Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-22-2017 4:36 PM
402 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 811,867 Year: 16,473/21,208 Month: 2,362/3,593 Week: 475/882 Day: 96/97 Hour: 1/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
678Next
Author Topic:   Creationist experiment to prove the possibility of Noah's ark
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 1949 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(2)
Message 61 of 115 (549520)
03-08-2010 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Manifest
03-08-2010 11:51 AM


Re: Maybe They…
Rather than answer your assertions in detail, I simple offer the following alternative hypothesis: the Robot Monkey Flood Hypothesis.

1. Noah did not actually have to do most of the labor building the Ark. Robot monkeys are easily programmed to do basic construction work.

2. Likewise gathering all the animals two by two. Robot monkeys equipped with jet packs cound have traveled quickly around the globe to collect all necessary "kinds."

3. Robot monkeys doen't need to sleep, so they can take care of all the animals around the clock.

4. Robot monkeys can also use their jet packs to fly out to all the floating vegetation mats to tend to insects too.

5. If the Ark were also equipped with a Matter-Antimatter Transmutation Fabricator (which the Robot Monkeys would also be able to build), then it would be easy to recycle waste matter back into fresh, nutritious food.

6. Radiation leakage from a broken Robot Monkey Atomic Power Pack could also have affected atomic decay rates around the globe, rendering all radiometric dating techniques invalid. This indicates to me that at least one Robot Monkey did not survive the whole voyage.

7. Robot Monkeys could also have a combined data storage capacity big enough to contain all the information they'd need to retrain young animals that were raised on the Ark to return to life in the wild.

So I believe that the Robot Monkey Hypothesis is more than suffiient to answer all atheistical objections to the truth of the Flood story. And it doesn't say anywhere that Noah didn't have Robot Monkey helpers. So case closed.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Manifest, posted 03-08-2010 11:51 AM Manifest has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Straggler, posted 03-08-2010 2:21 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded
 Message 93 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-27-2011 1:23 AM ZenMonkey has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 62 of 115 (549522)
03-08-2010 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by ZenMonkey
03-08-2010 2:12 PM


Re: Maybe They…
Hah! Well if there were even half the evidence to support your robot monkey theory as there is the actual Ark then you might have a point.

Oh wait a minute......


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-08-2010 2:12 PM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

  
Manifest
Junior Member (Idle past 2572 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 03-02-2010


Message 63 of 115 (549553)
03-08-2010 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Peepul
03-08-2010 1:12 PM


Re: Maybe They…
quote:
Nice cut and paste!

http://amazingdiscoveries.org/...lict-RadiometricDating.html



Implying this means anything

quote:
This is written by Professor Walter J. Veith, PhD. Is his PhD in a relevant field? I placed my bet before checking. What a surprise - he's a zoologist!


implying this means anything. What if a 4 years old girl put forward these false assumptions what difference does it make? Does it make it less valid? Do those assumptions belong to him?

quote:

I'll allow the experts to debunk your content in detail (if they want to). But you need to consider why, if a zoologist can think of these questions, the experts in the field have not considered them and resolved them?

This is the difference. I try not to put much faith in elitism. If you have nothing to provide as for the substance I've raised why did you bother answering?

quote:
You are forced to consider scientists incompetent or dishonest because of your fixed belief system.

Isn't that ironic considering you're relegated answering this to others?

quote:
They are neither of course.

You wouldn't know, you've admittedly said you will leave it to others to answer me. The "experts"

quote:
The problem is your fixed belief system.

Seething arrogance and irony as well considering the erstwhile lecture you gave me about believing in what others say you've relegated this answer to others.

quote:

ZenMonkey; Straggler


Seems some have slipped into cognitive dissonance. Are these the experts you're referring to Peepul.

Edited by Manifest, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Peepul, posted 03-08-2010 1:12 PM Peepul has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Coragyps, posted 03-08-2010 8:44 PM Manifest has not yet responded
 Message 68 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-08-2010 8:45 PM Manifest has not yet responded
 Message 69 by DrJones*, posted 03-08-2010 8:57 PM Manifest has not yet responded
 Message 71 by Peepul, posted 03-09-2010 6:48 AM Manifest has not yet responded

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2155 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


(1)
Message 64 of 115 (549555)
03-08-2010 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Manifest
03-08-2010 11:51 AM


Re: Maybe They…
Fossils can be carbon dated…

Fossils can not be carbon dated because they no longer contain organic material to be dated. Because of your statement the ToE assumes that you don't actually know what a fossil is.

… and they are only assumed to be older by the theory of evolution…

The ToE assumes nothing of the sort. The ToE states that a process of natural selection and compounding of random copying errors of are sufficient to explain the observed biodiversity. Observations do indicate that the processes of diversification aren't in any hurry, but it's not assumed.

Observations also indicate the the processes of fossilization aren't in any hurry either. But the ToE doesn't even assume fossils yet alone how long they take to form.

… which you have chosen to put your faith in.

Not quite. I, if I may be so bold as to assume I know more me about than do you, do not accept evolution as a reflection of reality by not knowing about it. I pulled my head out, examined the evidence and arguments, and found them to be undeniable. "Faith" is a belief unsupported by evidence which you, if I may be so bold as to assume I know more about you than do you, rationalize after the fact.

Furthermore, do you really think a machine that counts 14C atoms gets differing values dependant upon the assumptions of its operator? How does the machine know the assumptions of the operator? Does the operator tell the machine or does the machine sense them somehow?

Your claim that 50k years not being long enough to fossilize a dead animal is unscientific.

Is so.

Suffice to say - since admittedly you're not serious about any of this - that when a fish lies in water and is dead and is rotting the first thing that happens is the ligament attaching the head rots away and the head drops off.

So if I were to take your fantasies seriously the ligament attaching the fish's head wouldn't rot away and the head wouldn't fall off. Why wouldn't it?

Sometimes you have perfect fossils of fish which are eating another fish even.

This fish died in the process of giving the smaller fish a purple-nurple with its tail.

Seriously, there isn't any other possible explanation. Superposition isn't something that just happens. Oh sure, if one looks at dozens and dozens of fish fossils maybe it can happen once. What are the odds of that; like, 24:1?


If you enter [IMG]image address[/IMG] you'll get the image on your page instead of the address.

Oh! And welcome to EvC. Hope you like taking a beating.


You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Manifest, posted 03-08-2010 11:51 AM Manifest has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5859
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 65 of 115 (549556)
03-08-2010 6:57 PM


For Manifest
I responded to your cut-and-paste concerning radiocarbon dating on an appropriate thread.

Come on over and let's see what you know about the subject.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 66 of 115 (549565)
03-08-2010 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Manifest
03-08-2010 11:51 AM


Re: Maybe They…
Quite a Gish Gallop you got going there. Full of unsupported assertions and errors. I'm particularly irritated by your quote from someone who has no clue how radiometric dating works, just as you have no clue.

1- A constant rate of decay is assumed

Sorry, no. A constant rate of decay is concluded from vast mountains of evidence. Even the RATE group acknowledges (and tries to minimize the importance of) the show-stopping problems with any theory that tries to introduce non-constant decay rates. Decay rates are a consequence of some very fundamental properties of the Universe; if they changed all sorts of other things would change too ... and those other things haven't changed.

a) The constancy of cosmic ray bombardment might be questioned. The current high rate of entry might be a consequence of a disturbed post-flood environment that altered the carbon-14 to carbon-12 ratio. Pre-flood dates would thus have to be discarded.

Let's see exactly how this would work. Hint: it wouldn't. Show the math.

b) An increase in the magnetic field of the earth would have shielded the earth from cosmic rays. Some scientists argue that the magnetic field of the earth has declined over time.

No scientists argue that the magnetic field of the Earth has decreased. A few loons do. This is another PRATT.

Carbon dating is calibrated against other methods. Other radiometric dating methods are not affected by cosmic rays.


c) Atmospheric carbon forms just 0.0005% of the current carbon reservoir-99.66% of the earth's carbon exists in limestone, 0.31% in oil and gas, and 0.02% in coal. carbon-14 comes from nitrogen and is independent of the carbon-12 reservoir. If even a small percentage of the limestone deposits were still in the form of living marine organisms at the time of the flood, then the small amount of carbon-14 would have mixed with a much larger carbon-12 reservoir, thus resulting in a drastically reduced ratio. Specimens would then look much older than they actually are.

Let's see the math. Especially show how this "model" explains the dating of objects of known age, such as the bread found in Pompeii. Hint: it would show that the bread was baked from wheat grown centuries after Vesuvius erupted.

d) Even if the rate of decay is constant, without knowledge of the exact ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the initial sample, the dating technique is subject to question.

That's why the method is calibrated against other methods.

2- It's assumed that the clock was set to zero when the study material was formed. This requires that only the parent isotope be initially present or that the amount of daughter isotope present at the beginning is known so that it can be subtracted.

Not relevant to carbon dating. For geological dating methods, it's just false. For example, even the RATE group acknowledges that zircons form with no significant lead content. Argon-argon and isochron dating produce the amount of initial daughter product as a byproduct of the method.

3- It is assumed that we are dealing with a closed system-no loss of either parent or daughter elements has occurred since the study material formed.

False. The most commonly used dating methods indicate when the system has been open, and most of them often yield a valid date even when the system has not remained closed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Manifest, posted 03-08-2010 11:51 AM Manifest has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5272
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(1)
Message 67 of 115 (549574)
03-08-2010 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Manifest
03-08-2010 6:30 PM


Re: Maybe They…
I try not to put much faith in elitism.

Hmmm. Me too. But knowledge isn't particularly "elitist," except from a post-2007 American Republican point of view.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Manifest, posted 03-08-2010 6:30 PM Manifest has not yet responded

    
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 1949 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(1)
Message 68 of 115 (549575)
03-08-2010 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Manifest
03-08-2010 6:30 PM


Re: Maybe They…
Manifest writes:

Seems some have slipped into cognitive dissonance. Are these the experts you're referring to Peepul.

Well, speaking for myself, I must admit that I am not an expert in Robot Monkeys and the technology behind them. However, I do have a basic layperson's understanding of how they work. And I contend that the Robot Monkey Flood Hypothesis is a valid one for explaining many of the discrepancies and apparent scientific impossibilities in the traditional Flood account. In fact, I believe that Robot Monkeys are a better explanation than the ones you've offered, such as insects on floating vegetation mats and the effect of water on radioactive decay rates.

I'd be glad to debate the matter with you in a separate thread. Or at least please offer me the evidence upon which you would deny the validity of the Robot Monkey Flood Hypothesis.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Manifest, posted 03-08-2010 6:30 PM Manifest has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1657
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 69 of 115 (549576)
03-08-2010 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Manifest
03-08-2010 6:30 PM


Re: Maybe They…
I try not to put much faith in elitism

I direct you to the second last line of my sig.


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Manifest, posted 03-08-2010 6:30 PM Manifest has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3500
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


(2)
Message 70 of 115 (549603)
03-09-2010 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Manifest
03-08-2010 11:51 AM


Re: Maybe They…
First up, could you direct your replies to individual posts, rather than collating your replies to different posters into a single long reply, please? It makes it easier to follow the thread of the conversation

No most of them do not die, their instincts keep them alive quite well.

Most wild animals do, in fact, die. Otherwise we'd be up to our ears in them by now. Have you noticed how many offspring a rabbit has? How many do you think live, on average, to reproduce themselves? (Hint: it's the same number as they have parents). The same is true for other animals - many more offspring are produced than survive to reproduce themselves.

The fact that they were young on board means they didn't have to worry about predators either. Are you saying young animals which are given food daily living around others will die within a year?

Excellent! So they'll be released with no experience of looking after themselves - that'll help! Zoos constantly struggle to successfully raise animals in captivity, the Ark is under far worse conditions - tossing and turning in a violent sea, thousands of animals cramped into dark conditions, lacking the modern technology to maintain the correct humidity and temperature for them, being fed a completely unnatural diet. And, remember, not a single one of these animals can die because there's no back up here.

Also: while they may be young animals at the start of the year, most of them won't be by the end of the year. Huge numbers of animals complete their entire lifespan inside of a year, while the longer lived creatures can often get big and unruly in that time - a year old bull, rhino, bison or elephant is a big animal.

1. Hasn't been my experience, but so what?
2. Food were most likely in the form of hay, dried fruit, salted meat, dried meat, and dried fish and perhaps fodder food like tortoises like earlier mentioned.
3. If you're so inclined as to wonder about the animals which you think would absolutely spoil their food need I remind you there are 8 humans on board.

It's a problem because you suggested you could just pile up food, rather than needing to feed and clean them out. This is a fantasy, ask any zoo keeper. So you have 8 people, and - by your absurd underestimate of the required number of animals - 8000 animals to look after, that's 36 seconds each by your own numbers. 36 seconds is not long enough to clean out and feed an animal. It just isn't.

As for hay, dried fruit, etc. that's fine for that small proportion of the animal population that will thrive on such feed. The rest of them are going to be a bigger problem. And let me remind you: this is a year long trip, you've said you have young, growing animals, they're in cramped conditions in a boat probably at unsuitable temperatures and humidities - the odds are already stacked against these animals and you can't afford to have even a single one. Feeding them unsuitable food is going to be the final straw.

In any case, the reasoning that they must have been young is a logical one. The bible doesn't mention their age, so why do you assume they were old? Wouldn't they take much more space then? I see no reason for this. I am much younger than Noah and I can figure so much out.

Right, so the bible that spells out in intricate detail how big the boat is, neglected to mention that they should be young animals. Of course. The literality of your reading is obvious.

It's also not that logical a decision to make, young animals take up less space but they also require more care, and are less able to look after themselves when you reach the otherside. If your elephants are young (presumably you're at least letting them wean first so you don't have to hand feed them?) then you'll have to wait years after the Ark lands before you can get the first offspring.

As far as repopulating all animal life that's an issue how? The more there is food the more animals will breed generally. When you have a scarcity of food the animals stop breeding or move. So having so few animals over 4000 years is a challenge how?

Well, you've got two rabbits and two foxes. How many rabbits does a fox need to raise a cub? You have two antelope and two lions? How many antelope does a lion need to eat to raise a cub?

That's problem one: how do you manage to keep your carnivores alive long enough to establish a population of herbivores large enough to support them.

And you've dumped all these animals in one small part of the Middle East. Animals, you may have noticed, don't all live in the Middle East they're spread all across the world in a non-uniform fashion. Kangaroos are found no where but Australia, for example, and the only placental mammals in all Australia when we arrived were bats. How, exactly, did this modern pattern of biodiversity arise from a single dumping of species in the Middle East?

That's problem two: how do you explain modern biogeography?

And, let's not forget, there's just been a global flood, the entire world is covered in a thick layer of salty sediment from the flood. There's no trees, no grass, no bushes, no plant life at all. It'll all be dead from the flood. Now, let's bend reality again and pretend that seeds from all these things could survive the flood and begin repopulating the land - how long do you think that will take? How long before fruit trees begin fruiting again? How long before the humming birds can draw nectar from flowers again? And, remember, until you've got your herbivores happily re-established you're going to have to keep care of your carnivores (see problem one).

So that's problem three: the entire world has no vegetation, how do you maintain your Ark of Life until it's all re-established.

Need I remind you this is an exponential rate of replication. I'm sure you're aware of the rabbits being brought over to Australia in 1859.

An exponential rate of replication only applies until perfect conditions; all life on Earth has just been destroyed in a flood, you have thousands of hungry predators to feed. Exponential growth under those conditions is a joke. And that's before we role on your super-evolution as the millions of species alive today somehow emerge from your 8000 ark species.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Manifest, posted 03-08-2010 11:51 AM Manifest has not yet responded

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 2457 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 71 of 115 (549604)
03-09-2010 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Manifest
03-08-2010 6:30 PM


Re: Maybe They…
quote:
quote:

Nice cut and paste!
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/...lict-RadiometricDating.html

Implying this means anything

it means you violated forum rules: Look at rule 7 in particular.

quote:
6. Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.

7. Never include material not your own without attribution to the original source.

8.Avoid any form of misrepresentation.


Next topic...

quote:
quote:

This is written by Professor Walter J. Veith, PhD. Is his PhD in a relevant field? I placed my bet before checking. What a surprise - he's a zoologist!

implying this means anything. What if a 4 years old girl put forward these false assumptions what difference does it make? Does it make it less valid? Do those assumptions belong to him?


It means, as usual, that creationist material is written by someone who is not an expert in the field and clearly has not studied it. It means, as is common among creationist sites, there's a clear attempt to imply that the information is authoritative because the author is a professor and a PhD. Prof Veith played the argument from authority card, deceptively - I'm calling him on it.

quote:
I try not to put much faith in elitism.

So you don't put faith in the people who know most about a subject? You trust your health care to a lawyer and your legal advice to a doctor?

quote:
quote:
You are forced to consider scientists incompetent or dishonest because of your fixed belief system.

Isn't that ironic considering you're relegated answering this to others?


Oh, I know enough to know that every one of the points you raised is invalid. But I also know there are people here who understand this as professional users of carbon dating - as you've seen. Their answers carry more weight than mine.

quote:
quote:
They are neither of course.

You wouldn't know, you've admittedly said you will leave it to others to answer me. The "experts"

This doesn't make sense. I've left answering it to the experts because I know from experience they are competent and honest.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Manifest, posted 03-08-2010 6:30 PM Manifest has not yet responded

    
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 2381 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


(2)
Message 72 of 115 (549743)
03-10-2010 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Manifest
03-06-2010 10:47 AM


Why even build an Ark?
Hi Manifest

I realise I'm a bit late joining in this particular debate, but there's one obvious and important question I need to get off my chest regarding the building of Noah's Ark.

I used to think the whole concept of the story was ridiculous because, regardless of whether or not it was possible to build a boat to house 2 of every species and feed them, etc, it would have been impossible for anyone in those days to travel around the world and collect 2 of every species.

I now understand the creationist argument is that Noah did not have to circumnavigate the world to find 2 of every species, but rather that God safely delivered 2 of every species to the Ark. Brilliant! I'd never have thought of doing it that way!

But that then begs the question: if God was able to lift a pair of Kangeroos out of the Australian outback, a pair of orangutans out of the jungles of south-east Asia, pairs of tapirs and llamas from South America, along with thousands of other species, and deliver them all effortlessly and safely across the globe to Bibleland, why was it then necessary to build an Ark to put them in? God had already found a way of safely transporting them across the oceans! Did God suddenly run out of strength? Was he only able to hold them up in the air for a limited amount of time?

If God has limitless magical power, why didn't he just zap all but 2 of every species with a bolt of lightning? Why bother at all with a flood and a boat?

But then, probably the biggest question of all is, after all the culling, he was still left with a pair of all the same species that he started with - including humans. So what changed afterwards? What was achieved by the whole exercise? Absolutely nothing!!!

The story doesn't make any sense at any level.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Manifest, posted 03-06-2010 10:47 AM Manifest has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Taq, posted 03-10-2010 2:32 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has responded
 Message 75 by hooah212002, posted 03-10-2010 7:20 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6629
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 73 of 115 (549759)
03-10-2010 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
03-10-2010 10:38 AM


Re: Why even build an Ark?
But that then begs the question: if God was able to lift a pair of Kangeroos out of the Australian outback, a pair of orangutans out of the jungles of south-east Asia, pairs of tapirs and llamas from South America, along with thousands of other species, and deliver them all effortlessly and safely across the globe to Bibleland, why was it then necessary to build an Ark to put them in?

It was a test of Noah's faith and a test for humankind as a whole.

The story doesn't make any sense at any level.

Sure it does. It makes complete sense as a moral tale about a new god emerging within a cult in Mesopotamia. The relationship between man and this new god were told through age-old stories that already existed in the area, namely Babylonian myths. But in a historical, factual sense, no it doesn't make any sense at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 03-10-2010 10:38 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Son, posted 03-10-2010 3:51 PM Taq has responded
 Message 80 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 03-11-2010 4:24 AM Taq has responded
 Message 81 by Itinerant Lurker, posted 03-11-2010 9:01 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
Son
Member (Idle past 1269 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


(1)
Message 74 of 115 (549767)
03-10-2010 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Taq
03-10-2010 2:32 PM


Re: Why even build an Ark?
Test for humankind as a whole? You mean he tested how long on average it took for a human to drown, or did he just want to see who would survive the longest? Did the strongest guy at least receive a prize?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Taq, posted 03-10-2010 2:32 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Taq, posted 03-11-2010 10:45 AM Son has not yet responded

    
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 343 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 75 of 115 (549774)
03-10-2010 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
03-10-2010 10:38 AM


Re: Why even build an Ark?
I now understand the creationist argument is that Noah did not have to circumnavigate the world to find 2 of every species, but rather that God safely delivered 2 of every species to the Ark. Brilliant! I'd never have thought of doing it that way!

Doesn't that negate the entire reason for recreating the ark? Isn't the reason for doing so to show that it was physically possible? So, once you throw a 'goddidit" in there, all need for it being physically possible are moot, yes? Am I being too logical?


"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan

"On a personal note I think he's the greatest wrestler ever. He's better than Lou Thesz, Gorgeous George -- you name it."-The Hulkster on Nature Boy Ric Flair


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 03-10-2010 10:38 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-10-2010 7:24 PM hooah212002 has responded

    
Prev1234
5
678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017