|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Noah's Ark volume calculation | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2315 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
homunculus writes:
Got any evidence for that, or is it just wild conjecture?
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". 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
prophet Member (Idle past 5550 days) Posts: 54 From: Florida Joined: |
No,I was not interested in information on why or how a transistor works. It was merely an example.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
prophet Member (Idle past 5550 days) Posts: 54 From: Florida Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
homunculus Member (Idle past 5455 days) Posts: 86 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
monkey boy Junior Member (Idle past 5469 days) Posts: 24 Joined: |
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 4979 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
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: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Hi Homunculus,
There are a couple Forum Guidelines you need to pay attention to. About using links in your arguments:
About accusations of lies:
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
prophet Member (Idle past 5550 days) Posts: 54 From: Florida Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
homunculus Member (Idle past 5455 days) Posts: 86 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
homunculus Member (Idle past 5455 days) Posts: 86 Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024