Noah's Ark

[OldWiseGuy]

But if it existed at all we would see signs of it. You do not seem to understand the consequences of your claims. We can see and estimate examples of older technology that would predate the flood. If we can see that you need to explain how examples of more modern technology cannot be found. Once again, this is an example of where a lack of evidence on your part is evidence against your claims. I could make up stories about interplanetary flight before the flood. But without evidence that is all that it is and the fact that no modern technology can be found is very strong evidence against that claim.

So you admit there was a before and an after regarding the flood.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Sorry, but you have totally failed to support any of your claims. Nothing that you have said is "likely".

So you aren't saying that the ark was likely a ship and not a building? If so why intimate that if it existed at all it was likely a ship, or worse yet certainly a ship?

We're back to square one. Was it an ark, or a ship?

 

[AirPo]

My guess ...

Glad to see someone actually admit this.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Glad to see someone actually admit this.

Better than the absolute certainty of the skeptics.

 

[AirPo]

Better than the absolute certainty of the skeptics.

That's an oxymoron.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's an oxymoron.

Why?

 

[AirPo]

Why?

Because it is. It fits the definition.

 

[AV1611VET]

How about a whole series of videos. Here is the first:

Geology ain't my bag. You got another one?

All I can really say about geology is basically what Jesus & the Bible say.

Luke 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

If one doesn't hear Jesus Christ in the testimony of the geological earth, then don't tell me the testimony of the geological earth says anything other that what is written in the Bible and expect me to believe it.

 

[Colter]

Firstly the flood story in the Bible is sourced from both the J and P narratives. Secondly, like everything else in the Bible, it was composed with a theological purpose in mind.

I belive there was a genealogical, nationalist, egocentric purpose having lost their Capitol and finding themselves once again in bondage. They doubled down, dug in their heals and sealed their traditions.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I belive there was a genealogical, nationalist, egocentric purpose having lost their Capitol and finding themselves once again in bondage. They doubled down, dug in their heals and sealed their traditions.

Why or who told you that? What purpose is there in them defying God's Word ?

 

[lesliedellow]

I belive there was a genealogical, nationalist, egocentric purpose having lost their Capitol and finding themselves once again in bondage. They doubled down, dug in their heals and sealed their traditions.

Central to those traditions was the worship of Yahweh. Hebrew didn't even have a word for "religion", because, for them, it wasn't something which could be separated out from the rest of life. I am not sure your remark is relevant to anything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Geology ain't my bag. You got another one?

All I can really say about geology is basically what Jesus & the Bible say.

Luke 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

If one doesn't hear Jesus Christ in the testimony of the geological earth, then don't tell me the testimony of the geological earth says anything other that what is written in the Bible and expect me to believe it.

Please, Jesus was being poetic there. Your inability to understand your own Bible is epic.

If you don't understand science at all then perhaps you should have not opened a thread in the science area where every flood belief can be shown to be wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you admit there was a before and an after regarding the flood.

No, I do not. That was in regards to a hypothetical flood. We know by how all flood hypotheses fail that there was no flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you aren't saying that the ark was likely a ship and not a building? If so why intimate that if it existed at all it was likely a ship, or worse yet certainly a ship?

We're back to square one. Was it an ark, or a ship?

The ark in the flood story was more like a ship than a building. Ships float. But once again, since all flood hypotheses fail we know that there was no flood. Did you read up on population bottlenecks? The lack of a universal and extremely severe population bottleneck tells us that there never was a flood.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'm now convinced this is about demanding your opponent and even more so than I mentioned before..it's really showing up more and more in your posts as I'm sure most can see. The less you have to back your end, the more insecure and the more of that mess you dish out in order to create an illusion you have an upper hand. Typical reaction.

Now you are just making up garbage. I am willing to support my claims. I have explained why you were wrong. If anyone is not willing to support their claims that would be you.

Once again, you do not even understand the concept of evidence. I can help you with that.



I already did so for you. You should have said that you did not understand when I did so.

Once again, there are not that many organisms alive at one point in time. If all of the existing life did and left a layer of fossils that would be only one thin strata. That is not what we see. We see thousands and thousands of feet of fossils. Far more life than could exist at once by a factor of one thousand. Your model does not match reality. Therefore it is wrong.



That is not what I said. I said that no theory is proved absolutely. And you fail because you have no evidence at all. Using the scientific method one can show that ideas are wrong. For example your example fails when one looks at reality. Therefore it is false. Scientists have to keep the door open to the fact that they may be wrong. If you want to discuss science you need to go by the rules of science. In science ideas are tested to see if they are wrong, more than if they are right. If an explanation can fit the evidence and has been tested it is accepted as being tentatively correct until something better comes along. The problem is that your side tend to avoid making testable claims and there followers do not see how untestable claims are worthless.



Well if you are going by that loose definition of "proof" then evolution is proven. The lack of a flood is proven. But you are the one changing the meaning of a word here. Scientists like to stay open minded. Concepts "proven" to be right in the past have been shown to be wrong. That is why scientists avoid the "proof".

So there is no misunderstanding, please point me to where you proved there was no flood, and where, as you claim evolution has been proven.

 

[Kenny'sID]

If you don't understand science at all then perhaps you should have not opened a thread in the science area where every flood belief can be shown to be wrong

What is the definition of science?

I don't think anyone can understand science per sa, unless you mean the meaning of the term, and that isn't within context of your comment. But lets see what your definition is before we draw any conclusion.

If you still have trouble with the term after a little more research, I will be happy to teach you. While you are making all your claims, probably a good idea for you to know exactly what science is.

 

[AirPo]

What is the definition of science?

I don't think anyone can understand science per sa, unless you mean the meaning of the term, and that isn't within context of your comment. But lets see what your definition is before we draw any conclusion.

If you still have trouble with the term after a little more research, I will be happy to teach you. While you are making all your claims, probably a good idea for you to know exactly what science is.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Now you are just making up garbage. I am willing to support my claims. I have explained why you were wrong. If anyone is not willing to support their claims that would be you.

Once again, you do not even understand the concept of evidence. I can help you with that.



I already did so for you. You should have said that you did not understand when I did so.

Once again, there are not that many organisms alive at one point in time. If all of the existing life did and left a layer of fossils that would be only one thin strata. That is not what we see. We see thousands and thousands of feet of fossils. Far more life than could exist at once by a factor of one thousand. Your model does not match reality. Therefore it is wrong.



That is not what I said. I said that no theory is proved absolutely. And you fail because you have no evidence at all. Using the scientific method one can show that ideas are wrong. For example your example fails when one looks at reality. Therefore it is false. Scientists have to keep the door open to the fact that they may be wrong. If you want to discuss science you need to go by the rules of science. In science ideas are tested to see if they are wrong, more than if they are right. If an explanation can fit the evidence and has been tested it is accepted as being tentatively correct until something better comes along. The problem is that your side tend to avoid making testable claims and there followers do not see how untestable claims are worthless.



Well if you are going by that loose definition of "proof" then evolution is proven. The lack of a flood is proven. But you are the one changing the meaning of a word here. Scientists like to stay open minded. Concepts "proven" to be right in the past have been shown to be wrong. That is why scientists avoid the "proof".

So there is no misunderstanding, please point me to where you proved there was no flood, and where, as you claim evolution has been proven.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you don't understand science at all then perhaps you should have not opened a thread in the science area where every flood belief can be shown to be wrong.

Well someone has to tell Mr. Nye he's got the wrong map up.

He's trying to sound like he knows what he's talking about, and he doesn't.

And he's so worried about how they're going to eat, he forgets Who brought them there in the first place.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So there is no misunderstanding, please point me to where you proved there was no flood, and where, as you claim evolution has been proven.

I did so more than once. I pointed out that over five miles of water would have left some sort of mark. None can be seen.

I pointed out the problem of the lack of population bottleneck. Without a massive population bottleneck we know that the population never got down to 8 people.

Those two are good enough for now.