Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
gorgeoussand
8413 Followers
cancerkitty
3212 Followers
Frank West
574 Followers
Sachin Bhutani
1297 Followers
julie188Jul 28, 2010
That was a pretty good read ... nothing in it that everyone doesn't really know, but entertaining all the same.
dennisdeetlebonJul 28, 2010
Seriously? Some cracked articles are better than others, but I almost never actually regret reading one. This one in particular, however, was unfunny, contrived, pseudo-scientific garbage--end of story.
omgninjasJul 28, 2010
I kept waiting for a Battlestar Galactica reference on the Adam and Eve part. I am disappoint, Cracked.
Closed AccountJul 28, 2010
cracked = quick bury
xboxfocusJul 28, 2010
assh**e = assh**e.
thebay6Jul 28, 2010
dugg for the reflexive property
douglasqJul 28, 2010
Person who elects to name themselves "hariynipples" in any arena = assh**e.
Closed AccountJul 28, 2010
;)
fdsa1342Jul 28, 2010
"In the beginning, there was nothing but chaos, often depicted by a vast sea. Then, suddenly, a (noun) (arose from/appeared in) the (sea/chaos/nothingness) by way of (some event or lack thereof). Then the (same noun) (erupts/cracks/opens) and (a deity/creation) emerges."
and
"Garnish with warfare and hilarious laws for flavor."
Pretty much made my morning. ...
gsm54321Jul 28, 2010
In the beginning, there was nothing but chaos, often depicted by a vast sea. Then, suddenly, Something happened and the nothing by way of something happening. Then the something did something and something emerges.
I think crack are giving them to much credit for this one.
dinglebuttJul 28, 2010
i'm the x-chromosomal steve
urbanetruthJul 28, 2010
unintelligble article
gamewizardJul 28, 2010
Did you know Noah was 700 years old? It's true!
snareguy17Jul 28, 2010
I'm in my 20's and don't even want to fill up my car tires with air.
wonderchemistJul 28, 2010
Clearly the retirement age needs to be raised to 701.
artworkz918Jul 28, 2010
it'll give congress more of our money to spend! yeah!
greenblobJul 28, 2010
Genesis 6: "Noah was 600 years old when the floodwaters covered the earth"
Or something like that.
Closed AccountJul 28, 2010
And that's why I don't believe the bible. One person says he was 700 years old. "It's true!" Another person says he was 600 years old. "Or something like that." Until you show me physical evidence that this Noah character actually existed AND actually built a giant boat AND was actually able to pack two (or was it seven?!) of every animal onto the boat, I'm not going to believe it. But I'm still not going to believe the rest of the bible. Guess who wrote it? Not God.
inajeepJul 29, 2010
Don't limit yourself to just the discrepancies. There are plenty of other facts that show that not just these religious text but all are a way of teaching morals to a illiterate bunch of people a thousand or so years ago. Morals which do not hold up to the magnifying glass of a mature and intelligent society.
soulforgeJul 29, 2010
I don't believe the bible either. But I believe tons of this stuff actually happened. Just not quite so literally. These are story tellers that are trying to quantify what they have no explanation for. The ark? It could have be a giant ass raft and there could have been way fewer animals back then. Who knows, maybe God was counting on evolution to repopulate the earth with all the individual insects and small animals. It's silly to expect someone to come up with proof for something in the bible, but it doesnt mean it's not at least a little bit true. Jesus sure as hell exsisted in history. There's records and evidence of it. Hell, even the Muslims believe he was a minor prophet.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gamewizardJul 29, 2010
Funny how this discussion is now turning into a stereotypical religious debate... only on the internets!
soulforgeJul 29, 2010
Not only on the internets. This s**t happens in real life too. You should check it out. And I'm trying to shott for bringing things back to the middle. I'm cool with being partly right and partly wrong as I usually am at least somewhat right about almost anything (been completely right and completely wrong tons of times too). But it's rediculous when both sides won't admit there's some truth to the other side. There's almost no instance of black and white or purely true and false in history. There's truths and non truths from both accounts of what happened. So people should quit arguing that they are the ones who are right. You guys didn't help write the bible and the science geeks here are just basing their opinions on research that's been done by someone else so as far as you know, there's something out there in the universe that nullifies every scientific experiment ever done. You're both picking sides of an argument that someone else started from which you can bring no original thought to the table. You'll win more arguments by saying "I see where you are coming from and you have valid points, but this is what I think....." rather than being a douche and telling someone they are f**king stupid like "You're wrong dumbass" It's not going to convince them to believe you. (Not referring to you specifically Wizard, just some other people that aren't having as much fun with this topic as you seem to be) Lighten up people, who cares where we came from? It's the here and now you should focus on.
gamewizardJul 29, 2010
Jesus may have existed, but the counts of his actions and life were written only 30 years after the fact. I am not making this s**t up. The first gospel (Mark) was written in the year 60 (the rest of the gospels soon followed), while it is believed that Jesus Christ died between the years of 30-35. All I am saying is that given the way people wrote literature back then (2000 years ago), and the fact that you are trying to recount things from memory/testimony for something that occurred over 30 f**king years ago. I am almost certain that some things are likely altered or enhanced.
Trying to recount someones life after they've been gone for 30 years... I don't think absolute accuracy is gonna be possible, not even in our day and age with the internet.
soulforgeJul 29, 2010
I only stated that he existed. Not that everything he said and did was kept by record the instant he did them and that those records were infallable. It was an example of a piece of literature reflecting current(semi-current) events. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gamewizardJul 29, 2010
I agree with everything you said, except for the claim that there is evidence for his existence. Claims yes, proof? None that I have ever seen. There hasn't been one piece of evidence to date that confirms the existence of Jesus Christ, at least none that I have ever encountered. This is especially interesting when you are faced with the likes of www.zeitgeistmovie.com that offer a very compelling argument as to why Jesus never existed, at least not in the way we describe him in the gospels.
rudegarJul 29, 2010
silly you everybody know that in cases like this
the bible use dog years! :P
Closed AccountJul 28, 2010
Cracked sucks c**k, and this is a scientific fact.
hetmanJul 28, 2010
If the genetic bottleneck did happen to humans I would assume that most of people who survived would have spoke the same language. Which gives credence to the theory that all language evolved from one source.
harabeckJul 28, 2010
It's not clear that language had developed at the time of the bottleneck.
crazedleperJul 28, 2010
Buried for Harabeck.
harabeckJul 28, 2010
Getting under skin?
Closed AccountJul 28, 2010
i think he means all modern language.
ms168105Jul 29, 2010
IMO, that depends on whether Dunbar's number is correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number
If humans were still living in groups of fewer than 150 people at the time of the bottlenecks, they probably wouldn't have needed language yet.
crazedleperJul 28, 2010
Yeah, I read about that "bottleneck" in the Bible. 8 people survived the flood. Every time more evidence is found it's spun as something else.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hetmanJul 28, 2010
First off you totally missed the point of the article. They are stating that all societies have that type of myth. So it does not validate the bible anymore than it validates hindu beliefs.
harabeckJul 28, 2010
8 people would not be enough to continue a species. The bible is a book of myths and some historical details, nothing more.
crazedleperJul 28, 2010
@Harabeck said:
"8 people would not be enough to continue a species. "
One person would be enough, God can make a person out of dust. 8 people wouldn't be enough for evolution to continue a species but that's not a problem since evolution isn't true.
---------------------------------
"The bible is a book of myths and some historical details, nothing more."
Yes, myths that are usually proved true. Arrogant bastard.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jsauterJul 28, 2010
According to the bible, when did the flood occur? 75,000 years ago?
hetmanJul 28, 2010
People are scared of floods big shocker there. People like to make up stories damn another big shocker.
dolomite808Jul 28, 2010
"We ought to be looking at how it could be true"
Iz dat sum confirmation bias?
harabeckJul 28, 2010
@Crazed
"One person would be enough; God can make a person out of a rib --or dust if no rib is available."
Such beliefs are unfalsifiable. No matter what evidence exists, you can just say, "magic!" and believe anything. Who cares what reality shows us? I could say, "one person is not enough, I know this because of magic!" and that statement is as reliable as what you said. Luckily, my original statement was based on scientific belief built on empirical evidence.
Also, you're not even internally consistent. If god can create a universe from nothing, why would he need a rib or dust as a starting point for a human?
"8 people wouldn't be enough for evolution to continue a species but that's not a problem since evolution isn't true."
All evidence points to evolution, no evidence points against it. Prove me wrong.
"Yes, myths that are usually proved true. Arrogant bastard."
HAHAHA. Me arrogant? It is bible thumpers like you who show the most arrogance I've ever seen. You read a book written by various stone age authors with no scientific knowledge and claim to know the origins of the very universe and everything within it. While I, who has studied knowledge carefully built up over centuries by methodical scientific means is the arrogant one? That's like a guy slapping at the water with the stick calling a guy with a fishing pole arrogant for saying he can catch more fish.
As for myths in general, that's just a lie. Sure, some have a basis in reality. Troy is a real city. But that doesn't mean that Achilles was really the child of a Greek goddess. The vast majority of myths have no real basis in historical fact (at least not on a literal level). But please, prove me wrong. Explain the literal historical basis for all the myths of the world.
"If the stories agree *and* they are found to (reasonably) agree with scientific findings then they are valid, no matter who wrote them, who believed them or when."
They don't agree with any scientific findings, not in any meaningful way. And even if they did, isn't that added evidence that the Egyptian religion is the correct religion?
"They had to invent language, tools and writing to record their experiences. Some of them had to carve it in stone--and it was so real to them, that they did. "
So what? The Aztecs weren't right to perform human sacrifice, no matter how many carvings of it they made.
"If you weren't so damned arrogant, you might be able to see that it is us that is at a disadvantage on account of lack of proximity to the events which *all* the ancients documented."
HAHAHA...Again with self projection of your own arrogance. Anyway, if the events are true, then why don't they continue? Why doesn't god do anything else that's obviously sourced from god? Did he suddenly decide to take a break from miracles? Or are they, like most myths, just fictional tales of morality, origin, or tradition? The latter seems more likely to me.
"We ought to be looking at how it could be true; not how we could make ourselves appear smart."
You've got it backwards. You first look at whether or not something is true, you don't set out with the belief that is true and then try to mold things around that.
gsm54321Jul 28, 2010
How can you respect God? That's the real question I have.
Yes he created the universe, but he's also arbitrarily decided to destroy us, kill us, inflict plagues on us.
You have a God that adheres to no ethical standard, who will maim and kill as he sees fit, and yet demands that you respect him through either threats of damnation or offerings of bribes, without giving you a real reason why you should.
So tell me leper, putting asides any questions about the validity or existence of God, tell me why I should worship and live my life according to an entity that by all accounts of his OWN BOOK is a giant assh**e? and not just continue to believe in human dignity and rights as a secular humanist?
soulforgeJul 29, 2010
That's just the Old Testament. Clearly you haven't read the book. God eased up on us in the New Testament. (I don't believe the bible, but I'm arguing your narrow minded response) God was trying to create a species that once left to it's own devices would survive and continue on. The flood was a way to re purify things with what he believed were the best living creatures still on earth so as to make a better species( also called natural selection to any Darwinians out there) God either gave up or was satisfied right around the turn of the New Testament. So technically you wouldn't be worshiping an assh**e of a God considering you aren't 3,000 years old.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
xyllarJul 28, 2010
Typical Cracked exaggeration. The title should be "Five Ridiculous Ancient Beliefs That Happen to Bear Slight Resemblance to Theories Currently Held by Some Scholars."
hetmanJul 28, 2010
It is still entertaining. It is pretty much what I expect from cracked.
mercuryblade18Jul 28, 2010
I take cracked with a grain of salt, it's a goddamn humor site after all, but this article was reaaaaaaally stretching it.
bigjiggerJul 28, 2010
Hey guys, I just did some research, and it looks like xyllar is right.Please everyone, make sure not to continue using cracked.com as an objective source of factual information. :-(
On the bright side, it appears that a new website called wikipedia is 100% accurate.
crazedleperJul 28, 2010
Give the scholars a break; they'll catch up--despite trying really hard not to.
redeyeprodJul 29, 2010
Quit with your religious talk. There is no evidence that you can give to prove the existence of your god. Much like I have no evidence to prove the non-existence of your god. All we have is scientific evidence to prove certain things happened such as evolution. Quit trying to act as if believing in evolution is somehow heresy to your god. Darwin (one of the first observers of evolution) himself believed in a god. Proselytism of your beliefs in a god don't make them any more true.
Closed AccountJul 29, 2010
I'm guessing cracked is running out of material.
barryn13087Jul 28, 2010
I usually ah by an cracked article, this one however left me with eh.
baconationJul 28, 2010
Am I just a dick, or did this article suck?
*Ponders sentence with 'dick' and 'suck' in it*
xboxfocusJul 28, 2010
Oh it's a gay joke. We in elementary school still fellas?
rysticJul 28, 2010
I'd consider baconation a compliment. Who wouldn't want to be called that?
baconationJul 28, 2010
Playstation for life.
hutch619Jul 28, 2010
xboxfocus - You do realize that girls can suck dicks too, don't you?
You suck, dick!
tabcontrolJul 28, 2010
Eh, this one didn't stick with me much.
cosworth99Jul 28, 2010
Agreed, this one stunk
nmanguyJul 28, 2010
I think the hate for this article is that... well, it's too normal. Genetic/linguistic bottlenecks, the sun... BORING. If it had, say "The ancient Norwegians believed that eating your dead enemies would give you their power... and it DID because they were incapable of cultivating livestock in the extreme weather, and thus only had one source of protein", well, that would be more like Cracked.
hetmanJul 28, 2010
I also heard that was one of the reasons that the mayans practiced human sacrfices.
hipmanJul 28, 2010
Some civilization.
kithkatulJul 29, 2010
The maya weren't huge into the whole human sacrifice thing. That was really the Aztec's game.
They did it, sure, but the mass sacrifices and daily killings and stuff were Aztec.
raskaliJul 28, 2010
It's good to know articles don't even have to make sense anymore. Just throw together a bunch of random ideas and it'll still get on the front page of Digg.
specimen7Jul 28, 2010
Noah's ark? The author must be some kind of religious evolution denier or watches those stupid shows on the history channel where they search for the ark and never find it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hetmanJul 28, 2010
I am not religious at all. However first off it is cracked. Secopndly they are just talking about how every society across the globe have some myth about humans almost going extinct. My native american tribe has the same myth. There was a flood everyone had to climb a mountain. Eventually it subsided and everyone was able to lvie on land again.
MillerBartJul 28, 2010
Don't you think that with so many ancient societies claiming there was a flood is pretty good evidence that there was in fact a massive flood?
harabeckJul 28, 2010
Or evidence that drowning is a basic primal fear. That seems more likely to me especially since there is no evidence of such a flood.
hetmanJul 28, 2010
It floods in most places at one time or another. Yea we have a creation myth also. A giant turtle appeared out of nowhere and gave birth to the earth. We have a big thing for turtles in my tribe. That does not make it true we just seemed to have a thing for turtles.
jsauterJul 28, 2010
Or that flooding has occurred on a fairly regular basis over the centuries and that humans have a great knack at making s**t up?
testiculeseJul 28, 2010
And, back then, the "whole world" was as far as they could walk.
soulforgeJul 29, 2010
The flood could have been anything back then. It could have been the geological evidence of a great flood in the black sea that caused the story to erupt. Back then people were severely limited to certain areas. There wasn't as much spread of humanity so any large even was known to all people in the area. To the people of the Mediterranean area, that sea was the center of their entire "world" which likely had less than 2 million people living there during the Black Sea flood. Granted I've never seen actual numbers of how many survived the bible flood, but I never was under the impression that Noah and his Family were the only survivors considering the bible indicated they floated past settlements of people who took refuge on very tall mountains that rose above the flood waters a small amount. I believe it is you Harabeck that takes the bible too literally. I don't believe in God, so I consider this somewhat of a book of myths (usually events in history that were inspired by something that really happened). You are looking for proof that explicitly declares the bible correct. So I think you are just trying to convince yourself not us. Chill out, have some fun. There's a plethora of truth for tons of stuff in most ancient texts if you don't take it 100% literally. That's like believing something on Cracked.
carbonetcJul 29, 2010
More interesting are the cultures that don't have a flood myth. Especially cultures whose recorded history passes right through the alleged period of the flood without a hitch. An inescapable, world-devastating deluge is probably not something that you can just fail to notice.
crazedleperJul 28, 2010
Except that they did find it.
http://digg.com/d31PYZr
Keep spinning it evolutionary, though.
Closed AccountJul 28, 2010
Article not found.
hetmanJul 28, 2010
Just like the Ark. Zing!
harabeckJul 28, 2010
A. This has NOTHING to do with evolution.
B. The article is gone, but as I recall some religious group found some planks on a mountain and immediately said it was Noah's ark.
Do you honestly believe that Noah literally built a ship that could hold 2 of every animal, 8 people, plus food and fresh water for all those animals?
And that 2 individuals is enough to keep a species going? Because it isn't. Think about it. You have 2 parents who give birth. If they happen to have offspring of both species (not a guarantee), then the next generation is necessarily the product of either sibling or parent-offspring incest. Realistically, you need dozens if not hundreds of individuals.
lolcoelacanthJul 28, 2010
First: you cannot be sure that was the mythical boat and not some other one
Second: I noticed that creationists are all of a sudden fond of carbon dating when it suits them.
Closed AccountJul 28, 2010
@Harabeck "Do you honestly believe that Noah literally built a ship that could hold 2 of every animal, 8 people, plus food and fresh water for all those animals?" If you've read any of this guy's other comments, you'll realize that he probably does...common sense be damned!
harabeckJul 28, 2010
Oh, I have plenty of run-ins with Crazed and others like him. I keep at it to keep practicing my debate skills, to possibly inform others (unlikely, but even one person would make it worth it), and to maybe even reach Crazed himself (even more unlikely, but for such small investment and risk, I find it worth it).
crazedleperJul 28, 2010
@ZaphodBeeb said:
"Article not found."
http://www.huliq.com/47649/turkish-hong-kong-team-claims-finding-noahs-ark
------------------------------
@Harabeck said:
"A. This has NOTHING to do with evolution."
I wouldn't be so sure. If you looked at the issue from the perspective of "how could it be true?" some of the incongruous understandings which you take for granted might just have a place in a different context.
------------------------------
B. The article is gone, but as I recall some religious group found some planks on a mountain and immediately said it was Noah's ark.
You would remember it that way. It's not like they didn't examine it.
------------------------------
"Do you honestly believe that Noah literally built a ship that could hold 2 of every animal, 8 people, plus food and fresh water for all those animals?"
Yes. You're thinking inside the box. All of what Noah did was with God's direction. It was written that Noah and all the animals went into the ark and God "shut the door behind him". None of this need fit into any scientific frame of reference since science, by definition, can only examine naturalistic events--not divine intervention.
The Bible is silent on food and water on the ark but it stands to reason that they wouldn't have gone into the ark without any. Also, the ark had a "tso-har" (roof or window), which Noah opened to let the dove out. They were likely able to collect rain water through it for much of the 40-day period, and possibly thereafter.
------------------------------
"And that 2 individuals is enough to keep a species going? Because it isn't. "
Maybe not now. Maybe not if *you* tried it but I remind you of the unlimited power to which the universe and everything in it owes their CONTINUING existence.
------------------------------
"Think about it. You have 2 parents who give birth. If they happen to have offspring of both species (not a guarantee), then the next generation is necessarily the product of either sibling or parent-offspring incest. Realistically, you need dozens if not hundreds of individuals."
You have never seen--if you'll pardon the expression--virgin DNA. You don't have the luxury of examining Adam or Eve's genome. You can assume, based upon the code that is available (which has been replicating and, arguably, disintegrating for thousands of years) that things have always been as they now are but that would be an assumption on your part. Laws against incest were not part of scripture from the beginning but came later--as the human family began to grow. (Gen 20:8-12, Lev 18:6-17) It stands to reason that original DNA was designed to reproduce from 2 individuals but only for a limited time.
------------------------------
@lolcoelacanth
"First: you cannot be sure that was the mythical boat and not some other one"
All the ancients testify that it happened. Your excuse is lame and moot.
------------------------------
"Second: I noticed that creationists are all of a sudden fond of carbon dating when it suits them. "
And evolutionists are equally guilty of ignoring it when it's inconvenient. I, personally, would just as soon discard it. It's enough that it be found where the Bible said it landed.
------------------------------
@Marshmelly411 said:
"If you've read any of this guy's other comments, you'll realize that he probably does...common sense be damned! "
"Common" sense does not apply; there was nothing "common" about the flood. It was an unprecedented event which was reasonably documented and well supported with empirical evidence today. The preponderance of corroborating evidence validates all clams of divine intervention --which cannot (by definition) be verified through "scientific" means.
------------------------------
"And I wouldn't even start trying to talk about that fancy schmancy science stuff..."
Science isn't all that impressive to me; just a bunch of guys who *really* want to believe preposterous things but won't settle for believing it alone; they want *everyone* to come along for the ride.
------------------------------
@ Harabeck said:
"Oh, I have plenty of run-ins with Crazed and others like him. "
There are no others like me.
------------------------------
"I keep at it to keep practicing my debate skills, to possibly inform others (unlikely, but even one person would make it worth it), and to maybe even reach Crazed himself (even more unlikely, but for such small investment and risk, I find it worth it). "
I do it for the same reason. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
whateverhesaidJul 28, 2010
@CrazedLeper - "Science isn't all that impressive to me; just a bunch of guys who *really* want to believe preposterous things but won't settle for believing it alone"
Would this be the same science that allowed for the invention of the computer at which you now sit and annoy everyone on Digg with your retarded drivel?
crazedleperJul 29, 2010
@whateverHeSaid
"Would this be the same science that allowed for the invention of the computer at which you now sit and annoy everyone on Digg with your retarded drivel?"
I'm more impressed with the more powerful computer that reproduces itself from a microscopic factory--for free. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
harabeckJul 29, 2010
@Crazed
"http://www.huliq.com/47649/turkish-hong-kong-team- ..."
Hmm... a plank of petrified wood... That's it? That's your proof? How do you know it came from the ark instead of something completely different?
"I wouldn't be so sure. If you looked at the issue from the perspective of "how could it be true?" some of the incongruous understandings which you take for granted might just have a place in a different context. "
Again, starting with the conclusion and the finding an excuse to believe in it is back asswards. If you want to find the truth of something, then you start with the evidence and then make your conclusion. If looked at it from the perspective of "how could it be true?" I could conclude that anything at all is true.
"You would remember it that way. It's not like they didn't examine it."
And know that you've produced, it's exactly that. A plank of wood. How do they make the jump to Noah's ark?
"None of this need fit into any scientific frame of reference since science, by definition, can only examine naturalistic events--not divine intervention. "
So, by the same token, I claim that I am right because of magic!. My argument is just as strong as yours. The truth is, anything science cannot examine is not real. If something has an effect in this world, if it exists, then science can measure its properties.
"Maybe not now. Maybe not if *you* tried it but I remind you of the unlimited power to which the universe and everything in it owes their CONTINUING existence."
Magic!
"You have never seen--if you'll pardon the expression--virgin DNA."
That's because there's no such thing. That whole paragraph was nothing but made up bulls**t.
"And evolutionists are equally guilty of ignoring it when it's inconvenient."
Wrong, carbon dating never needs to be thrown out. Not sure what you're getting at.
"I, personally, would just as soon discard it. It's enough that it be found where the Bible said it landed."
All they found was one plank...
"It was an unprecedented event which was reasonably documented and well supported with empirical evidence today."
Bulls**t. There is no evidence of a global flood. The various flood accounts present in some myths do not support each other past, "there was a big flood".
"The preponderance of corroborating evidence validates all clams of divine intervention --which cannot (by definition) be verified through "scientific" means."
Again, there is zero evidence. And again, anything that is real can be verified through scientific means.
"Science isn't all that impressive to me; just a bunch of guys who *really* want to believe preposterous things but won't settle for believing it alone; they want *everyone* to come along for the ride."
That's just retarded. Science has proven itself through results. Every piece of technology that surrounds you everyday is a product of science.
"There are no others like me."
We're all unique to some degree. There are others, such as boigboig, who are just as stupid as you in their own way.
crazedleperJul 29, 2010
@Harabeck said:
"Hmm... a plank of petrified wood... That's it? That's your proof? How do you know it came from the ark instead of something completely different?"
How do you know that it did? There were other links that you could have looked at but you made a choice.
-------------------------
"Again, starting with the conclusion and the finding an excuse to believe in it is back asswards."
Sounds like a good description of Neverlution to me.
-------------------------
"If you want to find the truth of something, then you start with the evidence and then make your conclusion. If looked at it from the perspective of "how could it be true?" I could conclude that anything at all is true.... "
What I meant is that you're looking at the find from the perspective of a person who is a doubter in the conclusion. If there weren't so very many flood accounts you'd never be able to understand what the find is if you started with just looking at the wood. There are any number of artifacts that we've found but have not been able to understand because of not being to put them into context. Flood accounts describe (and measure) the ark, how it was made and where it landed. If we find something that fits the description they passed down to us, and we find it where it was said to have been last seen, how do you justify doubt? Easy: you *want* to doubt it.
-------------------------
"And know that you've produced, it's exactly that. A plank of wood. How do they make the jump to Noah's ark?"
Again, there were other links that you can still go back and look at.
-------------------------
"So, by the same token, I claim that I am right because of magic!."
Knock yourself out but there are concepts that are not real. "Magic" is one and "random" is another. Both things that are called by such names are really just the result of a person making an observation without the ability to fully-comprehend the math which, in truth, underlies the observation. This is true of "miracles", also. Some people observed things that do not take place predictably and were compelled to give a name to the phenomenon.
The Bible describes creation as an orderly, specific process. It refers to the rib of Adam being "built" into a woman. It attributes the positions of constellations to "statues of the heavens". It refers to body parts of an embryo being "written in a book". There is no "magic" involved but you keep saying that because you feel like it completes a dichotomy that you need in order for the Bible to be wrong and you to be right. Again, it's your choice, but you look as much the idiot to me as I do to you.
-------------------------
"My argument is just as strong as yours. The truth is, anything science cannot examine is not real."
Incorrect. There are limits to what science can examine. Good luck getting a look at the theoretical super-string...or a black hole, for that matter. How 'bout "dark matter"? "Dark energy"? I'm sure you're going to say "but there are evidences that suggest that those things are true..." and I'd agree but you'd probably sitll miss the irony.
-------------------------
"If something has an effect in this world, if it exists, then science can measure its properties."
And what if it's outside of this world? Because that's what "supernatural" means.
-------------------------
"Magic!"
Idiot!
-------------------------
"That's because there's no such thing. That whole paragraph was nothing but made up bulls**t."
Of course there's no such thing--now. You don't have the knowledge to create any living thing FROM SCRATCH. You've presumed that the similarities in the DNA of every living thing *must* mean that they all came from the same source--a reasonable presumption I admit, however, you further presumed that that source *must* be ...um, what exactly? Well, that's just it; you don't say what it was but you're quite certain (for whatever reason) of what it was not and you're vehemently opposed to the one option on the table. Those seem to me to be choices.
-------------------------
"Wrong, carbon dating never needs to be thrown out. Not sure what you're getting at."
I didn't say carbon dating "needed" to be thrown out but the "creationists" have cited some and you turned a blind eye to the only kind of evidence you say you'll believe. You don't' want to believe and nothing short of God stepping out from behind a cloud (you don't know that that's where he's been your whole life) and saying "here I am" will convince you. I remind you, you also do not *know* that such a thing will never happen.
-------------------------
"All they found was one plank..."
Not true, read the other links...I only supplied one. Others described 'large compartments'.
-------------------------
"Bulls**t. There is no evidence of a global flood."
Yes there is but you wanna-be-smart guys have given it all different names. "Ice age", for example.
-------------------------
"The various flood accounts present in some myths do not support each other past, "there was a big flood"."
Yes, they do. They are all in a agreement with the number of people on board, that animals were saved and other details come up consistently.
-------------------------
"Again, there is zero evidence. And again, anything that is real can be verified through scientific means."
So you can't verify it. You have your choice of interpretations of that fact a) it didn't happen or b) your methods have limitations. I know what choice *you're* going to make.
-------------------------
"That's just retarded. Science has proven itself through results. Every piece of technology that surrounds you everyday is a product of science."
Yes, that's true of technology. Biology is another issue; biology is simply technology that precedes us and escapes our ability to reproduce--so far.
-------------------------
"We're all unique to some degree. There are others, such as boigboig, who are just as stupid as you in their own way."
And there is an army of drones like you who have been assimilated into a half-brained scheme that you keep calling "science". Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
whateverhesaidJul 29, 2010
@CrazedLeper - "I'm sure you're going to say "but there are evidences that suggest that those things are true..." and I'd agree but you'd probably still miss the irony."
So you are suggesting that there is evidence that supports the claims made in the Bible then? Fine. Then show me the evidence that supports a talking snake. I'll be waiting.
nitsujJul 29, 2010
"Then show me the evidence that supports a talking snake. I'll be waiting."
CrazedLeper has a habit of pulling out the 'magic' card when his logic bottoms out. Which, incidentally, is usually straight away.
Crazed quoted from above regarding the unlikeness of the animals on the ark:
"None of this need fit into any scientific frame of reference since science, by definition, can only examine naturalistic events--not divine intervention."
By that admission he can claim that any old impossible s**t is due to divine intervention.
Closed AccountJul 28, 2010
Still waiting for that ancient belief that God exists to be proven...
crazedleperJul 28, 2010
"The Bible has no monopoly on this one. Every culture has a creation myth"
Well, if it "turned out to be true" then how does the word "myth" apply? Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
thegreat0neJul 28, 2010
It didn't turn out to be true. It might have turned out that some elements of your creation story bear an extremely vague resemblance to what actually happened, but the fact remains that most of the elements in your story bear no resemblance to what actually happened.
harabeckJul 28, 2010
"Well, if it "turned out to be true" then how does the word "myth" apply?"
Well first of all, it's not true. It just sort of sounds vaguely like the general idea of the current scientific theory.
"Other "creation myths" would then amount corroborating evidence of the truthfulness and accuracy of the Bible. "
But not to the bible's claims of exclusive truth. After all, wouldn't this also mean that you have more reason to believe in the Egyptian gods who are nothing like the christian god?
propethicJul 28, 2010
When did they turn out to be true? and why is 'if' not included in your quote?
crazedleperJul 28, 2010
@TheGreat0ne said:
"It didn't turn out to be true. It might have turned out that some elements of your creation story bear an extremely vague resemblance to what actually happened, but the fact remains that most of the elements in your story bear no resemblance to what actually happened."
Except that they do. You're being unreasonable and arrogant again. You ought to be viewing the acounts of the ancients through a lens that gives them the benefit of the doubt. They had seriously limited tools (by comparison) to work with, most people were illiterate and language was still largely under development. Then there are all the other challenges they would have had to deal with for the lack of so many of the modern conveniences we take for granted. It would have taken any of them much longer to write anything as long as this comment so people didn't write or send spam in those days. They only wrote (and copied) the most important information they *knew* to be true at the time.
Furthermore, The Bible is the cornerstone of your society and every thing you *think* you know is built upon the knowledge of the ancients. Pull the "creation story" out from under yourself and you'll be living in a mud hut hunting dinosaurs with spears. Oh, and yes, they did hunt dinosaurs, that's why they are extinct.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
harabeckJul 29, 2010
@Crazed
"You ought to be viewing the acounts of the ancients through a lens that gives them the benefit of the doubt."
Wrong. You must view the actual evidence first, then decide the truth.
"They had seriously limited tools (by comparison) to work with, most people were illiterate and language was still largely under development. Then there are all the other challenges they would have had to deal with for the lack of so many of the modern conveniences we take for granted."
All reasons to take anything they wrote with a grain of salt, not give them the benefit of the doubt.
"They only wrote (and copied) the most important information they *knew* to be true at the time."
Just like the Aztecs *knew* that sacrificing humans was the only way to appease their gods? Just like the Romans *knew* that their pagan gods existed? Just like the Greeks *knew* that everything was made up of earth, water, fire, and air? Just like the Chinese *knew* that dragon bones (actually dinosaur fossils) would cure diseases? Can you really be trying to make such a stupid argument?
"Furthermore, The Bible is the cornerstone of your society and every thing you *think* you know is built upon the knowledge of the ancients."
Outright lie. Legal codes very similar in principle to what we have today were around thousands of years before christ.
"Pull the "creation story" out from under yourself and you'll be living in a mud hut hunting dinosaurs with spears."
Which explains how the Romans/Greeks/Chinese/Indian Empire/Persian Empire, etc developed their complex and advanced cultures without believing or even while actively persecuting christians right?
"Oh, and yes, they did hunt dinosaurs, that's why they are extinct."
Except that there is no evidence of any kind to that effect.
"I read the Bible and you could have but didn't."
Wrong, I've read most of it buddy. Until a few years ago, I was a hardcore christian.
"I have nothing, whatsoever, to say about what the Egyptians wrote; it's a red herring and it's irrelevant, too."
Then you don't understand your own argument. If you can say that your christian myth being somewhat sorta similar to the current scientific understanding means that christianity has more credibility, then by that exact same argument, so does the ancient Egyptian religion.
"People wrote what they believed to be true the best way they could according to the understanding they had at the time--viewed through our imperfect understanding of their languages."
Very well said. Why do you insist on believing everything they wrote verbatim if you agree with this statement?
"We assume that we knew what they were talking about but language is inherently imprecise. Maybe *we* got a few key words wrong or the meaning was lost in the sands of time."
Right, so we can't trust the written works we have. I'm surprised I'm agreeing with you.
"You ought to be giving them the benefit of the doubt."
Wait what? The people or the written works? Everything you just said would indicate that you should believe that the written works are inaccurate and untrustworthy. Giving the people themselves the benefit of the doubt is meaningless. They're dead and they can't tell us what they really meant.
thahmzJul 28, 2010
If I am from East Africa, does it make me you Diggers ancestor?
crazedleperJul 28, 2010
That's what some of them would like to believe.
jspegeleJul 28, 2010
No, but it might make you something like my 4,734th cousin twice removed.
xsecretfilesJul 28, 2010
"Or have at least seen the ethnic, gay, television drama version of it."
I have...its HAWT
charlesdkraussJul 28, 2010
Notice that the ancient belief that there is a god isn't on the list.
lolcoelacanthJul 28, 2010
Wow, Cracked keeps getting better all the time
/s
buried for gross exaggeration
Closed AccountJul 28, 2010
I get the whole concept of genetic "adam and eve" but it makes me wonder, since we're all technically inbred does that mean that before these two started producing offspring everyone was genetically superior to people now? I don't know if that makes sense, but I think it gets my point across...
cerebronJul 28, 2010
Entropy, look it up.
Closed AccountJul 28, 2010
"Entropy and the origin of life
The second law of thermodynamics applied on the origin of life is a far more complicated issue than the further development of life, since there is no "standard model" model of how the first biological lifeforms emerged; only a number of competing hypotheses. The problem is discussed within the area of Abiogenesis, implying gradual pre-Darwinian chemical evolution. In 1924, Alexander Oparin suggested that sufficient energy was provided in a primordial soup. The Belgian scientist Ilya Prigogine was awarded with a Nobel prize for an analysis in this area. A related topic is the probability that life would emerge, which has been discussed in several studies, for example by Russell Doolittle.[10]"
Sorry, still don't get it... Thanks anyway...
apokalypsenowJul 29, 2010
Entropy, within the context of thermodynamics, specifically means the unavailability of a system's energy to do work. Nothing in there about chaos, randomness, or decay. Further, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics only applies within isolated systems, which the earth is not.
harabeckJul 28, 2010
"since we're all technically inbred"
No we're not.
"does that mean that before these two started producing"
Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam lived about 140,000 years apart.
"everyone was genetically superior to people now?"
The term, "genetically superior" is almost meaningless. Your genes are only inferior if they prevent you from surviving or reproducing.
Closed AccountJul 28, 2010
Okay, even though in my original comment I said "genetic eve" and I get the difference between midochondrial DNA and our *actual* DNA, I didn't realize that there was a huge gap in time between these two markers, I figured that it meant that these two people got it on and we all eventually came from their descendants... I'm not even going to bother trying to get my head around it since any further discussion will probably get all science-y and I'm a decidedly non science-y person... Thanks for the reply though...
apextekJul 29, 2010
i read on slashdot last week that they recently discovered that all sperm across all species of animals had certain properties that were identical that proved that all sperm producing animals (insects whatever) came from one instance of a creature producing sperm some million years ago.
that being said, if your theory were true, we and the insects flying are inbred cousins on the tree of evolution.
ausjpJul 29, 2010
It's highly unlikely that when the telomeres of chromosome 2 fused in our ancient ape ancestors, there was more than a pair of animals bearing such a fusion (although possible). Since this is the case, those two would've reproduced. Their kids would've reproduced. Their kid's kids would've reproduced. We essentially have a very long time with isolated inbreeding when we weren't able to breed with our ancient ape ancestors. Breeding amongst siblings is rife throughout the animal kingdom -- we were no exception in this regards.
soulforgeJul 29, 2010
Actually it's a less than 5% chance that siblings (might be cousins if I'm mistaken) will produce a genetically mutated offspring. And of that 5% doesn't mean it's a genetically inferrior offspring. Without a history of genetics to go off of, we don't know if the mutated babies had 4 legs or ended up being even more genetically perfect than their parents. These numbers by the way are from today's population numbers, but I figured the similarity between two siblings would be the same now as it was 200,000 years ago.
ausjpJul 29, 2010
@soulforge: The problem with inbreeding isn't because of a one-off (so to speak), but rather when it's practiced generation after generation, resulting in an increased allelic frequency of autosomal recessive conditions - it often promotes "bad" mutations. This changes the figures significantly, although it's still not really something that can be quantified without (as you say) some further history.
davidnivenJul 28, 2010
Pre-science Biblical revelations that turned out to be current scientifically-verified facts:
(How could the Bible authors know this if there was no science to reveal it at that time?)
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
Example:
"He [God] stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing." - Job 26:7
How could the author Job have ever known that the earth exists in the vacuum of space thousands of years before there was such a thing as astronomy much less that it came up with the idea of the void of space?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hetmanJul 28, 2010
Why did they get pie wrong then?
davidnivenJul 29, 2010
They didn't. Numbers were simply rounded off.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Religions/Numerics/pi.html
hetmanJul 29, 2010
That still makes it wrong.
obzinatorJul 28, 2010
You forgot the sarcasm tag.
harabeckJul 28, 2010
DN is never sarcastic.
harabeckJul 28, 2010
"(How could the Bible authors know this if there was no science to reveal it at that time?)"
They didn't know it. They made it up and it happened to sort of resemble actual fact after translation errors and selection bias on the part of idiots like you.
"How could the author Job have ever known that the earth exists in the vacuum of space thousands of years before there was such a thing as astronomy much less that it came up with the idea of the void of space?"
Actually, astronomy did exist at the time. Some cultures could accurately predict all sorts of celestial events. In fact, Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the earth centuries before the birth of christ. Further, I don't think the cited verse necessarily talks about space. It could just be referring to the way that the ground is below the sky.
Once again, you prove completely ignorant of all logic, reasoning, or scientific methodology. Your grasp on reality is tenuous at best.
davidnivenJul 29, 2010
You do realize that the Book of Job (written ~1475 BC) was written well before Eratosthenes (276 BC – 195 BC) was even an itch in his daddy's pants, right?
You didn't know that? Yet, you spouted off like you knew what time it was.
"Once again, you prove completely ignorant of all logic, reasoning, or scientific methodology. Your grasp on reality is tenuous at best."
Right back at ya, sweetie. Education can be a great thing.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
redeyeprodJul 29, 2010
Harabeck, you forgot that Niven doesn't believe that there were "centuries before the birth of christ." His belief in the dogma of Christianity is completely out of touch with reality. Not even worth arguing with him, he'll never change. Just better to ignore and move on.
boigboigJul 29, 2010
@RedEyeProd,
What? Think!
I'm not sure where David stands on the 'Young Earth' point, but even if he takes a literal stance, there would be approx 40 centuries before Jesus.
Are you so closed minded you can't do simple math?
You must be friends with Harabeck. He has trouble with math too.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
harabeckJul 29, 2010
@DN
"You do realize that the Book of Job (written ~1475 BC) was written well before Eratosthenes (276 BC – 195 BC) was even an itch in his daddy's pants, right?"
That still doesn't change the fact that the passage is extremely ambiguous. You still have nothing.
"Right back at ya, sweetie. Education can be a great thing."
Dude, I'm not the one treating the writings of ignorant bronze age guys as the ultimate source of all knowledge.
@boig
"You must be friends with Harabeck. He has trouble with math too."
Please boig, post the link to that conversation again so we can laugh at you.
boigboigJul 29, 2010
@Harabeck,
Please feel free to post it yourself. In fact, why didn't you? Too lazy? Don't know how?
harabeckJul 31, 2010
Or, I never bothered to keep the link around because it was just you being you, and I don't feel like digging through my post history. Besides, I know you have it saved somewhere, you used to post it a lot. Tell me, did it ever help you make a point?
testiculeseJul 28, 2010
They also thought that the stars were on a sphere encircling the earth, and that the planets were moving stars on their own crystalline sphere inside each other, inside the sphere of stars (which were actual size...pinpricks)
Oh yea, and the sun orbits the Earth.
Niven, you have not been right once since you've joined Digg, I've noticed.
davidnivenJul 29, 2010
[citation for your post needed]
crunchdiggJul 30, 2010
he works at it, Testi. No one gets outraged and talks to him when he gets things right.
nitsujJul 29, 2010
@DavidNiven
""He [God] stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing." - Job 26:7"
This is *completely* open to interpretation.
So...
"He [God] stretches out the north over empty space;"
This doesn't make much sense. North is stretched out? Stretched out over empty space? North as a direction doesn't make any sense in space - it's bound to the Earth's magnetic poles.
"He hangs the earth on nothing."
Considering that the ancients would have been able to look up at the night sky, it wouldn't have been a stretch for them to consider that the Earth is positioned amongst all the black 'space'. They wouldn't have observed any celestial attachment and so it would be no major thing to consider that the Earth is just floating - most likely by divine intervention.
We can make the same interpretation of other religious texts to jump to the same 'wondrous' conclusions.
jspegeleJul 28, 2010
Fixed... 5 Ridiculous Ancient Beliefs That Turned Out to Be Very Loosely Based on Historical Events That Are Believed to Have Possibly Happened at Some Point Before Recorded HistoryComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
zacattac50Jul 28, 2010
i generally like cracked, but this was terrible. i challenge someone to find a worse article
hollowexJul 28, 2010
I too will register my disdain for an article on a comedy website that does not mesh with the way I view the world or myself. I will continue to accept that I am better and more intelligent than my ancestors. Clearly they were unable to parse their experiences because they did not have "THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD!" (Raised Pointy Finger). Those poor ignorant fools and their sad attempt to understand the world around them in a rational way. Complete fail except for when they got lucky like those ancient Atomists... Lucky dim-witted fools I say... It's surprising those animals didn't eat their own feet.
professorriffsJul 28, 2010
5 Ridiculous Ancient Beliefs That Are Currently Sort Of Explained By Popular Theories Which Are Still Being Fought Over
hutch619Jul 28, 2010
How the f**k did this s**t make it to the front page? Did anybody even READ the f**kin thing? Let me sum it up for you:
1) Noah's Ark
[The Myth]: A couple thousand years ago, this guy God has a hard-on for, builds a big assed boat, invites his wife, a few other couples and 2 of every kind of animal to go for a cruise while the rest of the world drowns in a flood God creates (presumably to wipe out all the fags).
[The Science]: There looks to have been a Mega-Volcano that went off 75,000 years ago and may have reduced the human population to around 10,000 or less.
2) The Tower of Babel and the Birth of Languages
[The Myth]: A bunch of people decide to build a huge tower that will reach the heavens but their project comes to a halt when God decides it'd be funny to make them all speak different languages so they can't understand each other's "Babel".
[The Science]: There's this THEORY (which most experts don't believe in) that the invention of language occurred at only one prehistoric site (monogenesis).
3) The Creation of the Universe
[The Myth]: <author throws in multiple myths here from different religions in the hopes that the reader will not realize that ALL of them are way the f**k off> either a golden womb, a cosmic egg, a flower blossom, God, or absolutely nothing somehow grew into what we have now
[The Science]: The Big Bang
4) The Sun Eats Stars and Poops Light
[The Myth]: The Paiute tribes of North America believed the stars were the love children of the Sun and the moon and the reason they disappear in the day is because their dad likes to eat them which makes him bright.
[The Science]: The Sun is made up of a bunch of s**t. This includes remnants of other stars that have long since passed.
5) Adam and Eve
[The Myth]: All of humanity came from one woman and one man who f**ked 6,000 years ago
[The Science]: We have traced all of CURRENT humanity back to one woman (mitochondrial Eve) and one man (Y-chromosomal Adam) but they never f**ked each other (unless Adam was into f**king 80,000 year old corpses).
poopiewarriorJul 29, 2010
haha well summed. this was easily the worst cracked article i've ever read.
asym79Jul 29, 2010
Yep, that sums it up, alright. I wish I read this comment before I read the article.
Closed AccountJul 28, 2010
Article was meh. I liked the Platypus.
overlord555Jul 29, 2010
Yeah....the religious ideas weren't really connected to reality at all.
Closed AccountJul 29, 2010
A Chinese visa is a permit issued by Chinese visa authorities to non-Chinese citizens for entry into, exit from and transit through China. American citizens and citizens of most countries are required to obtain a China visa before entering China. There are eight categories of ordinary Chinese visas, which are respectively marked with the letters C, D, F, G, J-1, J-2, L, X and Z.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shawnmattcrawJul 29, 2010
What was the point of this article?
kempachiJul 29, 2010
This is the worst Cracked article I've read with all the ridiculous associations. What is this, Fox News?
jackruby83Aug 9, 2010
This list kind of sucked, but it sent me on a mind-lowing 2 1/2 hour tangent of wikipedia searches about toba events, genetic bottlenecks, founder effects, cheetahs, the amish, icelanders, mitochondrial eve, homo sapiens, polygamy, monogenesis and a hole bunch of other unrelated s**t. My brain hurts...