Noah's Ark Story Decoded

[Altfish]

Dr. Andrew Snelling
Dr. Kurt Wise

Satisfied?

From Wiki...

Andrew A. Snelling is a young-Earth creationist geologist who works for Answers in Genesis

Kurt Patrick Wise (born 1959) is an American young earth creationist who serves as the Director of Creation Research Center at Truett McConnell University. He has a PhD in geology from Harvard University. He is known for his writings in support of creationism as well as his work for the Creation Museum.

So, no, not satisfied

 

[Altfish]

I've just remembered, Kurt Wise is the one who said something like, "When I was in college, I said to my professor 'if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate'"

That is not a statement any real scientist would make.

 

[blü 2]

If you can't or won't find them for yourself, why should I bother? We'll just let you continue on in your fantasy world where no such site exists. Yeah, that makes you smile so we'll leave it at that.

If I could find them ─ and I speak after some time checking ─ I wouldn't ask you.

And if they existed, you'd at worst simply give me a link to the main one instead of trying to weasel away.

So I conclude that the ICR pages I quoted above still represent the position of creationists.

And that, as I said and you affected to deny, 'creation scientists' are not real scientists, and don't follow scientific method.

Had you been honest and straightforward about these matters, instead of contriving excuses and evasions, we could have had a sensible discussion; but that doesn't seem to be what you want.
.

 

[metis]

"Creation science" besides being an oxymoron, also is terrible "theology". Most Christian and Jewish theologians do not have a problem with the ToE as long as it is understood that God caused it all.

Also, by insisting on a literalistic approach, they ignore the various forms of traditional Jewish writing, which included metaphors, allegory, parables, etc. Therefore, why is it so difficult for some to understand this when it comes to certain narratives in Genesis and yet accept the various literalistic forms found in the Psalms and Revelation, for just two examples?

Unfortunately, some churches play the "we v they" game so as to demean other churches and religions, whereas "we" are the good guys with the white hats and "they" are the ignorant, who also anti-Bible, that wear the black hats. Meanwhile, their tithing, even though they're not under Jewish Law, continues to feed the coffers of the pastors and staff.

 

[DavidFirth]

If I could find them ─ and I speak after some time checking ─ I wouldn't ask you.

And if they existed, you'd at worst simply give me a link to the main one instead of trying to weasel away.

So I conclude that the ICR pages I quoted above still represent the position of creationists.

And that, as I said and you affected to deny, 'creation scientists' are not real scientists, and don't follow scientific method.

Had you been honest and straightforward about these matters, instead of contriving excuses and evasions, we could have had a sensible discussion; but that doesn't seem to be what you want.
.

You can stuff what you think about YEC scientists up your bunghole, I couldn't care less what you think since you're so obviously biased against Christianity. You asked for a name and I gave you two.

I don't put my faith in scientists, anyway, my faith is in God. Surely you don't claim to have a scientist that knows more than Him, do you?

 

[DavidFirth]

From Wiki...

Andrew A. Snelling is a young-Earth creationist geologist who works for Answers in Genesis

Kurt Patrick Wise (born 1959) is an American young earth creationist who serves as the Director of Creation Research Center at Truett McConnell University. He has a PhD in geology from Harvard University. He is known for his writings in support of creationism as well as his work for the Creation Museum.

So, no, not satisfied

They are both qualified geologists with Ph.D.'s. If you don't like them then you don't like them. Means nothing to me.

 

[Altfish]

They are both qualified geologists with Ph.D.'s. If you don't like them then you don't like them. Means nothing to me.

I see you ignored my next post which goes a long way to prove that Wise is not a scientist.

 

[DavidFirth]

I see you ignored my next post which goes a long way to prove that Wise is not a scientist.

I don't care about your opinion about the scientist. I was asked to give a name so I gave two names.

I don't go by what scientists think. I go by what God has revealed to us. Scientists change their theories around all the time. God's word does not change.

 

[Altfish]

I don't care about your opinion about the scientist. I was asked to give a name so I gave two names.

I don't go by what scientists think. I go by what God has revealed to us. Scientists change their theories around all the time. God's word does not change.

Indeed, that is the problem, the lack of change. End of conversation.

 

[DavidFirth]

Indeed, that is the problem, the lack of change. End of conversation.

Good. I'm so glad you agree that God is always right so He doesn't need to change anything yet scientists are never fully correct and must change their ideas around every so often. Good chat.

 

[Darkstorn]

Good. I'm so glad you agree that God is always right so He doesn't need to change anything yet scientists are never fully correct and must change their ideas around every so often. Good chat.

Circular reasoning and confirmation bias don't go well together, guy.

AND you're trying to prove something to yourself. I mean, it's pretty obvious to even yourself that he's not actually agreeing with most of what you're saying there, so we could also call it just plain willful ignorance and poor debating ability.

I bet after all that, you still think of yourself as better than those who don't agree with what you think.

 

[DavidFirth]

Circular reasoning and confirmation bias don't go well together, guy.

AND you're trying to prove something to yourself. I mean, it's pretty obvious to even yourself that he's not actually agreeing with most of what you're saying there, so we could also call it just plain willful ignorance and poor debating ability.

I bet after all that, you still think of yourself as better than those who don't agree with what you think.

Nope. I'm one of the worst of sinners. I don't think I'm better than anyone.

Well, it was a "tongue in cheek" post. I do have a sense of humor in spite of popular opinion.

 

[Altfish]

Good. I'm so glad you agree that God is always right so He doesn't need to change anything yet scientists are never fully correct and must change their ideas around every so often. Good chat.

You are showing your lack of knowledge of science. Of course it changes, scientists make new discoveries, new technologies come on board, they advance medicine, iPhones, computers, etc. come from science not religion.

If things didn't change (I prefer 'advance') then we may as well stop all research, make all scientists redundant because to follow your criticism of 'change' to its inevitable conclusion, stability is preferred.

Change is good. Static is dogma.

 

[Skwim]

Dr. Andrew Snelling
Dr. Kurt Wise

Satisfied?

Dr. Andrew Snelling? Hell, he doesn't know if he's coming of going. See: Will the Real Dr Snelling Please Stand Up?

As for Kurt Wise,

Wise has said he believes, according to a literal reading of the Bible, "that the earth is young, and the universe is young, I would suggest that it's less than ten thousand years in age." He believes that science can be used to support and demonstrate these claims. Despite believing that science supports his position, Wise has written that:

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.

Biologist and popular atheist author Richard Dawkins called Wise a truly honest creationist because he is willing to accept creationism even if he admitted "all the evidence in the universe" was against it. Dawkins, referring to Wise's testimony, criticized what he perceived as intellectual dishonesty.
Source:Wikipedia​

Boy, isn't that the truth. "I believe in science except when it contradicts my faith."

.

 

[blü 2]

You can stuff what you think about YEC scientists up your bunghole, I couldn't care less what you think since you're so obviously biased against Christianity. You asked for a name and I gave you two.

First, creationism isn't Christianity, and I have close friends and loved rellies who are Christians ─ but not creationists, of course.

Second, I know you're in a bind. You want 'creation science' to be credible, and relevant to reality, and it isn't. 'Creation scientists' neither know nor want to know about scientific method, about how to argue honestly and transparently from examinable evidence.

I didn't ask you for a name ─ that was another poster. You implied, twice, that at least one creationist site existed which was happy to publish reasoned criticism and negative findings regarding the 'tenets' set out in the ICR quote above. And you twice failed to provide evidence of that claim. The reasonable inference is that there are no such sites.

If you think that's an unfair summary, tell me why. And give me a link to such a site.

I don't put my faith in scientists, anyway, my faith is in God. Surely you don't claim to have a scientist that knows more than Him, do you?

If you want to take that approach, of course I do. The bible, reflecting the times and places it was written, thinks throughout that the earth is flat and is the center of the universe. I know better than that, and so do you, yet apparently your god hasn't quite grasped it yet.

And 'creation science' can only deal with the many many problems they have of this kind by pretending the texts of the bible mean something else ─ which is not only a transparent nonsense but a violation of their own principle that the bible must be taken literally.

'Creation science' is, to more intelligent creationists, doublethink and cognitive dissonance. It continually makes statements about reality that are manifestly false. For example YECs claim that Noah's flood was contemporary with the civilizations of Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Indus valley and China, and that ALL their citizens were drowned; and yet NOTHING in history, or in geology, or in genetics, gives the tiniest support to such self-evident foolishness. How can a civilization continue with its population, genetics, buildings, language, customs, domain, intact after all its citizens have been wiped out?

Do you see the problem? Or are you, like 'creation science', looking around for excuses and rationalizations?
.

 

[DavidFirth]

Dr. Andrew Snelling? Hell, he doesn't know if he's coming of going. See: Will the Real Dr Snelling Please Stand Up?

As for Kurt Wise,

Wise has said he believes, according to a literal reading of the Bible, "that the earth is young, and the universe is young, I would suggest that it's less than ten thousand years in age." He believes that science can be used to support and demonstrate these claims. Despite believing that science supports his position, Wise has written that:

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.

Biologist and popular atheist author Richard Dawkins called Wise a truly honest creationist because he is willing to accept creationism even if he admitted "all the evidence in the universe" was against it. Dawkins, referring to Wise's testimony, criticized what he perceived as intellectual dishonesty.
Source:Wikipedia​

Boy, isn't that the truth. "I believe in science except when it contradicts my faith."

.

You just found your motto.

Boy, isn't that the truth. "I believe in science except when it contradicts my faith."


Sounds like your perfect faith in your scientists. Good luck with that.

 

[DavidFirth]

First, creationism isn't Christianity, and I have close friends and loved rellies who are Christians ─ but not creationists, of course.

Second, I know you're in a bind. You want 'creation science' to be credible, and relevant to reality, and it isn't. 'Creation scientists' neither know nor want to know about scientific method, about how to argue honestly and transparently from examinable evidence.

I didn't ask you for a name ─ that was another poster. You implied, twice, that at least one creationist site existed which was happy to publish reasoned criticism and negative findings regarding the 'tenets' set out in the ICR quote above. And you twice failed to provide evidence of that claim. The reasonable inference is that there are no such sites.

If you think that's an unfair summary, tell me why. And give me a link to such a site.
If you want to take that approach, of course I do. The bible, reflecting the times and places it was written, thinks throughout that the earth is flat and is the center of the universe. I know better than that, and so do you, yet apparently your god hasn't quite grasped it yet.

And 'creation science' can only deal with the many many problems they have of this kind by pretending the texts of the bible mean something else ─ which is not only a transparent nonsense but a violation of their own principle that the bible must be taken literally.

'Creation science' is, to more intelligent creationists, doublethink and cognitive dissonance. It continually makes statements about reality that are manifestly false. For example YECs claim that Noah's flood was contemporary with the civilizations of Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Indus valley and China, and that ALL their citizens were drowned; and yet NOTHING in history, or in geology, or in genetics, gives the tiniest support to such self-evident foolishness. How can a civilization continue with its population, genetics, buildings, language, customs, domain, intact after all its citizens have been wiped out?

Do you see the problem? Or are you, like 'creation science', looking around for excuses and rationalizations?
.

Blah, blah, blah.
You just wasted 15 minutes of your time typing that hogwash and I just wasted 5 minutes reading it.

 

[blü 2]

Blah, blah, blah.
You just wasted 15 minutes of your time typing that hogwash and I just wasted 5 minutes reading it.

In that post I called you evasive. That's not hogwash ─ your evasion of all the issues in my post just confirmed it. And it's indistinguishable from dishonesty.

And you've also confirmed something else ─ creationism is indefensible and you know it and we know it.

Worse, you appear to be embarrassed by the anti-science so clearly laid out by the ICR, or you wouldn't have implied there were creo sites out there who did real science and therefore published reasoned arguments against the 'tenets' the ICR proclaims. Why don't you give up this 'science' pretense, hail the ICR anti-science as your rock, embrace them, and tell science to ─ what was that phrase you used about sticking it?

Instead you run away, like Meyer and Dembski and Campbell.

Why do you bother?
.

 

[DavidFirth]

In that post I called you evasive. That's not hogwash ─ your evasion of all the issues in my post just confirmed it. And it's indistinguishable from dishonesty.

And you've also confirmed something else ─ creationism is indefensible and you know it and we know it.

Worse, you appear to be embarrassed by the anti-science so clearly laid out by the ICR, or you wouldn't have implied there were creo sites out there who did real science and therefore published reasoned arguments against the 'tenets' the ICR proclaims. Why don't you give up this 'science' pretense, hail the ICR anti-science as your rock, embrace them, and tell science to ─ what was that phrase you used about sticking it?

Instead you run away, like Meyer and Dembski and Campbell.

Why do you bother?
.

You ignore all defenses of creationism/creation science and try to pretend they don't exist. Just because you don't accept them doesn't mean they don't exist. You can try to keep pretending they don't, though, I guess.

I do not accept the arguments against anything on the ICR website just like you don't accept anything other than big bang/abiogenesis/macroevolution. We just put our faith in different perspectives.

 

[Skwim]

If I may, blü 2, my 2¢ worth,

You ignore all defenses of creationism/creation science and try to pretend they don't exist. Just because you don't accept them doesn't mean they don't exist. You can try to keep pretending they don't, though, I guess.

No one doubts that there are defenses of creationism/creation science or pretends they don't exist, it's just that they're so pathetically poor they're not worth considering.

I do not accept the arguments against anything on the ICR website

Because what, ICR is like the Bible, divinely inspired and infallible?

​

just like you don't accept anything other than big bang/abiogenesis/macroevolution.

Oh, we accept a lot of such things, and all we require is good evidence. Faith based claims and specious arguments just don't cut it.

We just put our faith in different perspectives.

Although you probably don't understand the difference, when it comes to such matters, we employ belief, NOT faith.