Noah's Ark Story Decoded

[DavidFirth]

If I may, blü 2, my 2¢ worth,


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.


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

​

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.


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

How about your faith based claims?

You assume the big bang happened: assumption.
You assume abiogenesis happened: assumption.
You assume macroevolution happened: assumption.

You have evidence that you interpret in such a way to seem to support your assumptions but you can by no means prove them.

 

[Skwim]

How about your faith based claims?

Like what, for instance?

You assume the big bang happened: assumption.
You assume abiogenesis happened: assumption.

Yup, and all based on evidence.

You assume macroevolution happened: assumption.

Nope, we consider it to be a fact.

"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."
--Stephen Jay Gould--​

You have evidence that you interpret in such a way to seem to support your assumptions but you can by no means prove them.

Proof is only relevant in mathematics, logic, and liquor. What we have are convictions, which, depending on the evidence, vary to differing degrees, ranging from "possibilty" to "fact."

.

 

[DavidFirth]

Like what, for instance?


Yup, and all based on evidence.


Nope, we consider it to be a fact.

"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."
--Stephen Jay Gould--​

Proof is only relevant in mathematics, logic, and liquor. What we have are convictions, which, depending on the evidence, vary to differing degrees, ranging from "possibilty" to "fact."

.

Yeah, you consider a bunch of assumptions made by scientists as fact.

I also consider God's word to be fact. He knows all and has never lied, very reliable.

 

[cbullion]

Are you saying that there are creationist websites where creationists offer reasoned, evidence-based criticism of those 'tenets' I listed, reach a conclusion that the one under consideration is wrong, and are gracefully published and thanked?

If so, googling hasn't discovered anything of the kind to me so please give me as many links as there are such sites.

2000!? (3600 years for Babylon was Older Prophecy, Jesus talks about 2000, that is in about 2000 Years he would repeat the flood of noah with the "Flood of Fire" from Star Wormwood)

Plagues pestilences and planet x gill broussard annex
Pole Star - Help!

MARK 5:13 And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand) and were choked in the sea.

10,500 B.C. God allowed the Sphinx to be Created to Witness about the Constellation Leo Alignment with the Vernal Equinox, this Marked the Completion of Noah's Flood......................GOD MOVED THE NATURAL POSITION OF THE EARTH'S PRECESSION FROM ALDERAMIN IN 10,500 B.C. to PI HERCULES IN 10,500 B.C. ........................... We will obtain the natural position of Alderamin in 7000 A.D. - 10,500 B.C. = 3600 for Nibiru Prophecy of Babylon, when God shifted the Constellation's Belt to complete the Measurement of the New Universe, Fall from Jesus from 33000 B.C. to 10000 B.C.

Alchemical Emblems, Occult Diagrams, and Memory Arts

All Three Accounts Indicate God modifying the Natural Precessional Cycle, exchanging the Position of Alderamin in 10,500 B.C. to PI Hercules in 10,000 B.C.............................God moved Star Wormwood/NIBIRU from the Pleiades into our Earth's Sun, to Complete NOAH'S FLOOD, outside of this dimension, and allowed the Earth to barewitness on its own relative terms.

#blü 2
You are wasting your time trying to discuss science with David Firth; he's beyond reason.
It says it in his book, creation scientists say so, so it is correct. It doesn't matter that 99.999% of scientists disagree. End of.

(God allows the Earth to Bare Witness, it does not bare a false witness, it articulates certain perimeters exceeding the gospel's program into those terms, that is a second hand account, and it does not take precedence...................you have the illusion of "Intelligent Design" in a uniformed constant)

1. Ninth Planet (Missing, you will not find this) = False Positive, that is Mother Earth's articulation of Noah's Flood (events from 33000 B.C. to 10000 B.C.)
2. Evolutionary Chain = (Missing Link, you will not find this) = False Positive, this is once again Mother Earth's articulation of God's activities.

(These are the most glaring issues, there are several archaeological studies, very common, with unknown appearances and disappearances of certain species, it appears Mother Earth has given you many false positives.........................Not False Witnessing, remember Constellation Leo or 8/21/2017 is 42 Months from Flight 370 and 70 years from Roswell UFO Incident, that begins 150 days around that time........................no 33 Degrees of Pleiades for 33 Days of Sun Differential Pole is Observed, no 8/21 to 9/23 for a longer period, no 9/23)

(Articulated in today's terms, that is ethnic suicide for the "missing link", and global suicide in the "twinkling of an eye" for the "missing Ninth Planet")

 

[blü 2]

cbullion

Thanks for your post.

Unfortunately it's in a language I don't know.
.

 

[Altfish]

How about your faith based claims?

You assume the big bang happened: assumption.
You assume abiogenesis happened: assumption.
You assume macroevolution happened: assumption.

You have evidence that you interpret in such a way to seem to support your assumptions but you can by no means prove them.

But it is all done on the BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE and currently that is the best explanation..
AND if something was discovered tomorrow that changed any of those explanations scientists would re-evaluate the evidence and change their minds if that how the evidence pointed.

 

[DavidFirth]

But it is all done on the BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE and currently that is the best explanation..
AND if something was discovered tomorrow that changed any of those explanations scientists would re-evaluate the evidence and change their minds if that how the evidence pointed.

Creation science is the BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE interpreted differently. It's all in you world view as to how you choose to interpret the evidence. The big bang isn't fact, abiogenesis isn't fact and macroevolution isn't fact. It's all speculation made on the assumptions concerning the evidence and that's all it is.

 

[Altfish]

Creation science is the BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE interpreted differently. It's all in you world view as to how you choose to interpret the evidence. The big bang isn't fact, abiogenesis isn't fact and macroevolution isn't fact. It's all speculation made on the assumptions concerning the evidence and that's all it is.

No.
Creation Science has an end (The Bible) that it sets out to justify.
Proper science has no preformed agenda, it goes wherever the evidence takes it.
"Then a miracle occurs" or "God did it" are not recognised explanations in proper science.
You say The Big Bang is not a fact, then what explanation do you have for the continuing expansion of the universe?
Abiogenesis is currently the best hypothesis for the start of life on earth. No it is not a fact but it is the explanation accepted by most scientists in the field. Again if you have a better hypothesis publish your paper and let it be discussed, scrutinised, argued about, if it stands up you win a Nobel Prize.
As for Macroevolution, I give up explaining to creationists, it doesn't matter what evidence you give they ignore it, because their 2000-year old book says different.
But, I do have a question for you... please will you explain the Laryngeal Nerve in a giraffe, why did god design it like that if macro-evolution didn't occur. Was it to fool us?

 

[blü 2]

Creation science is the BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE interpreted differently. It's all in you world view as to how you choose to interpret the evidence. The big bang isn't fact, abiogenesis isn't fact and macroevolution isn't fact. It's all speculation made on the assumptions concerning the evidence and that's all it is.

As you know, 'interpreted differently' means 'interpreted so as to be jammed into boxes we're arbitrarily selected, regardless of what the evidence says, regardless of what should be reasoned from that evidence, regardless of what is true about reality.'

It's not a boast to be proud of.
.

 

[DavidFirth]

As you know, 'interpreted differently' means 'interpreted so as to be jammed into boxes we're arbitrarily selected, regardless of what the evidence says, regardless of what should be reasoned from that evidence, regardless of what is true about reality.'

It's not a boast to be proud of.
.

You act like you're proud of having jammed it into your atheist's box. You're one to talk.

We reason creation from the evidence. You reason big bang - no creator from the evidence. Neither can be proved as "100% reality." So why do you assume it can be when it clearly can't?

 

[DavidFirth]

No.
Creation Science has an end (The Bible) that it sets out to justify.
Proper science has no preformed agenda, it goes wherever the evidence takes it.
"Then a miracle occurs" or "God did it" are not recognised explanations in proper science.
You say The Big Bang is not a fact, then what explanation do you have for the continuing expansion of the universe?
Abiogenesis is currently the best hypothesis for the start of life on earth. No it is not a fact but it is the explanation accepted by most scientists in the field. Again if you have a better hypothesis publish your paper and let it be discussed, scrutinised, argued about, if it stands up you win a Nobel Prize.
As for Macroevolution, I give up explaining to creationists, it doesn't matter what evidence you give they ignore it, because their 2000-year old book says different.
But, I do have a question for you... please will you explain the Laryngeal Nerve in a giraffe, why did god design it like that if macro-evolution didn't occur. Was it to fool us?

Atheism also has an end to justify as well. And they make the evidence fit into their assumption of no creator as well.

"No it is not a fact but it is the explanation accepted by most scientists in the field," is the fallacy of Argument from Authority. Fallacious reasoning.

 

[Altfish]

Atheism also has an end to justify as well. And they make the evidence fit into their assumption of no creator as well.

If an scientist could prove the existence of god he would have riches beyond belief! All atheists I know would happily change their mind about god given proof. Not saying we would waste our time worshipping her but we would accept their existence. You see that's the difference we will change our minds.
A good, recent example (well in my life time) is plate tectonics, they were only accepted by the scientific community as the evidence became overwhelming in the late 1950's

As usual you fail to answer any of my questions. Just change the subject.

No it is not a fact but it is the explanation accepted by most scientists in the field," is the fallacy of Argument from Authority. Fallacious reasoning.

Not sure what that refers to, did I say something was fact?

 

[DavidFirth]

You see that's the difference we will change our minds.

I don't believe you would/will. I am reminded of this verse:

Luke 16:31
"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'"


Someone has risen from the dead but yet you will not hear Him.

 

[Altfish]

I don't believe you would/will. I am reminded of this verse:

Luke 16:31
"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'"

Someone has risen from the dead but yet you will not hear Him.

You continue to refuse to answer the questions and change the subject t once more.

A Bible verse, that's impressive.

Let me give you one...
Jer. 5:21 (King James version): "Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not."

 

[DavidFirth]

You continue to refuse to answer the questions and change the subject t once more.

A Bible verse, that's impressive.

Let me give you one...
Jer. 5:21 (King James version): "Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not."

The following verse 22 says,

"22Do you not fear me? declares the LORD. Do you not tremble before me? I placed the sand as the boundary for the sea, a perpetual barrier that it cannot pass; though the waves toss, they cannot prevail; though they roar, they cannot pass over it."

The verse you used was being used by the Lord against His people because they did not fear Him.

 

[Altfish]

The following verse 22 says,

"22Do you not fear me? declares the LORD. Do you not tremble before me? I placed the sand as the boundary for the sea, a perpetual barrier that it cannot pass; though the waves toss, they cannot prevail; though they roar, they cannot pass over it."

The verse you used was being used by the Lord against His people because they did not fear Him.

...and you still ignore my questions.

Typical creationist, running for cover when asked to explain the natural world.

 

[blü 2]

You act like you're proud of having jammed it into your atheist's box. You're one to talk.

Atheist box? The evidence is what it is, and science is the result of honest and transparent reasoning from that evidence. 'Creation science', as you know, doesn't do that.

We reason creation from the evidence.

If you did that, you'd agree with science. But you don't do that. You get your creation from faith in a book that says the earth is flat and the sun goes round it. That book is evidence of what one ancient culture thought. It's not evidence for the correct description of reality.

You reason big bang - no creator from the evidence.

And that's wrong why, exactly?

Neither can be proved as "100% reality."

Of courses not. There are no absolutes in science or anywhere else.

But when you say or suggest that creationism and science 'can't be proved as 100% reality' (which is necessarily true, since nothing can) you omit to add that both creationism and science can be shown to be wrong ─ and both have been. The difference is this. When science finds an error, or a misemphasis, or must accommodate new data &c, it sets out as a matter of basic principle to address and fix the problem. Creationism on the other hand refuses to acknowledge and so never amends its errors.

Neither the Tanakh nor the NT anywhere claims to be inerrant, but some folk have tried to wish 'inerrancy' on them anyway. Unfortunately for that claim, and contrary to what the bible says, the earth is NOT flat, and it's NOT the center of the universe, and the earth did NOT exist before the stars did, and plants did NOT exist before the sun did and so on for page after page.

And what's the benefit of pretending otherwise?
.

 

[DavidFirth]

...and you still ignore my questions.

Typical creationist, running for cover when asked to explain the natural world.

Well, your scientists find great difficulty in explaining the natural world and you expect me to do better? Typical atheist.

 

[DavidFirth]

Atheist box? The evidence is what it is, and science is the result of honest and transparent reasoning from that evidence. 'Creation science', as you know, doesn't do that.
If you did that, you'd agree with science. But you don't do that. You get your creation from faith in a book that says the earth is flat and the sun goes round it. That book is evidence of what one ancient culture thought. It's not evidence for the correct description of reality.
And that's wrong why, exactly?
Of courses not. There are no absolutes in science or anywhere else.

But when you say or suggest that creationism and science 'can't be proved as 100% reality' (which is necessarily true, since nothing can) you omit to add that both creationism and science can be shown to be wrong ─ and both have been. The difference is this. When science finds an error, or a misemphasis, or must accommodate new data &c, it sets out as a matter of basic principle to address and fix the problem. Creationism on the other hand refuses to acknowledge and so never amends its errors.

Neither the Tanakh nor the NT anywhere claims to be inerrant, but some folk have tried to wish 'inerrancy' on them anyway. Unfortunately for that claim, and contrary to what the bible says, the earth is NOT flat, and it's NOT the center of the universe, and the earth did NOT exist before the stars did, and plants did NOT exist before the sun did and so on for page after page.

And what's the benefit of pretending otherwise?
.
.

As previously stated:

Prove your points and stop blowing more hot air.

 

[blü 2]

Well, your scientists find great difficulty in explaining the natural world and you expect me to do better? Typical atheist.

I've invited you to clarify your position through discussion.

If you can't do that, then ─ ahm ─ have a nice day.
.