Sorry; your humor just happened to hit a pet peeve of mine.
Woodmorappe proving the Ark is possible.
- Thread starter tsig
- Start date
-
- Tags
- noah's ark
Sorry; your humor just happened to hit a pet peeve of mine.
Almo
Masterblazer
This really sounds like it was written by someone paid by the word with all the repetition in there.
This is you doing precisely what you whine about us doing. When you stop, we'll stop.AvlonXQ said:
As for the Gish Gallop garbage, that's the same logic Jabba's using in his Shroud thread. This is a DISCUSSION forum. We DISCUSS things. You're advocating an idea with so many illogical elements that it's difficult to believe an adult actually believes it (I'm not saying you're childish--far as I know, you're on the fense--I'm saying that this AUTHOR is a moron if he believes it happened). There's a lot to question, so we're questioning a lot.
The key aspect of the Gish Gallop is that the questions aren't valid--they've been addressed, repeatedly, and the only reason to ask them is to make the speaker take so much time that they can't get to their own point. VALID questions, such as "How do you deal with tonnes of excrament?", constitute a logical critique of an idea.
Do you have any concept of what this would do to the world? I'm asking this in all seriousness--most people don't. But if you look into what earth worms do, you'll see that God's instructions were pretty much the worst idea anyone could have in this regard. It'd be better to save the insects and let the vertebrates die.
Now you're getting into taxonomy. Good luck with that--no one has ever established a firm definition or taxonomy involving "kinds".
If no one else is, I'm going to. The author is attempting to aruge that a particular design is a viable design for a boat. This is an engineering problem before it's anything else--before you put animals in an ark, you have to BUILD the ark. Thus, yes, I expect you to go into the minutiae such as the material types used, the strength of each (tinsile and compressional), how much they flex, how they're held together, ALL of it. Because in order for anyone to make an informed evaluation of the viability of this particular project, we need to know what the project WAS, and those are the information necessary for it.
This isn't preaching. This is merely understanding what you're talking about. You want to talk about how to build a boat.But you don't want to talk about boat building, you want to talk animal husbandry. Won't work. Again, first we need to establish that the boat can be built, THEN we'll worry about how to fill it.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
He solves one problem, but in so doing creates a much bigger problem: How to explain the diversity of life we see today.
Again, you're better off just saying "It's all magic", and leaving it at that.
Expand on this, please. What exactly am I doing? Can you give me other examples?
So you only started doing what I complain about because I was already doing it? And I've been doing it pretty consistently?
Seriously, let's figure this out. Because I genuinely dislike being attacked and insulted, and if you're right that it's only happening because I'm doing it to others, I'm happy to try to make an adjustment to my own behavior to eliminate the problem.
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
Tinsel would lift the mood on the whole end of the world downer.
His book is in three sections. The entire third section addresses this issue.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
I haven't read the book. Is the author so far out of touch with reality that he actually believes that the biblical fantasy took place?
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
Mudcat
Man of a Thousand Memes
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,474
Does this
Last edited:
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
How does he explain the distribution of species today? A Middle East drop off of all animals and humans around 4,000(?) years ago makes some very definite predictions that simply do not gel with what we observe today and in the fossil record. Observations that are explained beautifully by evolution. I have had people ask me questions like, "Why does Australia have such unique animals?" This is well answered with evolution but inexplicable within a Deluge narrative.
Last edited:
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
If it adequately addresses all the issues that would in effect overturn everything we know about biology, he'll win a Nobel prize. Somehow, I doubt that will happen.
Okay, great. If that's the sort of conduct I have to avoid, that's easy.
For example, I haven't made any posts like that on this thread or the geology thread.
So why am I still dealing with the personal attacks here?
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
If someone gave me a sniff that there might be value in such an idea I would go after it myself. As I am sure some of our posters who are are actual scientists would.
The example I gave is an example of you insulting our intelligence, in precisely the same manner that many of us have insulted your intelligence. Someone said something stupid, you called them out on it. The only difference is you realize that what that person is saying is stupid. From our perspective, most of us are doing precisely the same thing you are.AvalonXQ said:
I've pointed it out before. Go look through our previous altercations if you care to.
Okay, I'll take you at your word.
There are numerous fields that show the flood story to be just that--a story. These include biology, geology, engineering, meteorology, hydrology, and astronomy, to name a few. To say that the flood story is true is to say that all the researchers in all of those fields are wrong. Biologists can't be right, because their genetics studies contradict the flood. Geologists can't be right because biostratigraphy does. And so on.
I'm not saying you have to agree with these various fields, or even understand all of them. Please at least examine one of the fields contradicted by the flood myth before you argue that they're wrong.
For the purposes of this discussion, I'd say choose engineering. We're talking about a boat. Gain an understanding of how boats actually operate. This isn't some great mystery--as has been said, this is pretty well-established stuff, with lots and lots of tests (the whole Napoleanic Wars can be seen as one long series of tests of wooden ship construction and operation). Do the math to see if the boat itself is seaworthy. Once we've established that one way or another, THEN we can discuss how to properly provision and subdivide it for the animals.
If you're unwilling to do that, you're simply unwilling to have an informed discussion on the topic. No offense is intended here; that's just the simple fact of the matter, if you don't inform yourself about the topic, you cannot hold an informed opinion on it and therefore any contributions you make to a discusssion of the matter will be ignorant. Again, not a bad thing--there are many topics that I'm ignorant on, and there's some value to discussing things you're ignorant about, in order to learn. However, you simply cannot start holding ANY possition--pro OR con--because it would be based on mere opinion and bias, rather than facts.
I'm in the same boat when it comes to seaworthyness--I know nothing about it, so I have no opinion. I have a vague sense that it won't work, but I'll leave that to others to figure out. I'm sticking with the geology and paleontology of the situation, which is, to be blunt, far worse than the engineering concerns. The engineering can show that it couldn't happen the way it was presented, at best. The geological evidence shows that it didn't happen AT ALL.
Halfcentaur
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2010
- Messages
- 6,620
Does Woodmorappe address why we see no consistent genetic bottleneck across the animal kingdom ?
Does Woodmorappe address the distribution of fossils in specific layers of strata?
Does he point out global indicators of any kind for this event?
Does Woodmorappe address the distribution of fossils in specific layers of strata?
Does he point out global indicators of any kind for this event?
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
He had a slight problem then: The usual life-span for a wooden vessel is about 50 years *). And no, for several reasons it does not increase it significantly if it is on land. So by the time he was half finished, the early parts were due for a heavy restoration.
Hans
*) I know that there exists a few wooden ship much older than this, but they have been under continuous repair, often with less than 30% of the original timber remaining today. Others exist, but are far from sea-worthy.
Because threads don't exist in a vacuum, and once you've established a reputation for doing X we can assume you'll do X again. Also, again, I'm not sure you're considering our perspective here. Calling my entire profession and field of study wrong based off an old book is profoundly insulting to me, but you still do it. Demanding to be taken seriously when you demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the basics of a field is profoundly insulting, and you don't tollerate it when it comes to Biblical studies, yet you expect us to have a much more tollerant view of you jumping into our fields.
I'm not saying this to criticize you in any way, to be honest. I'm giving my perspective, at least, and I'm sure that others share it.
I didn't insult anyone's intelligence. He made a common mistake based not on stupidity or dishonesty, but simply ignorance. Hence my comments -- take a few minutes to learn what these things are. Easy.
I didn't ask him for his opinion on patents and then browbeat him as immature and stupid when he told me.
... which I would like to remind people is how this entire discussion started. I never claimed knowledge of geology; I was asked what I believed, and then I was asked how events happened. I answered honestly. When people continued to press for the mechanics, I gave the best explanations I've been given -- without necessarily an endorsement that I know them to be correct.
I don't believe Pompeii erupted because of my understanding of geology. I don't believe an atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima because of my understanding of military strategy. I don't beleive there was a worldwide flood because of my understanding of hydrodynamics.
In all cases, I believe these events occurred because I trust the sources that tell about them.
I would like to know the mechanics of Noah's Ark, and I'm greatly enjoying Woodmorappe's book. But it's not necessary knowledge for me. I'm happy to share Woodmorappe's explanations, and interested to understand some of why people don't accept them or other problems not addressed at all. But my faith in Noah's ark isn't based around my understanding of its logistics.
I trust the Bible as a source. That's where I'm coming from in this and similar discussions.
Last edited:
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Nice idea! Perhaps you should apply for the next vacancy as god. In the meantime, ponder the techniques for building huge timber catamarans employing hand-carpentry.
Hans
