What would happen if we find Noah's ark?

[nvxplorer]

I love the use of hypothetical conversations.

Apperance is subjective. The adage, beauty is in the eye of the beholder holds alot of truth. You look at a painting and hate it, I look at it and love it. subjective. The same goes for looking at the earth, if you are talking about apperance. I look at it, and it DOES NOT look billions of years old. but it is a subjective observation. I never once claimed it was scientific.

Appearance to the untrained eye may be subjective, and as such, renderers any opinion meaningless. To the trained eye and instruments, however, appearance is anything but subjective.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Appearance to the untrained eye may be subjective, and as such, renderers any opinion meaningless. To the trained eye and instruments, however, appearance is anything but subjective.

appearance has nothing to do with training. (and appearance has nothing to do with intruments, either.)

 

[BananaSlug]

That's exactly why scientists don't go on appearance alone. They perform tests and experiments. Go our and perform some objective age dating tests on those cliffs and see if they match up with your subjective views.

 

[Silent Bob]

The same goes for looking at the earth, if you are talking about apperance. I look at it, and it DOES NOT look billions of years old. but it is a subjective observation. I never once claimed it was scientific.

Sure I looked at many landscapes today not a single one seemed older than a few thousand years. Then again I am not a geologist, I did not take samples (do photos count?) in fact I didnt lift a stone to see what was under it. I took it at face value and came to an inevitable conclusion: ITS NICE.

To say that I know how old the lake district in Cumbria is, looking at it as a tourist is at least daft. Its as if I looked at someone at a bus stop for 5 minutes and concluded that they suffer from post traumatic stress induced paranoia and asthma.

 

[nvxplorer]

appearance has nothing to do with training. (and appearance has nothing to do with intruments, either.)

Baloney. Can you diagnose a patient without training? If a motor appears to be missing, can you make this determination without training (or instruments)? My point is that, without training and/or instrumentation, appearances can be deceiving or ambiguous. You look at a cliff and say, “Young earth.” Are you qualified to make such a statement? If not, your opinion is meaningless. Can you tell me which of two randomly chosen rocks is older, without using instruments? Appearance itself has nothing to do with training, which is irrelevant to my statements. The interpretation of appearance, however, is entirely relevant to training.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Baloney. Can you diagnose a patient without training? If a motor appears to be missing, can you make this determination without training (or instruments)? My point is that, without training and/or instrumentation, appearances can be deceiving or ambiguous. You look at a cliff and say, “Young earth.” Are you qualified to make such a statement? If not, your opinion is meaningless. Can you tell me which of two randomly chosen rocks is older, without using instruments? Appearance itself has nothing to do with training, which is irrelevant to my statements. The interpretation of appearance, however, is entirely relevant to training.

This is why I used the term subjective. The earth looks young TO ME. The cliff look young TO ME. I neither claimed it as science, nor use it to convince anyone else of my beliefs. And I am not completely untrained. I have much the same education that many who believe in Old earth do. I just don't believe it.

 

[nvxplorer]

This is why I used the term subjective. The earth looks young TO ME. The cliff look young TO ME. I neither claimed it as science, nor use it to convince anyone else of my beliefs. And I am not completely untrained. I have much the same education that many who believe in Old earth do. I just don't believe it.

Well then, what is your point? If a doctor said it appears you’re having a heart attack, would you submit to medical attention, or listen to your carpenter neighbor who says it doesn’t appear that way to him? If you submit to the doctor’s trained opinion, why do you reject the trained opinions of those who say old earth? (I know, I know - Genesis.)

 

[Uphill Battle]

Well then, what is your point? If a doctor said it appears you’re having a heart attack, would you submit to medical attention, or listen to your carpenter neighbor who says it doesn’t appear that way to him? If you submit to the doctor’s trained opinion, why do you reject the trained opinions of those who say old earth? (I know, I know - Genesis.)

Because I believe the holes in the explainations to be alot wider than they are willing to admit. Because the assumptive qualities behind alot of the science. The fact that I believe in things science doesn't even begin to explain. That a good start?

 

[TeddyKGB]

The Grand canyon does not seem demonstratby old to me.

A photo that appears here from time to time shows a segment of the canyon from an angle where visible are two or three meanders. These are no ordinary meanders, however, as the canyon/river sweeps fully 180 degrees from left to right.

If you have had a college Earth science course, you know basically how meanders form. To suggest that such features are comfortably consistent with a massive, short-lived deluge (to say nothing of a 6000-year-old Earth) betrays a profound ignorance of geology.

 

[Beastt]

again though, appearance is subjective, isn't it?

I'm sorry but when it comes to a spherical planet verses a flat one in an age and time when we can venture into space and look back at the planet, navigate to any point on it and circle it in a balloon, I don't think the subjective-card plays out very well.

But it's a very good example of how people can selectively assess the evidence to fit the picture they prefer to see. It's just that it goes well beyond simple subjectivity and into levels of psychological phenomena which are rarely considered healthy.

 

[Uphill Battle]

A photo that appears here from time to time shows a segment of the canyon from an angle where visible are two or three meanders. These are no ordinary meanders, however, as the canyon/river sweeps fully 180 degrees from left to right.

If you have had a college Earth science course, you know basically how meanders form. To suggest that such features are comfortably consistent with a massive, short-lived deluge (to say nothing of a 6000-year-old Earth) betrays a profound ignorance of geology.

profound ignorance? or profound disagreement with many geological presuppositions?

 

[nvxplorer]

Because I believe the holes in the explainations to be alot wider than they are willing to admit. Because the assumptive qualities behind alot of the science. The fact that I believe in things science doesn't even begin to explain. That a good start?

What holes? What assumptions?

 

[nvxplorer]

profound ignorance? or profound disagreement with many geological presuppositions?

Again, what presuppositions?

 

[Uphill Battle]

What holes? What assumptions?

the same ones that have been argued about over and over and over. Need they be listed? You know that I will not believe your point of view, you won't believe mine. What's the point?

I just stated WHY.

 

[nvxplorer]

the same ones that have been argued about over and over and over. Need they be listed? You know that I will not believe your point of view, you won't believe mine. What's the point?

I just stated WHY.

Humor me. Forget the holes. Tell me what assumptions are fallacious and why.

 

[Adelheide]

What is the point of people who do not believe in God or the living word of God to feel so pressed to discuss matters of the Bible or the existance of God?

 

[Uphill Battle]

Humor me. Forget the holes. Tell me what assumptions are fallacious and why.

the assumptions of uniformitarianism. (feel like I've said that one often enough.)
the assumptions behind radiometric dating.
the assumptions of the geological column.


I know you consider it good science... and if Science is what you call it, I'm sure it is. Good fanatacism fully supports it's own cause. But I don't believe that we can assume that things are as they always were, and vice versa. You already know they YEC position on radiometric assumptions. You already know the YEC position on the geological column.

there is more, but like I said before... will it change anyones opinion one way or the other?

 

[TeddyKGB]

profound ignorance? or profound disagreement with many geological presuppositions?

I will respect your disagreement on the grounds that it does not appear in the form

Rapid/catastrophic processes can produce features like canyon meanders
​

but rather in the form

Rapid/catastrophic processes can produce features like canyon meanders because...
​

 

[nvxplorer]

the assumptions of uniformitarianism.

I’ll focus on this. What evidence do you have that the laws of physics have changed over time? It’s ironic that you cling to appearances, yet it appears that the sun rises every day, that objects will always fall to the ground, that water seeks its own level. From your observations, how can you conclude that any of these laws are not constant? It’s doubly ironic that you consider the idea of uniformitarianism to be fanaticism. Generally, it is those who claim they can fly off cliffs that we consider to be lunatics, not those who say it is an impossibility.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I’ll focus on this. What evidence do you have that the laws of physics have changed over time? It’s ironic that you cling to appearances, yet it appears that the sun rises every day, that objects will always fall to the ground, that water seeks its own level. From your observations, how can you conclude that any of these laws are not constant? It’s doubly ironic that you consider the idea of uniformitarianism to be fanaticism. Generally, it is those who claim they can fly off cliffs that we consider to be lunatics, not those who say it is an impossibility.

Look at plate tectonics. Look at ice ring formation, look at lake varves. What do they all have in common? Those who support these things as proof of old age earth, believe that the conditions in which things are currently working, is how it always has been. There has always been one annual layer. The plates have ALWAYs moved such and such a distance per annum. How can we possibly know this? We can't. We assume that they always have, so you can stretch it back in time and make a calculated guess at how things were in the past, correct? problem being is, I do not believe that all these systems have proceeded without change. I have seen evidences of rapid laminations. There is no way of knowing that the ice cores are taken from an area that has no signifigant changes in years past. We have know way of knowing that the continental shift has always been constant.

Being someone who believes in the global flood, it's not hard to see where Uniformity doesn't fit?