Why are Rainbows Gay?

[bigrobwoot]

So, after doing some independent research (googling "Noah's ark proof" and clicking on the first 2 links) I came up with this article that says it has not been proven. This comes from a Christian website, so if there were any bias, it would be toward the side of its existence.

Over the last two decades the search for Noah's Ark has received international attention. Dozens of expeditions to the Ararat region of eastern Turkey, mostly by American Christian groups, have led to numerous claims - but no proof.

According to the Bible, Noah's Ark was a large barge constructed of wood and sealed with bitumen. Its overall dimensions were at least 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high with three interior decks. A “window” appeared to be constructed around the top (Genesis 6:14-16). Incidentally, the overall size of the Ark makes it the largest seagoing vessel known before the 20th century, and its proportions are amazingly similar to the large ocean liners of today.


Artist's conception of Noah's Ark based on biblical information and reported sightings on Mt. Ararat.
The Bible says Noah's boat came to rest on “the mountains of Ararat” (Genesis 8:4). “Ararat” probably designated a region (the ancient kingdom of Urartu) and not a specific mountain peak. After Noah and his family left the Ark on the mountain, the boat virtually disappeared from the pages of the Bible. Later Biblical writers never suggested they knew it could still be seen.

The mountain called Ararat today is more like a mountain range with twin peaks. Interestingly, there have been numerous reports throughout history of a large boat on a mountain in this region. Earliest references (beginning in the 3rd century B.C.) suggested it was common knowledge that the Ark could still be viewed on Mount Ararat.

Reports over the past century range from visits to the vessel, to recovery of wooden timber, to aerial photographs. It is generally believed that at least large part of the Ark is intact, not on the highest peak, but somewhere above the 10,000 foot level. Apparently encased in snow and ice for most of the year, only during certain warm summers can the structure be witnessed or accessed. Some have spoken of climbing onto the roof, others say they have walked inside.

In the 1980s, “ark-eology” was given an air of respectability with the active participation of former NASA astronaut James Irwin in expeditions up the mountain. In addition, Ark investigation was also given a boost with the breakup of the former Soviet Union, because the mountain was right on the Turkey-Soviet border. Expeditions up the mountain had been considered a security threat by the Soviet government.

Unfortunately, return visits to proposed sites have produced no further evidence, the whereabouts of all photographs are presently unknown, and different sightings do not suggest the same location on the mountain. Furthermore, Astronaut James Irwin has since died, a purported eyewitness has recently recanted publicly, and there have been few new expeditions up the mountain in the 1990s. Further expeditions have taken place in the new millennium, but no proof of the Ark has yet been found.

But efforts are still ongoing. While the Associates for Biblical Research is not engaged in any of these efforts, we are aware of continued research into ancient reports, further testimony from eyewitnesses and renewed efforts to pinpoint the Ark's resting place. More expeditions are pending. If it's up there, we will certainly hear about it.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a001.html

even if there were proof that a boat that large existed in the mountains, that doesn't mean it held 2 of every animal aboard, or even that there was a great flood. All it proves is that there were some people living in the mountains that were afraid of a great flood.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by bigrobwoot

Where is the proof for Noah's Ark? I think I remember hearing something about that when I was going to church a long time ago, but I never heard any specifics.

I don't think there's any proof of the ark, just some satellite photos with "ark" labeled on them, which of course were probably labeled as such because that's just what the photo editors called the anomaly, not because that's what it was. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ararat_anomaly

The "recent proof" I've heard about is speculation about the source of the flood: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory

[Kevin M]

Yeah, that all jibes with what I've heard. There's archaeological/geologic evidence of a super catastrophic flood in Babylon roughly when the story takes place, but no evidence whatsoever of Noah, his Ark, or that no living creatures otherwise survived the flood.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Originally Posted by knucklesplitter

God sounded like an asshole to me.

Look around at the world we live in - if there is a God, he's obviously an asshole.

Also, you guys have way too much fucking time on your hands.

[dknv]

Originally Posted by AtomicLabMonkey

Also, you guys have way too much fucking time on your hands.

I know! It took me a hour to skim read through the thread before I even posted. Yeah, I'm a slow reader. But I also looked at some of the links.

[bigrobwoot]

There's nothing wrong with wanting to know where we came from, and discussing it with other people with different points of view. It's very educational and mind-opening, if that's a word. The thread isn't too bad if you stay caught up

[Highdesertsuby]

Originally Posted by bigrobwoot

even if there were proof that a boat that large existed in the mountains, that doesn't mean it held 2 of every animal aboard, or even that there was a great flood. All it proves is that there were some people living in the mountains that were afraid of a great flood.

Just to make a point...the flood account in Genesis does not say "two of every animal". It says two of every KIND of animal (not species). That means two dogs, two horses, two cats, etc. I don't rememebr how "kind" would be classified in taxonomy, but if you run the numbers, Noah would have only had to carry about 5,000-6,000 individual animals on the ark to cover the genetic diversity we have now. With the size of the ark that number could be easily accomidated.

The second point is that everyone likes to say that there is no evidence of a global flood...when in fact, there is an entire planet full of evidence. Practically every surface feature we see today is the result of catastrophic water-sourced erosion, or the aftereffects. Only huge floods and rapid sedimentation could be responible for the incredible numbers of fossils we have worldwide (we are talking multiple trillions...with a "T"). Flood hydrology and geomorphology (fancy name for land-changing processes) is what I got my degree in, and I have seen much of this firsthand.

I can't speak about the ark, and if it still exists or not, but I can tell you this much...anyone who says that there is no evidence that a global flood occurred simply has not actually looked at the earth and studied what is out there.

[Kevin M]

Sorry man, but that post proves nothing beyond your lack of understanding of biology and geology.

[Highdesertsuby]

Originally Posted by Kevin M

Sorry man, but that post proves nothing beyond your lack of understanding of biology and geology.

No...sorry to you...I understand alot more about geology and biology than you think I do. UNR thought my understanding of geology was good enough for them to give me a bachelor's degree in geology, plus I spent 3 years working on a masters there as well. I understand EXACTLY how evolution and a billions of years old earth is supposed to work, plus I spent years out there in the field actually looking at it, so I know what evidence is really available. I also worked for the state geologic survey for nearly 10 years...so please don't tell me I don't understand these things. By comparison, most of what nearly every person on this forum knows is only what they have been told by National Geographic and the History Channel. I do this for a living.

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

Just to make a point...the flood account in Genesis does not say "two of every animal". It says two of every KIND of animal (not species). That means two dogs, two horses, two cats, etc. I don't rememebr how "kind" would be classified in taxonomy, but if you run the numbers, Noah would have only had to carry about 5,000-6,000 individual animals on the ark to cover the genetic diversity we have now. With the size of the ark that number could be easily accomidated.

That's just silly. Using word-play to attempt to establish scientific truth in the Bible is an old trick that still doesn't work. But whatever.

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

The second point is that everyone likes to say that there is no evidence of a global flood...when in fact, there is an entire planet full of evidence. Practically every surface feature we see today is the result of catastrophic water-sourced erosion, or the aftereffects. Only huge floods and rapid sedimentation could be responible for the incredible numbers of fossils we have worldwide (we are talking multiple trillions...with a "T"). Flood hydrology and geomorphology (fancy name for land-changing processes) is what I got my degree in, and I have seen much of this firsthand.

I'm sorry again, but I'm staggered by the level of twisted meanings and misinformation coming from someone so educated in this field. There is most certainly NOT any evidence of a "global flood." We can probably just start and end that debate by noting there isn't even enough water on the planet to fully cover it. No point even getting into the dizzying array of methods for forming the various geological features of the planet without pretending they're all from "catastrophic water-sourced erosion."

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

I can't speak about the ark, and if it still exists or not, but I can tell you this much...anyone who says that there is no evidence that a global flood occurred simply has not actually looked at the earth and studied what is out there.

There very well could have been a Noah, who built an ark, and loaded it with his family and lots of animals and survived a wicked flood. There is clear evidence of a MAJOR flood on the Euphrates roughly corresponding to when Noah would have lived. Scholars generally attribute the Noah flood story to another ancient Babylonian king, but it's close enough. Trying to parlay such things into a claim that there was a planetary-scale flood, that all creatures not on Noah's ark perished and that all of humanity is directly descended from him is preposterous, silly, and irresponsible. After seven years of studying geology I find it very, very hard to believe that you can accept what occurs in the book of Genesis as literal scientific fact in any way.

[Highdesertsuby]

Originally Posted by Kevin M

That's just silly. Using word-play to attempt to establish scientific truth in the Bible is an old trick that still doesn't work. But whatever.

It's not an issue of "word-play", I am making a point...everyone who ever questions the validity of the Genesis flood account always says somehting like "there is no way Noah could have gotten two of every SPECIES of animal on the ark". I am simply saying that the bible doesn't use the term "species", it uses the word "kind". That word does have a biological term equivalent, "family" is the nearest option. In any case, many of myown professors have admitted that those classifications are rather arbitrary anyway, and they are constantly being rearranged. I do find it interesting though that, instead of trying to actually refute what I said, you have to resort to using terms like "silly" and "old tricks". Typical of someone who doesn't want to give a serious look at the other side of the story.

Originally Posted by Kevin M

I'm sorry again, but I'm staggered by the level of twisted meanings and misinformation coming from someone so educated in this field. There is most certainly NOT any evidence of a "global flood." We can probably just start and end that debate by noting there isn't even enough water on the planet to fully cover it. No point even getting into the dizzying array of methods for forming the various geological features of the planet without pretending they're all from "catastrophic water-sourced erosion."

Well I am "staggered" by the level of assumptions coming from people who have little or NO education in this field. You can say what you want, but I have been out there on the rocks and digging in the dirt, measuring the faults, mapping the ground, looking at the fossils, and seeing with my own eyes the kinds of processes that work out there. I have the advantage of having studied BOTH models (evolution and creation) for years, which is more than I can say for most people out there...I actually have a standard of comparison. Do you have anything more than TV indoctrination? The formation of geological features is my speciality, and there is no "dizzying array" of methods or processes. The kinds of forces that can change the way the earth surface looks is actually pretty limited...water, wind, tectonics, and chemical reactions. When you actually get away from the tv and look at the rocks themselves, water erosion is actually the primary method responsible for most of the features we see. The only question is how much water and how much time. Most geologists are realizing that catastrophic changes are more the norm, which is why they invented punctuated equilibrium to try to explain it.

In any case, I don't have to "pretend" anything...the evidence is there, just depends on how you want to interpret it. You said "There is most certainly NOT any evidence of a "global flood."". So are you saying that sedimentary layers that extend worldwide could not have been caused by a global flood? Are you saying that the trillions upon trillions of fossils found worldwide could not have possibly been buried and preserved by sediment from a global flood? Are you saying that even though most of the world's landmass is made up of miles thick sedimentary layers, a global flood could not have possibly been the reason they are there? Are you saying that the evolutionary geologic model is the ONLY possible explanation there is? You must be smarter than Einstein then to be able to state, as a fact, that there is no evidence for a global flood. I am actually curious...where did you learn about geology? By the way, if you drop the mountain ranges and raise the ocean basins, there is PLENTY of water to cover everything...tectonic models actually do allow for this to have possibly been the case. If you have evidence to prove otherwise, I'd like to see it.

Originally Posted by Kevin M

There very well could have been a Noah, who built an ark, and loaded it with his family and lots of animals and survived a wicked flood. There is clear evidence of a MAJOR flood on the Euphrates roughly corresponding to when Noah would have lived. Scholars generally attribute the Noah flood story to another ancient Babylonian king, but it's close enough. Trying to parlay such things into a claim that there was a planetary-scale flood, that all creatures not on Noah's ark perished and that all of humanity is directly descended from him is preposterous, silly, and irresponsible. After seven years of studying geology I find it very, very hard to believe that you can accept what occurs in the book of Genesis as literal scientific fact in any way.

Hmmm..."preposterous, silly, and irresponsible"...is that all you can do is to throw out more of those obviously condescending remarks (see my note from earlier)? After 7 years of official study, and many more outside of the classroom, I find a literal understanding of Genesis to make alot more sense than to believe that some cosmic accident made everything from nothing (something evolutionists STILL cannot explain), and that we all evolved from rocks. As for everyone descending from Noah and his family, even the director of the Human Genome Project admits that all humans come from a single genetic ancestor. So, no, my ideas are not as silly as you think they are, if the number 1 geneticist on the planet agrees with me. Also, if a global flood didn't kill all of those animals, then would you care to explain how we have trillions of fossils preserved under miles of sediments all around the world? Fossilization requires RAPID burial to even have a chance...no other process will work. Once again, I will suggest to you that you actually study the claims and scientific models produced by the creation community and stop relying so much on the 6-7 regular guests that show up on Discovery and History channel every time this subject is brought up.

[bigrobwoot]

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

It's not an issue of "word-play", I am making a point...everyone who ever questions the validity of the Genesis flood account always says somehting like "there is no way Noah could have gotten two of every SPECIES of animal on the ark". I am simply saying that the bible doesn't use the term "species", it uses the word "kind". That word does have a biological term equivalent, "family" is the nearest option. In any case, many of myown professors have admitted that those classifications are rather arbitrary anyway, and they are constantly being rearranged. I do find it interesting though that, instead of trying to actually refute what I said, you have to resort to using terms like "silly" and "old tricks". Typical of someone who doesn't want to give a serious look at the other side of the story.






Well I am "staggered" by the level of assumptions coming from people who have little or NO education in this field. You can say what you want, but I have been out there on the rocks and digging in the dirt, measuring the faults, mapping the ground, looking at the fossils, and seeing with my own eyes the kinds of processes that work out there. I have the advantage of having studied BOTH models (evolution and creation) for years, which is more than I can say for most people out there...I actually have a standard of comparison. Do you have anything more than TV indoctrination? The formation of geological features is my speciality, and there is no "dizzying array" of methods or processes. The kinds of forces that can change the way the earth surface looks is actually pretty limited...water, wind, tectonics, and chemical reactions. When you actually get away from the tv and look at the rocks themselves, water erosion is actually the primary method responsible for most of the features we see. The only question is how much water and how much time. Most geologists are realizing that catastrophic changes are more the norm, which is why they invented punctuated equilibrium to try to explain it.

In any case, I don't have to "pretend" anything...the evidence is there, just depends on how you want to interpret it. You said "There is most certainly NOT any evidence of a "global flood."". So are you saying that sedimentary layers that extend worldwide could not have been caused by a global flood? Are you saying that the trillions upon trillions of fossils found worldwide could not have possibly been buried and preserved by sediment from a global flood? Are you saying that even though most of the world's landmass is made up of miles thick sedimentary layers, a global flood could not have possibly been the reason they are there? Are you saying that the evolutionary geologic model is the ONLY possible explanation there is? You must be smarter than Einstein then to be able to state, as a fact, that there is no evidence for a global flood. I am actually curious...where did you learn about geology? By the way, if you drop the mountain ranges and raise the ocean basins, there is PLENTY of water to cover everything...tectonic models actually do allow for this to have possibly been the case. If you have evidence to prove otherwise, I'd like to see it.





Hmmm..."preposterous, silly, and irresponsible"...is that all you can do is to throw out more of those obviously condescending remarks (see my note from earlier)? After 7 years of official study, and many more outside of the classroom, I find a literal understanding of Genesis to make alot more sense than to believe that some cosmic accident made everything from nothing (something evolutionists STILL cannot explain), and that we all evolved from rocks. As for everyone descending from Noah and his family, even the director of the Human Genome Project admits that all humans come from a single genetic ancestor. So, no, my ideas are not as silly as you think they are, if the number 1 geneticist on the planet agrees with me. Also, if a global flood didn't kill all of those animals, then would you care to explain how we have trillions of fossils preserved under miles of sediments all around the world? Fossilization requires RAPID burial to even have a chance...no other process will work. Once again, I will suggest to you that you actually study the claims and scientific models produced by the creation community and stop relying so much on the 6-7 regular guests that show up on Discovery and History channel every time this subject is brought up.

I'd suggest that a mistake you're making is trying to make the evidence you've found fit the conclusions you've already reached. Based on my admittedly limited study in the area of Geology (I got an A in Geology 101 ) aren't there other processes than a global flood that could have caused all of the rock formations you're talking about? Like, localized flooding combined with tectonic plate movement? I'd say it is generally accepted that mountains have been continually growing. Therefore, they used to be a lot smaller than they are now. Also, the great lake lahontan used to cover most of this state. This is evidenced near walker lake looking at the mountains. Now, not being a geologist, I genuinely don't know where else in the world this existed, if it did anywhere at all. But I'd say that this could also erode mountains to cause the formations you were talking about. Another possible source is localized flooding. I'm sure everyone remembers the flood of '97? That was either a 100-year or 200-year flood, which means it is a pretty small flood, on a geological timeline. There could have been massive floods tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago that would also have caused erosion. The last ice age also contributed, via giant icebergs colliding with land masses.

Sorry if that doesn't flow too well, I wrote in spurts.

[bigrobwoot]

Wouldn't massive, world-wide flooding also kill most of the plant species?

[bigrobwoot]

And wouldn't all of the oceans mix with all of the lakes, making every lake saline?

[Highdesertsuby]

Originally Posted by bigrobwoot

Wouldn't massive, world-wide flooding also kill most of the plant species?

Yes, it would have killed most of them, but remember...seeds float, and many plants can actually survive being covered in water for long periods of time. There are also numerous examples of seeds that can exist in a dormant phase either underwater or buried in sediment until the right conditions cause them to "energize" for lack of a better term.

[Highdesertsuby]

Originally Posted by bigrobwoot

And wouldn't all of the oceans mix with all of the lakes, making every lake saline?

That is assuming that the oceans were nearly as saline as they are now. Even then, that isn't much...about 3.6%. Plus, lakes are constantly having their water supply replentished (provided they have an outlet), so even if they were more saline for a while, they wouldn't stay that way for long.

[Highdesertsuby]

Originally Posted by bigrobwoot

I'd suggest that a mistake you're making is trying to make the evidence you've found fit the conclusions you've already reached. Based on my admittedly limited study in the area of Geology (I got an A in Geology 101 ) aren't there other processes than a global flood that could have caused all of the rock formations you're talking about? Like, localized flooding combined with tectonic plate movement? I'd say it is generally accepted that mountains have been continually growing. Therefore, they used to be a lot smaller than they are now. Also, the great lake lahontan used to cover most of this state. This is evidenced near walker lake looking at the mountains. Now, not being a geologist, I genuinely don't know where else in the world this existed, if it did anywhere at all. But I'd say that this could also erode mountains to cause the formations you were talking about. Another possible source is localized flooding. I'm sure everyone remembers the flood of '97? That was either a 100-year or 200-year flood, which means it is a pretty small flood, on a geological timeline. There could have been massive floods tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago that would also have caused erosion. The last ice age also contributed, via giant icebergs colliding with land masses.

Sorry if that doesn't flow too well, I wrote in spurts.

A point of fact is that I did not try to make evidence fit a conclusion I had already made. I was a serious believer in a billions of years old earth...UNTIL I found evidence to the contrary. Your assumption is that I did things the other way around. It was the vidence that I found out in the field that convinced me that the earth could not be billions of years old..later studying uncovered more evidence to back that up. The issue is not that I made any mistakes in what I believe could be a plausable cause to much of the earth's erosion...but that the average evolutionist is the one who makes that mistake by assuming that much of the erosion we see could NOT have been caused by massive worldwide flooding. What we are dealing with here is time and volume of water. Some of the erosion we see was obviously NOT caused by a huge flood, because the amount of erosion is not very big...and erosion is an ongoing process. However, the erosion evidence we see does NOT rule out the possibility of global flooding as a cause. In fact, many erosional features we see HAD to be caused by global-scale flooding simply because of the structure we see and the sheer volume of sediments that were moved.

Many smaller flood events would leave a distinctive pattern of varying grain size in the layers (larger on bottom, smaller on top). You would see this pattern repeated in sequence every time you had a flood. We do see this on a small scale with local flooding, but the big sediment deposits (ie. the Navaho Sandstone in Grand Canyon) do not show this pattern. Neither do they show evidence of surface erosion between layers as you would expect to see between flood events. You would also have to find a way to explain why the same layers can be found in Arizona, New York, and Scotland. It takes a global scale flood to move that much sediment and distribute it halfway across the planet.

Of course, there are other processes that have shaped our world more recently, but that still does NOT eliminate the possibility that a global flood did most of the damage. Millions of years of smaller floods could certainly erode mountains and canyons, but they would have left different erosion patterns than what we actually see in the rocks. The big assumption is that the earth actually had the time to do this (the millions of years thing)...and there are several lines of evidence that show that the earth could not possibly be that old. Everyone that believes in millions of years has to rely on one of two things...the geologic column and age dating.

The geoligic column was invented without the benefit of age dating, or even any evidence that the rocks appear in age sequence. Rocks matching the geologic column's age sequence do not exist on earth ANYWHERE...and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. Even my own professors admitted they don't exist. Next, ALL age dating techniques are faulty and do not work...been proven time and again BY SECULAR SCIENTISTS. They are all based on assumptions about initial conditions that no one was around to observe. The only reason why the millions of years thing was invented was to try to give some credability to evolution theory, whcih needs the time to even have a chance (even with that it can't work, but that is a molecular biology discussion....happy to get into that as well).

Other evidence for a young earth involve things like the reduction in earth's rotational speed, the ever-increasing distance of the moon, and atmospheric carbon 14 equlilibrium issues. Happy to discuss them all.

By the way, Lake Lahontan drying up isn't an issue of erosion, but rather climate change. It was a realitively recent event, even by geologic standards. The whole idea here is to realize that, based on the actual evidence seen in the rocks (not to mention some laws of physics), a global flood does a much better job of explaining the geologic features than smaller local floods over millions of years. The formation of the Grand Canyon is one of my favorate examples of how people can totally ignore facts to try to push a dead theory....more on that later if you are willing to learn.

[bigrobwoot]

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

Yes, it would have killed most of them, but remember...seeds float, and many plants can actually survive being covered in water for long periods of time. There are also numerous examples of seeds that can exist in a dormant phase either underwater or buried in sediment until the right conditions cause them to "energize" for lack of a better term.

Nothing kills plants like salinity. How long was the earth underwater during this flood? I seem to remember it being years, but I don't remember for sure. All of the salt in the water also would have destroyed all of the soil on earth for growing for years. I'd also guess that there is only a 1 in 4 chance that the plants were in the seed-producing season. But our spring isn't the same as australia's spring, so where did all of the different plants' seeds come from?

[bigrobwoot]

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

That is assuming that the oceans were nearly as saline as they are now. Even then, that isn't much...about 3.6%. Plus, lakes are constantly having their water supply replentished (provided they have an outlet), so even if they were more saline for a while, they wouldn't stay that way for long.

Why wouldn't the oceans be as saline then as they are now? Not all lakes have an outlet. The great salt lake is a prime example. So is pyramid lake. Salinity/TDS (total dissolved solids) wasn't an issue in pyramid until the wastewater treatment plant started dumping in there. AFAIK, it isn't as saline as the ocean yet. It should be, since it would have been saline from mixing with the oceans, and then adding salinity/TDS from the treated wastewater. That is the only local lake example I can think of, but I'm not a geologist or hydrologist.

[100_Percent_Juice]

I don't know why so many discussions on this forum have to turn into a pissing match of who is more educated. There is nobody alive today who was around to physically witness any of this. Neither side (evolutionist/creationist) has a complete, highly detailed, word for word account of the beginning of the earth, mankind, or the flood. There will always be arguments on both sides as to why these issues are true or untrue. Personally, I honestly don't see the big deal with finding the Ark. Lets assume that Noah's Ark will be found some day in the future. If it is, will you automatically change what you believe? Will you say "here is that evidence I have been looking for, I guess I will now believe the bible". I doubt it. There will then arise arguments about who's boat it actually was and that it still doesn't prove there was a flood etc etc etc.

There is not a single person who has come into this thread unbiased. There are some issues that will probably never be resolved and questions that will never be answered. Faith is required to believe either side. I feel that a person can only prove to themselves what they believe. I personally believe creation because, to me it makes the most sense and also gives the most meaning to life. Like everyone, I too have many questions about the opposing belief.

If evolution springs forth out of necessity, why do even the most brilliant of minds only use such a small portion of our brain?

If death is a natural part of humanity, why do people get so upset and filled with grief when someone dies?

Why are humans so completely different from all other living creatures? As humans we enjoy love, comedy, art, music, we see in color, we can taste an endless variety of flavor, we have a strong sense of justice, we are always trying to learn and better ourselves, we question how and why we are alive and on this planet.

This leads me to personally believe that we were created for a purpose. That being the amazing creatures that we are is a result of intelligent design and not mere coincidence.

[Kevin M]

Here are some super-quickie answers that work for those questions which, IMO, do not conflict with the major explanations of Why We're Here.

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

If evolution springs forth out of necessity, why do even the most brilliant of minds only use such a small portion of our brain?

A question for biologists, but I believe (lol) that the current line of thinking is that if we overclocked our brains by using a high percentage of it at a given moment, we'd essentially suffer from heat stroke in moments.

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

If death is a natural part of humanity, why do people get so upset and filled with grief when someone dies?

The social construct of death being very, very bad makes sense from both an evolutionary standpoint and from the religious. Societies are stronger and more viable when we work to prevent individuals of our society/species from dying sooner. For the most part anyway. And for those who believe God is in control of everything that happens, the answer is that we grieve because He made us that way for His own purposes.

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

Why are humans so completely different from all other living creatures? As humans we enjoy love, comedy, art, music, we see in color, we can taste an endless variety of flavor, we have a strong sense of justice, we are always trying to learn and better ourselves, we question how and why we are alive and on this planet.

Evolution: it's because of those giant brains. Creation: Humans are special, we are God's chosen ones.

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

This leads me to personally believe that we were created for a purpose. That being the amazing creatures that we are is a result of intelligent design and not mere coincidence.

Science only conflicts with religion when religion insists science is wrong and that the Book of ancient writings- be it the Bible, the Quran, the Talmud/torah etc.- is literally correct. Honest, true science cannot and does not attempt to prove or disprove the existence of a deity or deities, merely to understand the natural world, wherever it may have come from.

[100_Percent_Juice]

Originally Posted by Kevin M

A question for biologists, but I believe (lol) that the current line of thinking is that if we overclocked our brains by using a high percentage of it at a given moment, we'd essentially suffer from heat stroke in moments.

I understand what you are saying but, that doesn't answer the question as to why we have big brains. Its just a silly (IMO) explanation of why we can't utilize more of it. I am not asking nor do I expect you to provide a lengthy answer for these questions. I think this is just food for thought and if we wanted to, we could all go back and forth forever.

[bigrobwoot]

I thought the point of this thread (since the derailment) was to go back and forth? Whether I accept some of the answers I'm given or not, it is a great source of deep thought. I don't care if I convince anyone to believe what I do or not. I'd like to think I haven't insulted anyone's intelligence, I haven't been trying to, and I know that mine hasn't been insulted. Isn't this how people get answers, though? By asking questions?

[100_Percent_Juice]

Originally Posted by bigrobwoot

I thought the point of this thread (since the derailment) was to go back and forth? Whether I accept some of the answers I'm given or not, it is a great source of deep thought. I don't care if I convince anyone to believe what I do or not. I'd like to think I haven't insulted anyone's intelligence, I haven't been trying to, and I know that mine hasn't been insulted. Isn't this how people get answers, though? By asking questions?

I agree with this. I am all for going back and forth as an interchange of thoughts and information. I just don't wish for it to become personal to where someone feels that their intelligence is being questioned. I think it has started to edge in that direction a few times but, I think we are still good.

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

I understand what you are saying but, that doesn't answer the question as to why we have big brains. Its just a silly (IMO) explanation of why we can't utilize more of it. I am not asking nor do I expect you to provide a lengthy answer for these questions. I think this is just food for thought and if we wanted to, we could all go back and forth forever.

There plausible, common sense explanations for our big brains from both evolution theory and creation theory. Bigger brains = smarter, smarter = more survival from the evolution standpoint. The cost of our big brains is long gestation, difficult childbirth, and looooooong adolescence. This is why we developed complex social interactions, strong emotions, etc. They are necessary components of the overall "gameplan" for our species. Obviously there's a lot of complexity involved that I can't get into, but nearly everything we think we know about Homo Sapiens jives with Darwinian evolutionary theory.