Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Noah's Ark volume calculation
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 226 of 347 (495545)
01-23-2009 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by homunculus
01-22-2009 10:15 PM


Re: Giant bones
homunculus writes:
first, i would like to bring to your attention the Smithsonian, national geographic and a fistful of other geographical and historical "authorities" are corrupt to their toes, like many other acclaimed "authorities".
Got any evidence for that, or is it just wild conjecture?
not only do they play an extreme bias for evolution, like most evolutionists, but they do an incredible, high budget job of covering up the discovery of giant human skeletons (found primarily in the middle east/northern Africa) in an attempt to disprove the bible, once, I believe the information was readily available.
They don't do it because they want to disprove the bible, they want to disprove the edda, there are far more gaints in there thne there are in the bible, and they don't want to die in battle (that's why they are scientists), so the cowards try to disprove it.
of course, the legend, DR. Kent hovind's material
A legend of lies and misrepresentation and fraud perhaps. The dimensions on that bone are wrong, it should've been much more like an elephant's leg, this is way too slender.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by homunculus, posted 01-22-2009 10:15 PM homunculus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 12:20 AM Huntard has not replied

prophet
Member (Idle past 5529 days)
Posts: 54
From: Florida
Joined: 01-19-2009


Message 227 of 347 (495600)
01-23-2009 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Percy
01-23-2009 7:47 AM


Re: The "What if?" syndrome
No,I was not interested in information on why or how a transistor works. It was merely an example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Percy, posted 01-23-2009 7:47 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Percy, posted 01-23-2009 3:26 PM prophet has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 228 of 347 (495603)
01-23-2009 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by prophet
01-23-2009 3:09 PM


Re: The "What if?" syndrome
prophet writes:
No,I was not interested in information on why or how a transistor works. It was merely an example.
But because you don't understand how a transistor works it turns out not to be an example of the miraculous in science. It isn't even amazing. I grant that the less you know about science that the more miraculous some phenomena might seem, but it is no different than magic tricks which are amazing right up until they're explained.
What we're examining in this thread is if, following known natural physical laws, Noah's ark was big enough for the job. No miracles.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by prophet, posted 01-23-2009 3:09 PM prophet has not replied

prophet
Member (Idle past 5529 days)
Posts: 54
From: Florida
Joined: 01-19-2009


Message 229 of 347 (495607)
01-23-2009 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Coyote
01-20-2009 9:35 PM


Re: standards?
This seems to have produced quite good results for the past few centuries. But if evidence is found to show that this assumption is not accurate, I'm sure that science will adjust its assumptions and methods to accommodate.
This is yet another problem... "science will adjust"!
That is not what you expect to be able to do with truth, but rather what one expects to be capable of doing with a lie. Science like lies are malleable.


Even your use of "religion" is inappropriate. Simple truths attacked by complex issues with demanded instant gratification and desire stirred in, is the distractions from truth that gave birth to religions. Science like lies is malleable. It is not that science requests proof, it is that science demands yet another proof, NOW. The answer is; patience lad, patience, proof will be here soon enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Coyote, posted 01-20-2009 9:35 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Percy, posted 01-23-2009 4:08 PM prophet has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 230 of 347 (495608)
01-23-2009 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by prophet
01-23-2009 4:01 PM


Re: standards?
If you want to discuss your negative feelings about science then please take it to a thread in the [forum=-11] forum. This thread is about whether it is scientifically possible for Noah's ark to have been big enough. If your distrust of science is such that you can't discuss things from a scientific perspective then you shouldn't be in the science forums, except for [forum=-11].
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by prophet, posted 01-23-2009 4:01 PM prophet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by prophet, posted 01-24-2009 2:20 PM Percy has replied

homunculus
Member (Idle past 5435 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 231 of 347 (495699)
01-24-2009 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Huntard
01-23-2009 10:06 AM


Re: Giant bones
just another stab at the "giants" profile. obviously, will be discredited by evolutionists, as the suggestion of giants plays against the criterion theory.
http://www.geocities.com/saqatchr/page46.html
Giant Humans and Dinosaurs
As to the "authoritative" corruption.
Smithsonian cover up;
Humanoid Giants Existed! Smithsonian Coverup;Not just Theory---Lot's of Evidence!
As well as the lies from national geographic; but I've lost train of thought. The point is, this elements exist and there are people that know about it. With such considerations, examining biblical accounts are subjective to the examinees interests.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Huntard, posted 01-23-2009 10:06 AM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Coyote, posted 01-24-2009 1:21 AM homunculus has replied
 Message 235 by Percy, posted 01-24-2009 7:07 AM homunculus has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 232 of 347 (495703)
01-24-2009 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by homunculus
01-24-2009 12:20 AM


Re: Giant bones
That stuff is absolute crap. You should be embarrassed to post it.
Its all nonsense, or refuted long ago. Its not even well done crap.
My advice--get a few real books on archaeology and learn something worthwhile.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 12:20 AM homunculus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 5:52 PM Coyote has not replied

monkey boy
Junior Member (Idle past 5449 days)
Posts: 24
Joined: 01-20-2009


Message 233 of 347 (495718)
01-24-2009 3:20 AM


Giants in the Earth
I haven't read through all the posts, just the most recent. Has anyone pointed out that there used to be a cottage industry, in Texas, of carving human footprints out of the rock next to Dinosaur footprints and selling tickets to see same? In some cases they didn't even remove the tool marks.

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 234 of 347 (495729)
01-24-2009 4:33 AM


Why are believers so dense?
Almost beyond comprehension or believability was the find of the two separate 36-foot human remains uncovered by Carthaginians somewhere between 200-600 B.C.
Gzus!
Why are so many Christians as thick as two short planks?
Another thing that makes me laugh is this constant accusation that archaeologists have hidden all the stuff that proves many events contained in the Bible. These idiots don't even know that over 90% of the excavations in the Holy Land for the first century of archaeological work in that area was carried out by church-sponsored conservative Christians.
These links are embarrassing, if homunculus took himself along to a decent academic library and done some serious reading then she/he would realise how silly these claims are.
Edited by Brian, : No reason given.

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 235 of 347 (495757)
01-24-2009 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by homunculus
01-24-2009 12:20 AM


Re: Giant bones
Hi Homunculus,
There are a couple Forum Guidelines you need to pay attention to. About using links in your arguments:
  1. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
About accusations of lies:
  1. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
For example, I would be in violation of the guidelines were I to reply like this:
There's were never any giants, see Forbidden. Anyone claiming there were giants lies.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 12:20 AM homunculus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by homunculus, posted 01-24-2009 5:56 PM Percy has replied

prophet
Member (Idle past 5529 days)
Posts: 54
From: Florida
Joined: 01-19-2009


Message 236 of 347 (495834)
01-24-2009 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Percy
01-23-2009 4:08 PM


Re: standards?
Negative feeling towards science? I do not possess negative feelings toward science. I am trying to understand the various points of debate between science and its use in an attempt to dismiss God.
Would you say; Science is a study to discover truth?
Would you say science is malleable that it can be re-evaluted and re-shaped to conform to truth?
Would you say; Science has yet to embrace the entire truth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Percy, posted 01-23-2009 4:08 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Percy, posted 01-24-2009 3:00 PM prophet has replied
 Message 238 by Coyote, posted 01-24-2009 4:26 PM prophet has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 237 of 347 (495843)
01-24-2009 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by prophet
01-24-2009 2:20 PM


Re: standards?
This isn't the thread for discussing the nature of science. If you're unsure what science is then I suggest avoiding the science forums except for [forum=-11]. Propose a thread to discuss the nature of science, or join a thread already in progress.
We generally exclude arguments that are so broadly applicable that they can be used almost anywhere. In the science forums, criticisms of science itself fall into this category. Objections based upon criticisms of modern approaches to science could be used in cosmology, evolution, geology, radiometric dating, anthropology and abiogenesis, in other words, almost anywhere in the science forums. If we allowed this then one person with a complaint about science could turn one thread after another into a discussion of his complaint, and indeed this has happened in the past, which is why we're careful to keep it from happening.
By the way, I can't imagine why you're surprised that I think you have negative views about science after you compared science with lies in Message 229.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by prophet, posted 01-24-2009 2:20 PM prophet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by prophet, posted 01-24-2009 8:34 PM Percy has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 238 of 347 (495862)
01-24-2009 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by prophet
01-24-2009 2:20 PM


Re: standards?
I put a post with your name in the title in the correct forum.
You should address these questions there, not here.
http://EvC Forum: What is a Theory? -->EvC Forum: What is a Theory?
Edited by Coyote, : Added link

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by prophet, posted 01-24-2009 2:20 PM prophet has not replied

homunculus
Member (Idle past 5435 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 239 of 347 (495868)
01-24-2009 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Coyote
01-24-2009 1:21 AM


Re: Giant bones
No.
See we have "Giants" even today, people being 7'" and on up.
So its a very practical thing to have said people years ago may have been 'giants'. You don't like the idea because it employs creationist idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Coyote, posted 01-24-2009 1:21 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by bluescat48, posted 01-24-2009 6:00 PM homunculus has not replied

homunculus
Member (Idle past 5435 days)
Posts: 86
Joined: 01-21-2009


Message 240 of 347 (495869)
01-24-2009 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Percy
01-24-2009 7:07 AM


Re: Giant bones
Yes, I saw that and yet I continued to post my links anyway.
Why?
because since the idea that really big/tall people may have existed years ago is so alienable to you, you ask for "evidence", since I have no bones in my home I post links to photos to illustrate that possibility. I happen to believe that some of these photos may be credible. And of course, you failed to give the same guideline speech to everyone else that posted links before me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Percy, posted 01-24-2009 7:07 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Percy, posted 01-25-2009 7:53 AM homunculus has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024