Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-21-2019 7:59 PM
19 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (4 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,001 Year: 5,038/19,786 Month: 1,160/873 Week: 56/460 Day: 56/91 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
11121314
15
16Next
Author Topic:   The Ark - materials, construction and seaworthness
RickJB
Member (Idle past 3097 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 211 of 231 (331382)
07-13-2006 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by riVeRraT
07-13-2006 6:18 AM


riverrat writes:

Tell me, what is the difference between coming up with a theory that a tomb exists in Egypt somewhere, and searching for it, and coming with a theory that the earth and everything in it was created by a God, and searching for the proof?

We know the Egyptians (as well as other cultures) build tombs. We have observed them. Given that tombs are a known feature of human culture in general, one can hypothesize about their existence.

Same goes for the old SETI argument. Humanity is one known example in the universe of a civilization with communications technology based around electromagnetism. There *might* be others, although the chances of finding them are very slim. Only a tiny fraction of available research budgets go anywhere near this field.

No one, on the other hand, has ever observed God or intelligent design. Nor does any of the evidence gathered point to it.

Now, one might argue (as Iano has) that we can use Human design as some kind of guide, but as we have no scientific evidence for God himself we have no grounds on which to make assumptions about his design methods.

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by riVeRraT, posted 07-13-2006 6:18 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by riVeRraT, posted 07-13-2006 7:31 AM RickJB has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 26 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 212 of 231 (331388)
07-13-2006 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by RickJB
07-13-2006 7:00 AM


Same goes for the old SETI argument. Humanity is one known example in the universe of a civilization with communications technology based around electromagnetism. There *might* be others, although the chances of finding them are very slim. Only a tiny fraction of available research budgets go anywhere near this field.

This is a better example than what I gave, thank you.

There is absolutely no evidence of aliens, only subjective, yet we search for them. According to calculations and odds, we shouldn't even exist in this universe. So, doesn't that make it bad science to waste time looking for aliens?

No one, on the other hand, has ever observed God or intelligent design. Nor does any of the evidence gathered point to it.

I disagree, if you ever experienced what I have experienced from God, you would think differently. It may be subjective, but everything we view in life is through our subjective minds.

The whole story of Noah and the ark comes from a subjective Holy Book. How can you even fathom the ark without contemplating God?

How does the possibility of an ark being built even qualify as Creation science?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by RickJB, posted 07-13-2006 7:00 AM RickJB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by CK, posted 07-13-2006 7:36 AM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 214 by nwr, posted 07-13-2006 8:47 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 215 by Percy, posted 07-13-2006 9:20 AM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 216 by RickJB, posted 07-13-2006 9:32 AM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 226 by ramoss, posted 07-14-2006 9:12 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 227 by JonF, posted 07-14-2006 11:43 AM riVeRraT has responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2235 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 213 of 231 (331390)
07-13-2006 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by riVeRraT
07-13-2006 7:31 AM


quote:
How does the possibility of an ark being built even qualify as Creation science?

It fits very well as creation science - it never happened but it's in the bible so it must be true and therefore scientific. See it's easy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by riVeRraT, posted 07-13-2006 7:31 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by riVeRraT, posted 07-13-2006 10:00 AM CK has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 214 of 231 (331409)
07-13-2006 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by riVeRraT
07-13-2006 7:31 AM


How can you even fathom the ark without contemplating God?

The same way I can fathom Aesop's fables without contemplating God.


Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by riVeRraT, posted 07-13-2006 7:31 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18370
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 215 of 231 (331418)
07-13-2006 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by riVeRraT
07-13-2006 7:31 AM


riVeRraT writes:

How can you even fathom the ark without contemplating God?

This is probably a question you should ask Iano. He believes there's nothing complex about a ship like the Ark, and that Noah was sufficiently intelligent to design and construct whatever was required. You believe the Ark is so fantastic that it wouldn't be possible without God. You and Iano are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Anyone arguing for the scientific nature of creationism wants to avoid reference to God because it immediately loses the argument. The necessity for leaving God out of the equation is what has driven proposals like vapor canopies and runaway subduction - if it was just a matter of God doing it then such proposals wouldn't be necessary.

So if you're advocating for creationism as science then insisting on God is a major faux paus. And if you're arguing against creationism as science then I guess I agree with you - most creationist scenarios make no sense as science and could only occur through divine intervention.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by riVeRraT, posted 07-13-2006 7:31 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by riVeRraT, posted 07-13-2006 10:06 AM Percy has not yet responded

    
RickJB
Member (Idle past 3097 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 216 of 231 (331422)
07-13-2006 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by riVeRraT
07-13-2006 7:31 AM


riverrat writes:

This is a better example than what I gave, thank you.

There is absolutely no evidence of aliens, only subjective, yet we search for them. According to calculations and odds, we shouldn't even exist in this universe. So, doesn't that make it bad science to waste time looking for aliens?

:rolleyes:

I posted a refutation of this comment before you even made it!!

There IS evidence of intelligent life having arisen in the universe - humanity! As for odds, we cannot truly know given that we have a sample pool of exactly one. Looking for life out in the universe gives us a bigger sample and a means to properly answer such a question...

riverat writes:

It may be subjective, but everything we view in life is through our subjective minds.

Which is why science seeks to establish "objective reality" by means of repeatable experimentation carried out by a multitude of individuals.

Your "subjective reality" doesn't, for example, change how a TV works!

riverrat writes:

If you ever experienced what I have experienced from God, you would think differently...

Well I haven't, so I won't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by riVeRraT, posted 07-13-2006 7:31 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by riVeRraT, posted 07-13-2006 10:11 AM RickJB has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 26 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 217 of 231 (331431)
07-13-2006 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by CK
07-13-2006 7:36 AM


But then you are involving God.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by CK, posted 07-13-2006 7:36 AM CK has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 26 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 218 of 231 (331434)
07-13-2006 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Percy
07-13-2006 9:20 AM


most creationist scenarios make no sense as science and could only occur through divine intervention.

That is pretty much how I see it, based on what we currently know.

But the name Creation science, means that something, or someone did the creating. I see wikipedia makes a reference to being created from nothing, I don't think that means no-one.

So to me, theolgical creationism, and creation science are one and the same. I am having a hard time diferentiating between the two.

Anyhone who thinks the ark was possible without Gods help is a few cards short of a full deck. That is a made-up thought, because the story clearly involves God. There is no way to even discuss it without involving God. Unless we are just totally disregarding the bible, and making up a story about an ark.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Percy, posted 07-13-2006 9:20 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 26 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 219 of 231 (331435)
07-13-2006 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by RickJB
07-13-2006 9:32 AM


There IS evidence of intelligent life having arisen in the universe

That is not a rebuttal to what I said. I said there is no proof of aliens. That means life foreign to our own.

You don't have to go through all the rhetoric about it, I am a member of SETI@home and donate my computer time, I have been for over 5 years.

The lack of evidence does not keep me from searching, or helping to search, or does it keep me from searching for God.

Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by RickJB, posted 07-13-2006 9:32 AM RickJB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by RickJB, posted 07-13-2006 12:43 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30935
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 220 of 231 (331443)
07-13-2006 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by riVeRraT
07-13-2006 6:47 AM


Waves?
Since seaworthness is part of the topic, this is almost on topic.

riVeRraT asks:

Who said there was waves during the flood anyway?

Sorry riVeRraT but that is just silly. By definition the flood is moving water. Moving water will have waves. In addition, the alleged flood covered objects. By definition when moving water encounters objects there will be disturbances.

No waves, no flood.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by riVeRraT, posted 07-13-2006 6:47 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Mespo, posted 07-13-2006 3:17 PM jar has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16350
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 221 of 231 (331490)
07-13-2006 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by riVeRraT
07-13-2006 6:47 AM


riVeRraT writes:

Who said there was waves during the flood anyway?

You did, in Message 134:

quote:
I also saw a show where they took a model of the ark, and compared to a model of a super tanker, and put them through scale storms.

Storms (and waves) are the subject of this conversation.

Try to rein in those galloping goalposts, will ya?

You need to be a lot more critical of your sources. You should be asking them the questions that people are asking you.

I am!

So you asked the producers of that TV show about the ark flipping end-over-end versus rolling over sideways? What was their answer?


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by riVeRraT, posted 07-13-2006 6:47 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by riVeRraT, posted 07-14-2006 7:57 AM ringo has not yet responded
 Message 231 by lfen, posted 07-15-2006 3:26 AM ringo has not yet responded

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 3097 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 222 of 231 (331497)
07-13-2006 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by riVeRraT
07-13-2006 10:11 AM


riverrat writes:

That is not a rebuttal to what I said. I said there is no proof of aliens. That means life foreign to our own.

"Alien" is a relative term. SETI searches for extra-terrestrial *intelligence*. We are a (reasonably!) intelligent civilization. There may be others.

There is, as yet, no real evidence for any "intelligent" civilization except ourselves, but our very existence demonstrates that it CAN exist. The SETI hypothesis has a clear foundation.

God's very existence, on the other hand, has not been established.

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by riVeRraT, posted 07-13-2006 10:11 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
Mespo
Member (Idle past 992 days)
Posts: 158
From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA
Joined: 09-19-2002


Message 223 of 231 (331541)
07-13-2006 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by jar
07-13-2006 10:27 AM


Canal Lock Analogy
riVeRraT asks:

Who said there was waves during the flood anyway?

Ever see a canal lock in operation, riVeRraT? Pretend for a moment that the canal lock is simulating the "fountains of the deep" that are spewing forth from the bowels of the ocean. Any estute boat operator will place fenders along side the hull to keep his boat from banging into the walls of the lock. Why? Because the force of the water rushing into the lock from the bottom water vents will give any unsecured boat a rough ride. I'm not including wind or rain. Just rushing water in a container that's maybe a 1000 feet long or so and 50+ feet wide. Now apply that concept to a global flood where Planet Earth is the lock and the fountains of the deep are the bottom vents. Still no waves? Really?

BTW - Noah and his crew would be hard pressed to fend off the Ark from crashing into mountain walls as the Earth filled. Try to keep a boat the size and weight of the Ark from smashing itself to pieces with long poles and rope fenders. Remember. No oars or sweeps. No rudder. No Evinrude outboards. Nary a tugboat in sight.

(:raig


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by jar, posted 07-13-2006 10:27 AM jar has not yet responded

    
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 26 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 224 of 231 (331691)
07-14-2006 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by ringo
07-13-2006 12:21 PM


Try to rein in those galloping goalposts, will ya?

I don't have any goalposts to gallop, that is where you are making the mistake. If one is of scientific mind, he will explore all posibilities, and have no absolutes.

To jar mespo and ringo:

I don' think I want to participate in this discussion anymore. I have stated that I do not think it was possible for this whole thing to happen, except by the will of God, and by the protection of God, and with God's help building the ark.

God gave Noah the instructions, He sealed the door, He flooded the earth, and He brought it to rest on a mountain top. That is the way the story goes.

To argue how this could have happened without God is just retarded, and all the points you have mentioned to me, please save them for the kindegarderners who have no clue what it is to be on the water.

So since this forum does not entertain the concept of God as part of the discussion, then every post I made in this thread is OFF-TOPIC.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by ringo, posted 07-13-2006 12:21 PM ringo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Percy, posted 07-14-2006 8:01 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18370
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 225 of 231 (331693)
07-14-2006 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by riVeRraT
07-14-2006 7:57 AM


riVeRraT writes:

To argue how this could have happened without God is just retarded...

While I would have expressed it differently, I find I agree with the sentiments.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by riVeRraT, posted 07-14-2006 7:57 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
11121314
15
16Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019