What would happen if we find Noah's ark?

[TeddyKGB]

why does the opinion of someone you consider a fool frustrate you so?

I would never call you a fool. You seem unable to recognize the internal contradictions in your worldview, however I would defer to the consciousness gurus before I go around accusing you of dishonesty or anything more than garden-variety hubris.

I can make no admission, seeing as that is not how it happened with me. I was taught evolutionary theory and billion year earth before I was taught otherwise. I didn't believe it then. The world did not look old to me. A subjective observation, such as I have said numerous times. Your assertion that I believe the world looks young only because of Ussher is false.

Now this is absurd. The only way I can see "the world" in toto is by satellite or shuttle photo. And at that level of abstraction, I can't tell much of anything age-wise.

If you used to base your Earth-age estimate on an honest evaluation of features like the aforementioned cliffs (which charmingly enough entails a pretty comprehensive understanding of geology), then you have little excuse. As I noted already, and it seems I cannot emphasize this enough, young features are consistent with an old Earth, and are therefore insufficient to defeat OE geology by themselves.

 

[BelovedSonofRock]

Actually, we[Christians] are to have nothing to do with the tribulation temple. I don't understand where you get "so that i causes a major war." You are correct, when you say that efforts are being made to rebuild the temple. However, according to biblical prophecy, the antichrist will sit in the tribulation temple and proclaim himself as god(2 Thessalonians 2:3-4). After the antichrist signs a 7 year covenant with Israel, he will cease sacrifices in the temple halfway through the 7 year period( 3 1/2 years into the trib.). This temple will receive no sanction from God(Isaiah 66:1-6).

Christians should stay away from this temple, and avoid funding it.It will be rebuilt(according to biblical prophecy), so it is best just to ignore it.

Here is the official site:https://www.templeinstitute.org/

When I was a teenage Christian I was a staunch supporter of rebuilding the Temple. However, in my twenties I reconsidered the idea and came to the same conclusion as you.

There is an interesting book called The End of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle for the Temple Mount by Gershom Gorenberg. He examines fundamentalist teachings of Judaism, Islam and Christianity in their regards to endtime prophecies. All three religions focus on the Temple Mount and the rebuilding of the Temple. Fundamentalist Jews want the temple to complete the redemption of Israel. Fundamentalist Christian want the temple so Jesus returns. Fundamentalist Muslims are resisting the rebuilding the temple but believe that it will be rebuilt, then Isa (Jesus) will return to lead them to destroy Israel. In other words, rebuilding the Temple will cause a war, whether or not prophecy to true.

 

[BelovedSonofRock]

yep. The bible is used for some pretty heinious crimes and view points.
so is the koran, or any other holy script.
so is the whim and opinion of any person out there. You think cruelty is limited to the religious? Give me a break.

You are correct. But a person asked why atheist talk about the Bible and God so much... I had to give an answer.

 

[Uphill Battle]

You are correct. But a person asked why atheist talk about the Bible and God so much... I had to give an answer.

and the answer, when given, limits such accusations to the religious. It overlooks secular cruelty.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I would never call you a fool. You seem unable to recognize the internal contradictions in your worldview, however I would defer to the consciousness gurus before I go around accusing you of dishonesty or anything more than garden-variety hubris.

Now this is absurd. The only way I can see "the world" in toto is by satellite or shuttle photo. And at that level of abstraction, I can't tell much of anything age-wise.

If you used to base your Earth-age estimate on an honest evaluation of features like the aforementioned cliffs (which charmingly enough entails a pretty comprehensive understanding of geology), then you have little excuse. As I noted already, and it seems I cannot emphasize this enough, young features are consistent with an old Earth, and are therefore insufficient to defeat OE geology by themselves.

internal contradictions? alright. I can allow you to believe that. It isn't offensive to me, as I know where I am coming from, and where you are. I see contradictions in evolution worldview that you don't.

The second statement is mincing words though. You know that I meant "see the world" as in what I view it as. I wasn't suggesting a panoramic view of the earth.

I do not propose to defeat OE geology by my own observations. Do you propose to defeat the religious viewpoint through your own? I know what satisfies me as to the age of the earth. Each individual must do that for themselves, Religious or not.

 

[nvxplorer]

and the answer, when given, limits such accusations to the religious. It overlooks secular cruelty.

Reread his response. He agreed with you. He overlooked nothing.

 

[nvxplorer]

Do you propose to defeat the religious viewpoint through your own?

This should read: your religious viewpoint. Your view is not accepted by all religious people.

Any religious claim can be defeated with evidence, regardless of who holds such views. Claiming the earth is supported by an infinite column of giant turtles is readily refuted.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

and the answer, when given, limits such accusations to the religious. It overlooks secular cruelty.

No, it does not. To give any other answer is to avoid accusations to the religious.

 

[Uphill Battle]

This should read: your religious viewpoint. Your view is not accepted by all religious people.

Any religious claim can be defeated with evidence, regardless of who holds such views. Claiming the earth is supported by an infinite column of giant turtles is readily refuted.

any religious claim can be defeated with evidence? you have and empirical refutation for every religious claim ever made? That would be quite a list.

fair enough though, MY religious viewpoint.

 

[Uphill Battle]

No, it does not. To give any other answer is to avoid accusations to the religious.

I think I misunderstood. And was misunderstood. What I meant was, when somebody focuses their energies on combating a religious text on the premise that it is responsible for cruelties, they overlook any cruelties outside thier prefered target. Even the cruelties they perpetrate themselves.

 

[nvxplorer]

any religious claim can be defeated with evidence? you have and empirical refutation for every religious claim ever made? That would be quite a list.

Any != all.

Any religious claim for which there is contradictory evidence can be defeated with such evidence. Better?

 

[TeddyKGB]

internal contradictions? alright. I can allow you to believe that. It isn't offensive to me, as I know where I am coming from, and where you are. I see contradictions in evolution worldview that you don't.

I am always willing to listen. For a few minutes anyway.

The second statement is mincing words though. You know that I meant "see the world" as in what I view it as. I wasn't suggesting a panoramic view of the earth.

Then I do not know exactly what you mean. You might consider the world 6000 years old, but I submit that you cannot "see" it in any meaningful sense.

I do not propose to defeat OE geology by my own observations. Do you propose to defeat the religious viewpoint through your own? I know what satisfies me as to the age of the earth. Each individual must do that for themselves, Religious or not.

Again, it only takes one demonstrably old feature to prove an old Earth. My job is infinitely easier than yours, it seems.

 

[BananaSlug]

Ok, the earth appears to be young to you. Now as I stated before, go out and get some samples and test them in a lab to find their age. Then get some more samples from the same area in the same strata. Then go out and collect samples from the same strata in a different area. Then see if the data correlate in a significant way.
In science, just because one experiment matches your "assumption" doesn't mean that all will. That's why you and other scientists should do mulitple experiments.
Appearance is subjective but evidence is not. Why would God create an earth where all of the evidence points to an old age? Is God trying to play mind games with us?

Scientists: base their "assumptions" on the evidence of radiocarbon dating and other accurate dating methods
YEC: do no research of their own but base the age of the earth on the geneology of a book.

Still, no YEC has answered my question. If "Noah's Ark" was found, how would you propose we date it? Since C14 and other dating methods are so "inaccurate," what would be the best way to determine it's age?

 

[RightWingGirl]

Radiometric dating couldn't be used;

If something is young, it will look old using Radiometric dating because it has only been around in the past thousand years, and will give an inaccurate reading.




....BTW, how do you tell if something reads old because it is to young to be tested or not?

 

[nvxplorer]

Radiometric dating couldn't be used;

If something is young, it will look old using Radiometric dating because it has only been around in the past thousand years, and will give an inaccurate reading.




....BTW, how do you tell if something reads old because it is to young to be tested or not?

IIRC, the lower limit of C14 dating is 500 years. The ark is claimed to be older than that. Why would this be a problem?

 

[Uphill Battle]

I am always willing to listen. For a few minutes anyway.

Then I do not know exactly what you mean. You might consider the world 6000 years old, but I submit that you cannot "see" it in any meaningful sense.

Again, it only takes one demonstrably old feature to prove an old Earth. My job is infinitely easier than yours, it seems.

good... glad to see you have a level of tolerance.

That is why I said it was subjective. I am fully aware that my observations along that vein are of little or no value to anyone but me.

Not really however. We both, if trying to convince the other of our beliefs, have a monstrous task. I did not set out to do so however, I was merely asked why I believe it.

 

[dad]

...

Still, no YEC has answered my question. If "Noah's Ark" was found, how would you propose we date it? Since C14 and other dating methods are so "inaccurate," what would be the best way to determine it's age?

If the ark is found, that contained all life on earth, as the bible has said, why bother dating it? We would have a big piece of evidence that belies your dating methods, and so called falsifications of the flood, etc. Why would anyone give a hoot about wacky so called dating attempts, at that point, unless they were so dyed in the wool, that they had yielded their mental facilities to the dark side?

 

[Ophis]

If the ark is found, that contained all life on earth, as the bible has said, why bother dating it?

How would we know it had contained all life on Earth? Unless we found the remains of every animal in it, which would contradict the Bible?

 

[icbal]

I dont think its so much IF a big ancient boat was found, but where.

They did find a big boat shaped remnance on top of mount ararat. The same sort of size as is described in Genesis.

Nothing more will come of it. The wood no longer exists, but is replaced by sediment.
No further proof can be found.

There are only two points.

1- There is a big boat shaped remnance where Genesis says that 5000 years ago, a big boat came to a rest.
2- How does a boat get on top of a mountain if not by drainage of water?

 

[theFijian]

2- How does a boat get on top of a mountain if not by drainage of water?

Didn't you get the memo? In the pre-merge/split world the all-important spiritual component which the daft evo PO box scientists can't even detect meant that water flowed up hill.