Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Noah"s Ark: a Feasibility Study

Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 4:39:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://creation.com...

I found this article to be very enlightening. It gives a plausible way that Noah could have fit all the animals on the Ark. Granted, it's not proof that it happened. But it could have happened. It is up to the unbeliever to prove that it couldn't happen.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 5:13:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The problem is that nothing about what these "researchers" do is at all related to science.

Science observes evidence, and performs research using all pertinent evidence. They then draw a conclusion based on the research and evidence. This is a logical and honest methodology. But it doesn't support the Bible.

Creationist sites don't use this methodology and if you're not using science methodology, then what you're doing isn't science. The researchers behind these sites and their findings start with a conclusion, then seek only that evidence which supports their preconceived conclusion and then claim that their conclusion is supported by evidence. That's why it's rejected completely by science. If you begin with your conclusion, and reject all evidence contrary to your conclusion, you can only arrive at the conclusion you started with. And most of these sites do disclose this information if you're willing to hunt for it and do a bit of reading between the lines.

If you check here:
http://creation.com...

You'll find this...
STATEMENT OF FAITH
(See also "Good News")
(A) PRIORITIES

The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.


When you make your desired beliefs secondary to the outcome of scientific research, your conclusions will automatically be based on your desired beliefs, not on the scientific reality. They allow research and evidence into their conclusions, only when it supports their conclusions. All other research and evidence is deemed faulty on the basis of contradicting their beginning conclusion.

They also admit that their methodology is faith, rather than evidence.

That's nothing more than putting the research after the conclusion. Honest and valid research leads you to a conclusion. These creationist sites won't follow an honest methodology, because doing so doesn't lead to the conclusion they desire. So they instead begin with the conclusion, and try to work backward - ignoring evidence which fails to support that conclusion - to arrive exactly where they started.

It's like claiming that a standard dice will roll a 5, three times more often than a 2. Then they begin rolling the dice as their research. And each time the rolling of the dice conflicts with their conclusion, they dismiss that evidence as flawed, because it disagrees with their beginning conclusion. Eventually, they will roll a 5 three times before rolling a 2, and then they conclude that the "valid evidence" supports their conclusion. Any evidence which doesn't support their conclusion is deemed "invalid".

It's TOTALLY dishonest and only those so hungry to have their pet beliefs supported that they're careless about accepting such claims, are likely to present them as "scientific research". There's nothing scientific (or honest), about it.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 5:24:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 5:13:42 PM, Beastt wrote:
The problem is that nothing about what these "researchers" do is at all related to science.

Science observes evidence, and performs research using all pertinent evidence. They then draw a conclusion based on the research and evidence. This is a logical and honest methodology. But it doesn't support the Bible.

Creationist sites don't use this methodology and if you're not using science methodology, then what you're doing isn't science. The researchers behind these sites and their findings start with a conclusion, then seek only that evidence which supports their preconceived conclusion and then claim that their conclusion is supported by evidence. That's why it's rejected completely by science. If you begin with your conclusion, and reject all evidence contrary to your conclusion, you can only arrive at the conclusion you started with. And most of these sites do disclose this information if you're willing to hunt for it and do a bit of reading between the lines.

If you check here:
http://creation.com...

You'll find this...
STATEMENT OF FAITH
(See also "Good News")
(A) PRIORITIES

The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.


When you make your desired beliefs secondary to the outcome of scientific research, your conclusions will automatically be based on your desired beliefs, not on the scientific reality. They allow research and evidence into their conclusions, only when it supports their conclusions. All other research and evidence is deemed faulty on the basis of contradicting their beginning conclusion.

They also admit that their methodology is faith, rather than evidence.

That's nothing more than putting the research after the conclusion. Honest and valid research leads you to a conclusion. These creationist sites won't follow an honest methodology, because doing so doesn't lead to the conclusion they desire. So they instead begin with the conclusion, and try to work backward - ignoring evidence which fails to support that conclusion - to arrive exactly where they started.

It's like claiming that a standard dice will roll a 5, three times more often than a 2. Then they begin rolling the dice as their research. And each time the rolling of the dice conflicts with their conclusion, they dismiss that evidence as flawed, because it disagrees with their beginning conclusion. Eventually, they will roll a 5 three times before rolling a 2, and then they conclude that the "valid evidence" supports their conclusion. Any evidence which doesn't support their conclusion is deemed "invalid".

It's TOTALLY dishonest and only those so hungry to have their pet beliefs supported that they're careless about accepting such claims, are likely to present them as "scientific research". There's nothing scientific (or honest), about it.

Did you even read the article? If so, how about enlightening us poor, deluded religious types how anything the author claimed is impossible? The author of the book this article is referring to spent 7 years researching it. Then you come along and casually dismiss it. So, Mr science guy, tell us all how he's wrong in his reasoning.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 5:29:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Even more damning is their first paragraph under "Basics", which reads....

- "The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science."

- Do you see where it says that the Bible is inerrant throughout?
- Do you see where they claim that the Bible is "the supreme authority"... "in everything it teaches?"
- It then expands on that by claiming that the Bible's authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes, but includes its assertions in history and science.

These are not the findings of their research, but the premises upon which they base and direct their research.

This is part of their methodology. So they first proclaim that everything in the Bible is true. Then they do their "research". When the research fails to support the Bible, it is dismissed because it violates their initial premise - that the Bible is always correct. So that evidence isn't used. When they complete their "research" all that is left is that tiny bit of "research" and "evidence" which does support their claims. All of the research and evidence which refutes it is discarded as "invalid", because it violates their foundational premises.

In actual science, one is held responsible to include all evidence, regardless of the conclusions that it draws. If the conclusions fail to support what may have seemed most likely, what you believed to be most likely is considered to be refuted. Honest research is that which allows the evidence (all objective evidence), to lead to a conclusion. Picking only the evidence which supports a pre-conceived conclusion, is dishonest and provides only the conclusions you selected beforehand.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 5:37:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 5:29:42 PM, Beastt wrote:
Even more damning is their first paragraph under "Basics", which reads....

- "The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science."

- Do you see where it says that the Bible is inerrant throughout?
- Do you see where they claim that the Bible is "the supreme authority"... "in everything it teaches?"
- It then expands on that by claiming that the Bible's authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes, but includes its assertions in history and science.

These are not the findings of their research, but the premises upon which they base and direct their research.

This is part of their methodology. So they first proclaim that everything in the Bible is true. Then they do their "research". When the research fails to support the Bible, it is dismissed because it violates their initial premise - that the Bible is always correct. So that evidence isn't used. When they complete their "research" all that is left is that tiny bit of "research" and "evidence" which does support their claims. All of the research and evidence which refutes it is discarded as "invalid", because it violates their foundational premises.

In actual science, one is held responsible to include all evidence, regardless of the conclusions that it draws. If the conclusions fail to support what may have seemed most likely, what you believed to be most likely is considered to be refuted. Honest research is that which allows the evidence (all objective evidence), to lead to a conclusion. Picking only the evidence which supports a pre-conceived conclusion, is dishonest and provides only the conclusions you selected beforehand.

That's funny. If my memory serves me correctly, I asked you to refute anything from the article I posted. I asked you to prove that anything he claims is not feasible. I even titled this 'Noah's Ark: A feasibility study.' I did not claim that it was proof that the event actually happened. I merely stated that it COULD have happened. How about sticking to the topic at hand and providing us with an explanation of how it couldn't possibly have happened?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 5:49:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 5:24:36 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/10/2014 5:13:42 PM, Beastt wrote:
The problem is that nothing about what these "researchers" do is at all related to science.

Science observes evidence, and performs research using all pertinent evidence. They then draw a conclusion based on the research and evidence. This is a logical and honest methodology. But it doesn't support the Bible.

Creationist sites don't use this methodology and if you're not using science methodology, then what you're doing isn't science. The researchers behind these sites and their findings start with a conclusion, then seek only that evidence which supports their preconceived conclusion and then claim that their conclusion is supported by evidence. That's why it's rejected completely by science. If you begin with your conclusion, and reject all evidence contrary to your conclusion, you can only arrive at the conclusion you started with. And most of these sites do disclose this information if you're willing to hunt for it and do a bit of reading between the lines.

If you check here:
http://creation.com...

You'll find this...
STATEMENT OF FAITH
(See also "Good News")
(A) PRIORITIES

The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.


When you make your desired beliefs secondary to the outcome of scientific research, your conclusions will automatically be based on your desired beliefs, not on the scientific reality. They allow research and evidence into their conclusions, only when it supports their conclusions. All other research and evidence is deemed faulty on the basis of contradicting their beginning conclusion.

They also admit that their methodology is faith, rather than evidence.

That's nothing more than putting the research after the conclusion. Honest and valid research leads you to a conclusion. These creationist sites won't follow an honest methodology, because doing so doesn't lead to the conclusion they desire. So they instead begin with the conclusion, and try to work backward - ignoring evidence which fails to support that conclusion - to arrive exactly where they started.

It's like claiming that a standard dice will roll a 5, three times more often than a 2. Then they begin rolling the dice as their research. And each time the rolling of the dice conflicts with their conclusion, they dismiss that evidence as flawed, because it disagrees with their beginning conclusion. Eventually, they will roll a 5 three times before rolling a 2, and then they conclude that the "valid evidence" supports their conclusion. Any evidence which doesn't support their conclusion is deemed "invalid".

It's TOTALLY dishonest and only those so hungry to have their pet beliefs supported that they're careless about accepting such claims, are likely to present them as "scientific research". There's nothing scientific (or honest), about it.

Did you even read the article? If so, how about enlightening us poor, deluded religious types how anything the author claimed is impossible? The author of the book this article is referring to spent 7 years researching it. Then you come along and casually dismiss it. So, Mr science guy, tell us all how he's wrong in his reasoning.
He didn't do any actual research. An appropriate analogy for this kind of "research" is to take a sealed box, close your eyes, concentrate, and then proclaim the box contains only buttons.

Then the directive is given stating that the initial premise for the research is that the conclusion thus far is absolutely true and the supreme authority. So no matter what is found in the box, the initial conclusion is considered to be of primary importance - it overrides any findings to the contrary.

When the box is opened, the shoes, wallets, identification cards, old razors, colored glass bottles, tiny wood carvings and three mis-matched checkers are discarded because they violate the initial premise - that the conclusion that the box contains only buttons is the ultimate authority and guiding metric for the research. This evidence is thusly deemed "invalid". By the time all of the contents have been researched, and the "invalid evidence" discarded, all that is left are whatever buttons were in the box.

The conclusion is then that the original conclusion was correct, that the box contained only buttons. THAT is how these organizations do their "research", and it isn't research at all. It's more appropriately termed "cherry-picking the evidence" - selecting only what supports your preconceived conclusion, and discarding everything which refutes your preconceived conclusion.

But if it will make you feel better, I'll read the article. The problem is that they've already discarded evidence which refutes their findings. And you don't know specifically what was discarded. Perhaps that will become apparent as one reads through the article. Perhaps it won't. If the excluded evidence does become apparent, they've not done a very good job with creative wording. And most of these sites do try to mask the methodology in the manner in which they word their results.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Cryo
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 6:33:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You wanna talk feasibility? Where did the water come from? There isn't enough water on the planet to cover the earth up to the highest mountaintop, and there never has been.

A flood like that would kill all plant life on the surface. There would have been no sunlight getting through to the surface. So when the herbivores got off the ark, what did they eat?

If there were only two of each animal, what did the predators eat? How did herbivores not go extinct?

How did the animals get to and from the ark?

Whenever I get ask simple questions like these, I am answered with "God" (read "magic").
Skikx
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 6:34:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 4:39:00 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
http://creation.com...

I found this article to be very enlightening. It gives a plausible way that Noah could have fit all the animals on the Ark. Granted, it's not proof that it happened. But it could have happened. It is up to the unbeliever to prove that it couldn't happen.

I won't even bother to address the article itself. Even it Noah could have done it, it is still up to the believer, aka the one making the claim, to prove that it actually happened.
Until then, it is nothing more than an old (an IMO boring) story.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 6:35:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 4:39:00 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
http://creation.com...

I found this article to be very enlightening. It gives a plausible way that Noah could have fit all the animals on the Ark. Granted, it's not proof that it happened. But it could have happened. It is up to the unbeliever to prove that it couldn't happen.

No, it doesn't give a plausible way of ANYTHING. It attempts to reduce the requirements to the point where Noah didn't actually have to do what the bible claims he did... "Feasibility Study" is a study if reductionist futility. It's false, it's stupid, and it's been debunked many times. This is just stoopid.

It is not up to the unbeliever, ever. We don't have to prove it didn't happen, any more than it's up to the accused to prove his innocence. It is not the unbeliever making claims, it is the believer/asserter. You claim it to be truth. If you can't prove it, it is completely rational to reject it. Consider it rejected.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 8:05:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 4:39:00 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
http://creation.com...

I found this article to be very enlightening. It gives a plausible way that Noah could have fit all the animals on the Ark. Granted, it's not proof that it happened. But it could have happened. It is up to the unbeliever to prove that it couldn't happen.

This video raises some questions though.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 8:15:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 4:39:00 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
http://creation.com...

I found this article to be very enlightening. It gives a plausible way that Noah could have fit all the animals on the Ark. Granted, it's not proof that it happened. But it could have happened. It is up to the unbeliever to prove that it couldn't happen.

Why do you think God makes most of His people look for evidence while He chose a few of His people to be believers to listen to His spoken voice through His saints and learn that we exist within His thoughts as a dream?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 9:21:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 5:37:21 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/10/2014 5:29:42 PM, Beastt wrote:
Even more damning is their first paragraph under "Basics", which reads....

- "The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science."

- Do you see where it says that the Bible is inerrant throughout?
- Do you see where they claim that the Bible is "the supreme authority"... "in everything it teaches?"
- It then expands on that by claiming that the Bible's authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes, but includes its assertions in history and science.

These are not the findings of their research, but the premises upon which they base and direct their research.

This is part of their methodology. So they first proclaim that everything in the Bible is true. Then they do their "research". When the research fails to support the Bible, it is dismissed because it violates their initial premise - that the Bible is always correct. So that evidence isn't used. When they complete their "research" all that is left is that tiny bit of "research" and "evidence" which does support their claims. All of the research and evidence which refutes it is discarded as "invalid", because it violates their foundational premises.

In actual science, one is held responsible to include all evidence, regardless of the conclusions that it draws. If the conclusions fail to support what may have seemed most likely, what you believed to be most likely is considered to be refuted. Honest research is that which allows the evidence (all objective evidence), to lead to a conclusion. Picking only the evidence which supports a pre-conceived conclusion, is dishonest and provides only the conclusions you selected beforehand.

That's funny. If my memory serves me correctly, I asked you to refute anything from the article I posted. I asked you to prove that anything he claims is not feasible. I even titled this 'Noah's Ark: A feasibility study.' I did not claim that it was proof that the event actually happened. I merely stated that it COULD have happened. How about sticking to the topic at hand and providing us with an explanation of how it couldn't possibly have happened?

Sorry for the unexpected delay. I had to run to a nearby town, pick up an item of mine, then do a bit of shopping on my way home, and feed my cats. After that, I sat down and read the article and it did not disappoint. It did EXACTLY what I told you it would do.

He doesn't even mention...
- the mixing of salt/fresh water
- climate change
- sea-worthiness of wooden vessels of that size
- environmental (temperature/humidity/plant needs) requirements of the animals
- the lack of sufficient water
- veterinary care
- fresh food needs
- extreme sediments
- existence of whales, sharks dolphins and other large marine animals
- roiling seas

I'm sure there are at least a dozen other considerations - any one of which totally disrupts the feasibility of the story. Some things he touched on but didn't cover adequately or was flatly wrong include...
- ventilation
- quantity of excrement
- toxicity of excrement
- navigation capability

Why doesn't he mention or adequately consider these things? It's exactly what I told you before even reading the article. These forms of evidence don't fit with the pre-conceived conclusion, so they aren't considered. They're treated as though they don't exist... they're discarded.

Buy yourself an inexpensive aquarium. Follow the instructions in setting it up. Make sure to add a stress relieving medication such as "Stress-zyme" and some water conditioner, and make sure to let the tank operate for a minimum of 24-hours before adding any fish. When you do add the fish, make sure you float the bags for 20 - 40 minutes before releasing the fish so that any temperature variation is produced very gradually.

These are standard steps in keeping fish alive. Wait until your tank is established and has been operating without fish loss for 2 or 3 weeks. Here is where you'll need to do some simple calculations. Sea water contains about 1.2 oz of salt per kilogram of water. A kilogram is about a liter. So if you have a 10-gallon tank, that's about 37.85 liters. Now add 1.2 oz of salt for each liter. So for a 10 gallon tank, add about 45 oz of salt. Tell me how many fish are still alive 24-hours later. Is that a fair test? Not at all! If you want to make the test more fair, dump in 2 or 3 dozen standard size ice cubes to simulate nuclear winter, and dump in a 15 oz can of dirt. Place the tank on a platform and shake it violently (to simulate the turbulence which would come with such a flood).

Now... how many of your fish are going to be alive 24-hours later? Some kinds of fish are very delicate, others are quite hardy. Goldfish, for example, have a very thick and prolific slime layer which tends to provide very good protection against parasites, fungi, bacteria, etc. I guarantee you, the hardiest of gold fish will all be floating within a few hours.

The article is a complete fraud. They're not looking at the feasibility of the story. They're picking out those few arguments they believe they can support, and they simply discard the rest. They discard it because it disproves the story, which disproves the Bible. And they are operating from the pre-conceived (and biased), premise that the Bible is correct, and serves as the supreme authority. Well... it doesn't. Reality serves as the supreme authority. And reality shows us that the flood story is a complete myth.

I love the language the article uses. For example;
- "horses, zebras and donkeys are probably descended from an equine"
- "Dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals are probably from a canine"
- "domestic cattle (which are clean animals) are descended from the Aurochs, so there were probably at most seven (or fourteen) domestic cattle"
- "it is likely that they are descended from the same original kind"
- "the number of extinct genera is probably highly overstated."

Now I do credit him for not making definite statements when he's not sure, but what it the evidence to support these assertion? The evidence is that he has started from the conclusion that the Bible is true, and the flood is an actual event, and can't see any other way to make it appear feasible.

And the suggestion about deep bedding lasting a year without being changed?

Who does he think he's kidding? I have 24 cats. It's a long story. But I assure you, no matter how deep the "bedding" (or litter), it HAS to be changed at least daily. The ark had only one window. Ammonia levels alone would have killed everything within the first 2 or 3 weeks. Eight people, working 24/7, couldn't discard the waste of 16,000 animals, even if 90% of them were insects. And the moment you don't clean it up, you have huge disease problem that would sweep through the ark.

Did Noah have an abundant supply of Clavamox or some other effective antibiotic and the means to administer it to large predators? And what about the animals that require fresh food? This isn't a luxury for some animals. It's an absolute necessity. Many animals simply won't eat food which isn't fresh. They'd starve before eating dried/reconstituted food. The whole story is an absolute joke. And looking at the size of the ark, and number of animals, doesn't make it feasible.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Gaming_Debater
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 9:26:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 5:13:42 PM, Beastt wrote:
The problem is that nothing about what these "researchers" do is at all related to science.

Science observes evidence, and performs research using all pertinent evidence. They then draw a conclusion based on the research and evidence. This is a logical and honest methodology. But it doesn't support the Bible.

Creationist sites don't use this methodology and if you're not using science methodology, then what you're doing isn't science. The researchers behind these sites and their findings start with a conclusion, then seek only that evidence which supports their preconceived conclusion and then claim that their conclusion is supported by evidence. That's why it's rejected completely by science. If you begin with your conclusion, and reject all evidence contrary to your conclusion, you can only arrive at the conclusion you started with. And most of these sites do disclose this information if you're willing to hunt for it and do a bit of reading between the lines.

If you check here:
http://creation.com...

You'll find this...
STATEMENT OF FAITH
(See also "Good News")
(A) PRIORITIES

The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.


When you make your desired beliefs secondary to the outcome of scientific research, your conclusions will automatically be based on your desired beliefs, not on the scientific reality. They allow research and evidence into their conclusions, only when it supports their conclusions. All other research and evidence is deemed faulty on the basis of contradicting their beginning conclusion.

They also admit that their methodology is faith, rather than evidence.

That's nothing more than putting the research after the conclusion. Honest and valid research leads you to a conclusion. These creationist sites won't follow an honest methodology, because doing so doesn't lead to the conclusion they desire. So they instead begin with the conclusion, and try to work backward - ignoring evidence which fails to support that conclusion - to arrive exactly where they started.

It's like claiming that a standard dice will roll a 5, three times more often than a 2. Then they begin rolling the dice as their research. And each time the rolling of the dice conflicts with their conclusion, they dismiss that evidence as flawed, because it disagrees with their beginning conclusion. Eventually, they will roll a 5 three times before rolling a 2, and then they conclude that the "valid evidence" supports their conclusion. Any evidence which doesn't support their conclusion is deemed "invalid".

It's TOTALLY dishonest and only those so hungry to have their pet beliefs supported that they're careless about accepting such claims, are likely to present them as "scientific research". There's nothing scientific (or honest), about it.

IE confirmation bias.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 9:32:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 9:26:54 PM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
At 10/10/2014 5:13:42 PM, Beastt wrote:
The problem is that nothing about what these "researchers" do is at all related to science.

Science observes evidence, and performs research using all pertinent evidence. They then draw a conclusion based on the research and evidence. This is a logical and honest methodology. But it doesn't support the Bible.

Creationist sites don't use this methodology and if you're not using science methodology, then what you're doing isn't science. The researchers behind these sites and their findings start with a conclusion, then seek only that evidence which supports their preconceived conclusion and then claim that their conclusion is supported by evidence. That's why it's rejected completely by science. If you begin with your conclusion, and reject all evidence contrary to your conclusion, you can only arrive at the conclusion you started with. And most of these sites do disclose this information if you're willing to hunt for it and do a bit of reading between the lines.

If you check here:
http://creation.com...

You'll find this...
STATEMENT OF FAITH
(See also "Good News")
(A) PRIORITIES

The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.


When you make your desired beliefs secondary to the outcome of scientific research, your conclusions will automatically be based on your desired beliefs, not on the scientific reality. They allow research and evidence into their conclusions, only when it supports their conclusions. All other research and evidence is deemed faulty on the basis of contradicting their beginning conclusion.

They also admit that their methodology is faith, rather than evidence.

That's nothing more than putting the research after the conclusion. Honest and valid research leads you to a conclusion. These creationist sites won't follow an honest methodology, because doing so doesn't lead to the conclusion they desire. So they instead begin with the conclusion, and try to work backward - ignoring evidence which fails to support that conclusion - to arrive exactly where they started.

It's like claiming that a standard dice will roll a 5, three times more often than a 2. Then they begin rolling the dice as their research. And each time the rolling of the dice conflicts with their conclusion, they dismiss that evidence as flawed, because it disagrees with their beginning conclusion. Eventually, they will roll a 5 three times before rolling a 2, and then they conclude that the "valid evidence" supports their conclusion. Any evidence which doesn't support their conclusion is deemed "invalid".

It's TOTALLY dishonest and only those so hungry to have their pet beliefs supported that they're careless about accepting such claims, are likely to present them as "scientific research". There's nothing scientific (or honest), about it.

IE confirmation bias.
Yes, but with just a hint and tinge of pseudo-science to throw off the creationists who appear to be totally devoid of an understanding of science methodology.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Gaming_Debater
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 9:34:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 9:32:57 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/10/2014 9:26:54 PM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
At 10/10/2014 5:13:42 PM, Beastt wrote:
The problem is that nothing about what these "researchers" do is at all related to science.

Science observes evidence, and performs research using all pertinent evidence. They then draw a conclusion based on the research and evidence. This is a logical and honest methodology. But it doesn't support the Bible.

Creationist sites don't use this methodology and if you're not using science methodology, then what you're doing isn't science. The researchers behind these sites and their findings start with a conclusion, then seek only that evidence which supports their preconceived conclusion and then claim that their conclusion is supported by evidence. That's why it's rejected completely by science. If you begin with your conclusion, and reject all evidence contrary to your conclusion, you can only arrive at the conclusion you started with. And most of these sites do disclose this information if you're willing to hunt for it and do a bit of reading between the lines.

If you check here:
http://creation.com...

You'll find this...
STATEMENT OF FAITH
(See also "Good News")
(A) PRIORITIES

The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.


When you make your desired beliefs secondary to the outcome of scientific research, your conclusions will automatically be based on your desired beliefs, not on the scientific reality. They allow research and evidence into their conclusions, only when it supports their conclusions. All other research and evidence is deemed faulty on the basis of contradicting their beginning conclusion.

They also admit that their methodology is faith, rather than evidence.

That's nothing more than putting the research after the conclusion. Honest and valid research leads you to a conclusion. These creationist sites won't follow an honest methodology, because doing so doesn't lead to the conclusion they desire. So they instead begin with the conclusion, and try to work backward - ignoring evidence which fails to support that conclusion - to arrive exactly where they started.

It's like claiming that a standard dice will roll a 5, three times more often than a 2. Then they begin rolling the dice as their research. And each time the rolling of the dice conflicts with their conclusion, they dismiss that evidence as flawed, because it disagrees with their beginning conclusion. Eventually, they will roll a 5 three times before rolling a 2, and then they conclude that the "valid evidence" supports their conclusion. Any evidence which doesn't support their conclusion is deemed "invalid".

It's TOTALLY dishonest and only those so hungry to have their pet beliefs supported that they're careless about accepting such claims, are likely to present them as "scientific research". There's nothing scientific (or honest), about it.

IE confirmation bias.
Yes, but with just a hint and tinge of pseudo-science to throw off the creationists who appear to be totally devoid of an understanding of science methodology.

Yup. Those people are the same close-minded liars as Ken Ham. Im so glad i quit falling for his money scheme.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 9:42:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 9:34:57 PM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
At 10/10/2014 9:32:57 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/10/2014 9:26:54 PM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
At 10/10/2014 5:13:42 PM, Beastt wrote:
The problem is that nothing about what these "researchers" do is at all related to science.

Science observes evidence, and performs research using all pertinent evidence. They then draw a conclusion based on the research and evidence. This is a logical and honest methodology. But it doesn't support the Bible.

Creationist sites don't use this methodology and if you're not using science methodology, then what you're doing isn't science. The researchers behind these sites and their findings start with a conclusion, then seek only that evidence which supports their preconceived conclusion and then claim that their conclusion is supported by evidence. That's why it's rejected completely by science. If you begin with your conclusion, and reject all evidence contrary to your conclusion, you can only arrive at the conclusion you started with. And most of these sites do disclose this information if you're willing to hunt for it and do a bit of reading between the lines.

If you check here:
http://creation.com...

You'll find this...
STATEMENT OF FAITH
(See also "Good News")
(A) PRIORITIES

The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.


When you make your desired beliefs secondary to the outcome of scientific research, your conclusions will automatically be based on your desired beliefs, not on the scientific reality. They allow research and evidence into their conclusions, only when it supports their conclusions. All other research and evidence is deemed faulty on the basis of contradicting their beginning conclusion.

They also admit that their methodology is faith, rather than evidence.

That's nothing more than putting the research after the conclusion. Honest and valid research leads you to a conclusion. These creationist sites won't follow an honest methodology, because doing so doesn't lead to the conclusion they desire. So they instead begin with the conclusion, and try to work backward - ignoring evidence which fails to support that conclusion - to arrive exactly where they started.

It's like claiming that a standard dice will roll a 5, three times more often than a 2. Then they begin rolling the dice as their research. And each time the rolling of the dice conflicts with their conclusion, they dismiss that evidence as flawed, because it disagrees with their beginning conclusion. Eventually, they will roll a 5 three times before rolling a 2, and then they conclude that the "valid evidence" supports their conclusion. Any evidence which doesn't support their conclusion is deemed "invalid".

It's TOTALLY dishonest and only those so hungry to have their pet beliefs supported that they're careless about accepting such claims, are likely to present them as "scientific research". There's nothing scientific (or honest), about it.

IE confirmation bias.
Yes, but with just a hint and tinge of pseudo-science to throw off the creationists who appear to be totally devoid of an understanding of science methodology.

Yup. Those people are the same close-minded liars as Ken Ham. Im so glad i quit falling for his money scheme.
Most people are more willing to pay large sums of money to hear lies they like, rather than small sums of money to hear truths they dislike.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 10:40:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You raised some good points, but I would point out that this is an article about a much longer book. He may address some, or all, of these questions in the book. I don't know. I haven't read it.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 10:48:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 9:42:46 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/10/2014 9:34:57 PM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
At 10/10/2014 9:32:57 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/10/2014 9:26:54 PM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
At 10/10/2014 5:13:42 PM, Beastt wrote:
The problem is that nothing about what these "researchers" do is at all related to science.

Science observes evidence, and performs research using all pertinent evidence. They then draw a conclusion based on the research and evidence. This is a logical and honest methodology. But it doesn't support the Bible.

Creationist sites don't use this methodology and if you're not using science methodology, then what you're doing isn't science. The researchers behind these sites and their findings start with a conclusion, then seek only that evidence which supports their preconceived conclusion and then claim that their conclusion is supported by evidence. That's why it's rejected completely by science. If you begin with your conclusion, and reject all evidence contrary to your conclusion, you can only arrive at the conclusion you started with. And most of these sites do disclose this information if you're willing to hunt for it and do a bit of reading between the lines.

If you check here:
http://creation.com...

You'll find this...
STATEMENT OF FAITH
(See also "Good News")
(A) PRIORITIES

The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.


When you make your desired beliefs secondary to the outcome of scientific research, your conclusions will automatically be based on your desired beliefs, not on the scientific reality. They allow research and evidence into their conclusions, only when it supports their conclusions. All other research and evidence is deemed faulty on the basis of contradicting their beginning conclusion.

They also admit that their methodology is faith, rather than evidence.

That's nothing more than putting the research after the conclusion. Honest and valid research leads you to a conclusion. These creationist sites won't follow an honest methodology, because doing so doesn't lead to the conclusion they desire. So they instead begin with the conclusion, and try to work backward - ignoring evidence which fails to support that conclusion - to arrive exactly where they started.

It's like claiming that a standard dice will roll a 5, three times more often than a 2. Then they begin rolling the dice as their research. And each time the rolling of the dice conflicts with their conclusion, they dismiss that evidence as flawed, because it disagrees with their beginning conclusion. Eventually, they will roll a 5 three times before rolling a 2, and then they conclude that the "valid evidence" supports their conclusion. Any evidence which doesn't support their conclusion is deemed "invalid".

It's TOTALLY dishonest and only those so hungry to have their pet beliefs supported that they're careless about accepting such claims, are likely to present them as "scientific research". There's nothing scientific (or honest), about it.

IE confirmation bias.
Yes, but with just a hint and tinge of pseudo-science to throw off the creationists who appear to be totally devoid of an understanding of science methodology.

Yup. Those people are the same close-minded liars as Ken Ham. Im so glad i quit falling for his money scheme.
Most people are more willing to pay large sums of money to hear lies they like, rather than small sums of money to hear truths they dislike.

You might like this writing that God had me write a few years ago;

The Prostitute Preacher

Do you belong to one of those churches where the preacher always makes you feel good, no matter who you are or what status you have in life and he always has the right things to say to keep you coming back?

When he greets you, does he always have a smile and say something to you that brightens up your day? Is he the kind of preacher that believes the more you have the more you've been blessed by God, but at the same time he can make the poor feel good by telling them to keep praying for success and hope that God blesses them, too?

To the crippled, deaf and blind he says they were made this way so they can be strong in spirit and endure to the end.

Is everyone considered a born again Christian who enters the church and if they aren't, he'll call them down to the altar for a quicky born again experience so they can call themselves a Christian, too?

Does your church have many services on Sunday's just to hear him preach so they can be satisfied? Is he asking the members to build him a new church so he only has to work one hour a week instead of four?

Is he a good salesman when it comes to passing the hat and collect the money by telling you how much God will bless you according to what you give? Is this the kind of preacher you love to go listen to every week and be totally satisfied with what he says?

If this is the way your pastor is, it sounds to me like you have a prostitute preacher. You should be careful that you don't get any spiritual disease from him that you can't get rid of.

Never trust a preacher that always makes you feel good. God can make us feel good but first we must obey him and repent of all our sins. Being obedient to God doesn't always feel good and that's why prostitute preachers preach the way they do.

Some married men go to prostitutes because a prostitute will always make them feel good when their wives ask for love, respect, and household duties that husbands don't want to obey. God knows exactly how these wives feel.
z88;

God bless you all,
Brad
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 11:13:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 10:40:04 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
You raised some good points, but I would point out that this is an article about a much longer book. He may address some, or all, of these questions in the book. I don't know. I haven't read it.

Thank you. I do appreciate that. And - like you - I haven't read the book. But I can tell you this with absolutely no concern of being incorrect; the book either doesn't address most of the issues I mentioned, or it does so inaccurately. Remember; for the Bible to be wrong, only ONE of those issues must be shown to be insurmountable. It only takes one tiny shred of evidence to completely destroy a theory, and only one factor involved in such a flood, to show the story to be a fable.

And I did mention navigation, but I didn't go into any great detail. Even in relatively small floods, the waves and turbulence produced can be tremendous. And the first rule in dealing with large waves, is to steer he bow into the wave. If you fail to do that, the wave will roll the vessel. To be able to turn a ship like that and to navigate quickly enough to respond to such seas, would require a very large rudder, along with a method to keep the ship moving forward. Such a rudder requires hydraulic pressure. If a single person is pushing against a linkage to a large rudder, and that rudder is hit with the energy from a wave, it would toss the person off like flicking a mosquito from your elbow.

Waves would continually flood the deck; not for a few hours, not for a few days, but throughout the duration of the rains and geysers. The water has to go somewhere. And if there is a point of ventilation, there is a point where the waves will enter the vessel. Not a few gallons of water... but tons of water with each wave. And this water would have to be pumped out. But the ark had no mechanical pumps. Everything had to be powered by just 8-people, or by the animals.

And the deeper you move into the hold of he ark, the more concentrated the methane, ammonia and carbon dioxide. These gasses are all heavier than air. Anything on the bottom deck would suffocate after the first few days. Anything on the second deck or the top enclosed deck, would contract pneumonia and die. Birds, especially, are subject to respiratory illnesses from contaminants in the air. That's why canaries are used in mines to detect a build-up of carbon dioxide or other foreign gasses. Using an aerosol spray in the room where you keep your parrot cage can kill the birds in short order. Ammonia and birds would be a recipe for disaster.

There are just so many holes in the story that it's nearly impossible to address them all. And - in what we've seen so far - the article doesn't.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 12:00:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 11:13:50 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/10/2014 10:40:04 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
You raised some good points, but I would point out that this is an article about a much longer book. He may address some, or all, of these questions in the book. I don't know. I haven't read it.

Thank you. I do appreciate that. And - like you - I haven't read the book. But I can tell you this with absolutely no concern of being incorrect; the book either doesn't address most of the issues I mentioned, or it does so inaccurately. Remember; for the Bible to be wrong, only ONE of those issues must be shown to be insurmountable. It only takes one tiny shred of evidence to completely destroy a theory, and only one factor involved in such a flood, to show the story to be a fable.

And I did mention navigation, but I didn't go into any great detail. Even in relatively small floods, the waves and turbulence produced can be tremendous. And the first rule in dealing with large waves, is to steer he bow into the wave. If you fail to do that, the wave will roll the vessel. To be able to turn a ship like that and to navigate quickly enough to respond to such seas, would require a very large rudder, along with a method to keep the ship moving forward. Such a rudder requires hydraulic pressure. If a single person is pushing against a linkage to a large rudder, and that rudder is hit with the energy from a wave, it would toss the person off like flicking a mosquito from your elbow.

Waves would continually flood the deck; not for a few hours, not for a few days, but throughout the duration of the rains and geysers. The water has to go somewhere. And if there is a point of ventilation, there is a point where the waves will enter the vessel. Not a few gallons of water... but tons of water with each wave. And this water would have to be pumped out. But the ark had no mechanical pumps. Everything had to be powered by just 8-people, or by the animals.

And the deeper you move into the hold of he ark, the more concentrated the methane, ammonia and carbon dioxide. These gasses are all heavier than air. Anything on the bottom deck would suffocate after the first few days. Anything on the second deck or the top enclosed deck, would contract pneumonia and die. Birds, especially, are subject to respiratory illnesses from contaminants in the air. That's why canaries are used in mines to detect a build-up of carbon dioxide or other foreign gasses. Using an aerosol spray in the room where you keep your parrot cage can kill the birds in short order. Ammonia and birds would be a recipe for disaster.

There are just so many holes in the story that it's nearly impossible to address them all. And - in what we've seen so far - the article doesn't.

One thing to consider. If God DOES exist, and he caused the flood in the first place, don't you think that a all powerful God could surmount any and all of those obstacles? Think about it.
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 12:11:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 12:00:54 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/10/2014 11:13:50 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/10/2014 10:40:04 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
You raised some good points, but I would point out that this is an article about a much longer book. He may address some, or all, of these questions in the book. I don't know. I haven't read it.

Thank you. I do appreciate that. And - like you - I haven't read the book. But I can tell you this with absolutely no concern of being incorrect; the book either doesn't address most of the issues I mentioned, or it does so inaccurately. Remember; for the Bible to be wrong, only ONE of those issues must be shown to be insurmountable. It only takes one tiny shred of evidence to completely destroy a theory, and only one factor involved in such a flood, to show the story to be a fable.

And I did mention navigation, but I didn't go into any great detail. Even in relatively small floods, the waves and turbulence produced can be tremendous. And the first rule in dealing with large waves, is to steer he bow into the wave. If you fail to do that, the wave will roll the vessel. To be able to turn a ship like that and to navigate quickly enough to respond to such seas, would require a very large rudder, along with a method to keep the ship moving forward. Such a rudder requires hydraulic pressure. If a single person is pushing against a linkage to a large rudder, and that rudder is hit with the energy from a wave, it would toss the person off like flicking a mosquito from your elbow.

Waves would continually flood the deck; not for a few hours, not for a few days, but throughout the duration of the rains and geysers. The water has to go somewhere. And if there is a point of ventilation, there is a point where the waves will enter the vessel. Not a few gallons of water... but tons of water with each wave. And this water would have to be pumped out. But the ark had no mechanical pumps. Everything had to be powered by just 8-people, or by the animals.

And the deeper you move into the hold of he ark, the more concentrated the methane, ammonia and carbon dioxide. These gasses are all heavier than air. Anything on the bottom deck would suffocate after the first few days. Anything on the second deck or the top enclosed deck, would contract pneumonia and die. Birds, especially, are subject to respiratory illnesses from contaminants in the air. That's why canaries are used in mines to detect a build-up of carbon dioxide or other foreign gasses. Using an aerosol spray in the room where you keep your parrot cage can kill the birds in short order. Ammonia and birds would be a recipe for disaster.

There are just so many holes in the story that it's nearly impossible to address them all. And - in what we've seen so far - the article doesn't.

One thing to consider. If God DOES exist, and he caused the flood in the first place, don't you think that a all powerful God could surmount any and all of those obstacles? Think about it.

The arguments are sound and you can't defeat them, so magic.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 12:18:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 12:11:31 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/11/2014 12:00:54 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/10/2014 11:13:50 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/10/2014 10:40:04 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
You raised some good points, but I would point out that this is an article about a much longer book. He may address some, or all, of these questions in the book. I don't know. I haven't read it.

Thank you. I do appreciate that. And - like you - I haven't read the book. But I can tell you this with absolutely no concern of being incorrect; the book either doesn't address most of the issues I mentioned, or it does so inaccurately. Remember; for the Bible to be wrong, only ONE of those issues must be shown to be insurmountable. It only takes one tiny shred of evidence to completely destroy a theory, and only one factor involved in such a flood, to show the story to be a fable.

And I did mention navigation, but I didn't go into any great detail. Even in relatively small floods, the waves and turbulence produced can be tremendous. And the first rule in dealing with large waves, is to steer he bow into the wave. If you fail to do that, the wave will roll the vessel. To be able to turn a ship like that and to navigate quickly enough to respond to such seas, would require a very large rudder, along with a method to keep the ship moving forward. Such a rudder requires hydraulic pressure. If a single person is pushing against a linkage to a large rudder, and that rudder is hit with the energy from a wave, it would toss the person off like flicking a mosquito from your elbow.

Waves would continually flood the deck; not for a few hours, not for a few days, but throughout the duration of the rains and geysers. The water has to go somewhere. And if there is a point of ventilation, there is a point where the waves will enter the vessel. Not a few gallons of water... but tons of water with each wave. And this water would have to be pumped out. But the ark had no mechanical pumps. Everything had to be powered by just 8-people, or by the animals.

And the deeper you move into the hold of he ark, the more concentrated the methane, ammonia and carbon dioxide. These gasses are all heavier than air. Anything on the bottom deck would suffocate after the first few days. Anything on the second deck or the top enclosed deck, would contract pneumonia and die. Birds, especially, are subject to respiratory illnesses from contaminants in the air. That's why canaries are used in mines to detect a build-up of carbon dioxide or other foreign gasses. Using an aerosol spray in the room where you keep your parrot cage can kill the birds in short order. Ammonia and birds would be a recipe for disaster.

There are just so many holes in the story that it's nearly impossible to address them all. And - in what we've seen so far - the article doesn't.

One thing to consider. If God DOES exist, and he caused the flood in the first place, don't you think that a all powerful God could surmount any and all of those obstacles? Think about it.

The arguments are sound and you can't defeat them, so magic.

Expecto Hy-drown'em.

I would have thought the magic part was obvious.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 12:31:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 4:39:00 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
http://creation.com...

I found this article to be very enlightening. It gives a plausible way that Noah could have fit all the animals on the Ark. Granted, it's not proof that it happened. But it could have happened. It is up to the unbeliever to prove that it couldn't happen.

type in "Noah's Ark Overview" in your browers and it will take you to a list of evidences for the boat shaped object to actually be the remains of Noah's Ark National Park. in Turkey in the mountains of Ararat as told in Genesis.
I also have a good rebuttal againt it being the ark, but the rebuttal is written by what I believe is an atheist who does not adequately address the points of the evidences in favor or it being Noah'a Ark.....evidences which go far past coincidence when comboined. That auther said the Turkish Govt closed exploratory efforts at the site, implying they wanted to stop geoligists from poving it was not the Ark. I think it is more likely that the govt closed the site in order to purposely avoid complete scientific proof that it is the Ark because the worldwide impact of how the Ark would support the Bible would threaten many of the govererments of the owrld due to the large number of people who would shift their politics due to a renewed fear of God.

The evidences in nature for creation and for the global flood as told in Geneiss are huge and a lot easier to believe than the beliefs of scientists who look at things as supportive of their hypothesis of the eternality of matter/energy and abiogenisis.
It is vital to people who think they are proving God is not there to ignore evidences. It is vital to believe God is not there when if you acklowledge He is there and you are morally agaisnt Him, you know you are doomed to destruction in Hell if you don't repent and believe on the LORD JESUS CHRIST. Evidences of creation by God and the destrucive effects of sin thoughout the universe that started by the fall of Adam are easy to see throughout nature when the hypothesis of Creation and young earth is followed as history recorded in the Word of God. The Laws of Thermodynamics have to be reversed for life to emerge out of non-life. God being the creator of the laws of thermodynamics and the creator of all life requires no reversal of the laws of nature for life to emerge out of non-life.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 1:08:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
using obervations to support hypothesis and beliieving the hypothesis is true when it cannot be proved by testing is faith in the hypothisis. Abiogenisis and evilution take a lot more faith that to believe that the Bible gives the true historical record of the entire universe and every living thing. The evidences in nature give much more scientific credibility to the Genisis account than they do to the belief in the eternality of matter/energy which is not God.

People cling to belief that "evidence" proves God is not there because their deeds are evil. Men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil. Every word, though, action, imagination, and desire in bold public or in the darkest corner of your mind unseen by any other person than God is true history, and you will give account to God for all of it. If you ever in your heart hated a person, God saw that and you are a murderer at heart and God will hold you accountable as such. He did all he could to save you from your sin when He took on a body Himself and died in your place to secure your pardon if you will beleive on His resurrection and receive Him as your Saviour. Yes this takes faith...a much simpler faith than to believe God is tot there and your life is ultimaltely meaningless because you belivee you came into being as an accident of natrure.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 1:20:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 12:00:54 AM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
At 10/10/2014 11:13:50 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/10/2014 10:40:04 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
You raised some good points, but I would point out that this is an article about a much longer book. He may address some, or all, of these questions in the book. I don't know. I haven't read it.

Thank you. I do appreciate that. And - like you - I haven't read the book. But I can tell you this with absolutely no concern of being incorrect; the book either doesn't address most of the issues I mentioned, or it does so inaccurately. Remember; for the Bible to be wrong, only ONE of those issues must be shown to be insurmountable. It only takes one tiny shred of evidence to completely destroy a theory, and only one factor involved in such a flood, to show the story to be a fable.

And I did mention navigation, but I didn't go into any great detail. Even in relatively small floods, the waves and turbulence produced can be tremendous. And the first rule in dealing with large waves, is to steer he bow into the wave. If you fail to do that, the wave will roll the vessel. To be able to turn a ship like that and to navigate quickly enough to respond to such seas, would require a very large rudder, along with a method to keep the ship moving forward. Such a rudder requires hydraulic pressure. If a single person is pushing against a linkage to a large rudder, and that rudder is hit with the energy from a wave, it would toss the person off like flicking a mosquito from your elbow.

Waves would continually flood the deck; not for a few hours, not for a few days, but throughout the duration of the rains and geysers. The water has to go somewhere. And if there is a point of ventilation, there is a point where the waves will enter the vessel. Not a few gallons of water... but tons of water with each wave. And this water would have to be pumped out. But the ark had no mechanical pumps. Everything had to be powered by just 8-people, or by the animals.

And the deeper you move into the hold of he ark, the more concentrated the methane, ammonia and carbon dioxide. These gasses are all heavier than air. Anything on the bottom deck would suffocate after the first few days. Anything on the second deck or the top enclosed deck, would contract pneumonia and die. Birds, especially, are subject to respiratory illnesses from contaminants in the air. That's why canaries are used in mines to detect a build-up of carbon dioxide or other foreign gasses. Using an aerosol spray in the room where you keep your parrot cage can kill the birds in short order. Ammonia and birds would be a recipe for disaster.

There are just so many holes in the story that it's nearly impossible to address them all. And - in what we've seen so far - the article doesn't.

One thing to consider. If God DOES exist, and he caused the flood in the first place, don't you think that a all powerful God could surmount any and all of those obstacles? Think about it.

Yes. But if God were going to rely on miracles, why the big production? Why have Noah build an ark rather than just zapping one up out of nothing? If fact, why make all of the people and animals suffer? (What did the animals do wrong?)
Any loving, compassionate God could have just zapped all of the evil off of the face of the planet. Maybe that way, the evil would be gone. Did you notice that the evil isn't gone? So did God fail? Did he kill all of those animals and people for nothing?

Everything about the story is an attempt to phrase the actions of God into purely naturalistic methodologies. The Earth is flooded, it's flooded by rain and geysers, a few are saved on a large vessel, the vessel is built by hand. All of it is by natural processes. It really makes no sense for God to choose natural methods which only work with the benefit of miracles. One big miracle would be quick, clean, painless and effective.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 1:25:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 1:08:03 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
using obervations to support hypothesis and beliieving the hypothesis is true when it cannot be proved by testing is faith in the hypothisis. Abiogenisis and evilution take a lot more faith that to believe that the Bible gives the true historical record of the entire universe and every living thing. The evidences in nature give much more scientific credibility to the Genisis account than they do to the belief in the eternality of matter/energy which is not God.

People cling to belief that "evidence" proves God is not there because their deeds are evil. Men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil. Every word, though, action, imagination, and desire in bold public or in the darkest corner of your mind unseen by any other person than God is true history, and you will give account to God for all of it. If you ever in your heart hated a person, God saw that and you are a murderer at heart and God will hold you accountable as such. He did all he could to save you from your sin when He took on a body Himself and died in your place to secure your pardon if you will beleive on His resurrection and receive Him as your Saviour. Yes this takes faith...a much simpler faith than to believe God is tot there and your life is ultimaltely meaningless because you belivee you came into being as an accident of natrure.

What makes YOU think that YOU know what men love and why?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 1:33:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 12:31:33 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 10/10/2014 4:39:00 PM, Dr_Obvious wrote:
http://creation.com...

I found this article to be very enlightening. It gives a plausible way that Noah could have fit all the animals on the Ark. Granted, it's not proof that it happened. But it could have happened. It is up to the unbeliever to prove that it couldn't happen.

type in "Noah's Ark Overview" in your browers and it will take you to a list of evidences for the boat shaped object to actually be the remains of Noah's Ark National Park. in Turkey in the mountains of Ararat as told in Genesis.

I've seen it... many times. I've also read the conclusions of actual archaeologists who have examined the site. No boat, no petrified wood, no fittings, no rivets... nothing. The only thing they found was a natural rock formation.

And one of the guys making ridiculous claims about it was Ron Wyatt. And if I have to tell you any more than that for you to realize that the claim that it was anything but a natural rock formation, then you haven't a clue who's who when it comes to archaeological hoaxes.

EVEN AN ARCHAEOLOGIST FROM AnswersInGenesis visited the site and found that it's nothing but a natural rock formation.

I also have a good rebuttal againt it being the ark, but the rebuttal is written by what I believe is an atheist who does not adequately address the points of the evidences in favor or it being Noah'a Ark.....evidences which go far past coincidence when comboined. That auther said the Turkish Govt closed exploratory efforts at the site, implying they wanted to stop geoligists from poving it was not the Ark. I think it is more likely that the govt closed the site in order to purposely avoid complete scientific proof that it is the Ark because the worldwide impact of how the Ark would support the Bible would threaten many of the govererments of the owrld due to the large number of people who would shift their politics due to a renewed fear of God.

The evidences in nature for creation and for the global flood as told in Geneiss are huge and a lot easier to believe than the beliefs of scientists who look at things as supportive of their hypothesis of the eternality of matter/energy and abiogenisis.
It is vital to people who think they are proving God is not there to ignore evidences. It is vital to believe God is not there when if you acklowledge He is there and you are morally agaisnt Him, you know you are doomed to destruction in Hell if you don't repent and believe on the LORD JESUS CHRIST. Evidences of creation by God and the destrucive effects of sin thoughout the universe that started by the fall of Adam are easy to see throughout nature when the hypothesis of Creation and young earth is followed as history recorded in the Word of God. The Laws of Thermodynamics have to be reversed for life to emerge out of non-life. God being the creator of the laws of thermodynamics and the creator of all life requires no reversal of the laws of nature for life to emerge out of non-life.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire