Question on Noah's Ark

TagliatelliMonster · Mar 24, 2017

AV1611VET said:
I'll pass

Off course you do.

But then, don't complain.
Your ignorance on things for which detailed explanation is freely available, is entirely your responsability.

If you aren't willing to inform yourself even just a tiny bit on the subject, then you are in no position to make any claims or arguments concerning said subject.

I'm not interested in hearing how a natural process ... without God in the picture at all ... is used to explain how God couldn't have orchestrated a miracle in the past.

Then I suggest you stop posting in the science forums. Or even engage in any discussion related to science at all.

I don't care at all about cricket. I don't know the rules of the game nore am I interested in the game. So I don't enter any discussion or arguments about some referee decision either.

Because of my lack of interest and wilfull ignorance on the matter, my opinions on the matter are entirely irrelevant.

It's like saying a bowl couldn't have been filled with water, then emptied ... because you don't believe in plumbing.

Plumbing is a demonstrable profession. Plumbers demonstrably exist.

AV1611VET · Mar 24, 2017

TagliatelliMonster said:
Off course you do.

It's been explained to me some three times now ... with pictures ... and I still don't get it.

It's a natural process being used to say the Bible is wrong; that's all I need to know.

TagliatelliMonster said:
But then, don't complain.

Okay, I won't.

TagliatelliMonster said:
Your ignorance on things for which detailed explanation is freely available, is entirely your responsability.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

I've been led to the water and drank, and I still don't get it; so it's a comprehension problem.

One of which I treat like music.

I can't read or understand music, so it's no big thing to me.

TagliatelliMonster said:
If you aren't willing to inform yourself even just a tiny bit on the subject, then you are in no position to make any claims or arguments concerning said subject.

All I need to know is it's antithesis (the Bible), and that's good enough for me.

And although I do make an effort to learn something about what I'm against, it's no big deal if I can't.

I'm not going to waste my time with it.

I've seen people (Ken Ham, Kent Hovind) and organizations (ICR, DI) much more knowledgeable than I get raked over the coals ... so I'm not going to even try to meet their level of understanding, just so I can get raked over the coals.

You want to rake me over the coals, I'll go over the coals as an ignit.

As I'm fond of saying here: Eyes barn ignit, eyes die ignit.

TagliatelliMonster said:
Then I suggest you stop posting in the science forums.

Your suggestion is noted.

TagliatelliMonster said:
Or even engage in any discussion related to science at all.

Your suggestion is noted.

TagliatelliMonster said:
I don't care at all about cricket.

And I don't care at all about bottlenecks.

TagliatelliMonster said:
I don't know the rules of the game nore am I interested in the game.

At least I tried some three times to learn about bottlenecks.

Three strikes and I'm out.

TagliatelliMonster said:
So I don't enter any discussion or arguments about some referee decision either.

But you will make an exception with theology, won't you?

I'll go out on a limb ... and correct me if I'm wrong ... but I'll go out on a limb and say you don't know much about different state past, catastrophism vs uniformitarianism, dispensation theology vs covenant theology, ontological subordination, diabolical mimicry, diabolical plagiarism, verbal plenary inspiration, divine preservation of the Scriptures, tripartitism, state vs standing, the triunity of the Godhead, KJVO, physical age vs existential age, Shekinah energy, cryptids in the Bible, or a host of other things that neatly reconcile the Scriptures with science ... but it won't keep you from taking us on with your scientific knowledge, will it?

TagliatelliMonster said:
Because of my lack of interest and wilfull ignorance on the matter, my opinions on the matter are entirely irrelevant.

You and I are two of a kind, aren't we?

TagliatelliMonster said:
Plumbing is a demonstrable profession. Plumbers demonstrably exist.

Missed the point, didn't you?

JD16 · Mar 24, 2017

AV1611VET said:
It's been explained to me some three times now ... with pictures ... and I still don't get it.

A very simple example

Imagine that there are only 4 people in the world

Adam's genetics=abcde

Eve's genetics=bcdef

Steve's genetics=cdefg

Jane's genetics=defgh

A meteor strike killed both Adam and Eve

The offsprings and descendants of Steve and Jane will never have a and b in their genetics....it's lost forever

TagliatelliMonster · Mar 24, 2017

AV1611VET said:
And although I do make an effort to learn something about what I'm against, it's no big deal if I can't.

Structure of that sentence kind of exposes the core of the problem here.
Perhaps you should first learn about something before deciding to disagree with it.

But you will make an exception with theology, won't you?

No, I actually informed myself on various religions and the psychology of belief.

I'll go out on a limb ... and correct me if I'm wrong ... but I'll go out on a limb and say you don't know much about different state past, catastrophism vs uniformitarianism, dispensation theology vs covenant theology, ontological subordination, diabolical mimicry, diabolical plagiarism, verbal plenary inspiration, divine preservation of the Scriptures, tripartitism, state vs standing, the triunity of the Godhead, KJVO, physical age vs existential age, Shekinah energy, cryptids in the Bible,

Some more then others.
However, I do know that all of these things have a central common theme.
"faith". ie, belief without rational justification like evidence.

or a host of other things that neatly reconcile the Scriptures with science

None of those things "reconciles" supernatural claims with science.

... but it won't keep you from taking us on with your scientific knowledge, will it?

Indeed, it won't. Undemonstrable faith based nonsense that can't be differentiated from non-existance and/or pure fantasy, does not trump scientific knowledge.

Missed the point, didn't you?

Did you?

AV1611VET · Mar 24, 2017

JD16 said:
A very simple example

Okay ... this explains it very well.

Now that I think I have at least a superficial understanding of bottlenecks, what's your point again? that we shouldn't be seeing Adamic traits in humans today?

What if their wives carried them?

After all, wasn't Goliath a Nephilim?

And if he was, where did he get that trait?

TagliatelliMonster · Mar 24, 2017

AV1611VET said:
Okay ... this explains it very well.

Now that I think I have at least a superficial understanding of bottlenecks, what's your point again? that we shouldn't be seeing Adamic traits in humans today?

What if their wives carried them?

After all, wasn't Goliath a Nephilim?

And if he was, where did he get that trait?

It's kind of hard talking to you about phenomena of reality, when you insist on dragging in fiction.

JD16 · Mar 24, 2017

AV1611VET said:
Okay ... this explains it very well.

Now that I think I have at least a superficial understanding of bottlenecks, what's your point again? that we shouldn't be seeing Adamic traits in humans today?

What if their wives carried them?

After all, wasn't Goliath a Nephilim?

And if he was, where did he get that trait?

Another simple analogy

Let's say you have 10 ingredients, potato, tomato, rice, flour etc etc

And for argument sake from that 10 ingredients the total different combination you can get from it is 100 different dishes

If someone came into your kitchen and stole 5 ingredients, now the total amount of different dishes drops to lets say 50 dishes (bottleneck)

What we see today is that we can produce 100 different dishes,....from that we can infer that no one stole any ingredients

therefore that is evidence that there was no bottleneck

AV1611VET · Mar 24, 2017

TagliatelliMonster said:
It's kind of hard talking to you about phenomena of reality, when you insist on dragging in fiction.

Science is myopic, isn't it?

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

AV1611VET · Mar 24, 2017

JD16 said:
If someone came into your kitchen and stole 5 ingredients, now the total amount of different dishes drops to lets say 50 dishes (bottleneck)

Another good post.

Okay ... let's go with that.

Note what the Bible says here:

Genesis 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
Genesis 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Note the widespread corruption here?

I have always ... long before coming here ... taken that to mean that the gene pool was more corrupt than it is today; even to the point of mankind going extinct.

That would equate to your 100 ingredients in the example you gave.

Now the Flood comes along and wipes out the fifty ingredients you say were 'stolen.'

Thus the bottleneck.

I still don't see a problem.

Are you assuming that we're saying that the earth today is the same as it was in Noah's time; that is, that the earth has gone back to those same 100 ingredients?

TagliatelliMonster · Mar 24, 2017

AV1611VET said:
Another good post.

Okay ... let's go with that.

Note what the Bible says here:

Genesis 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
Genesis 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Note the widespread corruption here?

I have always ... long before coming here ... taken that to mean that the gene pool was more corrupt than it is today; even to the point of mankind going extinct.

That would equate to your 100 ingredients in the example you gave.

Now the Flood comes along and wipes out the fifty ingredients you say were 'stolen.'

Thus the bottleneck.

I still don't see a problem.

Are you assuming that we're saying that the earth today is the same as it was in Noah's time; that is, that the earth has gone back to those same 100 ingredients?

There was no need for "going back", because it never left.
The point exactly.

There is no bottleneck.
If the flood myth is accurate, there should be a bottleneck.
But there is no bottleneck.

JD16 · Mar 24, 2017

AV1611VET said:
Another good post.

Okay ... let's go with that.

Note what the Bible says here:

Genesis 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
Genesis 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Note the widespread corruption here?

I have always ... long before coming here ... taken that to mean that the gene pool was more corrupt than it is today; even to the point of mankind going extinct.

That would equate to your 100 ingredients in the example you gave.

Now the Flood comes along and wipes out the fifty ingredients you say were 'stolen.'

Thus the bottleneck.

I still don't see a problem.

Are you assuming that we're saying that the earth today is the same as it was in Noah's time; that is, that the earth has gone back to those same 100 ingredients?

There is no assumption, because if there was a global flood and it wiped out 50 ingredients, we would only have that today,....but we have 100 so therefore no flood.

What you are doing is this

A man was found dead in his room, blindfolded, gagged, handcuffed behind his back and hung from the ceiling. The coroner report states that he was stabbed 27 times in the back and shot 5 times in the head.....the investigation conclusion is that he was murdered

You refuse to accept the result of the investigation because its written in the bible that it was a suicide,....claiming that he could have stabbed himself 27 times in the back, shot himself 5 times in the head before hanging himself and somehow manage to handcuff himself after that ....holy smoly batman!,...that sure is a miracle! lolz

dad · Mar 24, 2017

JD16 said:
Sure sure, you have a good one ya? And keep on rocking my man woohoo!

Whatever.

JD16 · Mar 24, 2017

dad said:
Whatever.

Ahhh, where is da love brother? where is the love? lolzzz

dad · Mar 24, 2017

JD16 said:
Ahhh, where is da love brother? where is the love? lolzzz

I mostly came here to discuss the question on Noah's ark.

AV1611VET · Mar 24, 2017

TagliatelliMonster said:
There is no bottleneck.
If the flood myth is accurate, there should be a bottleneck.
But there is no bottleneck.

If there was no bottleneck, then where are the giants who were routinely born to women?

Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Not to mention anything else that might have walked, flew, creeped, crawled, or swam that no longer exists?

JD16 · Mar 24, 2017

AV1611VET said:
If there was no bottleneck, then where are the giants who were routinely born to women?

AV1611VET · Mar 24, 2017

JD16 said:
There is no assumption, because if there was a global flood and it wiped out 50 ingredients, we would only have that today,....but we have 100 so therefore no flood.

Are you talking about the number of ingredients, or the type of ingredients, or both?

Either way, how can you call it a bottleneck when you don't know what you're comparing it to prior to the Flood?

If we have 100 ingredients today, I take it you're assuming there were 100 before the Flood, and now there should be 50?

If so, then has anyone considered that there may have been 200 before the Flood and got bottlenecked down to 100?

You need a point of comparison, and you don't have one.

Science is myopic.

AV1611VET · Mar 24, 2017

JD16 said:
* Andre the Giant *

Andre the Giant: 7' 4"

Goliath: 9' 9"

1 Samuel 17:4 And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.

That's Andre standing next to someone 4' 10".

JD16 · Mar 24, 2017

AV1611VET said:
Are you talking about the number of ingredients, or the type of ingredients, or both?

Either way, how can you call it a bottleneck when you don't know what you're comparing it to prior to the Flood?

If we have 100 ingredients today, I take it you're assuming there were 100 before the Flood, and now there should be 50?

If so, then has anyone considered that there may have been 200 before the Flood and got bottlenecked down to 100?

You need a point of comparison, and you don't have one.

Science is myopic.

It was an analogy, not a direct comparison for illustration purposes

If we started out with 8 people

after 4000 years of reproduction like supercharged bionic rabbits we should have a max of 10 million (not actual number, just for illustration purpose) variation of genes types for example

but what we have is 100 billion trillion(not actual number, just for illustration purpose) variation of genes types

Conclusion, there was never a point when the human species was down to 8 people

*Note not actual numbers*

JD16 · Mar 24, 2017

AV1611VET said:
Andre the Giant: 7' 4"

Goliath: 9' 9"

1 Samuel 17:4 And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.

That's Andre standing next to someone 4' 10".

Difference is we have evidence of Andre the giant.....Goliath? Pics or it didn't happen lolz

Question on Noah's Ark

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

What Would Evolution Do?

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

What Would Evolution Do?

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

What Would Evolution Do?

Undefeated!

What Would Evolution Do?

Undefeated!

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

What Would Evolution Do?

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

What Would Evolution Do?

What Would Evolution Do?

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency