What would happen if we find Noah's ark?

[Uphill Battle]

No, there aren't.


Back to your "personal beliefs" with no evidence whatsoever to support them.

wow. "No, there aren't". Very compelling.

 

[70judge]

Sorry, I stated that it was a subjective observation. This means that I see the world, and see it as young. You say that isn't true. That isn't a reflection on me, that is you accusing me of being a liar, with absolutely nothing to back that up.

very compelling read if you are not afraid to read it.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm

A History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth

 

[Uphill Battle]

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm

A History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth

read it already, thanks.

 

[KerrMetric]

Sorry, I stated that it was a subjective observation. This means that I see the world, and see it as young.

No you really do not.

....with absolutely nothing to back that up.

Unfortunately there is back up.

 

[Uphill Battle]

No you really do not.




Unfortunately there is back up.

you have proof that I'm lying about my beliefs? Do tell.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

wow. "No, there aren't". Very compelling.

You need to learn something about debate - or even discussion. When you make a claim and provide no supporting evidence, all that is necessary to negate it is the contradiction of the claim.

You provided no evidence to support your assertion; I require no evidence to support my contradiction of your assertion.

Of course, you could actually try posting some evidence to support your claim...but that'd be too much to ask.

 

[KerrMetric]

you have proof that I'm lying about my beliefs? Do tell.

I didn't say that.

 

[Uphill Battle]

You need to learn something about debate - or even discussion. When you make a claim and provide no supporting evidence, all that is necessary to negate it is the contradiction of the claim.

You provided no evidence to support your assertion; I require no evidence to support my contradiction of your assertion.

Of course, you could actually try posting some evidence to support your claim...but that'd be too much to ask.

you already know of the evidences of which I speak. Human remains found in strata far "older" than it should be. Human artifacts found in the same. Etc... Etc...

I don't even begin to believe that any of this convinces you. I never did. I was asked why I believe it, and I stated as such. Your acceptance of anything matters nothing to my decisions for myself.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I didn't say that.

No you really do not.

so... your not saying I really do not see a young earth, using my subjective observation?

 

[TeddyKGB]

then tell me why it always said the earth "looks old?" what other terrestrial planet do you compare against?

See, the evidence for an old Earth is not comparative. It is deduced from currently-occurring processes.

Now, I realize you reject uniformitarianism. But again, that is a faith-based position; nothing suggests those geological processes were significantly different in the past. And even if they were, you are still tacitly admitting that the Earth looks old and that it takes a philosophical angle to make the YE position work.

I never said that it wasn't faith based to take the earth at 6000 odd years. But to me, it looks like a young earth.

I see you writing those words, but nothing else you have said agrees.

 

[Uphill Battle]

We all have to have some faith in what we believe, be it your evidence, or mine. (same evidence, actually, just seen differently.)

 

[BelovedSonofRock]

Here's a thought. Mt. Ararat has an ice cap. I live in Minnesota, USA and the terrain of my part of the world was shaped by glacial ice. Anyone living in similar terrain (Norway, Sweden, Switzerland) can see the power of ice.

If Noah's story actually happened there would have been no ice on Mt. Ararat. It would have been melted by all of that water. The ice that would have developed after the landing would be on top of the ark. The ice would have most likely crushed the ark and then grounded it into nothing. Any wood found in the ice would have landed after the ice base had developed. Additional snowfall would have then encased it in ice.

Also, Mt Ararat is a volcano. The last time it had erupted was about 10,000 years ago.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

you already know of the evidences of which I speak. Human remains found in strata far "older" than it should be. Human artifacts found in the same. Etc... Etc...

I don't even begin to believe that any of this convinces you. I never did. I was asked why I believe it, and I stated as such. Your acceptance of anything matters nothing to my decisions for myself.

The "evidences" of which you speak have all been long-debunked.

We all have to have some faith in what we believe, be it your evidence, or mine. (same evidence, actually, just seen differently.)

Nope, sorry. Science is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of evidence. It's not a matter of you (and other YECs) looking at evidence differently; it's a matter of you ignoring evidence because it doesn't fit with your pre-conceived beliefs.

 

[Beastt]

We all have to have some faith in what we believe, be it your evidence, or mine. (same evidence, actually, just seen differently.)

When your belief comes from observation of reality, it is belief based upon evidence. One example might be all of the evidence showing that there was never a global flood, including;

A wooden vessel the size of the Ark wouldn't stay afloat. Wood is simply too flexible and the seams don't stay together. That's why you never see wooden vessels that size, even in history books.

If you had that much water then, you'd have that much water now. We don't.

You can't simply rain that much water onto Earth because rain must come from atmospheric water vapor and there isn't that much water vapor in the atmosphere.

You can't fit, feed or care for, that many animals on any size ship with just 8-people. Zoos with only a tiny fraction of the world's species require hundreds of workers.

After flooding the globe, enough salt would be released to coat the Earth to 150 feet deep. Even if most of this soaked into the soil, you wouldn't be able to grow enough to survive for decades after the flood.​

That's a small sampling. Those of us who look at that and find a belief that there was never a global flood do so out of evidence. Those who look at that evidence, then open an ancient book, written by men who didn't understand science and who are largely unaccredited, and based on what they read in that book, dismiss the observations of reality, do so out of faith.

 

[Asimis]

What would happen if we find Noah's ark?

Nothing. It would not automatically prove a global flood. The flood could still be local if we find Noah's Ark.


As.

 

[Beastt]

What would happen if we find Noah's ark?

Nothing. It would not automatically prove a global flood. The flood could still be local if we find Noah's Ark.


As.

One might go so far as to say; "Could only have been local."

 

[Asimis]

One might go so far as to say; "Could only have been local."

Yes. But the prevailing mindset among creationists, is that if we find Noah's Ark then the flood is proven as a global. It is not.


As.

 

[Beastt]

Yes. But the prevailing mindset among creationists, is that if we find Noah's Ark then the flood is proven as a global. It is not.


As.

I suppose this means if we find a single long horn in a prairie, it means that unicorns do exist.

 

[BelovedSonofRock]

I suppose this means if we find a single long horn in a prairie, it means that unicorns do exist.

Well, as I was flipping through the TV channels a month ago I came across Pat Robertson gleefully gloating over the announcement at evidence has been found that proves that the Hittite Kingdom actually existed. He said that this proves the Bible is accurate.

Of course, if we accepted this argument we would also have to say that the Iliad is accurate and we should worship the Greek gods because evidence has been found that proves Troy actually existed.

 

[Uphill Battle]

The "evidences" of which you speak have all been long-debunked.


Nope, sorry. Science is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of evidence. It's not a matter of you (and other YECs) looking at evidence differently; it's a matter of you ignoring evidence because it doesn't fit with your pre-conceived beliefs.

sure it's a matter of faith. I'm not talking about spiritual faith, like I have in Jesus. I'm talking in faith, belief that the methods being used are correct, the evidence DOES tell you what it thinks it does. You have to have a measure in faith in scientific practice, or you couldn't accept it.