Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If they would have used wood it would have sunk in anything approaching conditions on the open sea. A wooden keel and hull of that length doesn't have the strength to hog waves.
You are adding your opinion into the facts, the fact is that it was not within modern standards of safety. There is nothing to draw your conclusion of failing, there are standards that must be met before a water vessel is allowed to sail. It could be true that they felt it would fail, but they didn't say that. It could have failed, it wouldn't matter because it is able to float and stay up in water. We only have a certain amount of information and that is all we have.In other words experts knew that it would fail.
One was not a scientist the other was a scientist (I guess I didn't look) but in an area that I have no knowledge in. If this was such a problem you would think you could supply a multitude of examples.You seem to complain about every creationist we cited thus far, so I thought I would allow you to pick the creationist since you seem to have a problem with the other ones.
Others have mentioned Snelling, which is a really good example.
As to your ark, the hull is made of metal.
Perhaps. If this was the Biblical Ark we would have reason to be concerned but without the original we have nothing. However, it was once argued that it would not be able to hold any large number of animals and it seems it could, it was calculated that the Ark could have been as described according to the article I cited and since I wasn't involved in the work I can't say one way or the other with any confidence."Instead, Huibers and his team built the boat by welding together the metal hulls of 25 barges into a single frame, which was then covered with Scandinavian pine."
If they would have used wood it would have sunk in anything approaching conditions on the open sea. A wooden keel and hull of that length doesn't have the strength to hog waves.
I understand the nature of evidence and could haves and maybes don't count.And now you have shown that you do not understand the nature of evidence.
I am going to reply with more detail. According to the Matzke paper we start far into the "evolution" of the final product with the Type II secretion system.And now you have shown that you do not understand the nature of evidence.
No, it is not only obvious that it would fail as built, it was not a wooden Ark as Loudmouth pointed out. When they "rebuilt" the ark they welded steel barges together. Your example has now totally failed.You are adding your opinion into the facts, the fact is that it was not within modern standards of safety. There is nothing to draw your conclusion of failing, there are standards that must be met before a water vessel is allowed to sail. It could be true that they felt it would fail, but they didn't say that. It could have failed, it wouldn't matter because it is able to float and stay up in water. We only have a certain amount of information and that is all we have.
You seem to complain about every creationist we cited thus far, so I thought I would allow you to pick the creationist since you seem to have a problem with the other ones.
Others have mentioned Snelling, which is a really good example.
As to your ark, the hull is made of metal.
"Instead, Huibers and his team built the boat by welding together the metal hulls of 25 barges into a single frame, which was then covered with Scandinavian pine."
If they would have used wood it would have sunk in anything approaching conditions on the open sea. A wooden keel and hull of that length doesn't have the strength to hog waves.
I am going to reply with more detail. According to the Matzke paper we start far into the "evolution" of the final product with the Type II secretion system.
The present model will begin with a reasonably complex bacterium, already possessing the general secretory pathway and type II secretion system, as well as signal transduction, a peptidoglycan cell wall, and F1F0-ATP synthetase. As these components are ubiquitous, almost certainly predating the cenancestor, whereas many bacteria (perhaps 50% of species) lack flagella entirely, this seems plausible. These assumptions are consistent with Cavalier-Smith’s position that the cenancestor was a bacterium similar in complexity to modern bacteria (Cavalier-Smith, 2001a, 2002a). Cavalier-Smith (2002a) hypothesizes that chlorobacteria may be the most basal offshoot of the tree and be primitively nonflagellate. Emphasis mine.
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html#context
So we start with a complex bacterium already possessng the "general secretory pathway and type II secretion system which evidence supports evolving from the Bacterial Flagellem rather than the other way around. We have F1Fo-ATP synthetase which is part of the irreducible complexity needed to be explained. We then move to the scientific evidence of seeming plausible. All of which are assumptions according to Matzke and assumption is not evidence.
Cooption of preexisting subsystems are the key events of interest in the model. Gene duplications within the system primarily add complexity after the origin of the protoflagellum, and other processes, such as domain swapping and the loss of “scaffolding” components, are relatively minor players. Finally, in light of the organized complexity and apparent “design” of the flagellum, the very fact that a step-by-step Darwinian model can be constructed that is plausible and testable significantly weakens the suggestion that extraordinary explanations might be required.
The cooption of preexisting subsystems without giving any evidence of how they arose through evolutionary processes is rather begging the question, the swapping and loss of "scaffolding" brings up other problems since we can't provide evidence for either whether minor players or not. Finally the fact that Matzke takes an already complex and completely unexplained system by evolutionary means to supply explanation for another complex and completely unexplained system to "construct" a model and then claim it is plausible to me doesn't mean evidence. That we can test the other system in regard to its construction and then apply assumptions as to how it might have been plausible to explain the BF is not convincing to say the least.
Now if you think that by showing preexisting and evolutionary unexplained subsystems and un-evidenced scaffolding and plausible models are evidence then we do have a different view of evidence.
I don't really care. It is a model of something that we have very little information about and can't be confirmed one way or the other.No, it is not only obvious that it would fail as built, it was not a wooden Ark as Loudmouth pointed out. When they "rebuilt" the ark they welded steel barges together. Your example has now totally failed.
If you believe in a world wide flood then by definition it was on the open Sea. I know that there are some that believe in a local flood. Is that your version of this story?Who said the Ark was ever upon the open Sea? The Ark rose some 22.5 feet on Adam's world Gen 7:20 and then rested in Lake Van, Turkey in the mountains of Ararat. WHEN was it subject to "hog waves"? Amen?
The fact that attempts to make a wooden boat with modern technology, which includes pumps that would not have been available to Noah, failed miserably tells us that an even bigger vessel with poor design, in far more severe seas, would fail even faster. The squared/cubed law is not very forgiving.I don't really care. It is a model of something that we have very little information about and can't be confirmed one way or the other.
Your dishonesty is epic! I provided the full paper. I supplied the full paragraph that was written in the paper. This is the evidence you cited!!!!!!!!!!!!! Then you don't like when I point out the fact that it doesn't refute Behe at all but shows a "model" that starts well into what it needs to explain and even admits it is only plausible.If you can't approach this honestly then you should not ask for evidence. Trying to emphasize quotes out of context is almost as dishonest as quoting out of context.
This is a dishonesty fail on your part. Try again.
I have no version. There is evidence for a local flood but I have no knowledge of Geology to make an educated view on the subject.If you believe in a world wide flood then by definition it was on the open Sea. I know that there are some that believe in a local flood. Is that your version of this story?
The fact that attempts to make a wooden boat with modern technology, which includes pumps that would not have been available to Noah, failed miserably tells us that an even bigger vessel with poor design, in far more severe seas, would fail even faster. The squared/cubed law is not very forgiving.
The evidence is design.
It is up to those who claim that evidence is incorrect by way of being an illusion created by evolutionary processes. Could be and might haves do not provide evidence.
What has been refuted?Do you think repeating the same refuted argument over and over will suddenly make it true?
It has been explained to you OVER AND OVER that design is the claim, not the evidence.
It is incumbent on those that claim the evidence is faulty and only an illusion.It is up to you to present objective evidence. Repeating the same refuted subjective opinions is not valid.
What has been refuted?
That is because it is not a claim,
The claim is that this apparent design with a purpose observed in life forms is an illusion.
Which one?The claim I responded to. This isn't difficult.
I am not making claims. I have presented a claim that Richard Dawkins made in his book, "The Blind Watchmaker".Yes, it is. You are claiming that life is designed. Design can not be both the evidence and the claim.
Does the appearance a tower in the center of town mean that the tower isn't an actual tower? IF we see a tree and recognize the appearance to be a tree does it mean the actual tree is an illusion?You said so yourself. Even you call it an appearance of design.
You have this backwards. If one thinks it is misleading it is incumbent upon them to show how. The evidence is design. The evidence is in the appearance of that design. If someone wishes to claim that this evidence is misleading it is incumbent upon them to show how.Appearance
"an impression given by someone or something, although this may be misleading."
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=appearance
By calling it an appearance you are saying that it can be misleading. Therefore, it is up to you to show that design is real by producing real, objective evidence, not simply your subjective opinion of what it looks like.
I acknowledge you have asserted certain things without supplying any evidence to support them.I have told you this how many times now? Will you at least try to acknowledge it?
Which one?
I am not making claims.
Does the appearance a tower in the center of town mean that the tower isn't an actual tower?
Now as we see, the design is visible, understood and obvious because all biologists agree that it is. Is it true?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?