Noah's Ark found?

[Radrook]

He (She? It?) posted a quote from the bible that had nothing to do with any of the points being raised. I took the time to re-read just in case I had missed anything. If you think I'm being unfair, please let me know how you think that quote answers anything being asked.

I quoted what from the Bible? If indeed I quited it was using the Genesis account about the flood and the ark. How is that not relevant? If we are discussing the ark, then we must take the biblical account into consideration since that is the only record we have of the event. At least that's the record considered historical by both fundamentalist Christians and Muslims.

So you're still not willing to state your position. Gotcha.

I don't see how my opinion is relevant to whether the ark as described in Genesis was seaworthy or not. However, since I read articles describing it as seaworthy, I expect a detailed rebuttal of the details that those articles provide. All I get is generalized rejections and sporadic ridicule which convinces no-one.

That's the position I've been arguing AGAINST. Actually, here - let me just paste your text back in since it applies nicely:

"All I asked was for you to provide some documentation proving that the speciation necessary to produce present biological variety could occur within the Biblically specified time parameters."

And you continue to evade by providing nothing.

Well, since you can't support it even with basic logic I think it's safe to say that that's not how it happened.

But since you are here to illuminate others, why not illuminate me by providing documentation which counters the speciation suggestion given by creationists. Or is it that there is no rebuttal along those lines? If not then their suggestion remains viable.

 

[Ladewig]

Science is good. Scientists are subject to all the foibles of men.

So when diverse scientific fields all agree that the world over 4 billion years old, is that that misfeasance or malfeasance on the part of these foible-filled scientists?

 

[Monketi Ghost]

*catching up*

so... did they find the Ark? Is that done now, a shattering archaeological find?

 

[dafydd]

So when diverse scientific fields all agree that the world over 4 billion years old, is that that misfeasance or malfeasance on the part of these foible-filled scientists?

That is rich,a fundie accusing scientists of having foibles.

 

[Robin]

*catching up*

so... did they find the Ark? Is that done now, a shattering archaeological find?

Yes they did.

And they have also found a solar powered yogi in India who doesn't eat or drink.

 

[SOdhner]

I quoted what from the Bible?

Ah! Now it's clear. You were criticizing me for something without actually even reading the conversation. No, the original quote was from 154. Try having some idea what we're talking about.

I don't see how my opinion is relevant

Not your OPINION, you POSITION. This, right now, isn't a debate. You stated an unsupportable position and then avoided addressing the criticisms of it and further implied that you don't even hold the position you stated. I'm asking you to clarify what it is you are suggesting, because (for example) if nobody here is actually trying to say that evil leprechauns are stealing our women then there's no reason for it to be debated.

However, since I read articles describing it as seaworthy, I expect a detailed rebuttal of the details that those articles provide.

See, that's the exact problem. That's not even what we were talking about. When it WAS what we were talking about (before you went off on speciation) it was very clearly rebutted and shown that the ark could never have been seaworthy.

And you continue to evade by providing nothing.

No, no, that's you. But at this point you've made it clear that you're only barely skimming even your own posts and have no idea what you or anyone else has said. That's not surprising and supports my theory that you are a troll. Which is fine, I have nothing better to do. Clearly.

why not illuminate me by providing documentation which counters the speciation suggestion given by creationists. Or is it that there is no rebuttal along those lines?

Eh. It's been done, but you don't respond. More to the point, it's not my responsibility. I don't need to defend the status quo because you haven't provided anything to defend it against. Give me some sort of support for the evil leprechaun and I'll either counter it or accept it or whatever depending on the evidence. It's YOUR responsibility to make your stance more valid than... no, you know what? You still won't even say what your stance actually is. So there's nothing to debate here. Also, you just randomly reply to things without reading them so I should just talk about comic books or something because it wouldn't make a difference. Also, you're a troll. Also, I think Superman's powers were way too extensive. Made it no fun at all.

 

[tsig]

Yes they did.

And they have also found a solar powered yogi in India who doesn't eat or drink.

Well that would solve the food/water problem just make all the animals live off the rays of the sun.

 

[154]

That is rich,a fundie accusing scientists of having foibles.

What men are foible-free?

Simple question.

 

[tsig]

What men are foible-free?

Simple question.

Jesus.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Yes they did.

And they have also found a solar powered yogi in India who doesn't eat or drink.

Sarcastic. This is getting so disappointing: outrageous claim is made, turns out to be nothing at all, I feel smart and bothered at the same time by the brilliance of my prediction...

 

[kerikiwi]

What men are foible-free?

Simple question.

Do you believe the bible to be literally true?
Simple question. Simpler, in fact, than the one you posed.

 

[dafydd]

What men are foible-free?

Simple question.

What men look at evidence and facts and draw the correct conclusions? Simple question.

 

[Tricky]

Do you believe the bible to be literally true?
Simple question. Simpler, in fact, than the one you posed.

Not quite specific enough though. More precisely, does 154 belive everything in the bible to be literally true? All of Genesis (including the two different creation accounts), all of Exodus (including the two different sets of Ten Commandments), all of Leviticus (Including the things about killing people who work on the Sabbath and how it's okay to sell your daughter into slavery), all of Isaiah, (including the existence of dragons), and all of Revelation, (including what most closely resembles an opium dream)?

If so, the we may want to address a few contradictions.

 

[Radrook]

Ah! Now it's clear. You were criticizing me for something without actually even reading the conversation. No, the original quote was from 154. Try having some idea what we're talking about.



Not your OPINION, you POSITION. This, right now, isn't a debate. You stated an unsupportable position and then avoided addressing the criticisms of it and further implied that you don't even hold the position you stated. I'm asking you to clarify what it is you are suggesting, because (for example) if nobody here is actually trying to say that evil leprechauns are stealing our women then there's no reason for it to be debated.



See, that's the exact problem. That's not even what we were talking about. When it WAS what we were talking about (before you went off on speciation) it was very clearly rebutted and shown that the ark could never have been seaworthy.



No, no, that's you. But at this point you've made it clear that you're only barely skimming even your own posts and have no idea what you or anyone else has said. That's not surprising and supports my theory that you are a troll. Which is fine, I have nothing better to do. Clearly.



Eh. It's been done, but you don't respond. More to the point, it's not my responsibility. I don't need to defend the status quo because you haven't provided anything to defend it against. Give me some sort of support for the evil leprechaun and I'll either counter it or accept it or whatever depending on the evidence. It's YOUR responsibility to make your stance more valid than... no, you know what? You still won't even say what your stance actually is. So there's nothing to debate here. Also, you just randomly reply to things without reading them so I should just talk about comic books or something because it wouldn't make a difference. Also, you're a troll. Also, I think Superman's powers were way too extensive. Made it no fun at all.

I agree. If you think I'm a troll then the right thing to do is terminate the disscussion. No problem.

 

[Radrook]

That can be like throwing out the babe with the bathwater or overkill.

 

[Tricky]

I quoted what from the Bible? If indeed I quited it was using the Genesis account about the flood and the ark. How is that not relevant? If we are discussing the ark, then we must take the biblical account into consideration since that is the only record we have of the event. At least that's the record considered historical by both fundamentalist Christians and Muslims.

It's not exactly a "record" of the event though, is it? It is a story of a flood, borrowing heavily from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Sure, both Christians and Muslims believe it because they use many of the same texts, both being Abrahamic religions. Whether it has any basis in actual events is not easy to ascertain, but it is pretty much clear from writings in other places that the idea of a worldwide flood is not at all universal. I do not doubt that there were large floods in history. Certainly none covered the whole earth. That much is easy to prove. But to an uninformed scribe who probably never travelled more than a few hundred miles from home in their whole life, "all the earth" is a very relative term.

I give them a pass for being ignorant. It wasn't their fault. I don't give a pass to people who believe, without skepticism, the writings of ignorant people many centuries ago. Modern people have no excuse for such ignorance.

To call it the early book of Abrahamic religions "historical" is a great and unjustifiable leap of faith. "Legendary" is a much better fit.

 

[Marduk]

Well that would solve the food/water problem just make all the animals live off the rays of the sun.

but but but, the Ark had a roof

 

[edge]

It's not exactly a "record" of the event though, is it? It is a story of a flood, borrowing heavily from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Sure, both Christians and Muslims believe it because they use many of the same texts, both being Abrahamic religions. Whether it has any basis in actual events is not easy to ascertain, but it is pretty much clear from writings in other places that the idea of a worldwide flood is not at all universal. I do not doubt that there were large floods in history. Certainly none covered the whole earth. That much is easy to prove. But to an uninformed scribe who probably never travelled more than a few hundred miles from home in their whole life, "all the earth" is a very relative term.

I give them a pass for being ignorant. It wasn't their fault. I don't give a pass to people who believe, without skepticism, the writings of ignorant people many centuries ago. Modern people have no excuse for such ignorance.

To call it the early book of Abrahamic religions "historical" is a great and unjustifiable leap of faith. "Legendary" is a much better fit.

In bold I think you have that part wrong, they had the Genesis account before they were captured and if compared they kind of say the same thing but not quit so who borrowed from who?
Or did they both know some of what happened?
2nd part in bold, sure they didn't know all of what we do today but they weren’t as dumb as you want to portray.
They weren’t all shepherds.

 

[edge]

Jesus.

Good answer.

 

[Marduk]

In bold I think you have that part wrong, they had the Genesis account before they were captured and if compared they kind of say the same thing but not quit so who borrowed from who?
Or did they both know some of what happened?
2nd part in bold, sure they didn't know all of what we do today but they weren’t as dumb as you want to portray.
They weren’t all shepherds.

The Genesis account does not predate that of Gilgamesh. for several reasons it was impossible for the Hebrews to have had the flood account of Noah before the diaspora

I'll go into those details when you answer this very simple question edge
is this familiar to you ?

When a seventh day arrived. I sent forth a dove and released it.
The dove went off, but came back to me; no perch was visible so it circled back to me.
I sent forth a raven and released it. The raven went off, and saw the waters slither back. It eats, it scratches, it bobs, but does not circle back to me.