• 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:
I think there is truth in that, but it isn't quite correct. They want it taught in schools because they really think it is a real, valid, theory of the history of the world. Pwengthold's explanation is that they try to avoid the miraculous explanation because they know that only a scientific explanation can be taught, but I think their problem is a little bit deeper than that. If it were a simple legal conundrum, they would address it differently.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. For example, do you really think anyone changed their belief about creationism as they changed all the references to "creationism" to "intelligent design" in The Panda's Thumb? Not in the bloody least. They only did it because they knew creationism wouldn't pass the legal test, and hoped by calling it ID they could get it through. Despite the fact that not a lick of the supposed science in the book was changed.
 
Radrook said:
No my friend. Current speculations and efforts are attemting to form theiries which will explain what caused the Big Bang. And if something CAUSED the BIG BAng, then there was obviously somnething BEFORE the BIg Bang. Look it up in Google and see for yourself. Look under "branes" twelve dimensions. Or Big Bang and branes.
Click to expand...

I'm fully aware of colliding branes hypotheses. There's also other hypotheses that do not require such things, there's efforts to smooth out the singularity, ideas that don't require a singularity, hypothesis that don't have a "before" the big bang at all, and even ones that involve a universe creating child universes where one of the child universes happens to be itself (closed timelike curves).

You say "No my friend.", but then what you describe (colliding branes) falls within my set of questions, "how did the universe get into the state it was in at t=0".

My point was imply that using words like "cause" and "before" are related to time, and those words may not have any meaning when talking about how the universe got to the state it was in at the beginning of the big bang. Or even if there was a beginning to the big bang.
 
Radrook said:
BTW
The info I posted was in response to the claim that the 16 billion year universe age had never been proposed. As you can see, it had been repeatedly proposed. The question is how did that proposition manage to get past you?
Click to expand...

You said you had seen 16 billion years been proposed repeatedly, and as I already said in the links you provided the 16 billion figure was only mentioned once in an article from 1974. All the others talked about wide ranges.

So no 16 billion hadn't been repeatedly proposed in the info you posted.

I already said all this.
 
pgwenthold said:
I don't think so. For example, do you really think anyone changed their belief about creationism as they changed all the references to "creationism" to "intelligent design" in The Panda's Thumb? Not in the bloody least. They only did it because they knew creationism wouldn't pass the legal test, and hoped by calling it ID they could get it through. Despite the fact that not a lick of the supposed science in the book was changed.
Click to expand...

That's an example of how they kept their beliefs, but tried to get around a legal issue. "Creationism" was out, by law, so they slapped a fresh coat of paint on it and hoped for the best, and lost.

I'm saying that's not what they are doing by avoiding the miraculous intervention as a means of keeping the animals alive on the ark. The difference is subtle, and maybe not so important, but I'll try to explain what I mean. Your explanation seems to be that they want to avoid resorting to saying "miracle" because that would keep it out of schools. In other words, you think that they believe the animal survival was miraculous, but they don't want to say it because the courts would frown on such teachings.

I don't think that's it. I think their reluctance to address it is due to the fact that it undermines their very belief. They believe that the flood story is real. The question about animal survival attacks their belief, quite independent of any legal issues related to teaching it in school. The fact that the animals could not possibly have survived on an ark like the one that is described in Genesis suggests that having Noah build a boat to save the animals was an empty gesture with no purpose. That undermines the Biblical narrative.
 
Meadmaker said:
I don't think that's it. I think their reluctance to address it is due to the fact that it undermines their very belief. They believe that the flood story is real. The question about animal survival attacks their belief, quite independent of any legal issues related to teaching it in school. The fact that the animals could not possibly have survived on an ark like the one that is described in Genesis suggests that having Noah build a boat to save the animals was an empty gesture with no purpose. That undermines the Biblical narrative.
Click to expand...

I had never thought of that angle, but it is spot on.
 
Tricky said:
Tell that to the bees. (And how did the bees survive anyway?)
Click to expand...

Honey floats so the bees survived on floating masses of honey. (waves hand)

Besides bees don't breathe. (having it both ways)
 
Meadmaker said:
I'm saying that's not what they are doing by avoiding the miraculous intervention as a means of keeping the animals alive on the ark. The difference is subtle, and maybe not so important, but I'll try to explain what I mean. Your explanation seems to be that they want to avoid resorting to saying "miracle" because that would keep it out of schools. In other words, you think that they believe the animal survival was miraculous, but they don't want to say it because the courts would frown on such teachings.

I don't think that's it.
Click to expand...

Obviously I disagree.

You've already acknowledged that they have no problem doctoring language to try to make it legally palatable, without affecting belief. So why should we have to come up with another explanation?
 
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...

We have? Cite some source for these +/- several billion years.
 
Marduk said:
They have that covered, After being booted from the garden Eve made it to Africa where she died
innit
:D
Click to expand...

That still won't cover Noah. If the flood story is real, then all roads of human genetic drift must lead back to Mt. Ararat.
 
pgwenthold said:
Obviously I disagree.

You've already acknowledged that they have no problem doctoring language to try to make it legally palatable, without affecting belief. So why should we have to come up with another explanation?
Click to expand...

Your explanation emphasizes deception and a hidden agenda. Mine emphasizes avoidance and an unwillingness to examine contradictions.

Clearly, both are present, and in differing degrees from one individual to the next.

We could ask the flood believers themselves, but alas, they choose not to answer, which is what forces us into this speculation.
 
Marduk said:
Its all a bit moot anyway, the flood story in Gilgamesh is well known to be an extract copied from Atrahasis, which although practically line for line the same doesn't have a global flood, but a riverine flood, only affecting land along the Tigris and Euphrates, so the further you go back into Mesopotamian flood narratives the less need there is for anyone to worry about global fauna
Click to expand...

Cool stuff.
 
Meadmaker said:
Your explanation emphasizes deception and a hidden agenda.
Click to expand...

And as I said, I have precedence for it. I'm not speculating at all. We KNOW that creationists will use deception as an attempt to pass off creationism as science.
 
You think it's a joke? You want to encounter Satan? Try opposing him for a change. And then ask him, we've met. He knows me.
 
Last edited:
154 said:
Try opposing him for a change.
Click to expand...

I am unclear what you mean by this. Would you elaborate?





. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ETA: Also. There are tens of thousands of biologists who unanimously claim that there was no recent genetic bottle neck in humans or any animal on the face of the Earth. When they provide this type of evidence against a world-wide flood, are their results to be dismissed because of misfeasance or malfeasance?
 
Last edited:
154 said:
You think it's a joke? You want to encounter Satan? Try opposing him for a change. And then ask him, we've met. He knows me.
Click to expand...

Yes. I think it's a joke.

I gave Satan a big fat one-finger wave. I even faxed him a picture of my hand giving him the bird.

See? Satan didn't do jack schitt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom