• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Noah's Ark found?

Meadmaker said:
So, why all this claptrap about baby animals and "kinds" and postdeluvian microvelotion acceleration? Why not, "I don't know how he did it. It was a miracle."
Click to expand...

This is easy. Recall the whole reason for doing any of this is to get creationism taught in schools. However, they know very well that a religious approach of "it's a miracle" means that it can't be taught in public school. Therefore, they twist themselves backwards to try to find a scientific explanation so that they don't have to invoke a miracle.

If creationism were about what is taught in church, there wouldn't be a single issue. No one would care. But it is when they try to get it taught in school that the problems arise.
 
Vortigern99
If the answer to all the contradictions and physical impossibilities in the Flood account is "miracle! miracle! miracle!", that's fine -- a believer is entitled to their beliefs, irrespective of the factual evidence.

For all I know, any believer with whom I engage in a debate might need the idea of God, however unsupportable such a belief is, to help them lead a satisfying and compassionate life. Who am I to disabuse them of their irrational viewpoint? I can offer some information or some links if they're interested in the science of any matter at hand, but I hold no vehemence or disregard for those who choose to reject supportable facts, and hold instead to their faith.

With that said, what indeed is the purpose of trying to back up the patently absurd pronouncements in the Bible with physical "evidence" and attempts at logic? There is no logic in the miraculous; no evidence of the impossible. There is no need to point to an ancient hunk of wood, or a sunken city, or a fossil, and say: "Look! The Flood happened!" -- because objectively none of those things support any such assertion. The science of the matter is utterly damning. The only recourse for faith is to leave science out of it altogether.

From the 65-mya iridium layer, to the taxonomic and genetic problems of "kinds", to the total impossibilities of 8 people caring for the needs of thousands or millions of plants and animals, etc. etc. etc., the Flood simply cannot have happened in the world as we understand it according to empirical science. One can exclaim "Miracle!" to hand-wave any objection raised on scientific (geological, biological, engineering, etc.) grounds, but that is an appeal to the supernatural, a logical fallacy which could be made to support any proposition, no matter how implausible.

For example:

It's a miracle that I, Noah David Henson, am in fact a reincarnation of the Prophet Noah, sent back to 21st century America to challenge true believers to find the faithful among you all! Repent now and send me a jillion dollars! My evidence is that my first name is Noah, my second is another biblical king (from whose line I am of course descended), and my last name means "Son of God" in Anglicized Welsh. Ergo, I am a Prophet. Evidence leads to faith. It is written in the Book of Revelation etc. etc. argumenta ad authoritas, "miracle miracle miracle," send me a jillion dollars, miracle!

On the other hand, since there is no rational basis for accepting these wild statements as factual, you can safely reject them all as the steaming heap of poppycock that they are. It's the same thing with the Flood: There is no factual basis for accepting these wild statement, in Genesis or from the many creationist commentators who seek to "prove" it on putative evidential grounds. You can believe them all if you like, and hand-wave away all peer-reviewed, verified and corroborated science on the question that decimates creationist "proofs". But you cannot have both science and faith; in this case, especially, science and faith are mutually exclusive. No appeal to one will satisfy the demands of the other.

/soapbox
Click to expand...

Thank you I for one really enjoyed "the Soapbox" :D
 
dlorde said:
Current theory and observations suggest that the universe is 13.75 ±0.17 billion years old, not 16 billion.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, I have heard that 16-billion possibility repeatedly suggested. One thing to keep in mind is that what we have are approximations, give or take several billion years.
 
pgwenthold said:
This is easy. Recall the whole reason for doing any of this is to get creationism taught in schools. However, they know very well that a religious approach of "it's a miracle" means that it can't be taught in public school. Therefore, they twist themselves backwards to try to find a scientific explanation so that they don't have to invoke a miracle.

If creationism were about what is taught in church, there wouldn't be a single issue. No one would care. But it is when they try to get it taught in school that the problems arise.
Click to expand...

I don't find the teaching of a scientific approach to an attempted explanation of an ID offensive at all. I do find many of the unfounded evolutionist assertions taught as irrefutable fact and later unceremoniously discarded very offensive though. Don't you?
 
rorylee said:
hell yea, about time!!!

the days of Jesus returning will be like the days of Noah and God promised he would never flood the earth again - I blame HAARP!

But hey, at least it didn't crash on the great barrier reef!
Click to expand...

Blame yourself!
This is what I mean by reading things out of context. Jesus clearly explains just how the last days he mentions would be just like Noah's, and it had nothing to do with a deluge. Why do you misrepresent? Too lazy to read?
 
Again, Radrook and 154, will you accept the findings of science regarding human genetics? If not, why not?
 
Radrook said:
Hmmmm, I have heard that 16-billion possibility repeatedly suggested. One thing to keep in mind is that what we have are approximations, give or take several billion years.
Click to expand...

No, not give or take several billion years... the post you quoted had the range already listed and the give or take is in millions, not billions.

Where have you heard 16 billion repeatedly suggested?
 
Is the point that, if the universe is 16 billion years old, then Noah's ark really existed and has now been found?
 
Radrook said:
I don't find the teaching of a scientific approach to an attempted explanation of an ID offensive at all. I do find many of the unfounded evolutionist assertions taught as irrefutable fact and later unceremoniously discarded very offensive though. Don't you?
Click to expand...

Regardless of the motive, you still haven't addressed what led to the question that pwengthold was answering.

Let me try it again, slightly clarified.

Eight people cannot care for tens of thousands of animals, representing every kind of animal on the planet, on a three deck boat with no electricity, for fourty days and fourty nights, plus whatever time is required to wait for the waters to dry up until they land on a newly emerged mountaintop. In order to sustain the lives of those animals, miraculous assistance would be required.

More miraculous assistance would be required to gather and disperse those animals.

You do agree with that, don't you? The care, feeding, gathering, and repopulating of the animals was not a natural phenomenon. Clearly, God had to take an active hand in it.

Is there anyone, believer or nonbeliever, who thinks otherwise?
 
temporalillusion said:
No, not give or take several billion years... the post you quoted had the range already listed and the give or take is in millions, not billions.

Where have you heard 16 billion repeatedly suggested?
Click to expand...

Question
Show me another »
Why is the universe 15 billion years old?
Why not 16? Why not 15 trillion? Why not 4 million?

From what I can gather, when the big bang occurred, the universe came into existence around 15 billion years ago. But what happened before this time?

http://www.google.com/search?source...ox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7ACAW_enUS378US378


The age of 4.54 billion years found for the Solar System and Earth is consistent with current calculations of 11 to 13 billion years for the age of the Milky Way Galaxy (based on the stage of evolution of globular cluster stars) and the age of 10 to 15 billion years for the age of the Universe (based on the recession of distant galaxies).
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html


Age of the UniverseEvolutionary astronomers confidently argue the universe is 12-20 billion years old, ... that the universe is somewhere between 7 and 16 billion years old. ... About 20 years ago, Halton Arp and John Bahcall published a debate in The ...
ldolphin.org/univ-age.html

.Begining of the UniverseThe universe as astronomers have calculated borned between 8 and 16 billion years ago. It is formed probably 15000 million(15 billion) years ago.
library.thinkquest.org/21008/data/universe/begin.htm - Cached - Similar

Universe Age Estimated At 16 Billion Years .
Universe age estimated at 16 billion years . LA times-washington Post Service . PASADENA, Calif. - The universe was created 1 6 billion year ago, ...
news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1951&dat=19741222&id...


Estimated Age of Milky Way


Scientist refines cosmic clock to determine age of Milky WayJun 29, 2005 ... The University of Chicago's Nicolas Dauphas has estimated the age of the Milky Way at approximately 14.5 billion years by combining ...
www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/05/050629.milkyway.shtml

Estimated Globular Custer Age
The oldest globular clusters contain only stars less massive than 0.7 solar masses. These low mass stars are much dimmer than the Sun. This observation suggests that the oldest globular clusters are between 11 and 18 billion years old.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080730215515AA6bT4A
 
Last edited:
Radrook said:
Question
Show me another »
Why is the universe 15 billion years old?
Why not 16? Why not 15 trillion? Why not 4 million?

From what I can gather, when the big bang occurred, the universe came into existence around 15 billion years ago. But what happened before this time?

http://www.google.com/search?source...ox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7ACAW_enUS378US378


The age of 4.54 billion years found for the Solar System and Earth is consistent with current calculations of 11 to 13 billion years for the age of the Milky Way Galaxy (based on the stage of evolution of globular cluster stars) and the age of 10 to 15 billion years for the age of the Universe (based on the recession of distant galaxies).
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html


Age of the UniverseEvolutionary astronomers confidently argue the universe is 12-20 billion years old, ... that the universe is somewhere between 7 and 16 billion years old. ... About 20 years ago, Halton Arp and John Bahcall published a debate in The ...
ldolphin.org/univ-age.html

.Begining of the UniverseThe universe as astronomers have calculated borned between 8 and 16 billion years ago. It is formed probably 15000 million(15 billion) years ago.
library.thinkquest.org/21008/data/universe/begin.htm - Cached - Similar

Universe Age Estimated At 16 Billion Years .
Universe age estimated at 16 billion years . LA times-washington Post Service . PASADENA, Calif. - The universe was created 1 6 billion year ago, ...
news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1951&dat=19741222&id...


Estimated Age of Milky Way


Scientist refines cosmic clock to determine age of Milky WayJun 29, 2005 ... The University of Chicago's Nicolas Dauphas has estimated the age of the Milky Way at approximately 14.5 billion years by combining ...
www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/05/050629.milkyway.shtml

Estimated Globular Custer Age
The oldest globular clusters contain only stars less massive than 0.7 solar masses. These low mass stars are much dimmer than the Sun. This observation suggests that the oldest globular clusters are between 11 and 18 billion years old.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080730215515AA6bT4A
Click to expand...

And this shows that the story of Noah's ark is true how?
 
Get up to date Radrook.

The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has shown the age of the Universe to be 13.73 +/-0.12 billion years. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Asking what happened before the Big Bang is a pointless question, because time is defined by the Universe's existence. It's like asking "What's north of the North Pole?"
 
kerikiwi said:
And this shows that the story of Noah's ark is true how?
Click to expand...

I think it goes back to 154's post #834:

154 said:
Concerning time and age of the universe.

Food for thought, or not.

http://www.khouse.org/articles/1999/245/

It is the incredible expanse that leads to the difficulties in reconciling the astronomical distances with time as we know it here on the earth. Gerald Schroeder has suggested that the expansion factor is well known from a number of quantum physics considerations as approximately 1012. Sixteen billion years (a commonly suggested age of the universe) is about 6,000,000,000,000 days: applying the 1012 expansion factor results in about 6 days! It all depends on whose clock you're looking at!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I don't see 16 billion repeatedly suggested, I see a bunch of sources with varying ranges.

Only one source actually says 16 billion, a newspaper article from 1974.

So this doesn't really meet "16 billion possibility repeatedly suggested" statement since only one specifically say 16 billion. You would have been more accurate to say you've seen ranges of values from various sources many of which are seriously out of date.

As wollery has shown, the most up to date information is more accurate.

Radrook said:
Question
Show me another »
Why is the universe 15 billion years old?
Why not 16? Why not 15 trillion? Why not 4 million?

From what I can gather, when the big bang occurred, the universe came into existence around 15 billion years ago. But what happened before this time?

http://www.google.com/search?source...ox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7ACAW_enUS378US378


The age of 4.54 billion years found for the Solar System and Earth is consistent with current calculations of 11 to 13 billion years for the age of the Milky Way Galaxy (based on the stage of evolution of globular cluster stars) and the age of 10 to 15 billion years for the age of the Universe (based on the recession of distant galaxies).
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html


Age of the UniverseEvolutionary astronomers confidently argue the universe is 12-20 billion years old, ... that the universe is somewhere between 7 and 16 billion years old. ... About 20 years ago, Halton Arp and John Bahcall published a debate in The ...
ldolphin.org/univ-age.html

.Begining of the UniverseThe universe as astronomers have calculated borned between 8 and 16 billion years ago. It is formed probably 15000 million(15 billion) years ago.
library.thinkquest.org/21008/data/universe/begin.htm - Cached - Similar

Universe Age Estimated At 16 Billion Years .
Universe age estimated at 16 billion years . LA times-washington Post Service . PASADENA, Calif. - The universe was created 1 6 billion year ago, ...
news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1951&dat=19741222&id...


Estimated Age of Milky Way


Scientist refines cosmic clock to determine age of Milky WayJun 29, 2005 ... The University of Chicago's Nicolas Dauphas has estimated the age of the Milky Way at approximately 14.5 billion years by combining ...
www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/05/050629.milkyway.shtml

Estimated Globular Custer Age
The oldest globular clusters contain only stars less massive than 0.7 solar masses. These low mass stars are much dimmer than the Sun. This observation suggests that the oldest globular clusters are between 11 and 18 billion years old.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080730215515AA6bT4A
Click to expand...
 
wollery said:
Get up to date Radrook.

The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has shown the age of the Universe to be 13.73 +/-0.12 billion years. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Asking what happened before the Big Bang is a pointless question, because time is defined by the Universe's existence. It's like asking "What's north of the North Pole?"
Click to expand...

If it's a pointless question why are physicists always asking it and coming up with plausible answers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom