Noahs Ark

[AxisMundi]

Court rulings can always be overturned.

Anybody can pick apart anything they want to and use sound reasoning and logic in the process.

ID doesn't stand up to the scientific community ot the Scientific Method either.

It is refered to as a pseudoscience for a reason.

 

[challupa]

Now, let's play devil's advocate for a moment and pretend, with you, that there really is no evidence for continuous occupation of China before 1700 BCE. That would mean, according to your story, that in just 700 years the eight survivors of the flood had given rise to enough descendants to spread themselves out across the whole of Asia, populate China and found a literate dynasty from scratch; not only that, but on the way they had completely forgotten the language and culture they'd left behind and developed a new and totally unrelated spoken and written language (several, in fact).

Of course, only a small fraction of Noah's descendants could have gone this way and ended up Chinese: a good proportion had to be elsewhere, busily populating Africa and Mesoamerica.

Are you really telling us this is a scenario you take seriously?

Careful, now your bringing logic into this discussion. :yes:

 

[fantome profane]

Anybody can pick apart anything they want to and use sound reasoning and logic in the process.

Yeah, if you use logic you can prove anything that is obviously true.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Simply put, yes they did, albeit due to modern knowledge they now understand the world is bigger than their own land.

If something is not known to a person, it cannot be known. To the Australian aboriginal as one example, Australia was all there was. In another example, people did once believe the world was flat, this doesn't mean they were stupid, by pure observation, the world does look flat, give or take a few hills and mountains, so their knowledge at the time was completely justified, and completely reasonable. It is only our greater knowledge which can make them appear stupid, albeit it would be only an inane person who would say they were stupid and not report them as the intelligent people they were.

It pertains to human perception. Human perception influences our judgement.

So there is no concrete evidence for this concept, just interpolation?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Simply put, you have a belief and will do anything to keep it.

....I accept all the credible and testable evidence for the ToE. Evolution and the ToE will continue to be whether I accept it or not.

I'll leave the "believing" up to you.

I think what you mean to say, is in your opinion I am incorrect.

Naw, I know what I meant....You're wrong....AS USUAL.......

 

[DallasApple]

I just dont believe for one second..that the entire Earth (the ENTIRE EARTH flooded ) and only one man that built a a boat big enough to save the entire animal species and his family of what?Repopulated the entire world.And if you go with dates he and his family must have had about a 20 second gestation period for each birth.As with the animals.

Humans and all animals woudl have just started laying 100's of eggs in fact like spiders.And those hundreds of spiders would lay 100's of eggs before they were a month old.

Love

Dallas

 

[footprints]

No.
He is correct in saying that you are flat out wrong.

Though, he was being polite about it.

LOL and so says your belief.

 

[darkendless]

LOL and so says your belief.

You throw the word belief around too much.

 

[footprints]

ID doesn't stand up to the scientific community ot the Scientific Method either.

It is refered to as a pseudoscience for a reason.

It may not stand up to some in the scientific community, albeit in line with the Theory of Evolution, is stands up just the same pertaining to scientific method.

 

[darkendless]

It may not stand up to some in the scientific community, albeit in line with the Theory of Evolution, is stands up just the same pertaining to scientific method.

In what way?

ID is what science is not. ID is using known conclusions to make up "science-ish" methods.

 

[footprints]

....I accept all the credible and testable evidence for the ToE. Evolution and the ToE will continue to be whether I accept it or not.

I'll leave the "believing" up to you.




Naw, I know what I meant....You're wrong....AS USUAL.......

Anything you accept is a belief. It doesn't get any more simple than that.

How can a person be wrong if they haven't made a direct claim? Oh that is right, you have a belief, with instant denial and instant acceptance you can prove anything wrong.

 

[footprints]

Yeah, if you use logic you can prove anything that is obviously true.

Even that which is not obvious, which some detractors of the Noahs Ark story are trying to do.

Can you imagine anything more unreasonable, than trying to prove something wrong, which we cannot conclusively say, ever took place? LOL, I just love human intelligence and belief patterns, it is so inane some times.

 

[McBell]

LOL and so says your belief.

No.
So says the facts.
But then, with the lengths you go to to protect your beliefs....

 

[footprints]

So there is no concrete evidence for this concept, just interpolation?

There is more evidence for human perception than any one person could poke a stick at. Very vividly evidenced in forums like this.

As for ancient cultures, many of these perceptions are well documented as they pertain to the Australian Aboriginal, American Indian et al. The journals of Phillip and the writings of Thekland, Darwin, Banks just to name a few, have long since detailed this knowledge, albeit from and English perception.

 

[footprints]

No.
So says the facts.
But then, with the lengths you go to to protect your beliefs....

What you mean to say are the facts which align with your belief pattern.

LOL when a person doesn't have beliefs, they do not need to protect them.

But you keep protecting your beliefs and your absolute truth.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Anything you accept is a belief. It doesn't get any more simple than that.

Ok...you make it sound as if it is a bad thing...though.

The difference is...I accept it if the evidence supports the hypothesis. The hypothesis for a WWF is not grounded in fact.

Creationist "believe" in a WWF which there is no evidence to support such a claim. I reject this hypothesis based on the empirical evidence against it. "It doesn't get any more simple than that."

Your wild tangent against Auto, ToE and "proving or not proving the existence of God"...seems like a deflection or some sort of an attempt to take the thread off course. None of that has any place here. This thread is all about the supposed flood.....

How can a person be wrong if they haven't made a direct claim? Oh that is right, you have a belief, with instant denial and instant acceptance you can prove anything wrong.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1877808-post1494.html
"footprints - Instant denial, double standards applied, whatever it takes Penguin to keep your belief alive."

This was your claim and you are WRONG...!!!

Your charge against me was in reference to ID, Evolution and "God"....NONE of which I introduced in this thread and could care less about...given the context of the thread. There are a number of ongoing debates on those subjects but this thread is not about either of them.

Stick to the script, why don't you...?

 

[footprints]

Ok...you make it sound as if it is a bad thing...though.

It only becomes bad, when some people try to promote it as the one true religion.

The difference is...I accept it if the evidence supports the hypothesis. The hypothesis for a WWF is not grounded in fact.

It isn't grounded from your belief. I have already given you one creationist version which I know of. To them your belief isn't grounded.

Creationist "believe" in a WWF which there is no evidence to support such a claim. I reject this hypothesis based on the empirical evidence against it. "It doesn't get any more simple than that."

Reject it all you like, it is still a belief pattern.

Your wild tangent against Auto, ToE and "proving or not proving the existence of God"...seems like a deflection or some sort of an attempt to take the thread off course. None of that has any place here. This thread is all about the supposed flood.....

There was no wild tangent against Auto, it tied into the OP.

Ah, who is alledged to have created this flood? Oh that is right God. Somehow I think it ties into the subject very nicely.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1877808-post1494.html
"footprints - Instant denial, double standards applied, whatever it takes Penguin to keep your belief alive."

This was your claim and you are WRONG...!!!

No Penguin I am RIGHT....!!!! (see I can write in capital letters too). I am an agnostic, I do not have your belief patterns. I do not hang to power of suggestions like you do.

Your charge against me was in reference to ID, Evolution and "God"....NONE of which I introduced in this thread and could care less about...given the context of the thread. There are a number of ongoing debates on those subjects but this thread is not about either of them.

Then don't ask me to support what I say. If you don't want things like that raised, don't raise them. It couldn't be any more simple.

Stick to the script, why don't you...?

I always stick to the script, except when diverted off by questions which people ask me, or I respond to an off the topic post, that some people put to me (Mestemia as one example).

If you need any evidence of this, look at this post I have just answered from you, it is all off topic! I have just answered you. If you want it kept on topic, then keep it on topic.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It only becomes bad, when some people try to promote it as the one true religion.

You may be right but I never introduced evolution into the debate. I didn't question the existence of "God" in this debate. I stayed on course. Creationist who take the story literally are the ones I debated with and introduced evidence that does not support their assertion. So...I personally, for the sake of this thread topic.....am not interested in evolution or the existence of a god.

It isn't grounded from your belief. I have already given you one creationist version which I know of. To them your belief isn't grounded.

If you're talking about the idea of localized flooding...I agree. But this ongoing debate has not really been about that from the creationist who have been posting here. Theses particular creationist take the story literally. Their version is not grounded in fact....well, not scientific fact....

Reject it all you like, it is still a belief pattern.

This seems to be your favorite word or phrase. Yes. Everyone believes something on some level. Even if they say they have no belief.....There's undoubtedly something they will believe in. I believe that if I drop a glass bottle on the ground it will break. I believe that if I drop a plastic one it won't. The difference in that belief is...I can do an experiment to test my hypothesis. Those who believe in a WWF can go out and examine the geology of the earth and if they know what they're doing should realize the evidence for a WWF is not there...at least not in the time frame they believe. So that belief should change. I find that certain people, regardless of the evidence, don't want to change. Show me the evidence for a WWF and I'll change. So far that hasn't been done.

Ah, who is alledged to have created this flood? Oh that is right God. Somehow I think it ties into the subject very nicely.

I'm beyond that. We've dealt with the windows from heaven opening and water poured in/rained day and night. We're not questioning whether "God did it" or didn't do it. We're examine the geological evidence and it's saying this type of event within the given time frame didn't happen.

I am an agnostic, I do not have your belief patterns. I do not hang to power of suggestions like you do.

That's because I'm not not an agnostic....

Then don't ask me to support what I say. If you don't want things like that raised, don't raise them. It couldn't be any more simple.

That was Mestemia...not me.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1865777-post1430.html

I asked you something about skeletons. We addressed that and moved on.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1875228-post1467.html

 

[footprints]

You may be right but I never introduced evolution into the debate. I didn't question the existence of "God" in this debate. I stayed on course. Creationist who take the story literally are the ones I debated with and introduced evidence that does not support their assertion. So...I personally, for the sake of this thread topic.....am not interested in evolution or the existence of a god.




If you're talking about the idea of localized flooding...I agree. But this ongoing debate has not really been about that from the creationist who have been posting here. Theses particular creationist take the story literally. Their version is not grounded in fact....well, not scientific fact....




This seems to be your favorite word or phrase. Yes. Everyone believes something on some level. Even if they say they have no belief.....There's undoubtedly something they will believe in. I believe that if I drop a glass bottle on the ground it will break. I believe that if I drop a plastic one it won't. The difference in that belief is...I can do an experiment to test my hypothesis. Those who believe in a WWF can go out and examine the geology of the earth and if they know what they're doing should realize the evidence for a WWF is not there...at least not in the time frame they believe. So that belief should change. I find that certain people, regardless of the evidence, don't want to change. Show me the evidence for a WWF and I'll change. So far that hasn't been done.






I'm beyond that. We've dealt with the windows from heaven opening and water poured in/rained day and night. We're not questioning whether "God did it" or didn't do it. We're examine the geological evidence and it's saying this type of event within the given time frame didn't happen.




That's because I'm not not an agnostic....




That was Mestemia...not me.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1865777-post1430.html

I asked you something about skeletons. We addressed that and moved on.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1875228-post1467.html

Again a whole post which doesn't pertain to the OP. And of course it is me who doesn't stay on topic and tries to divert it.

I raised the point that some Theists believe that God, having super natural powers could eliminate any evidence of a flood that God wanted to, and place into peoples minds that a flood never existed after they were brought back from the dead. Bang, there goes your so called facts of why the Egyptians and Chinese didn't report it. They (some theists) alledge, God per se, erased it. Others will argue the valid point pertaining to carbon dating. Others will point to the valid point that surface rocks of the crust return to the mantel, evidence is lost. Others will point to the facts that tectonic plates move,sometimes very rapidly and without warning, again evidence could be lost or even moved.

It doesn't matter if you don't believe it, what you believe doesn't concern them, only what they believe.

You have your belief patterns, they have theirs. One of you may end up being correct.

 

[rusra02]

Now, let's play devil's advocate for a moment and pretend, with you, that there really is no evidence for continuous occupation of China before 1700 BCE. That would mean, according to your story, that in just 700 years the eight survivors of the flood had given rise to enough descendants to spread themselves out across the whole of Asia, populate China and found a literate dynasty from scratch; not only that, but on the way they had completely forgotten the language and culture they'd left behind and developed a new and totally unrelated spoken and written language (several, in fact).

Of course, only a small fraction of Noah's descendants could have gone this way and ended up Chinese: a good proportion had to be elsewhere, busily populating Africa and Mesoamerica.

Are you really telling us this is a scenario you take seriously?

Hmm, how could it happen that people who populated China completely forgot the language and culture they left behind... etc? (Genesis 11:1-9) And how could people have migrated so far so quickly? (Genesis 11:1-9) Clearly, the Bible gives the historical answer.