-All-knowing, omnipotent god floods the earth to kill all the bad people
-After the flood, bad people still exist
-God who knows everything and can do anything failed at his plan to stop the bad people
-Since he can see the future, he knew it would fail before he did it
-Killed everyone anyway

...Why are we supposed to worship this god?

Another possibility I'd like to insert, just for the sake of completeness: that whatever may be true about God or the Bible is still a biiiiig step from saying that Ken Ham knows the plan. Compared to other theological questions, the existence of human arrogance is pretty much settled.

(Disclosure: I am still miffed that the world did not end on May 21, 2011. Why Sims oughtn't to bother with humans who do parlor tricks with religious writings.)

The story is kind of sketchy, but I think God was in a bitchy mood and His intent was to punish the bad people, not rid the earth of bad people. Because it would be impossible even for God to get rid of so-called bad people. We're like cockroaches.

The last so-called apocalypse was just some bigtime bullshit about the Mayan calendar, which turned out to be a very long calendar (one of the Mayan calendars, anyway - they had several) lasting for some 50 000 years, and starting over again on that particular day (just like our calendars do every year, so no big deal). There has been at least one big scary date for an apocalypse every year lately, and so far nothing has happened.

The end of the world will most likely be by an asteroid or by an expanding sun. The asteroid problem is the biggest concern, and we don't really have to worry until some 30 years into the future (when the next one passes close enough to the Earth, and it will probably not hit us but it probably would be nice if NASA have a backup plan), and by the time the sun problem hits us, we'll quite likely either have found a way off the Earth, or well be extinct some million years ago (probably by our own hands, juging by how things are going). So no worries!

The end of humans, on the other hand... Well, we're perfectly capable of wiping ourselves off the face of the Earth. Judging by the low level of intelligence certain people seems to flaunt (like Ken, for instance), I'd say it will happen sooner rather than later. And, um... probably not by floods (unless you count tsunamis).

I don't know; ever heard of the Giant Impact hypothesis? It suggests that a large planet - Mars-sized - crashed into the earth and the moon was formed from the debris. If that's true, then not even smashing into another planet is enough to get rid of the earth.

Granted, it could easily kill everyone, but the planet will still be here.

Saying that's not enough to get rid of the Earth depends a lot on how you define "Earth." Assuming that there's even still a planet in roughly the same orbit as Earth after another such collision (a big assumption- the internal structure of planets today is a lot different from their structure at the formation of the solar system 4.5 million million years ago, so a new asteroid belt is another possibility, with bot planets completely shattered), it wouldn't be the Earth we know today.
To better explain that, imagine you have two play-doh models of planets- one of Earth, one of Theia II (the other planet in the GIH is known as Theia). At this point, you have two planets. Now, smash them together, grind off a bunch of pieces, mix them up, then clump them back together into a planet and a moon. Is that planet still Earth? Or does combining the two really leave you with an entirely new planet and moon, neither of which existed prior to the collision?

Either way, this would be an apocalypse much bigger and more dramatic than anything the Bible ever proposed!

Now we're getting into the Ship of Theseus paradox. It depends on how you define earth. If you take a mountain and move it to another location, is the planet still earth? If you scoop out some of the core, cool it, and take it to the moon, are they both still the same? At what point does the change become so profound that it changes the nature of the object?

Fair enough. I think we'd both agree that something like the Terran minerals and ores that have made their way to the Moon by way of space probes and the like didn't change either body into something new, but I would argue that such a titanic collision as the GIH proposes DOES change the nature of both bodies, so that whatever results from it isn't something that existed beforehand. As you might have guessed by now, as far as the Ship of Theseus paradox goes, I tend to argue that, yes, it is an entirely new ship- to me, that thinking has a nice universal continuity to it.

Yeah, smashing a planet into something probably changes it.

But at what point does the ship become something new? The instant the last original plank is gone? When it's half replaced? With the first replaced plank? If it's the last one, why does that make it different, but swapping minerals with the moon doesn't?

The Irony is that as the Bible states; God gave us "Free Will".
and then the hypocrisy is that he expects everyone to abide his rule; to worship only him and do what he wants
otherwise you will die an unpleasant death
like Sodom and Gommorah where people were turned to salt?
or Jonah who was swallowed by the whale?

point is.. there's always this huge hypocrisy in the Bible. and that usually when people come forth saying God spoke to them
they make you wonder how an omnipotent being instead of announcing to the world "HEY EVERYONE! SHUT UP FOR A SECOND! AND STOP FIGHTING; HERE'S JESUS! He's My Son! TREAT HIM WELL!"
but more of whispering with a "psst.. hey... y'know what? im going to pick you as my prophet~ yes~"

and then there's that sudden disappearance of "God" for the last 2,000 years
like... no word from him whatsoever

it makes you think occassionally on how weird this all is...

and well.. in the end we also (no offence) have a LOT of Christians who believe the world is about 6000 years old; and that the Judeo-Christian religion is the oldest and most authentic religion in the world..
basically giving a middle finger to the other religions and Gods in the history of mankind.

hopefully if mankind can come to an understanding of things and not do stupid things like what Ken Ham does
maybe in 2000 years from now; the world wont be ruled predominantly by "Scientologists" since they're the new, young "religion" nowadays :P
(a repeat of History if you will)

I don't think you can really assign a specific point to when the change becomes relevant (or at least, *I* can't, though if I had to, I'd tend to put it earlier in the process than most people seem to), but, in an attempt to sort-of-answer your question with another question (and also bring the thread at least *slightly* back towards the issue of Noah's Ark), let's suppose (assuming, for the time being, there was an original Ark), that Ken Ham's replica uses materials in its construction that just happened to be used in the original Ark. Even if he somehow miraculously uses ALL the same materials as the original, does that mean that it's Noah's Ark? Or is it still Ken Ham's Ark?

Somehow I think this discussion is going to end up giving me a headache, trying to riddle out all these paradoxes!

well Mr. Zarathustra
maybe it will be called the "Ham Ark"
:D
where thousands of overweight people mistooking it as an Ark-sized restaurant filled with Pork-focused food will flood only to meet with their own disappointment and disbelief

If someone holds a gun to your head and says "You have the free will to give me all your money or I will torture you for the rest of your life", is that really free will? I mean, if you apply that situation to sex, that's definitely rape. So why's it okay if it's a deity saying that?



Maybe someone will think it means "Hamarch", or a system of government in which people are ruled entirely by ham. That can't be worse than the Ham Ark project.



With that assumption, it's hard to tell. If he used the exact materials of the original, all in place, down to the last nail, maybe? Physically, it would be exactly the same. But think about what we're calling it. Noah's Ark. Ken Ham's Ark. That implies a degree of importance in the builder. If someone made an exact copy of the Mona Lisa, we would probably put them in jail if they tried to sell it. If someone melted the paints off and then repainted them onto the original, we still wouldn't consider it the same no matter how precise the duplication.

To give you another question: suppose Noah came back from the dead and all the materials of the original ark were there in front of him. If he rebuilt it so that it was physically indistinguishable from the original, is it still the same ark?

While a big asteroid might not destroy the Earth completely, it might destroy most of the life on the planet (dinosaurs, anyone?). The sun will eat up the Earth sometime far into the future, though.

On the topic of free will, then according to the bible, god didn't actually give people free will. He planted an apple tree that stood for free will and intelligence, asked them not to eat from it, and waited until a snake came along to tempt Eve into pick an apple and eat it. And he also got pissed off when she ate it, hence the reason why snakes don't have legs, and the moral of the story (that I get, anyway) is that listening to god's word makes people stupid and gullible, and to get anywhere in this world you can't always do what other people tells you to do, even if they happen to be god. Or something like that, anyway. I'm a bit rusty on the whole bible story. He was apparently also angry that Adam and Eve got dressed (they ran around naked at first - woo!), and the whole thing sounds rather perverted. God's own peep-show? No wonder he was pissed off... Oh, well.

On the topic of Ken's ark, with the cows and goats and other milk-producing animals on the ark, you can call it "Ham'n'Cheeze".

And a replica of the supposed ark is still a replica, and not the original, so it would be Ham's boat (unless he actually puts two of each animal into it, it's not an ark, it's a big boat), and it would certainly not be Noah's ark. If Noah came back (if he ever existed; According to the bible the guy supposedly lived until 900 or thereabout, and there wouldn't be much life left in him) and used the same materials, it would be Noah's second ark, or "Ark II".

Interesting thoughts on the importance of the builder in determining the nature of something... I'd tend to agree that, regardless of whether the end product is exactly the same, if it wasn't the original, then it's in some way substandard. You can see this just appearing in human nature too- suppose in my left hand, I have an antique silver ring, studded with diamonds and sapphires and the like, and beautifully manufactured so that there's no flaws anywhere to be seen in any aspect of its design, and in my right hand, I have an exactly identical ring, a match down to the last detail, except this one was owned by your grandmother. You tell me- which ring is more important? I think not only the construction of an item determines its worth- the history that it has gone through plays a role too. (And yes, I'm well aware that I'm kind of doubling back on my earlier statements... paradoxes always seem to make me do this! )

Also, my inner space-exploration-nerd would never forgive me if I didn't make the connection between the possible scenarios that could end life as we know it and the need to explore other worlds... Mars could be our modern-day Noah's Ark, preserving the wonders of this world so that they aren't all lost forever, just in case some calamity befalls the Earth.

Yes, it is weird. The Old Testament is a mess - it doesn't even present a consistent story with a consistent God and consistent morality. In general I think Christians should jettison the OT. Then they could accept current scientific knowledge because science doesn't rule out that God created the universe. It just rules out that it was done in 6 days, 6000 years ago, whatever-else-it-is-they-believe-I-neither-know-nor-care.

true true
i mean, i never understood why people take it to so much offense when we point out certain flaws in the story which seems irrational...
and then the condemning commences..
i often say to people "its good to have some sort of faith; but we have to be able to differentiate between whats right and whats just downright ridiculous"
and then many i meet are so quick to defend their faith
saying "everything in the bible is true and its right! and we should follow EVERYTHING"
and i reply "Even the part about not eating pork?"
and they're like "Yes, Even the part whe-- WHAT!? WHERE DOES IT SAY WE CANNOT EAT PORK!?"
and i say "Leviticus 11:7-8"
then they check their phone and looked at it in disbelief and they reply with "Well you dont have to follow that; thats the old promise; we moved on from there, so yeah we're allowed to eat pork"
and im like "but if you say it like that; well the 10 Commandments were even OLDER than that.,. so you're technically saying we should ignore the 10 Commandments"

and they be like "No.. You Just dont Get it, And thats why you need to change to Christianity and accept Jesus and God!"

= n=
i often say to them that; what they do there is proof that they follow whatever they LIKE to hear, but ignore the other "inconvenient" things in the bible and so forth

well... its a fun argument now and then

Well, as a bisexual person I can tell you you're preaching to the choir. (No pun intended)

It's even better when they quote Leviticus to prove that homosexuality is bad and then say the OT no longer applies when they need to protect their right to bacon.

Just wanted to clear a few things up:
* Christians do sometimes quote Leviticus when they're against homosexuality but the big thing is when Paul said in the New Testament that homosexuals 'wouldn't enter the kingdom of God.' However, it's not like Paul was God, and my father and I have a long-standing theory he was just abused by a priest so that's why he wrote that.
* Christians generally follow the Ten Commandments and not the rest of the rules in Leviticus because there's too many other ones. I mean, Jewish people certainly don't follow them all, and neither do Muslims. And non-hypocritical Christians don't quote it for their own convenience. Actually, Leviticus is one of my favorite books...I just find it fun to read, haha
* I would gather to say that the vast majority of Christians now do not think the world is 6000 years old, and that most in fact accept evolution at least in part. Of course, this is just based on my experience and people I've met.
* The point of rules isn't so people feel like a gun is being held to their heads. To me, it's more like 'you might not want to do this, because bad things will happen.' Like stealing brings consequences, as does lying, cheating on your spouse, etc. Basically just about every sin in the Bible hurts yourself, someone else, or both. And basically all of the major ones are common sense (I'm not talking about the 'if your house has mold, burn it to the ground' ones in the OT. ) I personally don't think anything is a sin unless it hurts someone, which is why I don't think most sexual acts are sins (rape and child molestation are because they hurt someone).
* The whole deal with Christianity-is-better is a major sticking point for me, not gonna lie. So I kind of have a workaround: Jesus said 'the only way to God is through me,' so if Jesus is God, and people are imbued with God's essence, then we all have the way to God...sorry that's a bit confusing and convoluted but I just can't condemn anyone for their beliefs and have to justify it to myself (and I simply don't want to be an Atheist, agnostic, or 'spiritual' for my own reasons.)
* Most Christians don't believe every single thing in the Bible happened just like that, particularly creation and things in the OT. I know I don't. I've thought for a while that maybe the Noah thing was just a flooding of Mesopotamia, mainly because the other religions in that area have very similar, almost identical myths.
* There have been numerous miracles documented since Jesus was here. They're just not in the Bible. You don't have to believe them--I certainly don't believe all of them--but they're there.
* I don't believe everything in the Bible word-for-word. Some people say you have to do this, but I think there needs to be a balance. And no, that's not cherry-picking, that's using logic and reason with religion so you don't go crazy and start building a giant, completely useless boat. I believe reason has a place in religion.

So that's that. People like this guy sometimes make me not want to be Christian, but the truth is there are idiotic people of every religion (and non-religion). I just wanted to clear a few things up, but no one has to agree.

I'm sure I'll get some disagrees. But as an Atheist I like where this is going. Ark> Pork> Leviticus. I'll check this every now and then.

well we havent even begun to touch the depths of where killing disobedient children is okay
or... selling daughters into sexual slavery is okay
or... slavery in general is okay


:p

but i guess im fighting a losing fight.. i mean I personally come from Indonesia. in this country; muslims are no.1 then christianity and the rest.. and no jews are allowed.. seriously.. Indonesia has a 5-religion law. either follow one of the 5 or get imprisoned...
Islam
Christian
Buddhist
Hiduism
Catholicism

those are the choices..
last person who publicly said they were atheist was imprisoned for 25 years and charged with "waging war with God"
..


and the Pastors here arent actually doing any better
they really press the congregation for donations.. and i've personally met OVER A DOZEN Pastors in Indonesia who just spend a few days a week preaching Jesus and God, and no other job... but able to have Lamborghinis and etc.. (coincidence? I think Not)
and the pastors here always emphasize on "you're a lost sheep" if you dont follow their faith..
and i come to realize that what they do is they destroy people's self-confidence and self-respect to make people depend their lives on going to Church.. i know people who go to church 6 DAYS a week... because they feel that if they dont attend Church they've committed all sorts of sins...
my ex-gf in Indonesia who is OLDER than me.. she was brainwashed to believe "kissing prior to marriage is a Sin and offence against God"
...
and the pastors here says stuff like "everything that claims to be made before Christianity is a false information created by Satan to confuse the people" <-- similar to Scientology.
and "If you belive in God; he will never forsake you and no harm shall ever befall unto you UNLESS you are not truly giving yourself to him" (basically he is giving a middle finger to Joan of Arc, St. Peter and all those martyrs)

I dont know.. i do what i can to try and educate people and say "hey; Christianity is a good thing.. but we need to accept the world isnt 6000 years old and there ARE religions OLDER than Christianity like Egyptian, Greek and Aboriginal Dreamtime stories, instead of saying "Im right and you're wrong" shouldnt we say "hey... i respect your faith and im glad to hear and understand other religions" "
so yeah...

Though what was most offensive in Indonesia for me.. was that...
recently one of my father's friend's wife was terminally ill.. and their family is pure buddhist...
one night i went to pay them a visit at a hospital; and apparently a Christian Pastor forced his way into their room to try and perform some kind of "sickness exorcism" of sorts.. and told her to deny her religion and accept Jesus so he can cure her illness.. i mean we all just remained quiet until he left.. but when someone asked who invited him.. apparently noone did.. I later found out from the nurse that usually when people are dying of terminal illness; pastors tend to come and try to convert them to their faith... but they dont do it to muslims because that would be a 100% bad idea since we're living in a muslim dominated country...
so they target buddhists especially in their time of weakness..

...
-sigh-
i personally restrained myself from hitting the pastor..
..

Sometimes it's not easy to be non-religious in a religious community. I'm just glad most of the religious community where I live is quite liberal with what's ok and not ok.

It seems to me that religion is basically about wasting a lot of your life waiting for some kind of "eternal life in bliss" that quite likely won't happen, and being scared of not doing the waiting well enough, because otherwise you'll end up in anything from nothingness to hell, or whatever other scary place/scenario the religion has in store for you. People often become so obsessed about the "eternal life" that they forget to live.

My philosophy is to be happy with the one life I'm absolutely sure I have, and take things as they come. I have absolutely no idea if there is a god, or several gods, but the evidence tells me there are no gods at all, so that's what I believe. If a god suddenly poof appeared in front of me, and I could be sure it wasn't a hallucination, I probably would believe it existed (but that does not mean I would feel the need to pray to the god or any such - just the "alright, you exist - can I go about with what was doing now?" kind of belief).

I respect that a lot of people feel the need to have something bigger than themselves in their life. The ability to ask ourselves big questions is one of the things that makes us humans, and for the things we can't explain, we feel we need an explanation. That's where spirituality (an religion) usually comes in. If people feel they need this spirituality in their life, then sure, go ahead and believe. But science is really the way to go for explaining how we got here, and all the rest. I also mostly respect when people use their religious book of choice as a book of advice for how to live their lives (and manage to over look anything that is outdated, or advice could hurt other people), and not as a die-hard rulebook that has to be followed through and through.

What I struggle to respect is when people still cling on to old and oudated beliefs when these clearly are not true in any sense, and I struggle even more to respect when very religous people absolutely have to go about trying to convert people to their old and dusty beliefs. I know a lot of these deeply religious people tend look down on certain atheists because they feel they're being "converted to science", but in reality, these atheists are actually trying to wave their hands in front of a dreaming person, yelling "wake up!". It's no wonder the religious people feel threatened, because science is the biggest threat to religion (and it should be).

There are still people out there who believe the Earth is 6000 years old, and that a god switched on the light (just with the "poof, done!" explanation, also called "miracle"). Scientists still struggle on the exact method, but we do know there probably was some kind of exploding force. Whether or not a god played with his matches before the universe started expanding is still a mystery, though. There are not many other unexplained things left for a god to take the credit for. Even so-called miracles usually have a scientific explanation in the end. I find the actual scientific explanations a whole lot more fascinating than the "poof, miracle!" explanations. In science you can't say something happened without showing evidence, and if science is proven wrong, it's okay to admit it.

So when I see stories like the "I'm gonna build an ark, because proof of bible!!!" thing this Ken has going on, then I really want to give them a good, loing shake to get them back to reality. First of all, somebody already did it (the Netherlands). Second, people have been trying to find proofs of the Noah story, and only found old myths (That goes for most of the bible stories). Third, if the story is about a man who eventually lived to be 900-something years, you know the story is bullshit (at best a story or a metaphor - but nothing more).

Darizuka that's really awful and messed up. I'm sorry you've had to deal with that. I recently read a book, Toxic Faith, about experiences like that and how they're done by sick people in sick churches. I haven't had to deal with anything that extreme, but I was made to feel like I was constantly sinning 24/7 and for a while I believed God hated me. There's a lot of corruption in the Church and I can see why a lot of people leave, or even why they think it shouldn't exist.

...What?!
First, Catholics are Christian. No matter what certain breeds of Protestants say.
Second, "waging war with god?" Which one? If Hinduism is accepted, they have plenty of gods. And last I checked, Buddhism didn't have a god. It's more a way of life then worshiping a god, right? And if you can imprison an atheist, why can't you imprison anyone else who doesn't believe in Allah?



You must be a superhero. No ordinary human could restrain hirself like that.