Noah's ark program on BBC

tov · Mar 24, 2004

On the BBC website it says...

"In the Bible, God tells Noah he has to build an ark and load a pair of every kind of animal before a great flood engulfs the world. It is widely regarded as a myth... a flood that engulfed the Earth would have left a signature for geologists - yet none has been found."

What utter trash. Look around!
Find The Missing Link: Click Here!

Captain_Jack_Sparrow · Mar 24, 2004

tov said:
On the BBC website it says...

"In the Bible, God tells Noah he has to build an ark and load a pair of every kind of animal before a great flood engulfs the world. It is widely regarded as a myth... a flood that engulfed the Earth would have left a signature for geologists - yet none has been found."

What utter trash. Look around!
Find The Missing Link: Click Here!

LOL - nice link to fairy tale pseudoscience.

Bushido216 · Mar 24, 2004

Any site that includes Dr. Dino cannot be trusted.

KleinerApfel · Mar 26, 2004

Some useful sites there Tov, inc. some I haven't looked at before, thanks for the link.

C_J_S
All facts are open to interpretation according to the beliefs of the person exploring. We all have beliefs and presuppositions of all kinds.
When you call another scientist's interpretation "pseudoscience" because you don't view it the same, you are not being as objective as you think you are.

artybloke · Mar 26, 2004

All facts are open to interpretation according to the beliefs of the person exploring.

No they're not. A fossil dated to 50 million years ago is still a fossil dated to 50 million years ago, whether you like to delude yourself that it's only 6000 years old or not. And Kent Hovind is not a scientist, and nothing that he "teaches" is science. He's a fraud.

Captain_Jack_Sparrow · Mar 26, 2004

The Lord is my banner said:
Some useful sites there Tov, inc. some I haven't looked at before, thanks for the link.

C_J_S
All facts are open to interpretation according to the beliefs of the person exploring. We all have beliefs and presuppositions of all kinds.
When you call another scientist's interpretation "pseudoscience" because you don't view it the same, you are not being as objective as you think you are.

Ah but the key is they are NOT scientists.

KleinerApfel · Mar 26, 2004

Ah but the key is they are NOT scientists.

Simply not true. In fact a lot of supporters of 6 day creation/6000yr. are indeed scientists with proper qualifications in their areas of expertise.

Bushido216 · Mar 26, 2004

A scientist is one who follows the scientific method and doesn't ignore data, or try and use theory to disprove data. Creation scientists don't fit that mold.

KleinerApfel · Mar 26, 2004

Well if you're going to redefine the word "scientist" we've got a communication problem here!

So, according to you, any scientist who doesn't buck the trend, who interprets their data according to the currently accepted tradition, is no longer worthy of bearing that name.

Oh wait, didn't something like that happen when Charles Darwin put a new theory forward?

Ark-Guy · Mar 26, 2004

I saw the Noahs Ark program on the discovery channel a few month ago. I thought it was done pretty bad with no clue of what the YEC's actually thought.

One of the points they tried to make was that 2 of each species could not have fit on the ark....their conclusion, only the animals of that flooded area were brought onto the ark....which meant the flood had to have been local and not world wide as per the bible.

They completely forgot to mention that "kinds" were brought on board of the ark which is a representative classification above the species level.

Captain_Jack_Sparrow · Mar 26, 2004

[Moderator (NYJ) Note: Really now. Do you think stuff like that is acceptable?]

Ark-Guy · Mar 26, 2004

Captain_Jack_Sparrow said:
Well Ark Guy,

the reasons is that "kinds" has no meaning whatsoever.

And YEC's are as dumb as a bag of hammers.

By the way : welcome back from being banned.b

Glad to see you are still responding with ad-homs.

KleinerApfel · Mar 27, 2004

CJS you're just plain rude. How's that help a Christian debate?

artybloke · Mar 27, 2004

The Lord is my banner said:
Well if you're going to redefine the word "scientist" we've got a communication problem here!

So, according to you, any scientist who doesn't buck the trend, who interprets their data according to the currently accepted tradition, is no longer worthy of bearing that name.

Oh wait, didn't something like that happen when Charles Darwin put a new theory forward?

Any "scientist" who decides beforehand what his/her's answers are, without first having done any research, is a fraud, and no scientist.

This is what creationists do. They decide that their interpretation of the Bible is to be worshipped above the God of creation to be seen in the wrold (Bibliolatry) and then proceed to find the so-called facts to fit it.

They are not worthy of the name scientist; and I'm increasingly of the opinion that they are also unworthy of the name Christian, as they put their theology onto to a pedestal and worship that, not God himself.

Ark-Guy · Mar 27, 2004

I wouldn't call it bible worship as you did.
Instead I would calll it fitting the facts with the truth.

The bible tells us God (Jesus) did this and that. If that is indeed true then the facts should fit....in which they do.

I will not apologize for the bible being correct.

visionary · Mar 27, 2004

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v16n2_battery.asp

Our understanding of the people back in the ancient years may be a lot less primitive than we think. This also may be of our understanding of the flood, vortex travel, and Atlantis.

artybloke · Mar 27, 2004

Even if answersingenesis were to accidentally get something right, I'd be inclined to doubt it. Bad faith, bad science, bad theology.

I would call it bible worship.
I would calll it fitting the facts with lies.

Creationists are idolators and heretics.

Captain_Jack_Sparrow · Mar 27, 2004

The Lord is my banner said:
CJS you're just plain rude. How's that help a Christian debate?

If you know anything about Ark Guy's history on here you would know that being rude is one of his specialities.

How many times have you been banned for a month or more Ark guy?

2, 3 maybe 4 times.

How long before the next banning? How long before you trot out your usual line accusing anyone on here who doesn't toe the YEC line as 'not a Christian'?

If by rude you mean my YEC's 'as dumb as a bag of hammers' comment - sorry, but I'll pretty much stand by that one. Almost all (see I used the word almost) I find to be uneducated rubes who when it comes to scientific issues are utterly without a clue. It seems even basic high school science is beyond them. How else do you explain all the errors they make? And I don't mean evolution debate - I mean flat out basic errors time after time.

Ark-Guy · Mar 27, 2004

artybloke said:
Even if answersingenesis were to accidentally get something right, I'd be inclined to doubt it. Bad faith, bad science, bad theology.

I would call it bible worship.
I would calll it fitting the facts with lies.

Creationists are idolators and heretics.

Creationist are idolators and heretics?????? You confuse me.

The bible says the creation was a six day period with a day of rest...confirmed by the ten commandments and writing of early christians.

The bible says Adam was formed from the dust then Eve from his side....confirmed by the NT writers......and you call us idolators and heretics because we believe what the bible says?????

The next thing you know you'll be calling us idolators and heretics because we believe Jesus rose from the dead despite science has proven it to be scientifically impossible.

gluadys · Mar 27, 2004

Ark-Guy said:
The next thing you know you'll be calling us idolators and heretics because we believe Jesus rose from the dead despite science has proven it to be scientifically impossible.

We've been through that one before Ark-Guy. Yes, it is scientifically impossible. But science has never said that miracles never happen. So science will not dispute the possibility that Jesus was raised from the dead. It will only say that it had to be a miraculous event, not a scientific event.

If you want to say that God miraculously created the world in six days, go to it.

If you want to say you can show this is a scientific fact, you're up the creek without a paddle. It's not.

And if you insist that God miraculously created the world in six days, but made it look as if it took billions of years, you are saddled with explaining why you believe in a God who is liar.

Noah's ark program on BBC

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

When I awake I am still with You

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

When I awake I am still with You

Well-Known Member

When I awake I am still with You

Ark-Guy

Guest

Well-Known Member

Ark-Guy

Guest

When I awake I am still with You

Well-Known Member

Ark-Guy

Guest

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ark-Guy

Guest

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency