Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part (Civ3)! Part 2

[Draco aka Se7eN]

Loinburger, i dont know why i even bother responding to your idiotic posts.

Can't you tell I was being sarcastic? This really calls your ability to comprehend simple matters into question.

Actually Dipshite i did assume you were being sarcastic. I just thought it was a retarded attepmt at being sarcastic about something that was sarcastic.

Ethelred has been saying for months how Creationists resort to putting their own words in the mouths of evolutionists as a last resort. All you've done is prove him right

Number one im not resorting to anything. You believe that all that i have said is false. I am showing you that I believe that everything, well just about, your saying is false. Im not going to waste my time prooving anything to you. It is futal for one creationist to try to proove anything to a mob of evolutionists just as it is futal for an evolutionist to proove anything to a mob of creationists. The majority of your debunking of what i said is quite idiotic hence my sarcasm in another post which was responded to with sarcasm.


You claim to be a veteran of this type of dicussion, but it's obvious that you are not. Have you never even visited www.talkorigins.org ? So far, every single "fact" you have posted on this thread is false!

Before you go any further, I suggest you read "How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?". Read ALL of it, slowly and carefully. And then read every article in the "FAQ section".

The problem you face is threefold:

Firstly, in the century and a half since the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, not a single shred of genuine scientific evidence that contradicts the Theory of Evolution has ever been discovered. Yes, I'll say that again, just to make sure it sinks in: In the century and a half since the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, not a single shred of genuine scientific evidence that contradicts the Theory of Evolution has ever been discovered. All creationist claims to the contrary have been investigated and shown to be false.

Secondly, Biblical creationism cannot be true. There is no creationist explanation for the sequence of the fossil record (all creationist attempts, such as "Flood sorting", have failed). Similarly, the worldwide "Great Flood" wasn't even noticed by many ancient civilizations supposedly destroyed by it. And so on...

Thirdly, there is no such thing as "creation science". Many creationists use invented qualifications (e.g. "Doctor" Kent Hovind, and various "Professors of Christian Apologetics"). A handful have genuine degrees in unrelated fields such as electrical engineering. A very few have successfully gained degrees in biology or geology, but all these people were already religious fundamentalists and creationists, none were subsequently "convinced by the evidence". I have found only one with a PhD in paleontology, and none so far with any sort of qualification in Evolutionary Biology, the science of evolution itself.

Creationism consists of ignorance, deceit and propaganda. And nothing more.

Not bad, ill look up on it.

[Ethelred]

(1.) you cannot have free-will by definition. Everything you do is determined by the workings of the physical laws in your brain.

Well that is according to your definition though. It doesn't fit mine. Everything we do is based on real physical laws as far as I can see anyway. I see no need to hypothesis a set of prinicapals that are not related to the Universe around us.

Even the randomness introduced by QM does not alter this, because it must randomly pick one of its eigenfunctions. The word 'randomly' in the previous sentence then precludes 'free-will'.

This is does not negate my point though. My idea and I think the general christian idea is that our actions are due to decisions we make whatever the physical basis of it. As opposed to our actions being set at creation by a god. It may be random but it isn't predictable by a god if uncertaintity is a property of the Universe. Frankly I see this as a good thing for christians that want to claim that men are evil (the Bible clearly says this although it does not justify the assertion) but that god did not cause us to be evil.

If all our action are predictable at the moment of creation then it follows that we cannot do evil except as an inherent result of how we were created. Unpredictabilty decouples us from creation as the total cause of our actions.

Thus either we or the hypothetical soul must have a degree of unpredictability in order to be evil or good through our own doings.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Ethelred
This is does not negate my point though. My idea and I think the general christian idea is that our actions are due to decisions we make whatever the physical basis of it. As opposed to our actions being set at creation by a god. It may be random but it isn't predictable by a god if uncertaintity is a property of the Universe.

OK, I disagree with this on a scientific level, rather than a spiritual one.

The problem is really in the definition of 'non-deterministic'. In QM, a measurement can have several outcomes, each with a predefined probability. Thus answer A might come 50% of the time, answer B 30% and answer C 20% of the time for example. So one connot predict what the outcome of a measurement is, but one can list the possible outcomes. Therfore, at the beginning of time, if you had a big enough computer (unrealistic since it would have to be bigger than the universe...) you could list all the possible configurations of the universe 14 billion years later (ie now), but you could not say which one actually will happen.

However, this is not free will, since the probability that you pick a specific option is already fixed by the laws of QM. Therfore you would be making your decisions based apon a (hypothetical) die roll. I don't think this is free-will.

Frankly I see this as a good thing for christians that want to claim that men are evil (the Bible clearly says this although it does not justify the assertion) but that god did not cause us to be evil.

If all our action are predictable at the moment of creation then it follows that we cannot do evil except as an inherent result of how we were created. Unpredictabilty decouples us from creation as the total cause of our actions.

One cannot say that someone is 'evil' because of a bad die roll either. Therfore, no-one is good or eveil with option (1.).

Thus either we or the hypothetical soul must have a degree of unpredictability in order to be evil or good through our own doings.

Not only unpredictability though. A QM brain is perfectly unpredictable - even if there are only two possibly final states we cannot say which one it will take. It actually requires some form of 'unphysical' law, or in otherwords not be governed by physical laws as we know them.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Rogan:

That is not quite what I was getting at with (2.). I agree with you that if the 'X factor' can be described by physical laws in our 'traditional' sense then it is also specific, and therefore not free. Somehow it needs to be something which is not governed in this way. That is why I was asking what it could be. The only explanation or possibility that I could come up with was God. Number (2.) then was supposed to be some non-God interaction wich somehow contains the properties to allow such a non-programed interaction. (Although then one wonders if this property would not fit the definitions of 'God' anyway.)

But the "X-factor", regardless of how it operates, produces results which are either relevant to the individual's circumstances or not. For instance, a "generous" person might give money to the poor, or he might give it to trees, rocks, parked cars and patches of thin air (a random, context-free impulse). We seem to agree that this sort of randomness isn't what is normally meant by "free" will, but then what exactly IS "free" will?

In the former case, the generous person is apparently responding to an environmental trigger, a visual image which triggers the "give to the poor" reflex. If this is explicable purely in terms of known physical laws, this is a Case 1 response. If it isn't, the effect is nevertheless a Case 2 response which mimics a Case 1 response: it is functionally equivalent, except for the lack of an identifiable physical mechanism. A puppet with invisible strings is still a puppet.

Furthermore, mind-altering drugs and physical brain damage can cause not just dysfunction, but personality alteration: our mysterious "X-factor" mimics the effect of physical laws so precisely that "brain damage" apparently causes "soul damage". It's as if breaking some of a puppet's invisible strings doesn't just cause the puppet's right arm to hang limp, it can also cause the puppet to pursue and batter other puppets with the left arm: it somehow damages the mind of the puppeteer.

If soul and brain are so intimately linked, it's reasonable to conclude that the soul is a property of the brain. To argue otherwise is rather like arguing that snowflakes ARE sculpted by fairies, but the fairies are constrained by strange "laws of fairy behavior" which dictate that the patterns they sculpt must be consistent with the crystalline structure of ice.

So, does "free will" mean "technically free from physical causality, but choosing to obey the constraints of physical causality regardless"?

[loinburger]

Rogan: If it were proven to you that there were no God, would you still behave morally? Why/why not?

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by loinburger
Rogan: If it were proven to you that there were no God, would you still behave morally? Why/why not?

That reminds me of a similar question I've seen directed at theists: "If it were proved to you that there is no God, which atrocity would you commit first, and why?"

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
In the former case, the generous person is apparently responding to an environmental trigger, a visual image which triggers the "give to the poor" reflex. If this is explicable purely in terms of known physical laws, this is a Case 1 response. If it isn't, the effect is nevertheless a Case 2 response which mimics a Case 1 response: it is functionally equivalent, except for the lack of an identifiable physical mechanism. A puppet with invisible strings is still a puppet.

Yes I agree. It does mimic case 1, since we have no physical evidence to distinguish between the options.

If soul and brain are so intimately linked, it's reasonable to conclude that the soul is a property of the brain. To argue otherwise is rather like arguing that snowflakes ARE sculpted by fairies, but the fairies are constrained by strange "laws of fairy behavior" which dictate that the patterns they sculpt must be consistent with the crystalline structure of ice.

I don't think that is so clear. If the break the part of the brain with which the 'soul' (for want of a better word) is communicating, you could have alteration of way in which the QM propabilities are skewed in the brain, which could conceivably manifest itself as personality alteration. However, I would say that in this model, it seems reasonable to suppose that a large part of the personality would come from the physical brain, or in other words the way in which the 'soul' is manifest throught the brain. This would then explain inherited genetic personality traits, among other things.
[/QUOTE]

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by loinburger
Rogan: If it were proven to you that there were no God, would you still behave morally? Why/why not?

If you could somehow prove that there is no 'factor X' then yes - there would be no morality. Then, no matter how I behaved, I would have no free-will, so I would be guilt free in any wrong-doing (whatever that would mean). I probably would feel genetically compelled to continue to behave morally though.

Note that 'Factor X' would not have to be God for me to believe I had free-will and act accordingly.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
"If it were proved to you that there is no God, which atrocity would you commit first, and why?"

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
If you could somehow prove that there is no 'factor X' then yes - there would be no morality. Then, no matter how I behaved, I would have no free-will, so I would be guilt free in any wrong-doing (whatever that would mean). I probably would feel genetically compelled to continue to behave morally though.

Well, that settles that matter. Thank you for being honest.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by loinburger
Well, that settles that matter. Thank you for being honest.

erm... you are welcome.

I do always try to be honest! (honestly!)

[Lung]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
However, this is not free will, since the probability that you pick a specific option is already fixed by the laws of QM. Therfore you would be making your decisions based apon a (hypothetical) die roll. I don't think this is free-will.

So what you're saying is that because a coin has an equal probability of landing on heads or tails, ny "choice" is not really a choice because the choices are determined by the laws of the universe?

In that case, i don't want to gamble on the coin and i walk away. VOILA!! Instant free will

[Lung]

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
I am showing you that I believe that everything, well just about, your saying is false. Im not going to waste my time prooving anything to you.

How convenient

You can't proove (sic) anything, so you tell us that you aren't going to "waste your time" proving anything to us!

As they say in journalism, never let facts get in the way of a good story

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
You believe that all that i have said is false. I am showing you that I believe that everything, well just about, your saying is false.

There is a difference: we have evidence and argument on our side. What do you have?

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
Im not going to waste my time prooving anything to you.

I don't expect you to, just like I don't expect any Flat Earthers attempting to prove his case.

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
It is futal for one creationist to try to proove anything to a mob of evolutionists just as it is futal for an evolutionist to proove anything to a mob of creationists.

There is a difference. Creationists have no evidence, they "prove" by bald assertions, misquotes, and plain lies.

The way Creationists close their eyes to evidence is like a ostrich sticking its head in sand.

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
The majority of your debunking of what i said is quite idiotic hence my sarcasm in another post which was responded to with sarcasm.

How believable is the judgement of a person who asserted to know a lot yet turned out to be typically ignorant?

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
You claim to be a veteran of this type of dicussion, but it's obvious that you are not. Have you never even visited www.talkorigins.org ? So far, every single "fact" you have posted on this thread is false!

Examples?

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
Before you go any further, I suggest you read "How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?". Read ALL of it, slowly and carefully. And then read every article in the "FAQ section".

I did. Did you? I can summarise the it for you: YEC arguments suck eggs.

The problem you face is threefold:

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
Firstly, in the century and a half since the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, not a single shred of genuine scientific evidence that contradicts the Theory of Evolution has ever been discovered. Yes, I'll say that again, just to make sure it sinks in: In the century and a half since the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, not a single shred of genuine scientific evidence that contradicts the Theory of Evolution has ever been discovered. All creationist claims to the contrary have been investigated and shown to be false.

That's correct. Did you have a change of heart?

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
Secondly, Biblical creationism cannot be true. There is no creationist explanation for the sequence of the fossil record (all creationist attempts, such as "Flood sorting", have failed). Similarly, the worldwide "Great Flood" wasn't even noticed by many ancient civilizations supposedly destroyed by it. And so on...

That's true too.

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
Thirdly, there is no such thing as "creation science". Many creationists use invented qualifications (e.g. "Doctor" Kent Hovind, and various "Professors of Christian Apologetics"). A handful have genuine degrees in unrelated fields such as electrical engineering. A very few have successfully gained degrees in biology or geology, but all these people were already religious fundamentalists and creationists, none were subsequently "convinced by the evidence". I have found only one with a PhD in paleontology, and none so far with any sort of qualification in Evolutionary Biology, the science of evolution itself.

That's precisely the way it is.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

That reminds me of a similar question I've seen directed at theists: "If it were proved to you that there is no God, which atrocity would you commit first, and why?"

That's very quotable

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lung


In that case, i don't want to gamble on the coin and i walk away. VOILA!! Instant free will

Did you leave your brain behind when you did this? Is it now the brain of Jack the Bodiless?

The coin toss in question is occuring in the brain. The brain's coin tosses are considerable however. Even if they only occur at 10 or twenty times a second there are rather a lot of them going on at any time. There are about 100 billion neurons and each one has lots and lots dendrites.

I think you left a fortune in pennies behind.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
3. There is a God, and we individually have souls. The presence of our souls in the universe, allows us to influence the the workings of our brain (possibly via the collapse of wavefunctions in our brain) via interaction through God. It is therefore our souls who determine who we are. Obviously the brain is also critical, in that the possible eigenfunctions chosable are dictated by physics. Remove the brain (or part of it) and we cease to function as one would expect.

This is just the point, though. Given that the Christian god is omniscient, how can humans have freewill? The existence of the Christian god - or any omniscient being for that matter - precludes freewill.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Not science itself, no. However, the environment that science operates in does. As I posited before, science presupposes naturalism, which makes it fundamentally incompatible with religion - or any form of religion and beliefs that presupposes supernaturalism.

What are your thoughts on this?

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
This is just the point, though. Given that the Christian god is omniscient, how can humans have freewill? The existence of the Christian god - or any omniscient being for that matter - precludes freewill.

God being omniscient does not imply that we are. We are still free to make mistakes independently of God. Indeed, I would go further and say that we all do know how to behave - so we really don't need God's omniscience anyway, but we choose to reject God because we have free-will.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Not science itself, no. However, the environment that science operates in does. As I posited before, science presupposes naturalism, which makes it fundamentally incompatible with religion - or any form of religion and beliefs that presupposes supernaturalism.

Actually I agree with the stement but probably do not quite see it the same way. Science makes an assumption that all phenomena in the universe can be explained by physical laws in the sense that we are used to. Therefore, science is from the outset unable to model supernaturalism or religion. Indeed, that is why it is called the supernatural - because it cannot be described by science in its traditional sense.

However, as we already discussed, I do not believe that free-will can be accommodated within a traditional scientific approach. That could of course be because we have no free-will, but if we reject that then there is something more than our traditional science. In other words, if we have free-will, then the assumption that science (as we know it) can describe the universe in its entirety is wrong.

Now, it may be that one day some bright spark will have some radical idea which changes the whole idea of science and allows these kind of phenomena to be modelled - in which case science might then be able to describe the idea of a God.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Not science itself, no. However, the environment that science operates in does. As I posited before, science presupposes naturalism, which makes it fundamentally incompatible with religion - or any form of religion and beliefs that presupposes supernaturalism.

I think a better way to put it is that science assumes that the Universe is comprehensible. To assume the opposite is to give up on understanding, which happened in Dark Age Europe.

This however does not preclude religion. It does however relegate it to things not yet understood or inherently outside of human ken.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
God being omniscient does not imply that we are. We are still free to make mistakes independently of God. Indeed, I would go further and say that we all do know how to behave - so we really don't need God's omniscience anyway, but we choose to reject God because we have free-will.

We don't have Free Will in that case however.

IF god is omniscient
AND god created us
THEN god knows all that we may do based on how he created us and the universe before we are born much less actually do anything.


I don't see any room for Free Will in that. All the decisions are made at the moment of creation. Unless god chose not to exericise omniscience, which would be indistinguishable from not being omniscient, regarding both humans and the universe. It would also require that god blot out all of gods memories prior to creation that relate to creation since god would know the outcome of creation even before creating.

Omniscience is pretty darned all encompassing.

Now, it may be that one day some bright spark will have some radical idea which changes the whole idea of science and allows these kind of phenomena to be modelled - in which case science might then be able to describe the idea of a God.

Exceedingly bright. How would one go about testing the supernatural and how do you distinguish it from the natural if it can be tested? Its last part that seems intractable. If it can be tested its part of natural phenoma unless the Bright Spark itself is not natural.

[Rogan Josh]

First of all, let me point out that one cannot really expect to understand how the 'supernatural' works since one cnnot by definition describe it in conventional terms which we are used to.

Originally posted by Ethelred
We don't have Free Will in that case however.

IF god is omniscient
AND god created us
THEN god knows all that we may do based on how he created us and the universe before we are born much less actually do anything.

I don't see any room for Free Will in that. All the decisions are made at the moment of creation. Unless god chose not to exericise omniscience, which would be indistinguishable from not being omniscient, regarding both humans and the universe. It would also require that god blot out all of gods memories prior to creation that relate to creation since god would know the outcome of creation even before creating.

Omniscience is pretty darned all encompassing.

All of the above is true if God is bounded by causality. Presumably though and omnipotent being would not be. He would then know what our decisions would be without actually forcing them to be that way - they would still be our decisions and therefore we would still have free will.

Of course, the definition of 'onmipotent' is not terribly clear - is God still omnipotent even if he gives us the power to make decisions? Clearly, if we have the power to make our decisions He does not, and therefore he is not all-powerful. But that is a sort of non-omnipotence enforced by God's will, so to apeak, so I am not sure it counts.

Exceedingly bright. How would one go about testing the supernatural and how do you distinguish it from the natural if it can be tested? Its last part that seems intractable. If it can be tested its part of natural phenoma unless the Bright Spark itself is not natural.

I agree. I cannot imagine this ever happening, but who knows....?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
First of all, let me point out that one cannot really expect to understand how the 'supernatural' works since one cnnot by definition describe it in conventional terms which we are used to.

Yes that was part of my point about it being a bad idea to assume that the Universe has a siginificant supernatural aspect. There is no way to deal with it so you might as well assume the opposite. At least as long as the assumption continues to bear fruit.

All of the above is true if God is bounded by causality. Presumably though and omnipotent being would not be. He would then know what our decisions would be without actually forcing them to be that way - they would still be our decisions and therefore we would still have free will.

I think it is true either way. God might not be bound by causality but we are. Therefor however god creates the universe and any inteligent inhabitants are bound by the acts of that god as long as everything is fixed at creation. You could call them our decisions if you want but the decisions would still have been made at the moment of creation. Any small change in the creation would result in different decisions. Thus our decisions become bound by creation whatever went into it as long as the creator knows what will happen before we are even born.

We are not onimpotent. We are bound by causality. The only question is; are we bound from the moment of creation, however the universe came into being, or do we have actual options. If god make the choice to create the universe such that we must choose option A instead of option B than it is god that has made the choice not us. If however god sets up the universe so even god cannot know what will happen then we have freedom of action apart from the will of the creator.

Then there is this aspect of it. Why would a god bother creating a universe where it knows the results allready? Seems kind of boring and futile.

Of course, the definition of 'onmipotent' is not terribly clear - is God still omnipotent even if he gives us the power to make decisions? Clearly, if we have the power to make our decisions He does not, and therefore he is not all-powerful. But that is a sort of non-omnipotence enforced by God's will, so to apeak, so I am not sure it counts.

A god can be omnipotent and choose not to exercise the power. Just as I could choose not to reply to you even though I can do so.

I agree. I cannot imagine this ever happening, but who knows....?

Well then we have reached THE LIMITS OF THE IMAGINATION. Not to be confused with The Twighlight Zone or The Outer Limits. Then again Heinlein Incorporated Magic.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Yes that was part of my point about it being a bad idea to assume that the Universe has a siginificant supernatural aspect. There is no way to deal with it so you might as well assume the opposite. At least as long as the assumption continues to bear fruit.

Oh absolutely! this is exactly what I am doing every day, as a christian who is also a scientist. As a scientist I can only use the physical laws which we (think we) understand in my calculations. Since any 'God effect' is unpredictable and arbitrary I cannot (and should not) include it. However, you should be careful to include the possibility of God where the effects are not arbitrary, such as in every day dealings with outher people and the understanding and preservation of our own morality.

We are not onimpotent. We are bound by causality. The only question is; are we bound from the moment of creation, however the universe came into being, or do we have actual options. If god make the choice to create the universe such that we must choose option A instead of option B than it is god that has made the choice not us. If however god sets up the universe so even god cannot know what will happen then we have freedom of action apart from the will of the creator.

We have to be careful with the word 'causality' here, since I think you are thinking of it differently from me. Essentially, I meant that God must be outside time. Thereby, his knowledge of which actions we will take would not in any way predetermine them.

Think of it this way: imagine you could time travel into the future and secretly observe the birth of your grandson. You overhear your son naming him Simon (for example) and then travel back home. You then know that your son will call his son 'Simon' but you have not taken the decision away from your son - it is still your son's choice to call him 'Simon' - not yours. Of course, God does not need to time travel as such since he is not constrained by time - an omnipotent being is presumably at everytime at once, so to speak, but the idea is the same.

Then there is this aspect of it. Why would a god bother creating a universe where it knows the results allready? Seems kind of boring and futile.

Well, I don't understand how people can play Civ III when they can play Civ II or EU2. Civ III also seems kind of boring and futile.

[Boris Godunov]

GUYS--guys...BO-RING. Get back to making the Creationists look like fools, I was enjoying that.

[-=Vagrant=-]

If there are any "Bible is the Truth"- YECreationists here, could you please explain how koalas, wombats and those jumping kangaroos made it back to Australia? According to one YEC they crossed an ice bridge made by the after-Flood ice age. Any other ideas?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-
If there are any "Bible is the Truth"- YECreationists here, could you please explain how koalas, wombats and those jumping kangaroos made it back to Australia? According to one YEC they crossed an ice bridge made by the after-Flood ice age. Any other ideas?

Or explain how such animals--endemic to Australia--made it to the Middle East, and how Noah fed the koalas, given they eat exclusively eucalyptus leaves, and those trees are nowhere to be found even remotely close the Middle East. Where did Noah get their food?

To that end, where did he get the meat for all the carnivores to eat? Lions, tigers, bears, wolves, cougars, leopards, hyenas, bobcats, etc.? These animals not only require meat, they eat only freshly killed meat. If there were only 2 (or 7, according to some) of each form of grazing animal (prey), they would have all been eaten in less than a month.

And just how did 8 people dispose of the amount of fecal matter generated by what had to have been at least 15,000 animal species (more likely much, much higher)?

Or how did a boat 450 feet long by 75 feet wide by 75 feet high house all the world's animals?

Or how did it stay together, given any all-wooden ship over 200 feet in length will have massive difficulties with structural soundness and leakage?

The questions go on and on...it's a fairy tale, totally ludicrous.

[-=Vagrant=-]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


...how such animals--endemic to Australia--made it to the Middle East, and how Noah fed the koalas, given they eat exclusively eucalyptus leaves, and those trees are nowhere to be found even remotely close the Middle East. Where did Noah get their food?

All true believers know that 1) all the continents were together pre-Flood. (Pangaia) 2)all the animals didn't need to eat anything. God himself protected and fed them with His divine spirit.

And just how did 8 people dispose of the amount of fecal matter generated by what had to have been at least 15,000 animal species (more likely much, much higher)?

Those animals didn't eat because of God, so therefore they didn't produce any "droppings".

Or how did a boat 450 feet long by 75 feet wide by 75 feet high house all the world's animals?

All true believers start talking about "kinds" and stuff. Don't understand it myself.

Or how did it stay together, given any all-wooden ship over 200 feet in length will have massive difficulties with structural soundness and leakage?

You see, the wood was super though and God did it, and...blahblah.

The questions go on and on...it's a fairy tale, totally ludicrous.

But it SAYS so in the Bible!

[Boris Godunov]

LOL, nice and succinct paraphrasing of Creationist rationale. Well done.

My opinion is that if an Omnipotent Creater made the universe and all of the complex laws that that govern physics, nature, etc. and the minute structure of life, why would he then go about rampantly violating His very own rules that he had obviously worked so hard to create? Why not make the laws of science and nature such that the events of the Flood could be explained sans divine miracles? The sheer number of miracles God would have to have wrought to make the Flood story true is ridiculous and would indicate massively poor planning and inefficiency on the part of an Omnipotent Being. If he knew everything, he would have known at the beginning of time the need for the Flood and therefore done some preparation so he didn't constantly have to contort the rules of the universe to suit this particular whim.

God should have worked smarter, not harder.

[-=Vagrant=-]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

God should have worked smarter, not harder.

Maybe He is the pointy-haired boss from Dilbert? http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilber...ndex.html#boss