• 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?

Radrook said:
What I'm requesting are the results of a test identical to the ones which proved its seaworthiness but which proved the design unseaworthy. Can you provide that as a rebuttal against these other test results?
Click to expand...


Why the hell should anyone spend their time investigating this garbage?

No one sane would do as much for any of the other fairy tales.
 
Foolmewunz said:
My goodness! Someone not paying attention to details might just think you're making it up as you go along. Since you stated "both" in a subsequent post, would you please point out to me the exact text in BOTH of those links that specifically mentions:
1. That someone BUILT a model of the ark.
2. The praise he/she received for it.

Neither of those articles says anything of the kind.

And the two articles tend to contradict each other in a few points. The more devious of the two being the Korean Creationist study that takes such liberties and leaps of faith that it makes me want to heave! I paraphrase:
"We don't know what the profile of the ark looked like, but several (liars) parties have claimed to have found the ark so we'll go by their comments..."
Yeah? Now there's a legitimate scientific source. Several parties who all argue about having found the one true ark have made assumptions that are required in order for their findings to be even remotely possible, so we'll just base an engineering study on it.

They also have a really great line about the timber where they say, (and again I parphrase), "Mebbe conditions were different in the area at the time and it's possible that trees grew higher than 10 metres". There is no reason to even mention this in their study (considering that the damned vessel was going to require some sort of joints regardless of 9 m trees or 11 m trees). Ergo, they're just filling space with blah blah so that they sound like they did some research.

More important, though, is your direct fabrication. Neither of those two reports cites anyone having built an ark, to scale or to actual size, and neither of them praises him/her for(not having) done it. Further, if you find someone "praising" a model elsewhere, please make sure it's an independt marine surveyor or naval architecht(this side of Heiwa, of course, as I have reason to believe even his ship design claim is fraudulent), because "praise" from a publication whose primary mission is Praisin' The Big Sky Daddy is not considered peer review where I come from.

I go with my first option. You're just making it up as you go along, aren't you?
Click to expand...

I was referring to the seaworthiness data results-not the speculatiions you focus on instead. As for different results, the point is that BOTH results although varying from each other still proved the seaworthiness of the design. That' s the only point I'm really interested in. Furthermore, you are fabricating that I said someone bult an ark when I didn't. Reread my post. As for suspicions of fraud, that proves nothing except bthat you are suspicious of fraud. The expoerimnent wasshown on the discovery channel once. No suspicions of fraud were even remotely considered or acknowledged. Furthermore. I'm more thean certasin that if indeed the results were considered suspect, then a counter experiment would have been done by atheists in order to disprove the results. The very fact that there are none proves to me that the data confirmed the results and therefore the silence. IMHO

BTW
Your conclusion that all experiment results which aren't anti biblical are suspect constitutes the fallacy of false premise.
 
Last edited:
Radrook said:
BTW
One of the article points out that a ship was built which closely matched the arks dimensions and the designer was praised for his superb design.
Click to expand...

So Radrook, you didn't say an ark was built?

Please don't tell other posters to reread what you have posted.
It induces nausea.
 
Foolmewunz said:
My goodness! Someone not paying attention to details might just think you're making it up as you go along. Since you stated "both" in a subsequent post, would you please point out to me the exact text in BOTH of those links that specifically mentions:
1. That someone BUILT a model of the ark.
2. The praise he/she received for it.

Neither of those articles says anything of the kind.

And the two articles tend to contradict each other in a few points. The more devious of the two being the Korean Creationist study that takes such liberties and leaps of faith that it makes me want to heave! I paraphrase:
"We don't know what the profile of the ark looked like, but several (liars) parties have claimed to have found the ark so we'll go by their comments..."
Yeah? Now there's a legitimate scientific source. Several parties who all argue about having found the one true ark have made assumptions that are required in order for their findings to be even remotely possible, so we'll just base an engineering study on it.

They also have a really great line about the timber where they say, (and again I parphrase), "Mebbe conditions were different in the area at the time and it's possible that trees grew higher than 10 metres". There is no reason to even mention this in their study (considering that the damned vessel was going to require some sort of joints regardless of 9 m trees or 11 m trees). Ergo, they're just filling space with blah blah so that they sound like they did some research.

More important, though, is your direct fabrication. Neither of those two reports cites anyone having built an ark, to scale or to actual size, and neither of them praises him/her for(not having) done it. Further, if you find someone "praising" a model elsewhere, please make sure it's an independt marine surveyor or naval architecht(this side of Heiwa, of course, as I have reason to believe even his ship design claim is fraudulent), because "praise" from a publication whose primary mission is Praisin' The Big Sky Daddy is not considered peer review where I come from.

I go with my first option. You're just making it up as you go along, aren't you?
Click to expand...

I was referring to the seaworthiness data results-not the speculatiions you focus on instead.
As for different results, the point is that BOTH results although varying from each other still proved the seaworthiness of the design. That' s the only point I'm really interested in.
 
Complexity said:
That's the problem. You're not good.
Your beliefs are ridiculous, you lack integrity, and your moral system is so skewed that it has become evil.
Click to expand...
I have nothing but my integrity and you would not find a single person who knows me that would say otherwise.
 
Radrook said:
I was referring to the seaworthiness data results-not the speculatiions you focus on instead.
As for different results, the point is that BOTH results although varying from each other still proved the seaworthiness of the design. That' s the only point I'm really interested in.
Click to expand...

So, you don't actually believe the whole ark, animals, dinosaurs bit?
You're just interested in whether a boat like that would float?
That's a relief. I was beginning to think you really believed the fairy tale.
 
Foolmewunz said:
My goodness! Someone not paying attention to details might just think you're making it up as you go along. Since you stated "both" in a subsequent post, would you please point out to me the exact text in BOTH of those links that specifically mentions:
1. That someone BUILT a model of the ark.
2. The praise he/she received for it.

Neither of those articles says anything of the kind.

And the two articles tend to contradict each other in a few points. The more devious of the two being the Korean Creationist study that takes such liberties and leaps of faith that it makes me want to heave! I paraphrase:
"We don't know what the profile of the ark looked like, but several (liars) parties have claimed to have found the ark so we'll go by their comments..."
Yeah? Now there's a legitimate scientific source. Several parties who all argue about having found the one true ark have made assumptions that are required in order for their findings to be even remotely possible, so we'll just base an engineering study on it.

They also have a really great line about the timber where they say, (and again I parphrase), "Mebbe conditions were different in the area at the time and it's possible that trees grew higher than 10 metres". There is no reason to even mention this in their study (considering that the damned vessel was going to require some sort of joints regardless of 9 m trees or 11 m trees). Ergo, they're just filling space with blah blah so that they sound like they did some research.

More important, though, is your direct fabrication. Neither of those two reports cites anyone having built an ark, to scale or to actual size, and neither of them praises him/her for(not having) done it. Further, if you find someone "praising" a model elsewhere, please make sure it's an independt marine surveyor or naval architecht(this side of Heiwa, of course, as I have reason to believe even his ship design claim is fraudulent), because "praise" from a publication whose primary mission is Praisin' The Big Sky Daddy is not considered peer review where I come from.

I go with my first option. You're just making it up as you go along, aren't you?
Click to expand...

I spent half hour answering your accusations and the computer erased. it. So my response will be brief this time

1, I never said that someone built an ark or that the article says someone built an ark.

2. Their speculations are irrelevant to seaworthiness test results.

3. Tests done independemntly will vary. However both results were well within seaworthiness parameters,

4. If a counter test was done and it confirmed the data-that explains the silence.

5 . Your premise that all test results done by believers in an ID are worhhless constitutes fallacious reasoning.


BTWE

Atheist reviewing atheist is consideed peer review. RIGHT?
The accusation that I'm fabricating is due probably to your difficulty in to comprehending clearly written English. Also, in your freneic attempt at disproving at all costs without providing any convincing counterargument your aremissing something. All I am requesting is results which are different from the ones given. Since you can't find any you go ballistic. That's what's causing the misperceptions.
 
Last edited:
Radrook said:
I was referring to the seaworthiness data results-not the speculatiions you focus on instead.
As for different results, the point is that BOTH results although varying from each other still proved the seaworthiness of the design. That' s the only point I'm really interested in.
Click to expand...

Ewwww! There ya go, using one of those skeptiwords, again. "Proved"... to whose satisfaction? Fundie websites? Where is the peer review, please? I see a lot of double talk and posting of numbers, but conclusions that make no sense.
 
Radrook said:
I spent half hour answering your accusations and the computer erased. it. So my response will be brief this time

1, I never said that someone bult an ark

2. Their speculations are irrelevantto seaworthiness test results.

3. Tests done independemntly will vary. Howeever both were well withing seaworthinbess parameters,

4. The lack of a counter test by skeptics might strongly indicate it was done but but results were kepot sdilent for obvious reasons.

5 . Your premnise that all test results done by believers in anb ID are worhhless condstitutes fallacious reasoning.


BTWE

Atheist reviewing atheist is consideed peer review. RIGHT?
Click to expand...

1. Yes you did. See post #284
2. Whose speculations?
3,4,5 What are you drinking and can I have some?
 
Radrook said:
I spent half hour answering your accusations and the computer erased. it. So my response will be brief this time

1, I never said that someone bult an ark

2. Their speculations are irrelevantto seaworthiness test results.

3. Tests done independemntly will vary. Howeever both were well withing seaworthinbess parameters,

4. The lack of a counter test by skeptics might strongly indicate it was done but but results were kepot sdilent for obvious reasons.

5 . Your premise that all test results done by believers in anb ID are worhhless condstitutes fallacious reasoning.


BTWE

Atheist reviewing atheist is consideed peer review. RIGHT?
The accusation that I'm fabricating is due probably to your difficulty in to comprehending clearly written English.
Click to expand...
You asked for it (and it was 0.2 seconds away from you all the time)...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4853890.stm
 
154 said:
Such hatred... such bile... such venom...
Click to expand...


Once again, you are wrong.

I have contempt for people who hold superstitious beliefs and anger at their willful ignorance and at the smug cruelty with which they ruin others' lives.
 
Last edited:
kerikiwi said:
Speaking of hatred and bile and venom, you didn't manage to cite an example of the hostility you spoke of earlier.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? Are you blind? Look at almost every response to me.

None of the posts have been removed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom