus said hate the sin not the sinner) |
This country was built by a lot of different people, especially those fleeing religous and ethnic intolerance and persecution.
The one thing that seperates an average nation from a great nation is it's ability to survive , prosper and grow while maintaining equality for people of all ethnic and religous backgrounds.
I believe the "New Right Wing" described by someone else previously is simply a reference to the emboldened nature of a certain demographic of the U.S.
What I find interesting is that two of the major themes this country was built on...freedom of undue taxation and freedom to believe what religion you want seem to be the very two things we fight for and against today.
400 years and people still can't just quit trying to redistribute other peoples money or dictate their religous views on others.
Message edited by author 2005-11-13 10:34:21. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 10:47:50 AM · #573 |
The reason this thread has remained fairly respectful, great fun and very interesting is that it has evolved away from the political basis it began with, discussing the gay marriage debate in Texas, and moved into discussing religion and in particular the Bible and whether its contents are true.
IMO it would be sad if we returned to Right/Left American politics with everyone just going round in circles.
If this does happen perhaps we should start a new thread to continue our analysis of the Bible?
P
|
|
|
|
11/13/2005 11:17:05 AM · #574 |
Threads will go in the direction they go in, respect can be maintained in all instances.
How is it that people are more interested in discussing the unknowable versus the danger to our human rights? That may be more telling in what is wrong in society today. The unwillingness to face what has real affect on peoples lives in order to discuss the philisophical. :-/
|
|
|
|
11/13/2005 11:21:22 AM · #575 |
Originally posted by hokie:
How is it that people are more interested in discussing the unknowable versus the danger to our human rights? :-/ |
Not being an American I may be missing the gist of the argument in this instance. Where exactly does it say in your constitution that denying anyone the right to marry is an infringement of their rights.
Do I believe gays should have the right to marry... of course I do, but I hardly see this as a human right issue.
Ray
|
|
