please direct me to a single feasibility study that shows how the ark could have happened.
The ones Chris pointed out distorted facts when needed, and ignored others that made it inconvenient.
Fact postulated by Chris: all religeons have a global flood somewhere in their history.
Actual fact: no, some do, and those that do tend to talk of localised floods.
And you want us to accept whales and dolphins, horses and zebras mating to create the diversified animal landscape we see to day to help get your numbers down!
You start from the point that God is omnipotent so all the impossibilities in the story are explained by His powers. Fine. God arranged it. he also allowed man to remember the flood, by getting it written in the Bible.
But the God also arranged it so that there is NO physical evidence of such a flood.
Why?
David
PS I note that both you and Chris still won't answer my question as to WHY you belive this story to be true. Would I be right is saying over 95% of mainstream Christians don't believe this to be a true story?
You're starting to go in circles here. You live in terms of an argument from ignorance but 'want evidence'?
64 percent agree that Moses parted the Red Sea to save fleeing Jews from their Egyptian captors
See, just because a large % of people believe something doesn't mean that they are right. God (not Moses) is generally credited with the parting of the Red Sea.
Well, because it has the form and structure of historical narrative. So I begin with a presumption that it was intended as a historical story. From there, the questions of reasonableness to believe support it.
And there we part. is the story reasonable? Nope. Not by a long way.
dmz
you wrote:
Quote:
You're starting to go in circles here. You live in terms of an argument from ignorance but 'want evidence'?
You need to be consistent in what you're asking.
Don't understand - an argument from ignorance? What's that? What's wrong with suggesting that if there was a global flood a few thousand years ago we'd see some evidence of it. And there is nada.
At least Chris answered my specific question as to WHY you believe it to be true.
as you say, back to where we started. You believe, despite zero evidence to support your belief. I don't, with plenty of evidence to support my belief.
Still, to each their own.
Just as well in most cases it's harmless.
David
PS glad to see in your final post that you acknowledge that you may not be correct in your belief (correct in the sense of the truth of the event)
You believe, despite zero evidence to support your belief.
On this you are wrong. But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
glad to see in your final post that you acknowledge that you may not be correct in your belief (correct in the sense of the truth of the event)
I never claimed any differently.
I could be wrong.
Conversely, I don't think I have seen anyone (yourself included) that believes the Noah story is NOT true, admit that they could be wrong. You may have said so, I just don't have the energy or time to go back through the thread. If you have, I apologize. But you'd be one of the few.
Don't understand - an argument from ignorance? What's that? What's wrong with suggesting that if there was a global flood a few thousand years ago we'd see some evidence of it. And there is nada.
Sorry, for the delay, I had a small 'OH MY GOD!!' project get away from me.
Anyway, I have trouble with people who whisk away forests of DNA pathways with a "oh it just adapted" attitude and then quibble over percentages when it comes to something like Noah. The various feasibility studies are as debatable as any other piece of research; but like I said, this isn't the issue at all. What's at issue is the mindset that starts by ruling out God's revelatory nature, first, and then breaks out the white gloves and feeler gauges to 'measure the evidence' -- which is only a convoluted path to a 'if ain't legit, you must acquit' judgment. And same goes with the 'no evidence' mantra about the deluge.
'Oh no, Noah only had 24.6% of available floor space clear, and we all know that he needed 31.2% of space..........'
....the whole approach is complete nonsense.
The clincher here is that you are asking me to apply a criterion to my Faith that you do not, and cannot, apply to your own; and that it's being done either out of extreme idealism, or some not-so-nice subtlety. Materialists, live with effectively 100% of their knowledge of origins, completely unknowable and untestable -- and I'm supposed to take it in the shorts over some percentages? "oh the longest wooden boat could only be 377 feet long, not 450 feet."
Right, get me a working genetic blueprint for the bacterial flagellum and we'll talk about the impracticalities of Noah's Ark.
I guess if that is how segovius (and probably others here) really view Christians and those that believe in creation, the Bible, God, etc., there isn't much point in having these discussions.
You know Chris, I just can't for the life of me understand how it is that when someone criticizes one extreme group within Christianity that it is Christians themselves - like you and DMZ - that try to say it represents all of the religion.
No-one else is saying it is all Christians
Fair enough. My mistake. I apologize.
Easy mistake to make though, because I (personally) have never encountered any Christians that look like that, so when I see stuff like that, it looks a lot like this must be how some folks view any/all Christians. And, well, when you bring it up in the context of this debate...with me and dmz...well...it is also an easy mistake to make that you, perhaps, might be aiming at either/both of us (wink wink nudge nudge).
Please forgive my erroneous conclusion (about your view).
No problems. I apologise too if I have been less than polite.
Perhaps part of the problem is that I grew up surrounded by Christians exactly like that. I was well into my twenties before I realised there was any other type. I know MarcUK had a similar experience.
We're all conditioned in one way or another I guess.
You had Christian's barging in on your Chemistry Lab!?
No, mine must have been from a different department.
These ones used to break into my bedroom and steal my books and long-playing records in order to confine them to the flames in a makeshift bonfire which they would dance around while shouting 'come Jesus come'.
It was around then that I started seriously studying Freud......
That's alright -- you shouldn't have been listening to all that Wang Chung & Corey Hart anyway.
You're right - I'll respond to the 23.4% type question.
It is not a relevant argument, in my book. The amount of theorising that goes into deciding how much space an undeterminable number of aninmals require in a ship of indeterminate dimensions and build design results in a pointless calculation.
The bottom line in this 'debate' is either you believe that God caused 10s of 1000s of animals to congregate somewhere in the Middle East where a 600 year old man was putting the finishing touches to an Ark, followed by God slaughtering the entire Human race (bar said old man and family) and the rest of the animal kingdom, followed by said Ark floating around for a year or so until the waters subsided, or you don't.
If you do believe it, you have to explain the complete lack of physical evidence that it happened. CHris mentioned that there is evidence, but didn't lead me to any resources to verify that claim. And yes, the explanantion could be that God didn't want to leave any evidence, though was happy for human memory to record the event.
I don't believe this story. The majority of Christians worldwide also don't believe it to be true (why America appears to be the exception I do not know).
Regards,
David
PS I suspect that it was creationists that came up with these percentages in the first place. Non-believers were happy to leave it at that, until Woodruffe (spelling, and apologies if he wasn't the first) came along, decided on 16,000 animals as the requirement for full re-population, decided on average size and so on and so forth.
The various feasibility studies are as debatable as any other piece of research; but like I said, this isn't the issue at all. What's at issue is the mindset that starts by ruling out God's revelatory nature, first, and then breaks out the white gloves and feeler gauges to 'measure the evidence' -- which is only a convoluted path to a 'if ain't legit, you must acquit' judgment. And same goes with the 'no evidence' mantra about the deluge.
I took that to mean that he finds real world investigations meaningless. If these investigations don't fit his view, then that's the way God planned it.
God's revelatory nature indeed - would people be more or less respectful to a God if indeed scientists of all persuasions could prove beyond reasonable doubt that c6000 years ago the world was submerged? Chris's and dmz's view is not exactly the best way to do demonstrate a revelatory nature!
dmz - Chris stated why he believed the story to be true (he finds it reasonable enough to have been true) - I don't think you have. Any chance?
Comments
Originally posted by iMac David
dmz,
please direct me to a single feasibility study that shows how the ark could have happened.
The ones Chris pointed out distorted facts when needed, and ignored others that made it inconvenient.
Fact postulated by Chris: all religeons have a global flood somewhere in their history.
Actual fact: no, some do, and those that do tend to talk of localised floods.
And you want us to accept whales and dolphins, horses and zebras mating to create the diversified animal landscape we see to day to help get your numbers down!
You start from the point that God is omnipotent so all the impossibilities in the story are explained by His powers. Fine. God arranged it. he also allowed man to remember the flood, by getting it written in the Bible.
But the God also arranged it so that there is NO physical evidence of such a flood.
Why?
David
PS I note that both you and Chris still won't answer my question as to WHY you belive this story to be true. Would I be right is saying over 95% of mainstream Christians don't believe this to be a true story?
You're starting to go in circles here. You live in terms of an argument from ignorance but 'want evidence'?
You need to be consistent in what you're asking.
64 percent agree that Moses parted the Red Sea to save fleeing Jews from their Egyptian captors
See, just because a large % of people believe something doesn't mean that they are right. God (not Moses) is generally credited with the parting of the Red Sea.
you wrote:
Well, because it has the form and structure of historical narrative. So I begin with a presumption that it was intended as a historical story. From there, the questions of reasonableness to believe support it.
And there we part. is the story reasonable? Nope. Not by a long way.
dmz
you wrote:
You're starting to go in circles here. You live in terms of an argument from ignorance but 'want evidence'?
You need to be consistent in what you're asking.
Don't understand - an argument from ignorance? What's that? What's wrong with suggesting that if there was a global flood a few thousand years ago we'd see some evidence of it. And there is nada.
At least Chris answered my specific question as to WHY you believe it to be true.
David
In europe, Australasia and S America I'd be amazed if the numbers exceed 5% for literal truth.
Interesting - I wonder why?
David
Originally posted by iMac David
is the story reasonable? Nope. Not by a long way.
And we circle around...in your belief. So we end where we began.
Originally posted by iMac David
Interesting - I wonder why?
It might be interesting to know why. But it is also important to realize that belief does not begat truth.
as you say, back to where we started. You believe, despite zero evidence to support your belief. I don't, with plenty of evidence to support my belief.
Still, to each their own.
Just as well in most cases it's harmless.
David
PS glad to see in your final post that you acknowledge that you may not be correct in your belief (correct in the sense of the truth of the event)
Originally posted by iMac David
You believe, despite zero evidence to support your belief.
On this you are wrong. But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Originally posted by iMac David
glad to see in your final post that you acknowledge that you may not be correct in your belief (correct in the sense of the truth of the event)
I never claimed any differently.
I could be wrong.
Conversely, I don't think I have seen anyone (yourself included) that believes the Noah story is NOT true, admit that they could be wrong. You may have said so, I just don't have the energy or time to go back through the thread. If you have, I apologize. But you'd be one of the few.
Originally posted by iMac David
dmz
you wrote:
Don't understand - an argument from ignorance? What's that? What's wrong with suggesting that if there was a global flood a few thousand years ago we'd see some evidence of it. And there is nada.
Sorry, for the delay, I had a small 'OH MY GOD!!' project get away from me.
Anyway, I have trouble with people who whisk away forests of DNA pathways with a "oh it just adapted" attitude and then quibble over percentages when it comes to something like Noah. The various feasibility studies are as debatable as any other piece of research; but like I said, this isn't the issue at all. What's at issue is the mindset that starts by ruling out God's revelatory nature, first, and then breaks out the white gloves and feeler gauges to 'measure the evidence' -- which is only a convoluted path to a 'if ain't legit, you must acquit' judgment. And same goes with the 'no evidence' mantra about the deluge.
'Oh no, Noah only had 24.6% of available floor space clear, and we all know that he needed 31.2% of space..........'
....the whole approach is complete nonsense.
The clincher here is that you are asking me to apply a criterion to my Faith that you do not, and cannot, apply to your own; and that it's being done either out of extreme idealism, or some not-so-nice subtlety. Materialists, live with effectively 100% of their knowledge of origins, completely unknowable and untestable -- and I'm supposed to take it in the shorts over some percentages? "oh the longest wooden boat could only be 377 feet long, not 450 feet."
Right, get me a working genetic blueprint for the bacterial flagellum and we'll talk about the impracticalities of Noah's Ark.
Originally posted by segovius
Well, it's an emotive issue - I've got some more, do you want to see them?
Maybe -- are they funny? Although, addressing the quibbling over percentages point wouldn't be all bad either.
Kinda sad really.
(If you did, this would almost start to resemble a dialogue.)
Originally posted by segovius
Uhh...could you run it by me again? Not sure I grasp the logic.....
Oh, PPUULEASE
Originally posted by segovius
You know Chris, I just can't for the life of me understand how it is that when someone criticizes one extreme group within Christianity that it is Christians themselves - like you and DMZ - that try to say it represents all of the religion.
No-one else is saying it is all Christians
Fair enough. My mistake. I apologize.
Easy mistake to make though, because I (personally) have never encountered any Christians that look like that, so when I see stuff like that, it looks a lot like this must be how some folks view any/all Christians. And, well, when you bring it up in the context of this debate...with me and dmz...well...it is also an easy mistake to make that you, perhaps, might be aiming at either/both of us (wink wink nudge nudge).
Please forgive my erroneous conclusion (about your view).
Originally posted by segovius
No problems. I apologise too if I have been less than polite.
Perhaps part of the problem is that I grew up surrounded by Christians exactly like that. I was well into my twenties before I realised there was any other type. I know MarcUK had a similar experience.
We're all conditioned in one way or another I guess.
You had Christian's barging in on your Chemistry Lab!?
Did they make you do 'experiments'?
Originally posted by segovius
No, mine must have been from a different department.
These ones used to break into my bedroom and steal my books and long-playing records in order to confine them to the flames in a makeshift bonfire which they would dance around while shouting 'come Jesus come'.
It was around then that I started seriously studying Freud......
That's alright -- you shouldn't have been listening to all that Wang Chung & Corey Hart anyway.
I had kind of given up on this.
You're right - I'll respond to the 23.4% type question.
It is not a relevant argument, in my book. The amount of theorising that goes into deciding how much space an undeterminable number of aninmals require in a ship of indeterminate dimensions and build design results in a pointless calculation.
The bottom line in this 'debate' is either you believe that God caused 10s of 1000s of animals to congregate somewhere in the Middle East where a 600 year old man was putting the finishing touches to an Ark, followed by God slaughtering the entire Human race (bar said old man and family) and the rest of the animal kingdom, followed by said Ark floating around for a year or so until the waters subsided, or you don't.
If you do believe it, you have to explain the complete lack of physical evidence that it happened. CHris mentioned that there is evidence, but didn't lead me to any resources to verify that claim. And yes, the explanantion could be that God didn't want to leave any evidence, though was happy for human memory to record the event.
I don't believe this story. The majority of Christians worldwide also don't believe it to be true (why America appears to be the exception I do not know).
Regards,
David
PS I suspect that it was creationists that came up with these percentages in the first place. Non-believers were happy to leave it at that, until Woodruffe (spelling, and apologies if he wasn't the first) came along, decided on 16,000 animals as the requirement for full re-population, decided on average size and so on and so forth.
The various feasibility studies are as debatable as any other piece of research; but like I said, this isn't the issue at all. What's at issue is the mindset that starts by ruling out God's revelatory nature, first, and then breaks out the white gloves and feeler gauges to 'measure the evidence' -- which is only a convoluted path to a 'if ain't legit, you must acquit' judgment. And same goes with the 'no evidence' mantra about the deluge.
I took that to mean that he finds real world investigations meaningless. If these investigations don't fit his view, then that's the way God planned it.
God's revelatory nature indeed - would people be more or less respectful to a God if indeed scientists of all persuasions could prove beyond reasonable doubt that c6000 years ago the world was submerged? Chris's and dmz's view is not exactly the best way to do demonstrate a revelatory nature!
dmz - Chris stated why he believed the story to be true (he finds it reasonable enough to have been true) - I don't think you have. Any chance?
Regards,
David