Noah's Ark found?

[Iamme]

Translation:

Special pleading, arguments from incredulity, arguments to authority, appeal to supernatural to explain the personally incomprehensible. Red herrings. Lack of scientific understanding, laziness overriding capacity to independently research and verify claims, mind closed against the standards of evidence and the scientific method. In short: Unsupportable hogwash.

Cant' you read? What don't you get about the baking of a pie analogy. Yes, we know that it had to happen somehow. You stated your case showing no more than it happened. So what?! But stuff just doesn't happen without design or purpose. If that were the case - schools, skyscrapers and roads would build themselves without blueprints and 'worker bees', so to speak.

Just because it is chemical, you give it a free pass - meaning then it can make stuff by itself? Who designed the chemicals?! Who designed the proportions?! Who said X could even combine with Y, but not Z? Luck?

You think it is luck that one supreme creature(us) on this Earth evolved by lucky circumstance, so that it can actually see and hear(radio telescopes) the beginning of the creation of the Universe from where man cameth? Doesn't that strike you as just a bit too much? Isn't it far easier to believe there is some entity that is of a higher power than us, or the Universe, that wants us to see and hear, even smell, what all was made for us? Why do you think this is woo? It is more woo to believe in luck!!! than account for billions of interactions allowing everything to line up in such a fashion that it all works the way it all does. And it does not JUST work, as in survival work. No - it works in a way that makes things easier on us(think gearing-leverage, for one example...like giant cranes, bulldozers, etc.) and pleasurable(think Tahiti - airconditioning - popsicles - watermellon - perfume on wife - sex...........). Pleasure cannot evolve. Evolution does not prove there is no God. Check mate. You lose. You can' t win me on this. Sorry. I am an angel sent here by God. To many strange things in my life that say I am blessed by God, beyond any chance of luck.

Vortigern, you may not have ever read this, but years ago I ran into what I believe was a real angel. This was at a time in my life when I was writing a book on the reason it was so silly to believe in God and the Bible. He pulled his car over next to me while I worked outside, and I knew everyone who lived on the island. He said he was from a place down there (as he pointed). For some odd reason, our initial friendly greetings turned into a feverish religious debate - as I was agnostic. He then immediately, without hesitation, explained to me how gravity works. He did not even have to think. He did not grin either, like he was funning me or something. He was very matter of fact - yet kept his friendly countenance. Never saw the guy again, after this, even though he said he was from down the road (a dead end).

If you have the luxury someday to be on your deathbed, I can guarantee you that you will be thinking about a God then. I guarantee. I witnessed this happen with my dying atheist grandpa!

 

[Iamme]

......idiots like Iamme, Radrook, and 154,.................
Their posts serve only to scare away those who might still be made sane.

Then they are of little knowledge or faith.

 

[Iamme]

Duplicate post.

 

[John Jones]

All your arguments are based on your assumption that ... ignorant of the scientific method .

You have demonstrated that you are utterly and shockingly ignorant of the discipline of science.

 

[John Jones]

Then they are of little knowledge or faith.

Do you have anything besides an argument from incredulity?

 

[Iamme]

Why is it taking you this long to rebutt? Need more time to think? I need no time. Answers are fluid and instant, as I know what the truth is. It is now obvious to me. When I was young (from 14 to my thirties), it wasn't so. Now it is. I have lived more years, continously thinking..... and I have made a career of problem solving everything( I build and fix everything). The more I have thought this subject through, and heard the counter-arguments, I have chose that it is more believable to believe that a higher power made this all, than to believe it somehow just happened simply because it did.

I have considered, in all fairness to you atheists, that it is at least a plausible argument to believe in say spontaneous creation that improved upon itself toward the complex, simply because if it did NOT progress toward the complex, it would only progress the opposite way toward annihalation. Sort of on the order on how when someone is 'down' the only way they can go is 'up'. The trouble is with this thinking is even though this might explain all or part of evolutionary progression, from a philosophical standpoint, in answering the 'how come?' part...it does not answer the other stuff(a few things like I brought up in earlier post), and the way all the workings are intertwined and/or reliant on each other.

 

[John Jones]

You haven't offered anything worthy of rebuttal.

Verbose Appeal to Ignorance fallacies collapse under their own weight.

Your rant about 'spontneous creation' and 'progress the opposite way toward anihalation'
is a strawman argument, as best as I can tell.

 

[Tricky]

Cant' you read? What don't you get about the baking of a pie analogy. Yes, we know that it had to happen somehow. You stated your case showing no more than it happened. So what?! But stuff just doesn't happen without design or purpose. If that were the case - schools, skyscrapers and roads would build themselves without blueprints and 'worker bees', so to speak.

This is a statement of purest faith. You are saying that because Man has designed things, everything must be designed. This belies a sort of self-worship for the power of intelligence. Yes, intelligence can do a lot, but it is not required for the generation of incredibly complex systems. Time is more important.

Just because it is chemical, you give it a free pass - meaning then it can make stuff by itself? Who designed the chemicals?! Who designed the proportions?! Who said X could even combine with Y, but not Z? Luck?

There is no evidence that they were "designed" by anyone. They could form because they are stable configurations. I realize that you have a hard time wrapping your mind around this concept though.

You think it is luck that one supreme creature(us) on this Earth evolved by lucky circumstance, so that it can actually see and hear(radio telescopes) the beginning of the creation of the Universe from where man cameth?

I think it is telling that you regard yourself and your species as the "supreme creature". Don't be so proud of your big brain. Evolutionarily speaking, it is a baby. Lots of other organisms and survival methods have been around much longer.

And no, it's not "luck". That does not mean it was planned.

Doesn't that strike you as just a bit too much? Isn't it far easier to believe there is some entity that is of a higher power than us, or the Universe, that wants us to see and hear, even smell, what all was made for us?

Sure it's easier to believe. That's why it's popular with people who don't like to think too much or study the evidence. They base their "truth" on their gut feelings.

Why do you think this is woo? It is more woo to believe in luck!!!

It is woo because it has no basis in evidence. To say that believers in the unassisted evolution of the universe think it is "luck" betrays a deep ignorance of their thought process, or to put it more simply, it is a strawman.

Evolution does not prove there is no God. Check mate. You lose. You can' t win me on this. Sorry. I am an angel sent here by God. To many strange things in my life that say I am blessed by God, beyond any chance of luck.

You are correct about one thing, that Evolution does not prove there is no God. Evolution is a science, and science only deals with things for which there is evidence. Many scientists believe in God, but most of them separate their religious views from their scientific studies. You are free to believe in God as much as you like. But if you are trying to show scientifically how something happened, the question of God is irrelevant.

But as you say, you cannot be won on this issue. Your mind is made up. Others may see the folly of your own self-importance (Really? You think you are an angel?) and realize how arrogant you sound.

Vortigern, you may not have ever read this, but years ago I ran into what I believe was a real angel. This was at a time in my life when I was writing a book on the reason it was so silly to believe in God and the Bible. He pulled his car over next to me while I worked outside, and I knew everyone who lived on the island. He said he was from a place down there (as he pointed). For some odd reason, our initial friendly greetings turned into a feverish religious debate - as I was agnostic. He then immediately, without hesitation, explained to me how gravity works. He did not even have to think. He did not grin either, like he was funning me or something. He was very matter of fact - yet kept his friendly countenance. Never saw the guy again, after this, even though he said he was from down the road (a dead end).

Good. Then you can tell us how gravity works. Give it a go. Perhaps in a new thread though.

If you have the luxury someday to be on your deathbed, I can guarantee you that you will be thinking about a God then. I guarantee. I witnessed this happen with my dying atheist grandpa!

There was a poster many years ago named Jedi Knight who made exactly this kind of statement. And it is true that as people come closer to death and become more scared (and no doubt, death is scary) they start making up stories. But not all. We recently had a story from Piggy, who came very close to death during an operation (he was conscious at the time) and had no experience such as you describe. But even he had, it would not be evidence of the truth of whatever he believed in during that near-death moment, only that he was scared.

 

[Vortigern99]

Cant' you read?

Ad hominem, defamatory and demonstrably false. You're off to a poor start.

What don't you get about the baking of a pie analogy.

What don't you "get" about the logical fallacies of the straw man argument and false analogy? I accept evidence, not unsupportable conjecture. Concluding that a pie made itself would be as absurd as concluding that an invisible man in the sky made the universe.

Yes, we know that it had to happen somehow. You stated your case showing no more than it happened. So what?! But stuff just doesn't happen without design or purpose. If that were the case - schools, skyscrapers and roads would build themselves without blueprints and 'worker bees', so to speak.

Argument from personal incredulity; appeal to the supernatural.

Just because it is chemical, you give it a free pass - meaning then it can make stuff by itself? Who designed the chemicals?! Who designed the proportions?! Who said X could even combine with Y, but not Z? Luck?

These are excellent questions! I suggest you study chemistry and physics in an effort to answer them, rather than accepting the unsupportable contention that an invisible being is somehow responsible.

You think it is luck that one supreme creature(us) on this Earth evolved by lucky circumstance, so that it can actually see and hear(radio telescopes) the beginning of the creation of the Universe from where man cameth? Doesn't that strike you as just a bit too much? Isn't it far easier to believe there is some entity that is of a higher power than us, or the Universe, that wants us to see and hear, even smell, what all was made for us? Why do you think this is woo? It is more woo to believe in luck!!! than account for billions of interactions allowing everything to line up in such a fashion that it all works the way it all does. And it does not JUST work, as in survival work. No - it works in a way that makes things easier on us(think gearing-leverage, for one example...like giant cranes, bulldozers, etc.) and pleasurable(think Tahiti - airconditioning - popsicles - watermellon - perfume on wife - sex...........). Pleasure cannot evolve. Evolution does not prove there is no God. Check mate. You lose. You can' t win me on this. Sorry. I am an angel sent here by God. To many strange things in my life that say I am blessed by God, beyond any chance of luck.

More arguments from incredulity, ignorance, and appeals to the supernatural. To answer your first question: No. "Luck" is not the word I would use to describe the workings of thermodynamics, chemistry or physics. Also, "cameth" is not a word. The past tense of "come" is "came", even in the Middle English you're attempting to use to seem biblical and authoritative. Hint: It isn't working.

Vortigern, you may not have ever read this, but years ago I ran into what I believe was a real angel. This was at a time in my life when I was writing a book on the reason it was so silly to believe in God and the Bible. He pulled his car over next to me while I worked outside, and I knew everyone who lived on the island. He said he was from a place down there (as he pointed). For some odd reason, our initial friendly greetings turned into a feverish religious debate - as I was agnostic. He then immediately, without hesitation, explained to me how gravity works. He did not even have to think. He did not grin either, like he was funning me or something. He was very matter of fact - yet kept his friendly countenance. Never saw the guy again, after this, even though he said he was from down the road (a dead end).

If you have the luxury someday to be on your deathbed, I can guarantee you that you will be thinking about a God then. I guarantee. I witnessed this happen with my dying atheist grandpa!

You're welcome to believe as you like. It's clear that you need the idea of God for whatever reason, and that's fine -- but there's no objective evidence that He/She/It exists, no way to verify the claim that He/She/It created the universe or (to bring this back around to the topic) sent the Flood -- or indeed that the Flood ever happened.

Addressing the evidence from a vast number of scientific disciplines, it's clear the Flood did not happen. Of course, you'll continue to believe that it did, and ascribe "miracles" across the board to explain what doesn't fit or make any rational sense. I wish you the best in that endeavor, and I hope that your delusions of angelic beings driving cars and explaining gravity lead you to be a kinder and more compassionate person. Good luck!

 

[TimCallahan]

. . . .Vortigern, you may not have ever read this, but years ago I ran into what I believe was a real angel. This was at a time in my life when I was writing a book on the reason it was so silly to believe in God and the Bible. He pulled his car over next to me while I worked outside, and I knew everyone who lived on the island. He said he was from a place down there (as he pointed). For some odd reason, our initial friendly greetings turned into a feverish religious debate - as I was agnostic. He then immediately, without hesitation, explained to me how gravity works. He did not even have to think. He did not grin either, like he was funning me or something. He was very matter of fact - yet kept his friendly countenance. Never saw the guy again, after this, even though he said he was from down the road (a dead end).

If you have the luxury someday to be on your deathbed, I can guarantee you that you will be thinking about a God then. I guarantee. I witnessed this happen with my dying atheist grandpa!

Three questions com to mind (see hilited areas):

1) Where are all the angels that haven't visited the rest of us?

2) So what did he say about how gravity works that science hasn't explained?

3) Would I be right in assuming, then, that your dying atheist grandpa was, at that moment, saved?

 

[Meadmaker]

And you guys think YOU are the intelligent ones, while me and 154 are idiots. Even though it is us who knows how to connect the dots! And it is millions or billions of dots!...all pointing to a supreme intelligent force or creator.

Well, fine. That's all very well, but it's not really the topic of this thread, is it?

This thread started with a discusion about a claim of discovery of a boat on Mount Ararat. I would think that veering into a discussion about the plausibility of a boat up there as a consequence of a worldwide deluge would be considered on topic, or at least normal topic drift. Even a discussion of Biblical literacy in general would probably fit the bill, since it has bearing on whether or not the flood happened, and thus whether or not a boat on a mountain is significant. However, this sort of discussion, unless you want to tie it somehow to Biblical literacy and/or the flood, is just not germane to the conversation.

I rarely use the report function, but I'm not completely above it, because I am interested in the topic of this thread. If you, Radrook, 154, or anyone else wants to defend a literalist view of the Bible in general, or the flood story in particular, it belongs here. Otherwise, take it elsewhere, please.

 

[Meadmaker]

Even a discussion of Biblical literacy in general would probably fit the bill,

I can't believe I wrote "literacy" instead of "literalism". I really should get more sleep.

 

[Marcus]

...If you have the luxury someday to be on your deathbed, I can guarantee you that you will be thinking about a God then. I guarantee. I witnessed this happen with my dying atheist grandpa!

I have witnessed theists on their deathbed admiting that they knew there wasn't really a magical afterlife waiting for them. It may be a comforting fantasy, expecially for those who are dying, but for some, the truth is always better.

 

[Radrook]

Well, fine. That's all very well, but it's not really the topic of this thread, is it?

This thread started with a discussion about the discovery of a boat on Mount Ararat. I would think that veering into a discussion about the plausibility of a boat up there as a consequence of a worldwide deluge would be considered on topic, or at least normal topic drift. Even a discussion of Biblical literacy in general would probably fit the bill, since it has bearing on whether or not the flood happened, and thus whether or not a boat on a mountain is significant. However, this sort of discussion, unless you want to tie it somehow to Biblical literacy and/or the flood, is just not germane to the conversation.

I rarely use the report function, but I'm not completely above it, because I am interested in the topic of this thread. If you, Radrook, 154, or anyone else wants to defend a literalist view of the Bible in general, or the flood story in particular, it belongs here. Otherwise, take it elsewhere, please.

In all my years as an intellectual disciplinarian I have always made the utmost effort to stay on topic but have never been quite able to avoid the phenomenon of topic drift. We began with Noah's ark, I asked about boat floatability which more or less stays within acceptable range, then I noticed a discussion about the design of the universe. I assumed that this discussion was provoked by the constant mockery of atheists who keep challenging the supernatural aspect of the flood account.

Don't you think it's only natural that if we keep mocking the supernatural in the presence of those who believe in it, that the discussion will veer to the feasibility of the supernatural? Can we really blame those who respond to defend the supernatural aspect of the account if we keep throwing mockery in their faces? Or should we blame the scoffers for the deviation from the subject? In short, is it just to demand silence of some while permitting topic deviation via mockery from others?. True, let's stay on subject but let's apply the stay on subject rule equitably.

 

[Marduk]

In all my years as an intellectual disciplinarian .

another faith backed claim

 

[John Jones]

In all my years as an intellectual disciplinarian

HA! Look what you wrote.

 

[Marcus]

In all my years as an intellectual disciplinarian I have always made the utmost effort to stay on topic but have never been quite able to avoid the phenomenon of topic drift. We began with Noah's ark, I asked about boat floatability which more or less stays within acceptable range, then I noticed a discussion about the design of the universe. I assumed that this discussion was provoked by the constant mockery of atheists who keep challenging the supernatural aspect of the flood account.

Don't you think it's only natural that if we keep mocking the supernatural in the presence of those who believe in it, that the discussion will veer to the feasibility of the supernatural? Can we really blame those who respond to defend the supernatural aspect of the account if we keep throwing mockery in their faces? Or should we blame the scoffers for the deviation from the subject? In short, is it just to demand silence of some while permitting topic deviation via mockery from others?. True, let's stay on subject but let's apply the stay on subject rule equitably.

Well, the flood belief stuff and the derail material is pretty funny, humor (or mockery if you prefer) really seems like an appropriate response. Besides, you didn't accumulate as many posts as you have here by having a thin skin, I figure you can take it.

I don't see Meadmaker demanding or permiting any thing, he made a reasonable request for everyone to stay on topic, I myself will try to comply, if there is more discussion to be had in that area.

 

[dafydd]

In all my years as an intellectual disciplinarian I have always made the utmost effort to stay on topic but have never been quite able to avoid the phenomenon of topic drift. We began with Noah's ark, I asked about boat floatability which more or less stays within acceptable range, then I noticed a discussion about the design of the universe. I assumed that this discussion was provoked by the constant mockery of atheists who keep challenging the supernatural aspect of the flood account.

Don't you think it's only natural that if we keep mocking the supernatural in the presence of those who believe in it, that the discussion will veer to the feasibility of the supernatural? Can we really blame those who respond to defend the supernatural aspect of the account if we keep throwing mockery in their faces? Or should we blame the scoffers for the deviation from the subject? In short, is it just to demand silence of some while permitting topic deviation via mockery from others?. True, let's stay on subject but let's apply the stay on subject rule equitably.

The boat never existed,so how could it float? This is a pointless discussion.

 

[Complexity]

Don't you think it's only natural that if we keep mocking the supernatural in the presence of those who believe in it, that the discussion will veer to the feasibility of the supernatural? Can we really blame those who respond to defend the supernatural aspect of the account if we keep throwing mockery in their faces? Or should we blame the scoffers for the deviation from the subject? In short, is it just to demand silence of some while permitting topic deviation via mockery from others?. True, let's stay on subject but let's apply the stay on subject rule equitably.

Nice try silly rabbit.

Any thread about a pretend boat that was supposed to save life from an non-existent flood that was unleashed by an imaginary yet pissed off sky-daddy is going to involve mocking the supernatural.

I'll see to that.

It is my civic duty, my moral obligation, and my great pleasure.

 

[Radrook]

Well, the flood belief stuff and the derail material is pretty funny, humor (or mockery if you prefer) really seems like an appropriate response. Besides, you didn't accumulate as many posts as you have here by having a thin skin, I figure you can take it.

I don't see Meadmaker demanding or permiting any thing, he made a reasonable request for everyone to stay on topic, I myself will try to comply, if there is more discussion to be had in that area.

I agree!