Noah's Ark

[AV1611VET]

Neither picture is evidence of a global flood.

Well something got cleaned up!

 

[Kenny'sID]

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?




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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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]

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.

But do explain what you say I don't understand so we can get to the bottom of that one way or another. Start by explaining why it is 100% impossible for fossils high up not to suggest or even prove there was a flood? But of course if you cannot prove what you say, I suppose you may be dead in the water before you even get started. Should be interesting.

I also thought it was funny you tell me *I* fail because science can't prove anything lol. See your oddball way of viewing things? First, you still have not been able to grasp the fact that science does nothing, science is simply a name given to people using the study of the natural to draw conclusions, so in reality it's only research and conclusion, and often drawn from opinion

On science not being able to prove anything, of course not, as I just said science does nothing but people and their research can prove things. I never did agree with scientific study not being able to prove things, that is ridiculous. You stick your finger in the fire and you have proof fire hurts, the research shows the proof. To say there is no way to prove anything, is a clear cop out, because you know you cannot prove this, not that it cannot be done if you could. Some of the excuses you people come up with and expect to get away with, are laughable.

 

[Colter]

The first clue that the flood story is a creation of man, apart from the obvious, is the claim that God regretted his own works. God never has, is not currently, nor will he ever regret anything he has done, is doing or will do at any future time from eternity to eternity. When the Hebrew authors of scripture invented the world wide flood story they simply projected their own exasperation onto deity.


"And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."

 

[DogmaHunter]

You probably believe Chriss Angel is for real, don't you?

I have no idea who that is.

I'm just saying, if we get to invoke magic, then obviously nothing is "impossible".

I'ld even dare say that in such a world, the words "possible" and "impossible" lose all meaning and use.

 

[AV1611VET]

The first clue that the flood story is a creation of man, apart from the obvious, is the claim that God regretted his own works.

Funny that Mr. Nye missed that one, isn't it?

 

[lesliedellow]

The first clue that the flood story is a creation of man, apart from the obvious, is the claim that God regretted his own works. God never has, is not currently, nor will he ever regret anything he has done, is doing or will do at any future time from eternity to eternity. When the Hebrew authors of scripture invented the world wide flood story they simply projected their own exasperation onto deity.

Translation: They were being more theologically profound than you. The flood represents a return to the primordial chaos mentioned in the second verse of Genesis 1, followed a recreation by God of the world man had messed up.

 

[Colter]

Translation: They were being more theologically profound than you. The flood represents a return to the primordial chaos mentioned in the second verse of Genesis 1, followed a recreation by God of the world man had messed up.

Translation: those who want the Bible to be the Word of God yet disagree with what it says to a common reading, must concoct purported theologically profound excuses to force it to work. The very human parts of the Bible books just are not that profound. And to follow the story from the beginning, it was God who allowed a "crafty beast" to mislead the whole world so seems he would have drown that goof from the start?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Science is not a entity.

People understand science.

Ok. Do people (on the street) understand string theory (noting that most people basically don't know much basic science at all)?

 

[VirOptimus]

Ok. Do people (on the street) understand string theory (noting that most people basically don't know much basic science at all)?

Probably not, why?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Pitch waterproofs it does not hold the planks together.

I suggest "spline" joinery. No nails needed.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Probably not, why?

People are an entity, or is the understanding limited to scientists?

 

[VirOptimus]

People are an entity, or is the understanding limited to scientists?

Individuals are yes.

Im not sure what point you think you are making but its failing big time.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I am so sorry that the video was beyond your understanding. The fact is that he showed that Noah and family could not have built the Ark. Too bad you missed that point. And please, no false accusations. The laughter was genuine.

It is a 'fact' that Nye 'showed' lot's of things that are false. Noah and his sons built the ark the same way Henry Ford built Ford Motors. He hired the workers and supervised the work.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark | NCSE

The ark was not a ship. It was a large three-story building built to float. No need to read past the first chapter of this link, the rest is nonsense as well.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Individuals are yes.

Im not sure what point you think you are making but its failing big time.

It was just a tit-for-tat comment.

 

[Goonie]

It is a 'fact' that Nye 'showed' lot's of things that are false. Noah and his sons built the ark the same way Henry Ford built Ford Motors. He hired the workers and supervised the work.

Except that Ford built on technology and ideas that were present during his time. The Ark as described does not reflect the technology of that time or following.
The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark | NCSE

 

[Goonie]

The ark was not a ship. It was a large three-story building built to float. No need to read past the first chapter of this link, the rest is nonsense as well.

And would not have lasted a day on the water given its size and contents. As I've said the ark like the flood requires miracles piled on miracles with the miracle of god hiding all the evidence to work.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So they are going to rely upon pitch for its adhesive properties, rather than just waterproofing? Well, this might be even more of a hoot than I thought.

I can help here. The fact that the ark was sealed both inside and out suggests a certain kind of wood. Aromatic cedar (as one example) would 'outgas' and could cause serious health problems for those in the ark so the surface had to be sealed against those 'vapors'. It's a small but important detail that has no business in a mythical account.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Except that Ford built on technology and ideas that were present during his time. The Ark as described does not reflect the technology of that time or following.
The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark | NCSE

The ark was a large wooden building covered with pitch. Hardly sophisticated. Also the 'plan' suggests modern 'platform' construction; very strong.

 

[Goonie]

I can help here. The fact that the ark was sealed both inside and out suggests a certain kind of wood. Aromatic cedar (as one example) would 'outgas' and could cause serious health problems for those in the ark so the surface had to be sealed against those 'vapors'. It's a small but important detail that has no business in a mythical account.

Sounds good until you give a moments thought to the 'vapours' generated by thousands of animals dedicating a quantity of manure that the Noah family would have found impossible to deal with given the tiny ventilation door available.