3 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

It has been estimated that 43 kinds of mammals, 74 kinds of birds, and 10 kinds of reptiles could have produced the variety of species known today.

In 4000 years. Uh huh.

1 hour ago, npts2020 said:

elephant consumes 4-6% of its body weight in plant matter on a daily basis) And that is just one species

If elephants are "clean" then we have seven. An elephant's water intake can be about 50 gallons per day. That's 350 per day and about 130,000 gallons for the 370 days at sea. That much water would take up about 490 cubic metres.

Cows, horses, Buffalo, giraffes, hippos, all the big ruminants plus carnivores will need a huge space for food and water. You would need most of the deck equipped to catch rain water which stops after 40 days.

Once you add up all that mass and volume two things would become obvious.

Not enough room.

Not enough man power even if their was, how many staff does an average zoo have? With a tiny fraction of animals compared to what the Bible claims.

How did they get it on the arc? Took their time right? No. Food spoils, you cannot stock up over a 40 day period let alone 40 years. It's the middle east! Anything you put on the boat on Monday, perishables, is done by Wednesday. They did not have fridges.

It's a great story but it is not historical. History probably starts after the Babylonian exile. That's why some of the stories have Babylonian influence like the flood.

I feel we are reaching the bottom of the barrel, when everyone is debunking the literal details of Noah's ark. I mean, should we get into flood duration, average depths across the globe, what mountains and high plateau regions would have remained dry, post-diluvial forage losses due to swamping and saltation of soils, contamination from putrefactive bacteria of the drowned, root hypoxia in plants from prolonged immersion, etc? It's like subjecting the Tooth Fairy to rigorous scientific analysis - maybe suitable for an April 1st post.

This guy summarises some of the issues.

Yes, it is a YouTube video, bad form BUT in my defense.

It is very funny.

It is very well thought out.

26 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I feel we are reaching the bottom of the barrel, when everyone is debunking the literal details of Noah's ark. I mean, should we get into flood duration, average depths across the globe, what mountains and high plateau regions would have remained dry, post-diluvial forage losses due to swamping and saltation of soils, contamination from putrefactive bacteria of the drowned, root hypoxia in plants from prolonged immersion, etc? It's like subjecting the Tooth Fairy to rigorous scientific analysis - maybe suitable for an April 1st post.

Agreed. It’s too silly to spend time on. In fact I think somewhere there is a forum policy that says we don’t waste time on such non-issues.

4 hours ago, npts2020 said:

Then you have to decide which parts of the bible you want to pick and choose to take literally or not

That’s one advantage of dismantling the creationist stance that it's all literally true - there is no picking and choosing.

As far as discussion here goes, a claim like “Plenty of room for Noah's family as well as for all the animals and their food.” can’t just be asserted - there’s plenty of science involved that can be used to analyze this (and the associated issues that have been pointed out). Not a problem, unless you’re somebody who isn’t interested in science and doesn’t defend the claim. Then it becomes soapboxing, which is against the rules.

5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Estimated by the Jehovah's Witnesses, who somehow are able to accelerate evolution while simultaneously denying it. Do you have anything credible? Or do you want to double down on millions of species evolving in just a few thousand years?

Yeah, lets do that, because what you ideologues don't seem to understand is that my approach is more scientific than yours. Agreeing with science doesn't make it science. That makes it propaganda and ideology. Saying something that you think is in line with science isn't science, even if it is in line with science. Science isn't a belief system it's a method of investigation. It's doing the leg work. So, yeah let's double down on that. Wipe out both the pathologically narrow minded idiot religion of evolution and atheism with one stone.

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

Agreed. It’s too silly to spend time on. In fact I think somewhere there is a forum policy that says we don’t waste time on such non-issues.

That's fine if you think that way, but you understand that it isn't science? My beliefs aren't science. Neither are yours if they are just beliefs. When I was first taught evolution in school, long before I became a believer, I rejected it because it sounded even more ridiculous than religion. Macroevolution to me, was more ridiculous than God and Noah's ark. To the science minded health officials who sent Ignaz Semmelweis to his death in a mental institution the germ theory sounded like a non-issue because they believed in the miasmatic school of medicine from the dark ages. Scientists didn't believe mechanical flight was possible. Even some time after the Wright brothers had pulled it off.

You don't get it. That's the danger of science. When it becomes religion. When it becomes belief. When it becomes ideology.

Edited October 27Oct 27 by Pathway Machine

1 minute ago, Pathway Machine said:

Yeah, lets do that, because what you ideologues don't seem to understand is that my approach is more scientific than yours. Agreeing with science doesn't make it science. That makes it propaganda and ideology. Saying something that you think is in line with science isn't science, even if it is in line with science. Science isn't a belief system it's a method of investigation. It's doing the leg work. So, yeah let's double down on that. Wipe out both the pathologically narrow minded idiot religion of evolution and atheism with one stone.

Well, since you haven't studied evolution to any extent, it makes sense that agreeing with what the theory says would be hypocritical and ideological for you. But what about those of us who have? What if we understand the mainstream explanation and have reviewed at least some of the mountains of evidence available to support it? You're right, science isn't a belief system. It's provisional, and always represents our best current explanations. Most of us think that makes it more trustworthy than your "studies" that center around a single collection of Iron Age literature.

And I notice you dodged the question of how the JWs accelerate evolution in an unscientific manner. I'm used to the creationist bob and weave, so please just explain it without all the epithets and vitriol. Be calm and rational, even though someone disagrees with your beliefs.

6 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

Yeah, lets do that, because what you ideologues don't seem to understand is that my approach is more scientific than yours. Agreeing with science doesn't make it science. That makes it propaganda and ideology. Saying something that you think is in line with science isn't science, even if it is in line with science. Science isn't a belief system it's a method of investigation. It's doing the leg work. So, yeah let's double down on that. Wipe out both the pathologically narrow minded idiot religion of evolution and atheism with one stone.

But it doesn’t demand everyone has to do all the legwork for himself. That would mean humanity would never move forward by benefitting from work done by others. It is absurd to suggest that relying on an established body of prior knowledge is somehow automatically “ideology”.

As for evolution, the evidence for it is enormous. But yes, to recognise that does mean trusting in the work by a lot of other people, not just going out and doing your own DNA analysis or digging up your own fossils.

In fact I wonder if your basic problem is that, for some reason, something has made you unable to trust anyone or anything. That might perhaps explain your undirected fury, which comes through so clearly in almost every post you make. If that is your state of mind, you are doomed to end up just talking to yourself. It becomes hard to see what any of us can achieve by conversing with you.

Edited October 27Oct 27 by exchemist

Just now, Phi for All said:

Well, since you haven't studied evolution to any extent, it makes sense that agreeing with what the theory says would be hypocritical and ideological for you.

NOW YOU"RE GETTIN' IT! But, actually I have studied it in school. That's laughable isn't it. That was years ago. The evolution they taught then wasn't true. Elementary. Which is why I don't want prayer and religion taught in school. The church has $#@&%+ that up enough, please don't teach it in the school. 

Just now, Phi for All said:

But what about those of us who have?

It doesn't matter. I've studied religion and the Bible. You haven't. Saying the Bible or evolution isn't true isn't science it's religion.

Just now, Phi for All said:

What if we understand the mainstream explanation and have reviewed at least some of the mountains of evidence available to support it?

Then you are the same as me with the Bible. You talk about science and leave the talk about the Bible to people like me. But even if you learned the Bible in some college what you would have been taught there isn't the Bible, it would be tradition and theology. For example, you would think it Christian doctrine that the soul is immortal, from the tradition of Socrates, but the Bible says otherwise at Ezekiel 18:4 and Matthew 10:28. Well, like I showed you, with the soul. I don't care that Noah's ark isn't compatible with current science. Who do you think I'm going to believe? Science or the Bible? Oh, how ignorant I am, you smugly laugh. Oh, how religious you are I reply. Pitting science against or teaching the Bible with science is silly. Just look at the examples I've given. The soul, the celestial metaphors in Revelation, Noah's Ark. And by the way, even from an academic perspective, the Bible for the most part, doesn't disagree with most of evolution.

Just now, Phi for All said:

You're right, science isn't a belief system. It's provisional, and always represents our best current explanations. Most of us think that makes it more trustworthy than your "studies" that center around a single collection of Iron Age literature.

It is the study of that Iron Age literature.

Just now, Phi for All said:

And I notice you dodged the question of how the JWs accelerate evolution in an unscientific manner. I'm used to the creationist bob and weave, so please just explain it without all the epithets and vitriol. Be calm and rational, even though someone disagrees with your beliefs.

Simple. The JWs aren't scientists.

43 minutes ago, exchemist said:

But it doesn’t demand everyone has to do all the legwork for himself.

No, it doesn't. But it isn't science. Believing in science, believing in evolution, believing in the Bible isn't science, it's belief. Adherence to the Buddha's four noble truths makes sense. Very practical, But it isn't science. You don't say, scientifically conclude, that the supernatural doesn't or can't possibly exist, but you don't have to be a scientist to know that it can't test it. If someone thinks gods can't exist and are silly it's only because they are silly and don't know what they are talking about but you don't have to be a scientist to see that. It's nothing to do with science.

43 minutes ago, exchemist said:

That would mean humanity would never move forward by benefitting from work done by others. It is absurd to suggest that relying on an established body of prior knowledge is somehow automatically “ideology”.

Science comes from the Latin word meaning knowledge. Now, one doesn't have to dogmatically adhere to a strict etymological application, but the sentiment is reasonable. If something is known it isn't science. Science and faith are always wrong. Science because once it becomes knowledge it's obsolete as science and faith because you can't positively, that is, certainly know it. That is the evidence that these atheist vs theist or science vs. religion discussions are never about what they might seem to be about. It's about ideology. The science of ideas.

43 minutes ago, exchemist said:

As for evolution, the evidence for it is enormous. But yes, to recognise that does mean trusting in the work by a lot of other people, not just going out and doing your own DNA analysis or digging up your own fossils.

Correct. And there isn't anything wrong with that. Credentials, credible, from the Latin credit which means faith. Unbelieving ideologues tend to deny their own faith because they lump faith into all of the things they "think" can't be. Things they "know" little about.

43 minutes ago, exchemist said:

In fact I wonder if your basic problem is that, for some reason, something has made you unable to trust anyone or anything. That might perhaps explain your undirected fury, which comes through so clearly in almost every post you make. If that is your state of mind, you are doomed to end up just talking to yourself. It becomes hard to see what any of us can achieve by conversing with you.

I don't have a problem and I don't have fury. There's nothing wrong with any of this. It's perfectly natural. Don't be so defensive that you think my saying it, often with an odd sense of humor that for some reason comes off as rage, is, uh . . . is . . . what were we talking about? Oh. Is angry. [slams fist on desk though can't remember why].

Again. See if I don't.

You seem to get a lot of your talking points from ancient texts, such as the Bible, and the Greek ( or Latin or Hebrew ) etymology of certain words, not realizing how, and why, the morals that led to that book, and the meanings of those words have changed over the last couple of thousand years.
It's almost like you don't understand our language, and you need to use a translation manual ( the Bible and other old texts ) to understand us.
Well, that manual is slightly out of date.
Science is no longer a noun, that translates to 'knowledge', it is a verb, that translates to 'searching for knowledge'.

The moral of the story ... if you don't understand science, don't try to convert the ideas to ones that make sense to you, instead ask, and we'll explain/clarify.
( don't be embarrassed, that problem is more common than you might think )

1 hour ago, Pathway Machine said:

It doesn't matter. I've studied religion and the Bible. You haven't. Saying the Bible or evolution isn't true isn't science it's religion.

You're ignorance of what I've studied is displayed so provocatively, it makes me think there's nothing really to talk about with you. I read the Bible three times all the way through before reaching my conclusions about it. The first time I was a believer, the second an agnostic. By that time, I'd come to realize there were a LOT of people like you who wanted to interpret away the unpalatable and ignorant parts, and tell me how wrong I was and how right they were. The book is designed like that, to be ambiguous and open to interpretation but also sacred and infallible, with no provisions for changing times and people.

Enjoy your beliefs, I find them untrustworthy. As long as science continues to let us proceed with such accuracy (we can land on asteroids, which I find much more awesome than your omnipotent sky fairy), I'll take experiment over interpretation.

2 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

Yeah, lets do that, because what you ideologues don't seem to understand is that my approach is more scientific than yours. Agreeing with science doesn't make it science. That makes it propaganda and ideology.

Not sure how agreeing with it makes it propaganda and ideology. Is it propaganda and ideology to agree that objects fall at an acceleration of about 9.8 m/s^2 at the earth’s surface, owing to gravity? (that’s a rhetorical question)

But the wording concerns me, since rule 2.12 says “We expect arguments to be made in good faith. Honest discussions, backed up by evidence when necessary. Example of tactics that are not in good faith include misrepresentation, arguments based on distraction, attempts to omit or ignore information, advancing an ideology or agenda at the expense of the science being discussed, general appeals to science being flawed or dogmatic, conspiracies, and trolling.”

Thus far I see an agenda and an evidence-free appeal to science being dogmatic.

1 hour ago, Pathway Machine said:

Correct. And there isn't anything wrong with that. Credentials, credible, from the Latin credit which means faith. Unbelieving ideologues tend to deny their own faith because they lump faith into all of the things they "think" can't be. Things they "know" little about.

Argument by etymology falls under the above objection, too (argument by distraction). Why should the origin of the word matter? What it means is what’s important.

7 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

If elephants are "clean" then we have seven. An elephant's water intake can be about 50 gallons per day. That's 350 per day and about 130,000 gallons for the 370 days at sea. That much water would take up about 490 cubic metres.

Cows, horses, Buffalo, giraffes, hippos, all the big ruminants plus carnivores will need a huge space for food and water. You would need most of the deck equipped to catch rain water which stops after 40 days.

Once you add up all that mass and volume two things would become obvious.

Not enough room.

Not enough man power even if their was, how many staff does an average zoo have? With a tiny fraction of animals compared to what the Bible claims.

How did they get it on the arc? Took their time right? No. Food spoils, you cannot stock up over a 40 day period let alone 40 years. It's the middle east! Anything you put on the boat on Monday, perishables, is done by Wednesday. They did not have fridges.

Okay. Use your science. If you were God how would you solve these problems?

7 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

It's a great story but it is not historical. History probably starts after the Babylonian exile. That's why some of the stories have Babylonian influence like the flood.

No. That doesn't work. It's nice if you set out to explain something you can't explain, in other words it appeals to the atheistic confirmation bias, but actually it doesn't work. Pim, for example. I think we've discussed this before.

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

You're ignorance of what I've studied is displayed so provocatively, it makes me think there's nothing really to talk about with you.

I know. Cool, huh? It usually takes me about 2 minutes to determine whether or not someone knows what they are talking about. I'll show you. Let's start the timer again.

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I read the Bible three times all the way through before reaching my conclusions about it.

Ding. Times up. Reading the Bible a few times does not a student make.

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

The first time I was a believer, the second an agnostic.

What you're saying doesn't mean anything to me. It isn't an argument. You don't want an argument because you don't need one. I've known people, who became unbelievers and who I wish I knew as much as they did about the Bible. It isn't about knowledge. If you had more knowledge than three reads would allow that wouldn't make you a believer, that would only improve your argument. How do you know I'm not an atheist? By knowing what I'm talking about or by the need for a defensive position you take when I post about the Bible? That's ideology. You don't have to justify your disbelief to anyone. Not me, not God, not yourself. You don't want to believe the Bible. That's all you need.

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

By that time, I'd come to realize there were a LOT of people like you who wanted to interpret away the unpalatable and ignorant parts, and tell me how wrong I was and how right they were.

And that bothered you, didn't it. Why did that bother you? If it were different, if you were a student in a science class what would you have thought? Screw science? Or teach me! It would depend on whether or not you wanted to learn science, wouldn't it? So, okay, what is your motivation for reading the Bible in the first place? And, oddly enough, I could answer this as well by reading your comments, what was your motivation for learning science?

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

The book is designed like that, to be ambiguous and open to interpretation but also sacred and infallible, with no provisions for changing times and people.

There it is again. That atheist confirmation bias. Oh, no! I'm melting. You've killed God?! You did Nietzsche? Almost. Like Darwin? Not even close. Like his bulldog! That's the one.

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Enjoy your beliefs, I find them untrustworthy.

I would hope so, they are mine.

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

As long as science continues to let us proceed with such accuracy (we can land on asteroids, which I find much more awesome than your omnipotent sky fairy), I'll take experiment over interpretation.

Jehovah, the God of the Bible, made the cosmos. He calls it his cosmos, literally, his arrangement, his adornment. He decides if and how you proceed. And for the record. He isn't omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent. If you argue that point you need to know the Bible. See? It's like omnivores. That doesn't mean possessing the ability to eat the space time continuum or chemical and biological weapons. That science created to destroy. For money and fame. No. It means eating meat and plant.

@Somebody The more you downvote me the more I want to post. I was going to quit last night. Keep up the good work.

Edited October 28Oct 28 by Pathway Machine

6 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

Okay. Use your science. If you were God how would you solve these problems?

I would not flood the earth, I would kill the wicked men cited in Genesis. The Nephilim are mentioned, giants or angels, whatever, kill those guys and leave the earth.

If you think it happened as written in Genesis then you could not use science to fix the problems you would need a series of miracles.

The animals survived without food or water.

Co existed, stood close together, no fighting, territorial behaviour which is what wild animals do.

Endured the same temperature for the trip, even though the polar species and Savannah species exist in starkly different environments.

I could go on but after a while you be asking yourself, if all those natural laws would have to be suspended, why not simply kill the wicked and leave the earth alone? Do a Sodam and Gomorrah? Less effort.

14 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

The evolution they taught then wasn't true.

This is but one example of how you do not even understand what science actually is. No scientist I know talks about any theory (such as evolution) as "truth", it is simply the current best explanation that agrees with all of the evidence for a given phenomenon.

11 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

Reading the Bible a few times does not a student make.

Sure, but it should be more than sufficient to get the gist of what is written and decide whether it is worthwhile to become a student of something. The first time I read the bible cover to cover, I was 12 and an acolyte at our local church. At that time I didn't really have knowledge to critique what it contained from a scientific point of view but there are more than enough contradictions (an eye for an eye vs turn the other cheek for example) to have gotten me to consider perhaps it was not an infallible document. The next time, I was 20 and an engineer on a nuclear vessel by which time it seemed to me that scientists agree with and trust each other FAR more than do religious proponents (ever hear of even a threatened war over competing TOE theories?). The reason for this is that scientists have to adhere to rigorous rules of discovery and fit their debate within the confines of what is knowable in order to construct a theory and this applies to every discipline, whereas every proponent of religion I have ever met will evade answering contradictions or try to overcome them with magic.

On 10/27/2025 at 5:49 PM, pinball1970 said:

If elephants are "clean" then we have seven. An elephant's water intake can be about 50 gallons per day. That's 350 per day and about 130,000 gallons for the 370 days at sea. That much water would take up about 490 cubic metres.

It was raining 😁

55 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It was raining 😁

Yeah I mentioned that.

Most Christians do not think the OT stories are historical.

Scholars have a general consensus about where myth and history meet.

1 minute ago, pinball1970 said:

Yeah I mentioned that.

Most Christians do not think the OT stories are historical.

Scholars have a general consensus about where myth and history meet.

But what if it was raining really hard? 😉

Do I really have to explain the joke, given that we fundamentally agree?

On 10/28/2025 at 1:11 PM, npts2020 said:

This is but one example of how you do not even understand what science actually is. No scientist I know talks about any theory (such as evolution) as "truth", it is simply the current best explanation that agrees with all of the evidence for a given phenomenon.

Sure, but it should be more than sufficient to get the gist of what is written and decide whether it is worthwhile to become a student of something. The first time I read the bible cover to cover, I was 12 and an acolyte at our local church. At that time I didn't really have knowledge to critique what it contained from a scientific point of view but there are more than enough contradictions (an eye for an eye vs turn the other cheek for example) to have gotten me to consider perhaps it was not an infallible document. The next time, I was 20 and an engineer on a nuclear vessel by which time it seemed to me that scientists agree with and trust each other FAR more than do religious proponents (ever hear of even a threatened war over competing TOE theories?). The reason for this is that scientists have to adhere to rigorous rules of discovery and fit their debate within the confines of what is knowable in order to construct a theory and this applies to every discipline, whereas every proponent of religion I have ever met will evade answering contradictions or try to overcome them with magic.

OK, I sort of agree with you, but since you're talking bollox I can't...

On 10/28/2025 at 1:11 PM, npts2020 said:

The first time I read the bible cover to cover, I was 12

I was 23. It was not that I was not aware of the stories, or that I did not have access. We were taught Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, why he was sent to us and what his teachings meant.

All of it in conflict with modern scholarship at that time.

When I actually sat down and decided to start from the beginning and read through it, it did not take long to realise I was reading the words of men only.

It is far more interesting now I have ditched my faith. Richard Carrier is a very interesting and compelling scholar, he is also a mythicist. He claims his position is gaining ground.

There is a debate there.

Peter Williams claims the original Gospels can be retrieved, others disagree.

Did Paul exist!? I watched a presentation on History Valley on that.

I recommend that guy actually. Jacob from History Valley. I do not know how he manages to get top notch academics on his channel for hours at a time.

Sometimes they are selling a book but even so we get three hours plus discussing the contents and there is virtually no interrupting from the host. Just quick questions.

A good site.

On 10/26/2025 at 12:47 AM, Pathway Machine said:

What is the alternative? It isn't evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with creation. There is nothing to compare to creation.

Evolution and creation clash frequently, especially among religious and scientific circles, I’m confused on your point

20 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Evolution and creation clash frequently, especially among religious and scientific circles, I’m confused on your point

FYI

Pathway Machine has been banned for being an insufferable troll

https://scienceforums.net/topic/29763-bannedsuspended-users/page/40/

6 hours ago, studiot said:

FYI

https://scienceforums.net/topic/29763-bannedsuspended-users/page/40/

Oh, thanks.