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.
There's plenty of evidence for a global flood, go pick up some of Morris' books on the topic; but again, you're chumming for some fixed research to poke holes in -- and we both know that the reasearch is ongoing and open to a great deal of debate, whether it's creationist or materialist. I'd rather not play that game, if it's all the same to you. And more pointedly, it's taken several posts to even get you to acknowledge the basic position of Creationists on Noah, etc., and I'd really not like to spend that kind of time making myself heard.
(nice tactical retreat from Ark feasibility to deluge feasibility BTW -- where's my flagellum feasibility report?)
I have to wait until the weekend to make any more comments.
And more pointedly, it's taken several posts to even get you to acknowledge the basic position of Creationists on Noah, etc., and I'd really not like to spend that kind of time making myself heard.
One of my early posts on this subject was:
Quote:
Response from Chris: Ah, but Divine Intervention removes all the obstacles - God kept Noah alive, God showed Noah how to build an Ark, God ensured the animals arrived at the Ark, slept for the days necessary, etc.
Final Response from David: Oh well, if God did do all that, then yes, it is possible.
So nope, I acknowledge where you're coming from. A belief in an all powerful deity that created the Ark/deluge and then removed all physical evidence.
And the physical evidence the creationists bring out to support the flood seems to me laughable (I will admit to not delving very far - I'm particularly thinking of the 165m year old fossils apparently discovered in a spa town in England that couldn't be that old as they had some covering).
And what 'tactical retreat'?!?! Come on, the two are inextricably linked. Can't have an Ark without a flood, and can't have a flood without an Ark. Same arguments holds for both.
And why do you keep asking for a "flagellum feasibility report"? If you're asking for a roadmap as to how inert chemicals suddenly had life, leading to life as we know it, you know as well as I do there is no such thing. There are ideas, theories, etc (which could very well include a God saying (not literally, of course, English is probably not a native God language) "let there be life".
I ask yet again - WHY do you believe what is essentially a news report written many several thousand years after the event?
someone reads 'Morris' - thats very very funny on two levels
First - is that Morris must be the holder of 'the Creationist with the most number of discredited ridiculous Creationist theories in existance'
and secondly - hehe
A little known fact about Morris - he believes the Bible is a story about the Sun going around the Zodiac.
So I get to ROTFLMAO x2.
Quote:
Morris believes that the gospel message is in the signs of the zodiac. In Genesis 1:14 the stars in the sky are to serve as signs to mark seasons, days, and years, and not for the gospel, or any astrology (see NIV note). I am surprised that Morris believes that the zodiac teaches the gospel.
So what's really going on here is that Dr Dino is making a fortune selling crap to any hapless moron who's willing to buy it, - while at the same time sending a secret signal (maybe a dodgy handshake - hehe) to anyone slightly educated that he 'knows' the real story behind the Gospels, and he's just taking y'all for all he can.
I always thought that underneath dmz's gobbleydygook and ignorant surface there was a guy who really understood something special. Now I know what I've long suspected. You're just another hapless loon.
Never mind, I understand that you believe the Bible to be literal, I understand why you want to believe it to be true. I also understand that you must have been at one point vulnerable, shallow and impressionable, and someone took advantage of your good nature. I also understand that you really need to go see someone who can really help you get back to reality.
I always thought that underneath dmz's gobbleydygook and ignorant surface there was a guy who really understood something special. Now I know what I've long suspected. You're just another hapless loon.
Never mind, I understand that you believe the Bible to be literal, I understand why you want to believe it to be true. I also understand that you must have been at one point vulnerable, shallow and impressionable, and someone took advantage of your good nature. I also understand that you really need to go see someone who can really help you get back to reality.
God Bless
MarcUK
OH NOO!! It's M-M-M-M-MarcUK c-c-c-c-coming to M-M-M-Malign Me!!!!
Morris is fine, and no, he does not walk on water. Hence the 'reasearch is ongoing and open to a great deal of debate' bit.
I don't have time to get into the deatails on this, pick a pundit, any, pundit. Dr. Henry Morris & Dr. John Whitcomb's, The Genesis Flood, Dr. Werner Gitt's Ark feasibility piece. There's plenty to choose from. Take the crispy outside-chewy inside of the T-Rex bones, or the realization that the traveling [in America, a T-Rex] 'Sue' exhibit lists rapid depostion as the reason she was so well preserved. How can you have coal without a rapid desposition of some MASSIVE overburden/sediment? There are thousands of other topics out there that scream 'massive cataclysm'.
But it doesn't matter, because if you find a typo in the preface, or if Witt's third cousin-twice removed, knew someone who was a Nazi sympathizer in a past life, it's all out the window.
behave?! No-one here has criticised Morris (or Witt for that matter) for poor grammar or having a tenuous connection with the Nazi's. The criticism is that he is, basically, a loon because of his beliefs. Disagree on that if you wish, but don't change the reasoning.
Secondly, let me get this straight - you are proposing that a dinosaur was perfectly preserved due to a rapid deluge, possibly the flood, thus supporting the Noah story.
So by extension dinosaurs and man co-habited?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. So any claims that Man and dinosaurs were separated by millions of years are all false?
There's plenty to choose from. Take the crispy outside-chewy inside of the T-Rex bones, or the realization that the traveling [in America, a T-Rex] 'Sue' exhibit lists rapid depostion as the reason she was so well preserved. How can you have coal without a rapid desposition of some MASSIVE overburden/sediment?
There are thousands of other topics out there that scream 'massive cataclysm'.
But nothing that holds up which would support the claim of a cataclysm in the specific Biblical form of a global flood some 6000 years ago or there about. Massive local floods in many locations at different times over millions of years? Sure. Global-scale catastrophe like an asteroid or comet impact? Sure. Noah-like floods a blink of an eye ago on the geological scale? Only with the most wishful thinking and careful cherry-picking of evidence, while being very careful not to ask the wrong questions, can even get you close the the Flood story.
As if none of the previous conversation even took place, you start bleating your tired "show me" demands about flagella and the like, completely missing the point.
The believability of Noah's Ark stands or falls on its own -- the relative believability of evolution hasn't got a thing to do with it. What claim are you making? Are you claiming that Noah's Ark is eminently, scientifically believable, or are you retreating to the position of merely claiming "My bullshit doesn't stink any worse than yours!"?
Geology alone, without any Darwinian thoughts, without regard to what a single living thing descended from, stands massively against the reality of the Noah story. I know how creationists love their little anecdotes about things like badly-done carbon dating showing a Big Mac or whatnot to be 1.5 million years old -- but if you try to use that shop-worn creationist tactic, you do so only by completely missing the fact that not one substantial bit of modern geology, most especially when it comes to the broadest non-Noah-like brushstrokes of the great geological picture, relies on any such garbage data.
Just because police have supposedly clocked trees at 80 mph with their radar guns doesn't mean cars can't go 80 mph, that radar guns used properly can't produce meaningful measurements, or that you can make up your own "theory" that cars go 50,000 mph when nobody's looking. Games creationist play trying to discredit unfavorable dating techniques amount to pretty much the same thing.
Known rates of erosion and material deposition, the particular patterns and types of sedimentation and geological strata formation found all around the world, ice core data, tree rings, size and growth patterns in coral reefs, now-possible measurements of continental drift and mountain formation -- all point squarely at a world totally different from the one painted by a naively literal reading of Biblical fairy tales.
Throw in life sciences, still without invoking evolution, just looking at current distributions of animals and plants, numbers of species, varieties of habitats, studies of mitochondrial DNA and the rates of mutation thereof -- and the Noah's Ark story becomes even more preposterous.
"Feasibility studies?" Playing word games with ancient Hebrew names for animals and diddling with what a "kind" might mean until you get small enough a number of "kinds" to cram into a wooden boat isn't "feasibility".
No one would ever, ever reach the conclusion that the world looks like, and got to where it is right now, via anything like the Biblical Flood by objectively looking at the raw data available now, or even by seriously looking at what data was available a hundred years ago.
Only by starting with the Ark story and by having some inexplicable, ambiguity-hating need to believe you've got yourself The Complete Literal Truth in one handy-dandy Book would ever lead anyone down the path to believing in a fairy-tale like global flood in recent history, or believing in a massive burst of speciation starting from the limited gene pool of a small collection of creatures from only a few thousand years back.
It's not about "feasibility studies" (none of which hold up well to much critical scrutiny). It's not about if you can conjure up some "Well, you can't prove it didn't happen" series of lucky coincidences, laws of physics that change at just the right moment in time to save your story, and of course, a healthy helping of as many miracles as it takes along with an especially selective approach to very generously interpreted available data.
It's about whether this planet and the life living upon it look anything like what one would expect following a massive global flood some 6000 years or so ago, and the subsequent re-population of the world from a small collection of specimens crammed into a single wooden boat at that time.
The answer is clearly no. This world does not look at all like that, and all the available data scream that fact -- without even having to come anywhere near your favorite evolutionary straw men to reach that conclusion.
The answer is clearly no. This world does not look at all like that, and all the available data scream that fact -- without even having to come anywhere near your favorite evolutionary straw men to reach that conclusion.
But nothing that holds up which would support the claim of a cataclysm....
Geology alone, without any Darwinian thoughts.......
Just because police have supposedly clocked trees at 80 mph......
Known rates of erosion and material deposition........
Throw in life sciences.....
"Feasibility studies?" Playing word games.......
No one would ever, ever reach the conclusion that the world looks like.......
Only by starting with the Ark story and by having some inexplicable........
It's not about "feasibility studies".......
Another 3000+ character post -- but it's not much more than a recitation of National Geographic Special comfort points; you could have said a lot more in a lot less space -- and you've missed the point, and a great deal of deluge-related research. If you must pretend "my" research doesn't exist, then I'm obliged to return the favor. If "ignorant goatherders" could get within groping distance of making Noah's trip work, then it should stand to reason that you could do the same with getting me a pathway to the flagellum, or 'life', etc. -- you have reasons to believe? Then show me your reasons -- not your rhetoric.
Shetline, Evolution is an argument from ignorance -- you need to admit that. You don't realize that you are preaching "science" that can't even approach what you criticize as "unbelievable".
"Ah yes, 377 feet as opposed to 450 feet long -- just can't be true. -- Oh but the flagellum? We all know that it is science that leads us to believe that flagellum formed by chance."
Comments
Originally posted by iMac David
Sorry dmz,
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.
There's plenty of evidence for a global flood, go pick up some of Morris' books on the topic; but again, you're chumming for some fixed research to poke holes in -- and we both know that the reasearch is ongoing and open to a great deal of debate, whether it's creationist or materialist. I'd rather not play that game, if it's all the same to you. And more pointedly, it's taken several posts to even get you to acknowledge the basic position of Creationists on Noah, etc., and I'd really not like to spend that kind of time making myself heard.
(nice tactical retreat from Ark feasibility to deluge feasibility BTW -- where's my flagellum feasibility report?)
I have to wait until the weekend to make any more comments.
you wrote:
And more pointedly, it's taken several posts to even get you to acknowledge the basic position of Creationists on Noah, etc., and I'd really not like to spend that kind of time making myself heard.
One of my early posts on this subject was:
Response from Chris: Ah, but Divine Intervention removes all the obstacles - God kept Noah alive, God showed Noah how to build an Ark, God ensured the animals arrived at the Ark, slept for the days necessary, etc.
Final Response from David: Oh well, if God did do all that, then yes, it is possible.
So nope, I acknowledge where you're coming from. A belief in an all powerful deity that created the Ark/deluge and then removed all physical evidence.
And the physical evidence the creationists bring out to support the flood seems to me laughable (I will admit to not delving very far - I'm particularly thinking of the 165m year old fossils apparently discovered in a spa town in England that couldn't be that old as they had some covering).
And what 'tactical retreat'?!?! Come on, the two are inextricably linked. Can't have an Ark without a flood, and can't have a flood without an Ark. Same arguments holds for both.
And why do you keep asking for a "flagellum feasibility report"? If you're asking for a roadmap as to how inert chemicals suddenly had life, leading to life as we know it, you know as well as I do there is no such thing. There are ideas, theories, etc (which could very well include a God saying (not literally, of course, English is probably not a native God language) "let there be life".
I ask yet again - WHY do you believe what is essentially a news report written many several thousand years after the event?
David
someone reads 'Morris' - thats very very funny on two levels
First - is that Morris must be the holder of 'the Creationist with the most number of discredited ridiculous Creationist theories in existance'
and secondly - hehe
A little known fact about Morris - he believes the Bible is a story about the Sun going around the Zodiac.
So I get to ROTFLMAO x2.
Morris believes that the gospel message is in the signs of the zodiac. In Genesis 1:14 the stars in the sky are to serve as signs to mark seasons, days, and years, and not for the gospel, or any astrology (see NIV note). I am surprised that Morris believes that the zodiac teaches the gospel.
http://www.bibleandscience.com/scien...andscience.htm
So what's really going on here is that Dr Dino is making a fortune selling crap to any hapless moron who's willing to buy it, - while at the same time sending a secret signal (maybe a dodgy handshake - hehe) to anyone slightly educated that he 'knows' the real story behind the Gospels, and he's just taking y'all for all he can.
I always thought that underneath dmz's gobbleydygook and ignorant surface there was a guy who really understood something special. Now I know what I've long suspected. You're just another hapless loon.
Never mind, I understand that you believe the Bible to be literal, I understand why you want to believe it to be true. I also understand that you must have been at one point vulnerable, shallow and impressionable, and someone took advantage of your good nature. I also understand that you really need to go see someone who can really help you get back to reality.
God Bless
MarcUK
Originally posted by powermacG6
I always thought that underneath dmz's gobbleydygook and ignorant surface there was a guy who really understood something special. Now I know what I've long suspected. You're just another hapless loon.
Never mind, I understand that you believe the Bible to be literal, I understand why you want to believe it to be true. I also understand that you must have been at one point vulnerable, shallow and impressionable, and someone took advantage of your good nature. I also understand that you really need to go see someone who can really help you get back to reality.
God Bless
MarcUK
OH NOO!! It's M-M-M-M-MarcUK c-c-c-c-coming to M-M-M-Malign Me!!!!
Morris is fine, and no, he does not walk on water. Hence the 'reasearch is ongoing and open to a great deal of debate' bit.
I don't have time to get into the deatails on this, pick a pundit, any, pundit. Dr. Henry Morris & Dr. John Whitcomb's, The Genesis Flood, Dr. Werner Gitt's Ark feasibility piece. There's plenty to choose from. Take the crispy outside-chewy inside of the T-Rex bones, or the realization that the traveling [in America, a T-Rex] 'Sue' exhibit lists rapid depostion as the reason she was so well preserved. How can you have coal without a rapid desposition of some MASSIVE overburden/sediment? There are thousands of other topics out there that scream 'massive cataclysm'.
But it doesn't matter, because if you find a typo in the preface, or if Witt's third cousin-twice removed, knew someone who was a Nazi sympathizer in a past life, it's all out the window.
Behave.
behave?! No-one here has criticised Morris (or Witt for that matter) for poor grammar or having a tenuous connection with the Nazi's. The criticism is that he is, basically, a loon because of his beliefs. Disagree on that if you wish, but don't change the reasoning.
Secondly, let me get this straight - you are proposing that a dinosaur was perfectly preserved due to a rapid deluge, possibly the flood, thus supporting the Noah story.
So by extension dinosaurs and man co-habited?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. So any claims that Man and dinosaurs were separated by millions of years are all false?
BTW - still no WHY you believe from you.
David
Originally posted by dmz
There's plenty to choose from. Take the crispy outside-chewy inside of the T-Rex bones, or the realization that the traveling [in America, a T-Rex] 'Sue' exhibit lists rapid depostion as the reason she was so well preserved. How can you have coal without a rapid desposition of some MASSIVE overburden/sediment?
Coal Beds, Creationism, and Mount St. Helens
There are thousands of other topics out there that scream 'massive cataclysm'.
But nothing that holds up which would support the claim of a cataclysm in the specific Biblical form of a global flood some 6000 years ago or there about. Massive local floods in many locations at different times over millions of years? Sure. Global-scale catastrophe like an asteroid or comet impact? Sure. Noah-like floods a blink of an eye ago on the geological scale? Only with the most wishful thinking and careful cherry-picking of evidence, while being very careful not to ask the wrong questions, can even get you close the the Flood story.
As if none of the previous conversation even took place, you start bleating your tired "show me" demands about flagella and the like, completely missing the point.
The believability of Noah's Ark stands or falls on its own -- the relative believability of evolution hasn't got a thing to do with it. What claim are you making? Are you claiming that Noah's Ark is eminently, scientifically believable, or are you retreating to the position of merely claiming "My bullshit doesn't stink any worse than yours!"?
Geology alone, without any Darwinian thoughts, without regard to what a single living thing descended from, stands massively against the reality of the Noah story. I know how creationists love their little anecdotes about things like badly-done carbon dating showing a Big Mac or whatnot to be 1.5 million years old -- but if you try to use that shop-worn creationist tactic, you do so only by completely missing the fact that not one substantial bit of modern geology, most especially when it comes to the broadest non-Noah-like brushstrokes of the great geological picture, relies on any such garbage data.
Just because police have supposedly clocked trees at 80 mph with their radar guns doesn't mean cars can't go 80 mph, that radar guns used properly can't produce meaningful measurements, or that you can make up your own "theory" that cars go 50,000 mph when nobody's looking. Games creationist play trying to discredit unfavorable dating techniques amount to pretty much the same thing.
Known rates of erosion and material deposition, the particular patterns and types of sedimentation and geological strata formation found all around the world, ice core data, tree rings, size and growth patterns in coral reefs, now-possible measurements of continental drift and mountain formation -- all point squarely at a world totally different from the one painted by a naively literal reading of Biblical fairy tales.
Throw in life sciences, still without invoking evolution, just looking at current distributions of animals and plants, numbers of species, varieties of habitats, studies of mitochondrial DNA and the rates of mutation thereof -- and the Noah's Ark story becomes even more preposterous.
"Feasibility studies?" Playing word games with ancient Hebrew names for animals and diddling with what a "kind" might mean until you get small enough a number of "kinds" to cram into a wooden boat isn't "feasibility".
No one would ever, ever reach the conclusion that the world looks like, and got to where it is right now, via anything like the Biblical Flood by objectively looking at the raw data available now, or even by seriously looking at what data was available a hundred years ago.
Only by starting with the Ark story and by having some inexplicable, ambiguity-hating need to believe you've got yourself The Complete Literal Truth in one handy-dandy Book would ever lead anyone down the path to believing in a fairy-tale like global flood in recent history, or believing in a massive burst of speciation starting from the limited gene pool of a small collection of creatures from only a few thousand years back.
It's not about "feasibility studies" (none of which hold up well to much critical scrutiny). It's not about if you can conjure up some "Well, you can't prove it didn't happen" series of lucky coincidences, laws of physics that change at just the right moment in time to save your story, and of course, a healthy helping of as many miracles as it takes along with an especially selective approach to very generously interpreted available data.
It's about whether this planet and the life living upon it look anything like what one would expect following a massive global flood some 6000 years or so ago, and the subsequent re-population of the world from a small collection of specimens crammed into a single wooden boat at that time.
The answer is clearly no. This world does not look at all like that, and all the available data scream that fact -- without even having to come anywhere near your favorite evolutionary straw men to reach that conclusion.
Originally posted by shetline
Coal Beds, Creationism, and Mount St. Helens
[snip]
The answer is clearly no. This world does not look at all like that, and all the available data scream that fact -- without even having to come anywhere near your favorite evolutionary straw men to reach that conclusion.
The definitive post on the subject.
I just wish it would make a difference.
Can I have your babies? That was beautiful.
Originally posted by shetline
Coal Beds, Creationism, and Mount St. Helens
But nothing that holds up which would support the claim of a cataclysm....
Geology alone, without any Darwinian thoughts.......
Just because police have supposedly clocked trees at 80 mph......
Known rates of erosion and material deposition........
Throw in life sciences.....
"Feasibility studies?" Playing word games.......
No one would ever, ever reach the conclusion that the world looks like.......
Only by starting with the Ark story and by having some inexplicable........
It's not about "feasibility studies".......
Another 3000+ character post -- but it's not much more than a recitation of National Geographic Special comfort points; you could have said a lot more in a lot less space -- and you've missed the point, and a great deal of deluge-related research. If you must pretend "my" research doesn't exist, then I'm obliged to return the favor. If "ignorant goatherders" could get within groping distance of making Noah's trip work, then it should stand to reason that you could do the same with getting me a pathway to the flagellum, or 'life', etc. -- you have reasons to believe? Then show me your reasons -- not your rhetoric.
Shetline, Evolution is an argument from ignorance -- you need to admit that. You don't realize that you are preaching "science" that can't even approach what you criticize as "unbelievable".
"Ah yes, 377 feet as opposed to 450 feet long -- just can't be true. -- Oh but the flagellum? We all know that it is science that leads us to believe that flagellum formed by chance."
Give me a break.