• 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?

154 said:
Ok, again.
Time is a relative physical property.
Observers in different locations can report different numbers or times and both be correct, as I've said here many times.
Click to expand...

Fine. Let's talk about the biologists who universally 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?
 
Meadmaker said:
There's something I don't get, and I hope someone who believes the flood story as a real, historical, event, can address.

Obviously, the flood didn't happen by natural causes. It was an example of divine intervention. God twisted the laws of physics, created a bunch of water, got rid of it again. No problem. For God, it's no more effort than sending fire and brimstone down onto a pair of sinful cities or raising himself from the dead.

Equally obviously, there is no way to keep every species, or even every "kind" of species of animal alive without divine intervention. Likewise, most ocean dwelling species would die due to salinity changes, and many plant species would die off if you covered all of their members with water for fourty days plus the dryout period. Furthermore, you couldn't gather in all the animals to the ark, or disperse them after the flood, with only two of each species available for the task. It can't happen, even using the most sophisticated modern technology, without a miracle.

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...


Fundamentalist have an insatiable desire to shoplift credibility by making appeals to pseudo-science.

That's why you see such speculative nonsense as the size of the nuclear weapon necessary to imprint the image of Jesus on the Shroud of Turin (yes, I've heard that one a lot).
 
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 :D
 
TimCallahan said:
Well, I'm back from my brief trip and I still don't see any response from either Radrook or 154 to my suggestion of a genetic drift experiment. Here' the suggestion once more:

If all human beings existing today are descendants of Noah and his family, patterns of genetic drift evident in the human genome should lead us back to the vicinity of Mt. Ararat. So, Radrook and 154, would you be willing to accept the findings of such an experiment / inquiry, regardless of where they lead?
Click to expand...


Are atheists doing the investigating?
 
Why should that matter? Ever hear of the human genome project? An evangelical Christian led that to completion. The science is accepted because the science is correct, not because a Christian or an atheist worked on it.

So the answer to your question is basically no, a christian led the project which completed the mapping of the human genome which enabled such studies as tracing geographic origins via genetics.
 
Far as I know, the fact that such a thing as peer-review and other kinds of ruthless scrutiny exists, from people with very diverse backgrounds and interests, means it doesn't matter who does the research. What matters is how it was done, and what it shows. If someone, Satanist or Jew, organic salesman or Big [Insert Industry Here] front group, falsifies research, people expose them faster than you can say Piltdown man. As I understand it, it's very difficult to get away with fraudulent research when all the other scientists basically have as their job to tear each others' ideas apart:p. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Far as I know, the fact that such a thing as peer-review and other kinds of ruthless scrutiny exists, from people with very diverse backgrounds and interests, means it doesn't matter who does the research. What matters is how it was done, and what it shows. If someone, Satanist or Jew, organic salesman or Big [Insert Industry Here] front group, falsifies research, people expose them faster than you can say Piltdown man. As I understand it, it's very difficult to get away with fraudulent research when all the other scientists basically have as their job to tear each others' ideas apart:p. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

So what does the study indicate?
 
Radrook said:
So what does the study indicate?
Click to expand...

That we didn't all evolve from a semitic fisherman less than 4000 years ago

That seven score years and ten has always been the upper limit

That we can trace our ancestry back to one group that left Africa around 60,000 years ago

That the Human species has evolved from lower primates over an extremely long period of time

That there was no great flood

That there was no "creation" in a garden somewhere

etc etc etc

That the bible is a book written by a technologically backwards culture and contains second hand mythology and very little first hand history

what did you expect, validation for all your religous woo ?

It was an evangelical christian that led the team, not a creation scientist
:p
 
temporalillusion said:
One reason would be the consequence of that would be a deceitful god that deliberately hides evidence and manufactures false evidence to mislead future humans for some reason.
Click to expand...

God seems to be a Peek-a-boo creature that jumps out when you least expect it an hides when you look.
 
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!
 
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...

All trolls become boring after a while.
 
edge said:
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?
Click to expand...

So basically you have no knowledge of the subject matter whatsoever. So why do you claim that he's wrong ?
 
temporalillusion said:
Look out the side of your eyes!
Click to expand...

Cover yourself in mud and press yourself against the riverbank. His heat-based vision won't be able to see you and you'll be able to get a good look at him, especially if his cloaking device was shorted out when he jumped in the river.

:confused:

Wait, am I thinking of the right fictional being?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom