Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Which is why this was settled, scientifically, over 200 years ago.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A Bunch of Reasons Why I Question Noah's Flood Story:
- Thread starter NewGuyOnTheBlock
- Start date
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Well, how many times has everyone tried to explain to a creationist what "theory" means in science? That science doesn't deal in "proof"? That scientists updating things in response to new data is how science works?
And how many times have you seen any of the creationists actually understand any of those and adjust their position accordingly?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
You may be underestimating.A gajillion!
Now, how many times have you seen them be cornered in a debate, only to just leave the thread and go start up with someone else? Again, I think a gajillion may be an underestimate.Never
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
We should always assume that nothing is ever going to be "perfect", whatever that may be, however it is also wise not to negate the good by insisting that only perfection counts. In science, we don't assume much of anything.
BTW, is a "fanatical evolutionist" any more "ignorant" than a "fanatical theist"? IMO, I tend to feel that the latter is probably more so than the former since a theist has so little to work with.
ecco
Veteran Member
Moonjuice
In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey
[QUOTE="The Ark was too large to be seaworthy. (SEE Wyoming (schooner) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The rough seas would have twisted the Ark apart.
Seas, or sea of water? You know this? How?[/QUOTE]
Here is an excellent example of what it means to be "closed minded". Taking exactly ZERO seconds to attempt understand a contradictory point you are unfamiliar with before you disagree. What do you mean, you know this how? The dude literally gave you a reference showing where he drew his conclusion from. Instead of disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, why not take an honest approach? Look at the reference material for 5 minutes and explain why you think the reference doesn't lead to the conclusion that he is agreeing with.
Seas, or sea of water? You know this? How?[/QUOTE]
Here is an excellent example of what it means to be "closed minded". Taking exactly ZERO seconds to attempt understand a contradictory point you are unfamiliar with before you disagree. What do you mean, you know this how? The dude literally gave you a reference showing where he drew his conclusion from. Instead of disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, why not take an honest approach? Look at the reference material for 5 minutes and explain why you think the reference doesn't lead to the conclusion that he is agreeing with.
gnostic
The Lost One
Have you ever been at sea, in a storm with rough sea, as in with large waves?
If it did rain for 40 days and nights, and with no lands in sight, any vessel would have been battered by the waves. Even large cargo ships or aircraft carrier cannot prevent rain and waves from swamping them.
Not only would the waves broken any wooden vessel, even if it did survive the battering, the ark would have been swamped, and if the ark had openings for ventilation, in 40 days, water would get in as in tonne of water, and every decks would have been wet. Do you really think they can bail all the water out with just 8 people for 40 days?
And if the ark was completely sealed up with no ventilation for 40 days, then animals and people would suffocate.
The ark story is simply unrealistic, especially knowing how severe storm at sea can be today, there are too many factors where things can disastrously wrong.
And another thing, is how all the animals can survive for a whole year onboard, without single death?
Then there are problems with all the animals leaving the ark.
How do you expect a pair of animals, travelling through all the land to repopulate the Earth without death, without starving (what do they eat after they leave the ark) or being kill by predators?
Koalas are not known as travelling animals, and they lack strength, stamina and speed, they don’t run and they can’t swim, and they spent much of their times hanging on the eucalyptus trees, feeding off leaves and sleeping most of the days. And they don’t just feed off from any tree that exist in Asia and islands between Indian Ocean and Pacific. So how do you expect koalas to travel from Ararat to Australia, without dying or without being killed?
It would definitely be unrealistic for koalas to travel thousands of miles, and migrate from Ararat to Australia. And it is just the koalas. There are echidnas and wombats also not known to be trekkers or swimmers.
It is just more unrealistic fantasy.
I think most creationists are closed minded to reality.
Last edited:
Probably kept it all in a fridge on the flight deck next to the attack helicopters.
Good grief. A dead horse is a dead horse.
Good grief! Are you for real? Seriously? You are still arguing that there were mammals with feathers.
They have been supported, explained, explained again, explained yet again and explained even more and then explained some more and still here you are posting the same nonsense assertions and points. This is one of the finest examples of creationist gibberish I have seen in some time.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
Yes; a "typical" flood; but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a worldwide flood that was, according to the Creationist, able to carve out the Grand Canyon in minutes; yet magically, with all that torrent going on, wouldn't mix up what was on the ground.
These tsuamis are gentle compared to what a flood of the magnitude you assert is factual would create. After all, it carved the Grand Canyon and other formations in minutes; but was gentle enough to neatly lay down its debris.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
If science says metals as machinery parts manipulated above ground by human conditions are found deep inside earth as depth and fused rock fusion then an above ground stone mass change was reacted.
One.....stone is naturally sealed.
Two. Minerals are mined to build machine parts.
Three....instant snap freeze to reseal converting mass above ground would be instant.
A conversion to grounds mass as substance would be instant. Involving instant water removal first.
As water gets removed from stones mass what substance would the stone become in that process?
Image.
Image seen cut or etched into the body of stones fusion as statue like.
Were bones found inside stone fusion actually life's bones of once living forms should be a science question.
Or was it a human science radiation recorded feedback attack on stones fusion as phenomena?
Science human expressed states the substance of stones can convert into changed substances.
One.....stone is naturally sealed.
Two. Minerals are mined to build machine parts.
Three....instant snap freeze to reseal converting mass above ground would be instant.
A conversion to grounds mass as substance would be instant. Involving instant water removal first.
As water gets removed from stones mass what substance would the stone become in that process?
Image.
Image seen cut or etched into the body of stones fusion as statue like.
Were bones found inside stone fusion actually life's bones of once living forms should be a science question.
Or was it a human science radiation recorded feedback attack on stones fusion as phenomena?
Science human expressed states the substance of stones can convert into changed substances.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Here's an article you can ignore about how hair, feathers and scales are inherited modified structures from a common ancestor.
Feathers, hair, and scales: Do they share a common ancestry? - CSMonitor.com
Not just mammals. Everything that branched out of A.
And yes. But that's not what we see. What we see, is that only those on branch D have feathers.
Those on branch B have hair instead.
So finding a feline with feathers tomorrow, would violate the nested hierarchy.
The feathers would place it on branch D. The mammary glands would place it on branch A. When a creature has to be placed on 2 branches, it breaks the nested hierarchy.
How many times must it be repeated?
It wouldn't. But it's not what we see. What we see, is that only D has feathers.
So finding a feline with feathers tomorrow, would not fit evolution as it would break the nested hierarchy.
How many times more?
Aaaaand we're back to the useless tautology that says "if everything would be different, then things would be different".
Also, this is a dishonest moving of the goalposts.
Remember the original point which started this mess of a pigeon chess game?
That point was: evolution would be in trouble if tomorrow we find a mammal with feathers.
A mammal. As in 1 (species). The point was NOT "let's imagine a hypothetical world where ALL animals have feathers".
No, entire sections of DNA don't just disappear without a trace.
It's been 100 million years since birds lost their teeth, yet they still have the genetic remnants thereof.
We humans also still have the GULO gene, as do all great apes. And it's broken in the same way in all great apes. And it's been that way for millions of years also.
It is entirely unreasonable to suggest that ALL branches under A (in the drawing) except D lost the feather genetics without any kind of trace remaining.
That, and off course the fact that hair and feathers are homologous. So the very idea of "we had feathers and lost them", makes zero sense. This is another point you consistently ignore.
You have been moving goalposts so much, it's hard to keep track.
I guess the biggest problem here, is your inability (or rather: unwillingness) to comprehend nested hierarchies and basic evolutionary mechanisms.
No. What you said is that it is rare.
Clearly it is not rare as thousands upon thousands of bird species retained the genetics for teeth building.
If it was "rare" for species to retain ancient inactive genetics, we would expect only a handful of birds to still have those genes. Or even none at all, since it's been 100 million years.
Instead, we find that ALL BIRDS have these genes. ALL.
So, not rare at all. Exactly the opposite, in fact.
Losing such genetics is what is rare. So rare in fact, that not a single bird species lost it.
So no, not a strawman at all. Instead, a direct refutation of your bare assertion.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
By none other then the fathers of geology, who were christians who started studying the earth for the purpose of finding evidence of the biblical flood story.
What they found, was the opposite. And they kickstarted geology as a scientific field in the process.
I find this so ironic..... It's been indeed 200 years since that time and these creationists still haven't catched up. It were their own people who tried to scientifically prove this story and eventually had to conclude the exact opposite as a direct result of their studies.
ecco
Veteran Member
GodDidIt!
GodDidIt!
GodDidIt!
GodDidIt!
Who told Noah to build the ark?
GodDidIt!
Who got all the animals to come to the ark?
GodDidIt!
Who made it rain for forty days and nights?
GodDidIt!
Any questions?
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Exactly! Can't chalk up their rejection of the flood as an anti-Bible plot, or being due to an anti-God bias. They were on the same team!
I've shown the writings of those geologists to a few creationists over the years, and pretty much every one of them did the same thing....say something like "That's interesting; I'll look at it and get back to you". Of course not one of them ever did.
It has been pointed out to you for years th
There is a lot of that "and they were never heard from again" going on in these debates. @tas8831 cracks me up when he throws that out there so appropriately.