Noah's Ark

[AV1611VET]

I'm not sure how anyone was supposed to know why you tacked on the word "minor," but whatever.

If you saw me tell someone that creationism was my forté, then later saw me tell someone the Flood is my forté, wouldn't you think I contradicted myself?

 

[Cearbhall]

If you saw me tell someone that creationism was my forté, then later saw me tell someone the Flood is my forté, wouldn't you think I contradicted myself?

No. I wouldn't care either way.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If you saw me tell someone that creationism was my forté, then later saw me tell someone the Flood is my forté, wouldn't you think I contradicted myself?

Why, are you over 50 years old?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why, are you over 50 years old?

I'm 63 ... why?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I'm 63 ... why?

Ahhh..... that is over forty (-e') hee hee hee ....

 

[Obliquinaut]

I gave two choices; sudden destruction and epochs of time. You have reduced them to sudden destruction only. Whyzat?

YOU used the phrase "sudden and destructive".

Look back at your posts. YOU used those terms.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How appropriate! This video just came out:

 

[Obliquinaut]

String theory is science's version of magic, in fact there's lot's of such magic in science.

String theory is a hypothetical construct. If basic relatively simple sedimentology is too tough for this thread, I wouldn't even start in on String Theory or theoretical physics.

 

[Kenny'sID]

What do you want evidence of? Once again, I will gladly support any of my claims. You are overly sensitive. You made a claim that demonstrated no knowledge at all of the subject that you were talking about more than once. If someone claimed that the Earth goes around the Moon and that the Sun goes around both would not have snorted a bit at the person's lack of education?

Evidence of what you say I am ignorant of and I want more than just that, I want proof. Then once we determine you are correct, then, and only then can you make the accusation "I don't understand" Otherwise you have jumped the gun terribly/way to fast with your accusation. We are no where near yo being able to make that claim

How am I oversensitive? There is another baseless claim. You make claims about me, you get them back. Judge not lest you be judged, and now all we need to do is determine who is correct in their judgment.

Even your explanation there, something I will answer to either tonight or tomorrow, is not the end all, and not nearly proof that I don't understand science. See you are so sure you are right in this, when these things that substantiate a flood or not, absolutely have yet to be proven they do. IOW the argument hasn't ended as you prove you assume it has when you make accusations like you have towards me.

It's not the personal accusation that bothers me at all...you would "like" to seem me as merely oversensitive but now you know, it's much more than that.

IOW is the jury still out on all this, or has final judgment been made on what side is correct, as you seem to indicate? If your end of this has been dubbed officially correct, I need to see how/when that conclusion was reached, but until then, you/your side can only "assume" you are correct.

So I guess what I'm having some trouble with is the arrogance unveiled by you getting overly ahead of yourself and doing just as these scientist do, call yourself correct, or assume your opinion is correct, when there is no good cause yet, as there are still plenty of other arguments on the table and yet to be brought forth and considered.

Actually, in truth, there will likely never be an official ending. All we can do is continue to add argument to any of these unproven theories..

 

[VirOptimus]

Does science understand string theory?

Science is not a entity.

People understand science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence of what you say I am ignorant of and I want more than just that, I want proof. Then once we determine you are correct, then, and only then can you make the accusation "I don't understand" Otherwise you have jumped the gun terribly/way to fast with your accusation. We are no where near yo being able to make that claim

And right off the bat you fail. There is no "proof" in science. At best you can have the same sort of "proof" that one has in a trial. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And we have that. What you do not seem to understand is that you have no reliable evidence at all. And since you clearly do not understand even evidence now is the time to point out that fact. I will gladly go over the concept with you. If you do not understand evidence and try to debate the subject it is the same as going unarmed to a knife fight.

Do you want to learn what is and what is not evidence?

How am I oversensitive? There is another baseless claim. You make claims about me, you get them back. Judge not lest you be judged, and now all we need to do is determine who is correct in their judgment.

Wrong again. If a child came into a mechanics shop and suggested tuning the radio to another station would fix a BMW the mechanics would be quick to correct him. If the child insisted that he was right it would not be a pretty sight. Your one "example" of fish on top of a mountain was akin to that. You reacted very negatively when you were corrected. You over reacted. You should have said thank you for the correction and have tried to understand it.

Even your explanation there, something I will answer to either tonight or tomorrow, is not the end all, and not nearly proof that I don't understand science. See you are so sure you are right in this, when these things that substantiate a flood or not, absolutely have yet to be proven they do. IOW the argument hasn't ended as you prove you assume it has when you make accusations like you have towards me.

But every post that you write is evidence that you do not understand how science is done and therefore do not understand science. I am willing to help you to learn. You may not understand the explanations against the flood but that does not mean that they are wrong.

It's not the personal accusation that bothers me at all...you would "like" to seem me as merely oversensitive but now you know, it's much more than that.

I get sensitive to obvious bearing of false witness. Most creationists do not even know that they are doing it most of the time. It is not lying, that implies a intention to deceive. But creationists state that scientists can't or haven't supported their work all of the time or worse yet accuse them of "assumptions". That is akin to accusing a Christian of blasphemy without any evidence. I will try to lighten up on you, but you need to do the same.

IOW is the jury still out on all this, or has final judgment been made on what side is correct, as you seem to indicate? If your end of this has been dubbed officially correct, I need to see how/when that conclusion was reached, but until then, you/your side can only "assume" you are correct.

The jury has been out for over 200 years. And every bit of evidence since then has only made your side look more foolish (sorry, but that is the only word to use). There is no 'officially correct' but no one except for a handful of loons that cannot support their claims have any sort of support for the flood.

So I guess what I'm having some trouble with is the arrogance unveiled by you getting overly ahead of yourself and doing just as these scientist do, call yourself correct, or assume your opinion is correct, when there is no good cause yet, as there are still plenty of other arguments on the table and yet to be brought forth and considered.

And you are projecting again. There really is no arrogance by me. But changing that station on the radio will not fix that BMW no matter how much a child stamps his feet and pouts.

And seriously there are no arguments form your side. All you have are PRATT's.

Actually, in truth, there will likely never be an official ending. All we can do is continue to add argument to any of these unproven theories..

Yes, there will always be some that refuse to accept reality. Have you seen that the Flat Earth is making a comeback among certain Christians? And you ended up once more confirming my claim that your education in the sciences is terribly lacking. Theories are at the top of the scientific world. It does not get better than a well supported theory. Yet they are NEVER PROVEN. All theories are unproven. But you, you do not even have a testable hypothesis. That means that you have nothing.[/QUOTE]

 

[Strathos]

Hey AV, if you actually do make a full-length video rebuttal featuring your face and voice, I'll watch all of it and vote it a thumbs up on Youtube.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey AV, if you actually do make a full-length video rebuttal featuring your face and voice, I'll watch all of it and vote it a thumbs up on Youtube.

Thank you, sir! You're a gentleman and a scholar!

 

[AV1611VET]

@ 02:52 the video mentions the fact that all these animals had to have been fed; like that was some kind of problem.

Perhaps Mr. Nye overlooked the story of the widow of Zarephath?

1 Kings 17:13 And Elijah said unto her, Fear not; go and do as thou hast said: but make me thereof a little cake first, and bring it unto me, and after make for thee and for thy son.
1 Kings 17:14 For thus saith the LORD God of Israel, The barrel of meal shall not waste, neither shall the cruse of oil fail, until the day that the LORD sendeth rain upon the earth.
1 Kings 17:15 And she went and did according to the saying of Elijah: and she, and he, and her house, did eat many days.

Imagine horses on the Ark eating hay.

The more they ate, the more was there.

 

[AV1611VET]

How appropriate! This video just came out:

How appropriate that the Tabernacle in the Wilderness cost just about as much, and was off-limits to the general population.

So whoever made this video can keep his fake laughter to himself.

Unless, of course, he wants to advertise his ignorance.

 

[AV1611VET]

This video is so full of wrong, it's not even right.

Okay ... so Mr. Nye puts bad theology up on a screen, then shoots it down with science.

I'm just wondering if this video is supposed to be making brownie points or something?

 

[lesliedellow]

I'm 63 ... why?

You look 150.

 

[lesliedellow]

How appropriate! This video just came out:

I hope they are going to cut their own wood by hand, without the use of sawmills, transport it using only animal power, make their own nails, not use heavy lifting equipment, and with a completely unskilled workforce.

 

[AV1611VET]

I hope they are going to cut their own wood by hand, transport it using only animal power, make their own nails, not use heavy lifting equipment, and with a completely unskilled workforce.

Nails?

 

[Goonie]

The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark | NCSE