What are the odds?

PDN wrote: »

That's a mighty lot of links and words when your answer could as easily be summed up in three words - namely, "Oops, I lied."

not quite, but I'd be happy to go with "oops, I was wrong" if you'd accept that.

I'm a big enough person to admit when I'm wrong, so hopefully I might start a trend on this thread and get everyone doing it.

You are indeed right that I was wrong about the worldwide decline of Christianity, a genuine mistake made on my part based on my own beliefs and the widely reported reduction in numbers in the west. coupled with some very hasty and poorly researched googling i made a complete balls of my whole argument. it can happen to the best of us, so apologies for that.

PDN wrote: »

Your links simply state that church attendance is falling in New Zealand, the UK and Western Europe.

You appear to have made the rather elementary mistake of not reading your own sources, since they contradict rather than support your fantasy about Christianity declining worldwide

indeed I did. I mistakenly attributed the rapid fall in numbers in these areas to represent the whole world, when this is not the case, and as I said, I apologise for that, but it doesn't change the fact (which you have asserted yourself in your response) that Christianity is totally hosed in Europe.

PDN wrote: »

Your link to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity makes no mention of your mythical legend of Christianity's worldwide decline. It simply states that the centre of global christianity is shifting to the South. That is, of course, due to the massive growth in Christianity in places like Asia, Africa and Latin America. Since they also happen to be the most populous areas of the world it remains true that the growth in just one nation such as Nigeria offesets the decline in all of Western Europe put together.

there I go giving you more ammunition, I'd have expecting you to thank me for it.

PDN wrote: »

As for citing the Christadelphians as a authoritative source to support your case - talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel! You want to cite the opinion of a tiny cult as a counter to the surveys demonstrating Christianity's growth produced by the United Nations.

I have no idea who the Christadelphians are, any more than who Calvinists are or presbyterians or any other christian group for that matter, aside from confession and crosses on spires I'm not even sure of any differences between catholics and protestants tbh, it's not something that I've ever felt compelled to study in any great detail.

What religious cult are you part of anyway PDN, I can't remember. If you let me know I'll have a read up on it to make sure I have a better understanding in future. Of course I'm assuming you have no issues with any Christian or other religious group being labelled as a cult given your above comment about the Christadelphians?

PDN wrote: »

You compound your dishonesty with rank hypocrisy.

no, i compound my mistakedness with irony and sarcasm. (however poorly executed). it was never meant to be a serious link, merely one from what I viewed at the time to be 'your lot' as it were agreeing that they were all screwed. sorry if you missed that, I'll be sure to include plenty of smilies next time.

PDN wrote: »

So let's get this straight. Your point is that Communist oppression is what is keeping Christianity growing so rapidly in China (itself a direct contradiction of your claim that "the numbers of people who ARE of a christian faith is falling the world over".

what I was trying to explain (badly) was that it was my view that although communism in china still seems to be full steam ahead, they also seem to be embracing a lot of capitalist ideals and and opening up to the west and relaxing a lot of restrictions so people feel like they have the freedom to do more things openly than previously when everything was governed much more strictly.

PDN wrote: »

That is an interesting thesis, but you have one little teeny-weeny problem. Your own sources, supposedly supporting your little urban legend, actually argue that Christianity was hindered by Communist oppression in Eastern Europe and is now growing as a result of Communism's collapse:

hopefully my last statement has cleared up what I was trying to say.

again, relaxing laws prohibiting what people are allowed to do gives them the freedom to try new things, eastern europe being a similar case in china. new found freedoms in many areas giving people the opportunity to try new things and given that opportunity people will sign up for just about anything. whether or not they stay that way only time will tell.

PDN wrote: »

But hey, maybe it's because I'm a poor deluded Christian while you're an atheist who reaches his conclusions on the basis of rationality and evidence. :rolleyes:

don't worry, you'll all figure it out eventually.

PDN wrote: »

Yes, Muslims are growing worldwide. So are Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and a host of other religions. Mankind is becoming increasingly religious. I've never denied that, although why you as an atheist should be so happy about the growth of Islamic religion is a bit puzzling. However, I think we've realised by now that you are not bound by the same standards of reason or logic that constrain the rest of us in our thinking.

am I supposed to have a problem with an Islamic religion then? sorry I wasn't aware that I was supposed to hate all non-atheists.

I've no problem with the existence of any religion, it was just a useful statistic to point out that whilst Christianity was waning in Europe other religions were gaining in popularity. with less people following Christianity in Europe it seems less and less people there are convinced of it's validity.

PDN wrote: »

OK, now I'm calling you out as a liar - pure and simple.

The word 'another' would require my having posted a previous 'creationontheweb' article. I have never cited or linked to 'creationontheweb' in my life. It would be rather strange if I did since I am not a Creationist.

again, apologies, I was evidently wrong, but in not knowing that I was wrong I am not a liar, merely mistaken. I had taken a comment posted by someone a few pages back in the thread that both yourself and wolfsbane had used creationontheweb links to argue a specific point of view as fact, as I didn't see any denial of such from yourself after the statement was made, but I guess you just didn't see it, or you would have commented then. or maybe you did and I just didn't see your reply to it. either way, again apologies for misrepresenting you as a creationist.

do you mind me asking what specific faith you do follow?

PDN wrote: »

All foreign missionaries were expelled from China in 1954.

who said they were all foreign?

come to think of it, who said all the Christian converts in china were atheists?

from doing a bit of reading (see, i can when i put my mind to it) seems like there's been plenty of different religions in china since the beginning.

"Religion in China has been characterized by pluralism since the beginning of Chinese history. Temples of many different religions dot China's landscape, particularly those of Taoism, Buddhism, and Chinese folk religion. Mahayana Buddhism remains the largest organized religion in China since its introduction in the 1st century."
it's quite an interesting read, but I haven't had tome to go through the whole thing yet, so try not to string me up just yet if I'm contradicting myself again.

seems like a lot of your n00bs would be from the above groups, rather than atheists. I'd imagine it's a lot easier to convert someone from one religion to another than from atheism.

just throwing this out there, but speaking of Chinese Christians as 100 million people or 50 million people or whatever figure you want to put on it isn't really giving an accurate representation of this as part of the overall Chinese population.

100 million Germans would be a huge percentage of the country but 100 million Chinese people really isn't a lot at all.

incidentally, I've come across another figure in the wiki link above to religion in china as 30-50 million, so it really could be just about any number at all so it's probably pointless arguing over the exact figure with such wildly differing guesstimates (which is all they really are).

But whatever number you want to put on it, even at 100 million you're only talking about 6% of the population, but whichever yo choose between 3% and 6% of the population is a tiny amount.

"The number of adherents to these religions can be overlaid in percentage due to the fact that mostly Chinese consider themselves both Buddhist and Taoist. However, it was difficult to estimate accurately the number of Buddhists because they did not have congregational memberships and often did not participate in public ceremonies [31].

The minority religions are Christianity (between 40 million, 3%,[32] and 54 million, 4%[33]), Islam (20 million, 1.5%), Hinduism, Dongbaism, Bon and a number of new religions and sects (particularly Xiantianism and Falun Gong)."

PDN

vibe666 wrote: »

not quite, but I'd be happy to go with "oops, I was wrong" if you'd accept that.

I'm a big enough person to admit when I'm wrong, so hopefully I might start a trend on this thread and get everyone doing it.

Fair enough, we all make mistakes. In that case I unreservedly withdraw the word 'lied'. I've been feeling uneasy about that over the weekend, which is probably my conscience telling me I posted in the heat of the moment.

My apologies for that, and as a moderator I have a dounble responsibility to be more restrained.

I have no idea who the Christadelphians are, any more than who Calvinists are or presbyterians or any other christian group for that matter, aside from confession and crosses on spires I'm not even sure of any differences between catholics and protestants tbh, it's not something that I've ever felt compelled to study in any great detail.

What religious cult are you part of anyway PDN, I can't remember. If you let me know I'll have a read up on it to make sure I have a better understanding in future. Of course I'm assuming you have no issues with any Christian or other religious group being labelled as a cult given your above comment about the Christadelphians?

I use the word 'cult' in its Christian sense (this being the Christianity Board) as referring to a group that uses Christian terminology but denies core Christian beliefs. I belong to a Pentecostal denomination which holds to all the historic Christian beliefs as expressed in the Apostles creed and Nicene creed. However, we are certainly a cult in the sociological sense of simply meaning a religious group - and I have been attacked as a cult leader by both Roman catholics and Free Presbyterians (Paisley's Church).

again, apologies, I was evidently wrong, but in not knowing that I was wrong I am not a liar, merely mistaken. I had taken a comment posted by someone a few pages back in the thread that both yourself and wolfsbane had used creationontheweb links to argue a specific point of view as fact, as I didn't see any denial of such from yourself after the statement was made, but I guess you just didn't see it, or you would have commented then. or maybe you did and I just didn't see your reply to it. either way, again apologies for misrepresenting you as a creationist.

do you mind me asking what specific faith you do follow?

In that case I once again apologise for calling you a liar. (I'll try infracting myself but it might not work) You may well have seen such a comment since atheists often assume that all christians fit their imagined stereotypes.

My faith is Evangelical Pentecostal christianity.

it doesn't change the fact (which you have asserted yourself in your response) that Christianity is totally hosed in Europe.

I disagree with you there. The number of nominal Christians is indeed declining (thank God!). That is a wonderful development IMHO. However, I believe genuine Christianity is doing very well.

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You obviously know nothing about warfare. Soldiers are often exposed to high-loss actions for success in the bigger picture. Individual battles are not always isolated incidents, but integral parts of a planned offensive.
That would be because generals aren't gods and have finite powers and have to suffer loses to gain a victory. I'm not following how you possibly think that maps to a god?

I am always amazed how quickly you guys rush to the conclusion that God had to do it such and such a way, for the bigger picture. The idea that a god had to do anything a certain way is nonsensical.

Apologies for the delay in reply. A lot of sickness.

Of course God did not have to do it any particular way. He chose to do it that way. He could have done it immediately, but He chose to use means.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So one can expect to win the lottery jackpot several times in one's life - the improbability is not that unlikely at all. You really do need to start taking the reality pills, Wickie.
Oh I'm sorry Wolfsbane, I forgot the example of the hundreds of thousands of Christians out there who have won the lottery several times in their lives because they prayed for it. Clearly such a large number of people demonstrate that praying for the Lottery works. How silly of me

Such a prayer would not be accepted by God, which explains its absence:
James 4:3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
"Amazing, what are the odds that I would have a dream about a plane crash (Easy Jet Flight 101 to Miami out of Belfast, Boeing 727), and then I would be on that plane when it crashed!!"
Quite high. Everyone dreams their plane will crash, including those who actually end up on planes that crash.

I wonder did you pray for your plane to crash, otherwise how could such an unlikely even actually happen?

So a lot of people forsee their crash - not just that they will be in a plane that crashes, but the particular plane, particular flight, the deja vu experience? And you have a materialistic explanation for this?

No, my friend, the answers to many of our prayers are very particular. I could see your objection if I prayed for financial help and the Taxman sent me a rebate. But if I prayed about a £500 bill and someone unexpectedly sent me that amount as an appreciation for my services some years ago? That would cause any reasonable person to consider it something other than chance. And I have received several such answers to prayer over the years, mostly not relating to money.

All a co-incidence? You can believe in such improbabilities if you like, but they just confirm to me the witness of the Spirit of God in my heart.

PDN wrote: »

Fair enough, we all make mistakes. In that case I unreservedly withdraw the word 'lied'. I've been feeling uneasy about that over the weekend, which is probably my conscience telling me I posted in the heat of the moment.

My apologies for that, and as a moderator I have a dounble responsibility to be more restrained.

not a problem, and humbly accepted.

i have to admit, I've been a bit of an ar$e recently, not sure why though i think i must just have been 'on the rag' (emotionally speaking of course). I'm always a bit of an emotional rollercoaster anyway, I think I got that from my mother and I'm a real fecker when I get a bee in my bonnet over something, regardless of how right or wrong I might be).

I'll do my best to keep everything to legitimate debate from now on, but I'm sure you'll let me know if I return to my prior arseyishness (yes it's a word

). which I probably will before long, I'm quite heavily medicated at the moment (as high as a kite if I'm totally honest) so that might well change again anyway when the drugs wear off.

let the games begin!

and yes, I know I use too many smilies!

vibe666 said:

i don't need science to rebuttal any facts because you haven't given me any facts to start with, or science for that matter.

The scientists who wrote the articles would disagree with you.

you have given me a fairytale that you desperately want to be true to give some sort of meaning to your life, when it's more than obvious to anyone with even a modicum of common sense that it's nothing more than a made up story that got out of hand via the old chinese whispers effect and over a few thousand years far too many people have taken far too seriously.

OR, that you desperately want not to be true to give some sort of meaning to your life as an unbeliever.

let me get this straight for once and for all. you are stating as fact that a 600 year old man spent 120 years building a boat using building techniques totally unknown until the 20th century

Have you confirmed the ark needed such techniques (it was required only to float, not sail), or that such techniques did not exist for the people who built the pyramids and had other skills lost to following generations?

to house many thousands of animals and their food for a year (or however long it was) to wipe the slate clean and start again and he took all that time to do it when the bible says he created the world in less than a week the first time round?

Yes, God could have done it in a moment, a year, etc. He chose to use means - the building of an ark, the preaching of the gospel as a witness to that generation, the gathering of the animals and feed, the water from above and below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Oh, I see what you meant. I had thought you were saying God ordered or condoned paedophilia. You just meant He did not prevent it.

As I argued before, God is under no obligation to prevent sinners harming each other. And we are all sinners - children included. That He often does so, is by His mercy, not our dues. As you say, paedophiles should be severely punished, even though they claim to be born that way. The only difference between us is the timing - you want it all instantaneously, God does it in His time.
i don't want anything instantaneously and gods time is irrelevent, he's supposed to exist outside of time which is exactly my point.

He chose to use means - therefore time is involved.

there is a genetic defect in some humans to cause them to interfere with kids and god must have known about that from day 1.

No, I'm only saying they claim that defence, just as homosexuals do. I don't accept it as a determining factor, if it does exist (which I doubt).

that kind of thing is the lowest of the low and can serve no purpose other than to harm innocent children and I do not and will not ever believe that a newborn baby has any sin in them so has nothing to be punished for at all, ever but they get abused too.

The babies are not being punished for their sinful nature, just suffering by being born into a sinful race. Christ indicates something of the nature of individual suffering here:
John 9:2 And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
3 Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.

He was not saying the man or his parents were sinless, but that their sin was not the cause of the man's blindness.

if your god existed at all the evil seed in the minds of these people would never have been planted in the first place. it serves no purpose but to cause the suffering of innocents. you god has the capability to do anything hepleases, so by allowing these things to happen he is in effect condoning it.

Yes, God could have prevented Adam & Eve from sinning - but He chose not to, allowing them instead to exercise their freewill. Is He to condemned for that? Who are you to sit in judgement on God? Why do you think you are smarter/wiser/more righteous than Him?
Romans 9:20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

even if he didn't do that all he would need to do is make every pedo in the world turn a different direction away from kids when they are going to do whatever it is they are compelled to do. if he wanted to he could remove that particular thing from their mind forever and make it so that it never existed in the first place. it's not even about free will or the right to choose.

I agree. He has appointed a Day in which all evil will be destroyed forever, all evil-doers eternally punished. But in the meantime, He allows a certain level of evil to exist, as a consequence of our fall into sin.

an innocent new born baby has no choice but to accept what's happening, it's powerless to stop it and it has done nothing to deserve it.

Not sinned personally, but as members of the human race we suffer the consequences of man's fall.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The deteriotation of the gene pool is what gives rise to inherited genetic defects - a good indication that entropy rules out goo-to-you evolution.

Back closer to the time when man had less genetic defects - remember, none in Eden - mating with a sibling, never mind a cousin, would not have had such ill effects.
sorry, but where do you get all this ancient genetic information from?

did noah complete the human genome project as well several thousand years before the rest of us?

From the fact that God created a perfect world - which included genes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As to morals, I wonder where you get the right to condemn incest, given your beliefs about religion. I at least can point to a code and say it condemns or not any specific action. And the Bible only makes brother/sister relationships immoral long after the Flood.
i get the right from being a civilised human being with no interest in people doinking their sisters becuase it is quite plainly bad and wrong by even the most basic of human standards, much like messing with kids is.

actually pretty much the same way i get most of my views of what's going on in the world, either by finding out for myself from other members of society and what's deemed acceptable or by making decisions myself based on common sense and decency.

You dodge the question. Why are you and I right about paedophilia and the paedophile wrong - it's not enough to appeal to majority opinion or say it is plainly so. It is not plainly so to the paedophile, nor have many sins/crimes been plainly so to majorities at different times and places.

you should try it some time, you might just find that accepting child abuse as part of 'gods big plan' a lot harder to swallow.

I find basing my morality on God's revealed will a lot more reasonable than doing it on my feelings or that of a majority. I leave the outworking of His plan of salvation and damnation to God.

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Your huffing and puffing won't deter the truly inquisitive mind from examining the argument dispassionately. I know it hurts to admit that your prejudices about the structure of the ark have been exposed - but the scientific response should be to accept that it was possible to build such a structure - a simple, labour-intensive construction taking up to 120 years. You were just applying modern economics, and possibly unnecessary performance characteristics, to an ancient project.
You've already stated elsewhere that you accept scientific information on the basis of authority rather than your own reason. The authority you accept is invariably one which agrees with your preconceptions. You are certainly not being sceptical or "dispassionate" at all about the subject matter here.

I agree. I know the truth about the Flood, so being dispassionate about it would be inappropriate. Those who do not know, however, ought to be dispassionate in their search for truth.

An aircraft-carrier sized boat made of wood using stone age tools surviving a rapid and doubtlessly turbulent global flood for a year whilst harbouring a tens of thousands of wild animals... Whether one considers that scenario "possible" or not, it is "dispassionately" worthy of doubt and scepticism merely because we have never seen the likes of it.

I have no problem with doubt and scepticism about an unknown. I have where it is used to refuse to examine the arguments.

The skills of Noah's generation should not be thought of as 'stone age'. These people later built the pyramids and invented many things subsequently lost to later generations. See:
The large ships of antiquityhttp://creationontheweb.com/content/view/298

Remember too, the ark only had to float.

So what your website have done is take someone's analysis and pick it apart. That's fair. They've done a doodle of what they think the ark should look like. That's helpful if a little childish. And that's it. That's their proof. The other people's computer analysis is wrong, some speculation about what it should be and here's a picture what I did. Where's their numbers? Where's their computer simulations based upon the parameters they've given? There is nothing sceptical, rigorous or dispassionate in this at all. Just arrogant assumption on their part and blind acceptance on yours.

Not at all - they just point out the obvious flaws in the 'couldn't be done' argument.

See this for a more detailed examination:
Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a seawayhttp://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1773

wolfsbane wrote: »

Of course God did not have to do it any particular way. He chose to do it that way.

that is the point. He chose to do it this way, despite better options being available.

That raises the question why would a "loving" god choose to do it in such a way that allows unnecessary suffering and pain.

Your response is no doubt you don't know but you know he had a valid reason what ever it was, where as my response would be because he probably isn't that loving

wolfsbane wrote: »

Such a prayer would not be accepted by God, which explains its absence:
James 4:3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures.

So why bring it up?

The original point remains, these "answered prayers" are not actually extremely rare as to be only explained by a supernatural miracle. People don't win the lottery multiple times, even the ones that pray for it. You didn't get the Irish State to out of the blue cancel your tax bill. Truly improbable events don't happen on a regular basis to those who pray. It is just people not understand statistics properly.

wolfsbane wrote: »

So a lot of people forsee their crash - not just that they will be in a plane that crashes, but the particular plane, particular flight, the deja vu experience? And you have a materialistic explanation for this?

Well yes, a heck of a lot of people dream about plane flights, particularly if they are going to be on one. The vast majority don't end up on planes that crash and as such forget about these dreams. Some of them do actually end up on planes that crash, and as such the dream will have strong significance to them.

The odds that someone will dream about a plane crash they are eventually on is pretty close to the odds that they will be on a plane that crashes, given how many people dream about the flight they are about to take.

Besides, what is your explanation? God makes planes crash to answer people's dreams?

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, my friend, the answers to many of our prayers are very particular. I could see your objection if I prayed for financial help and the Taxman sent me a rebate. But if I prayed about a £500 bill and someone unexpectedly sent me that amount as an appreciation for my services some years ago?

I would be more impressed if it was the taxman, considering that it would be quite a significant thing to get the Irish State to out of the blue give you a tax rebate. It would be difficult to explain that. Someone you know sending you money around the time you are in financial trouble is not even that much of a coincidence let alone a miracle, considering most people go through most of their lives with debts to pay.

I am finishing up in work this week and out of the blue my work colleges gave me a whip around. I certainly wasn't expecting anything. It so happens that I got my credit card bill today and I had a charge of approx 250 euro on it from a holiday two weeks ago that I had totally forgotten about.

An amazing coincidence yes? Well no, because my last credit card bill had other stuff on it as well. And the one before that. And I've left jobs and got a whip around that wasn't close to my current credit card bill, and whip arounds when I didn't have a credit card bill. The odds that I would be in debt at the time I leave a job, and that the whip around for the job would be close or exactly the value of one of my debts, are not that unlikely at all.

Again all these events that you guys are convinced are God answering your prayers are in fact easily explained by simple statistics.

But then that isn't a nice and fluffy explanation, it doesn't make you feel like you have a big brother or big father looking out for you in times of need, and as such you are more likely to look for a supernatural explanation.

wolfsbane wrote: »

All a co-incidence? You can believe in such improbabilities if you like, but they just confirm to me the witness of the Spirit of God in my heart.

No doubt it does, but then I think most things "confirm" that to you. If a person needs a belief to be true they will see reason to believe it in anything and probably everything.

MrPudding

wolfsbane wrote: »

vibe666 said:

The scientists who wrote the articles would disagree with you.

They may be scientists but that does not mean what they do, in relation to creationism, is science. In fact, as has been pointed out to you many times, it very obviously is not.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Have you confirmed the ark needed such techniques (it was required only to float, not sail), or that such techniques did not exist for the people who built the pyramids and had other skills lost to following generations?

Has this not been done before? Have you not posted stupid links before which show nothing? I seem to remember several posters trying to work out how big it would have to be. I am sure you remember, it lead to an interesting discussion about what kinds are. By the way, any chance of you giving us a list of the kinds? I know you have been asked a few times, I can’t seem to find you answer. It also sparked a bit of discussion about how often organisms would have to mutate to give the number of species we have today. Who would have thought an imaginary story about an imaginary boat could raise so many interesting questions?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, God could have done it in a moment, a year, etc. He chose to use means - the building of an ark, the preaching of the gospel as a witness to that generation, the gathering of the animals and feed, the water from above and below.

He chose to use means - therefore time is involved.

Or perhaps he could not do it and it did not happen?

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, I'm only saying they claim that defence, just as homosexuals do. I don't accept it as a determining factor, if it does exist (which I doubt).

And your evidence that is the case is where? No idiotic creation or hateful religious propaganda please, science would be nice.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The babies are not being punished for their sinful nature, just suffering by being born into a sinful race.

Which was made sinful by your god. He made the race sinful and then punishes it for being sinful.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Christ indicates something of the nature of individual suffering here:
John 9:2 And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
3 Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.

He was not saying the man or his parents were sinless, but that their sin was not the cause of the man's blindness.

Of course the blindness was not caused by sin. It was caused by a defect in the eye or some other part of his vision system. This is not the kind of suffering we are talking about. When we talk about children suffering we are not talking about sick children, though that is another question. We are talking about kids suffering at the hands of others who are sinning when they abuse them.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, God could have prevented Adam & Eve from sinning - but He chose not to, allowing them instead to exercise their freewill. Is He to condemned for that?

Yes.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Who are you to sit in judgement on God? Why do you think you are smarter/wiser/more righteous than Him?

It would most certainly appear that many people I know, myself included, are smarter, wiser and more righteous than him. Not to mention more empathetic, merciful and generally less petty.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I agree. He has appointed a Day in which all evil will be destroyed forever, all evil-doers eternally punished. But in the meantime, He allows a certain level of evil to exist, as a consequence of our fall into sin.

But why?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not sinned personally, but as members of the human race we suffer the consequences of man's fall.

But why? Why do we have to?

wolfsbane wrote: »

From the fact that God created a perfect world - which included genes.

Far from perfect.

MrP

wolfsbane wrote: »

From the fact that God created a perfect world - which included genes.

Genes are only fit to their current environment or not. There is survival or not. There are no "perfect" genes, the term is meaningless.

wolfsbane wrote: »

OR, that you desperately want not to be true to give some sort of meaning to your life as an unbeliever.

Evolution does not give objective meaning to life as an unbeliever. If one actually considers the theory true, there is no objective meaning to life. So to suggest that we push the pro-evolution agenda to create meaning for our lives is simply nonsensical and untrue. We don't have a motive to mislead on this matter Wolfsbane. But fundamentalists do.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I agree. I know the truth about the Flood, so being dispassionate about it would be inappropriate. Those who do not know, however, ought to be dispassionate in their search for truth.

You simply know? What would you say to me if I claimed to simply "know" that the theory of evolution is correct. I think you would call me faithful. I think you would call me a hypocrite. You'd be right to.

This is why we scientists and sceptics reject your assertions. Your starting assumption cannot be overturned. So what is the value of any reasoning based upon it? In science the first assumption we make, our hypothesis, must be in some manner testable. Otherwise it is meaningless.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I have no problem with doubt and scepticism about an unknown. I have where it is used to refuse to examine the arguments.

Who is refusing to examine the argument? So far I have seen little compelling evidence provided on the creationist side. Refuting original research does not equal original research.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The skills of Noah's generation should not be thought of as 'stone age'. These people later built the pyramids and invented many things subsequently lost to later generations.

We are all fully aware that knowledge was lost following the Egyptian dynasties, however little of that knowledge remains a mystery to us today. There is an enormous difference in technological terms between building an immobile structure from megaliths using slave labour and well-understood techniques versus building an ark from wood using older technology.

wolfsbane wrote: »

See:
The large ships of antiquityhttp://creationontheweb.com/content/view/298

Firstly, the time of the flood was clearly not as recent as 2000 BC as it conflicts with the Egyptian chronology as well the Sumerian chronology. Even if it was 4000 years ago though, all that source shows us is:

1) that the Egyptians may have able to build a vessel 128 meters long
2) that if the account is true, this occurred 1700 years after the latest possible date of the flood, but more like 3000 years after it
3) that the vessel in question approaches in size, the minimum size of the ark for it to be a viable. It would probably need to be closer to twice the size.

So what we are talking about when we talk about the ark is a wooden boat of a size unprecedented in antiquity, built thousands of years before anything even resembling it.

Combine that with the outstanding conditions, a global flood rapidly appearing, a boat full of wild animals, genetic bottlenecks and countless others and what you have is something worthy of scepticism.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Remember too, the ark only had to float.

In a global flood. I'll bet that was real calm.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not at all - they just point out the obvious flaws in the 'couldn't be done' argument.

This is worthy of scepticism. The burden of proof is on you guys in this matter, so refuting actual investigations is not going to cut the mustard.

wolfsbane wrote: »

See this for a more detailed examination:
Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a seawayhttp://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1773

I just knew you'd wheel that one out. We debunked this months ago in the creationism thread. How about showing me a source from somewhere other than a creationist website? The grammatical errors and constant use of scripture as a scientific source is really tiring.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The scientists who wrote the articles would disagree with you.

calling some fruitcake in a white coat a scientist doesn't make them one. :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote: »

OR, that you desperately want not to be true to give some sort of meaning to your life as an unbeliever.

i don't desperately want or need anything to be true to give meaning to my life, I'm doing fine thanks very much. it does seem very much like that's what you're doing though. from reading all your previous posts there is absolutely no way that anyone would be able to convince you to accept anything other than your own beliefs as the truth. if someone invented a time machine tomorrow and went back and recorded irrefutable evidence that the bible is a complete fabrication you simply wouldn't have the ability to believe it and would still find a way to justify your current beliefs.

there is simply no reasoning with a person such as yourself, nothing anyone says or does to try and prove anything you say wrong is even going to make a dent, so there's quite plainly no point in even trying.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Have you confirmed the ark needed such techniques (it was required only to float, not sail), or that such techniques did not exist for the people who built the pyramids and had other skills lost to following generations?

I don't need to, plenty of other people have done so already, but it's pointless to try and argue with you about it as you are simply unwilling to accept anything other than your own opinion on the matter.

your argument about the pyramids is totally invalid also. the pyramids and Stonehenge etc. were able to be built when they were due to a pretty solid grasp of mathematics and engineering by a great many people coupled with an almost inexhaustible supply of slaves who's lives meant practically nothing to their masters. of course another thing they had going for them was a very good idea of the value of Pi.

with enough time and expendable manpower, almost anything that is physically possible is achievable. unfortunately that does not extend to one man and his kids building a boat over an acre in size with the tools and materials that would have been available to him at that time.

as has already been said many times before, it just wouldn't stand up to the stresses required to withstand the flood. never mind it sailing anywhere, just floating in the middle of a flood like that would have been impossible without it being reinforced with steel.

that's not even taking into account that filling the earth with enough water to cover every mountaintop in the world would create such an increase in the air pressure as to kill everything on the boat (which would kind of defeat the purpose).

if it were possible to build then how come nobody has built a replica? the closest I can find is one build by some Dutch bloke, but seemingly it's only 1/5 scale or a tiny one that a bunch of Greenpeace people built on the side of mount Ararat to highlight global warming.

you'd think that such an important cornerstone of your faith would have been reproduced by now by someone just to prove that it was possible and shut the rest of us nay sayers up wouldn't you? well it hasn't and that's because it's just not physically possible to do so.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, God could have done it in a moment, a year, etc. He chose to use means - the building of an ark, the preaching of the gospel as a witness to that generation, the gathering of the animals and feed, the water from above and below.

i guess that's alright then. your constant assertions that 'god did it' in answer to every question put to you are more than a little pointless and getting very boring. at least PDN makes the effort to be interesting with his arguments but I guess as a creationist all you need is your own faith and your book as proof and damn the rest of us all to hell, so there's really no point in trying to argue with you since you won't even entertain the possibility of anything else.

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, I'm only saying they claim that defence, just as homosexuals do. I don't accept it as a determining factor, if it does exist (which I doubt).

it's okay though because the pedos and gays will all be burning in hell together on the day of reckoning along with the rest of us sinners. :rolleyes:

when is that going to be again exactly? just wondering so i don't go making any long term plans and then have to go through the bother of cancelling them at the last minute.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The babies are not being punished for their sinful nature, just suffering by being born into a sinful race. Christ indicates something of the nature of individual suffering here:

that's fine then. God, "the original racist". i guess it's just their bad luck they were born human instead of mice or badgers or something else without sin. that's fine then, lets just let them suffer unimaginable horrors and then they can thank god when they're dead and they'll be grateful that god was nice enough to let them go through that so he could save them afterwards.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, God could have prevented Adam & Eve from sinning - but He chose not to, allowing them instead to exercise their freewill. Is He to condemned for that? Who are you to sit in judgement on God? Why do you think you are smarter/wiser/more righteous than Him?

hmm, how's this? for one, I can confidently say in all honesty that although I may not be the smartest/wisest/most righteous person in the world, I do have one thing going for me and that's that I actually exist.

if your god wants to stop me from judging him in his non-existence then he can feel free to pop into existence and smite me. until that day comes (and I shan't hold my breath) I'll continue to judge your non-existent deity for his crimes against humanity however I like thanks very much, he's a nasty non-existent fecker and he'll get nothing but contempt from me as long as he continues to not exist. again, he can feel free to prove me wrong any time he wants.

And now a question for you: i'm sorry, this is going to sound condescending but I can't find a way of putting it without doing so. okay, so here goes. how do you deal with the world around you on a day to day basis? do you just spend your days walking around smiting unbelievers? i mean what do you do for a living exactly? admittedly based solely on your ranting on here I'm having trouble picturing you in a day to day setting carrying on as normal in society. do you hide your (obviously very strong) beliefs in public and just keep praying for salvation in your head 24/7 to keep the demons out?

i just can't picture you being able to function in our (in your view) totally corrupted society without just going postal on everybody.

I'm obviously assuming you work in an office or a building site or something and you're not a priest of some sort where everyone you meet is likely to share the same or very similar views.

sorry, I just can't see someone with your views of the rest of us as being able to cope with all the heathens that must be around you on a daily basis.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I agree. He has appointed a Day in which all evil will be destroyed forever, all evil-doers eternally punished. But in the meantime, He allows a certain level of evil to exist, as a consequence of our fall into sin.

Not sinned personally, but as members of the human race we suffer the consequences of man's fall.

i don't remember anyone mentioning man falling anywhere? I thought Adam did all the falling and we just got to take the rap for it?

wolfsbane wrote: »

From the fact that God created a perfect world - which included genes.

it's only a fact if you can back it up mate. wishing it to be true isn't going to make it so.

anyway, if he was so smart, why is his gene design constantly degrading (according to you)? doesn't seem like he was very good at it.

I like the idea of noah's human genome project though, I'm sure he was doing something in the first 600 years of his life other than brushing up on his nautical engineering skills.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You dodge the question. Why are you and I right about paedophilia and the paedophile wrong - it's not enough to appeal to majority opinion or say it is plainly so. It is not plainly so to the paedophile, nor have many sins/crimes been plainly so to majorities at different times and places.

i'm sorry, but are you seriously asking that question? I'm baffled that you would even make such a statement publicly for other people to see. :mad:

wolfsbane wrote: »

I find basing my morality on God's revealed will a lot more reasonable than doing it on my feelings or that of a majority. I leave the outworking of His plan of salvation and damnation to God.

good for you, i hope he doesn't make you wait too long. :rolleyes:

I'm basing my morality on what i believe to be right and who are you exactly to judge me on my choices?

Wicknight said:

that is the point. He chose to do it this way, despite better options being available.

The question arises as to how you know them to be better options. You would need to see the total plan to assess that.

That raises the question why would a "loving" god choose to do it in such a way that allows unnecessary suffering and pain.

Your response is no doubt you don't know but you know he had a valid reason what ever it was, where as my response would be because he probably isn't that loving

Yes, you can pit your wisdom and morality against His. I trust Him to do right, and have found Him gracious and merciful to me many times. Since He made the universe, I also trust Him to know how best to run it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Such a prayer would not be accepted by God, which explains its absence:
James 4:3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures.
So why bring it up?

Because my actual 'coincidences' are just as likely as the mutli lottery wins.

The original point remains, these "answered prayers" are not actually extremely rare as to be only explained by a supernatural miracle. People don't win the lottery multiple times, even the ones that pray for it.

False reasoning - just becasue multi lottery wins don't happen does not mean equally improbable answers to prayer do not. God intervenes directly in the latter - and I have experienced it.

Such things are extremely improbable.You didn't get the Irish State to out of the blue cancel your tax bill. Truly improbable events don't happen on a regular basis to those who pray. It is just people not understand statistics properly.

See above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So a lot of people forsee their crash - not just that they will be in a plane that crashes, but the particular plane, particular flight, the deja vu experience? And you have a materialistic explanation for this?
Well yes, a heck of a lot of people dream about plane flights, particularly if they are going to be on one. The vast majority don't end up on planes that crash and as such forget about these dreams. Some of them do actually end up on planes that crash, and as such the dream will have strong significance to them.

So deja vu is merely a chance event???

The odds that someone will dream about a plane crash they are eventually on is pretty close to the odds that they will be on a plane that crashes, given how many people dream about the flight they are about to take.

I refered to specifics, not generalised flights. Think the flight number, or the seat number, the hostess's face, what she said to you the moment before the incident occurred, etc.

Besides, what is your explanation? God makes planes crash to answer people's dreams?

No, God allows some people to see into the future.

An amazing coincidence yes? Well no, because my last credit card bill had other stuff on it as well. And the one before that. And I've left jobs and got a whip around that wasn't close to my current credit card bill, and whip arounds when I didn't have a credit card bill. The odds that I would be in debt at the time I leave a job, and that the whip around for the job would be close or exactly the value of one of my debts, are not that unlikely at all.

Again all these events that you guys are convinced are God answering your prayers are in fact easily explained by simple statistics.

So if you prayed about a bill for £500.56 and someone sent you a gift by PayPal from the USA in $ that worked out at exchange rate to give £500.56, you would see no connection to the prayer? Ah, such faith in atheism.:D

But then that isn't a nice and fluffy explanation, it doesn't make you feel like you have a big brother or big father looking out for you in times of need, and as such you are more likely to look for a supernatural explanation.

And you to desperately seek to avoid one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
All a co-incidence? You can believe in such improbabilities if you like, but they just confirm to me the witness of the Spirit of God in my heart.
No doubt it does, but then I think most things "confirm" that to you. If a person needs a belief to be true they will see reason to believe it in anything and probably everything.

I think you are revealing how the evolutionist mind works.

MrPudding said:

They may be scientists but that does not mean what they do, in relation to creationism, is science. In fact, as has been pointed out to you many times, it very obviously is not.

That is one of the points in dispute.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane

Have you confirmed the ark needed such techniques (it was required only to float, not sail), or that such techniques did not exist for the people who built the pyramids and had other skills lost to following generations? Has this not been done before? Have you not posted stupid links before which show nothing? I seem to remember several posters trying to work out how big it would have to be.

Yes, and they postulated an entirely ficticious amount of animals and feed. The creationist figures for the cargo are much more likely.

I am sure you remember, it lead to an interesting discussion about what kinds are. By the way, any chance of you giving us a list of the kinds? I know you have been asked a few times, I can’t seem to find you answer.

No, no lists are given in the Bible. It doesn't give my name and address either - but I assure you I exist.

It also sparked a bit of discussion about how often organisms would have to mutate to give the number of species we have today. Who would have thought an imaginary story about an imaginary boat could raise so many interesting questions?

Or real history being much more stranger than fiction. Believe it.:D

Or perhaps he could not do it and it did not happen?

Yes, that would be a non-Christian explanation. Just like creationists say nature could not create such complexity and it did not happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, I'm only saying they claim that defence, just as homosexuals do. I don't accept it as a determining factor, if it does exist (which I doubt).
And your evidence that is the case is where? No idiotic creation or hateful religious propaganda please, science would be nice.

I'm working from the Biblical account of sin, and I have seen no scientific proof that says otherwise.

Which was made sinful by your god. He made the race sinful and then punishes it for being sinful.

No, He made a sinless race, which then sinned - and so are punished for it.

Of course the blindness was not caused by sin. It was caused by a defect in the eye or some other part of his vision system.

Sometimes sickness is a punishment for sin.

This is not the kind of suffering we are talking about. When we talk about children suffering we are not talking about sick children, though that is another question. We are talking about kids suffering at the hands of others who are sinning when they abuse them.

Different causes, same pain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, God could have prevented Adam & Eve from sinning - but He chose not to, allowing them instead to exercise their freewill. Is He to condemned for that?
Yes.

We must disagree on that. I believe God was righteous in allowing man freewill.

I appreciate your honesty in saying He was not - most people hold freewill sacrosanct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Who are you to sit in judgement on God? Why do you think you are smarter/wiser/more righteous than Him?
It would most certainly appear that many people I know, myself included, are smarter, wiser and more righteous than him. Not to mention more empathetic, merciful and generally less petty.

I'm sure you will find many people concur with your wisdom and piety. Judging themselves by themselves always gives a happy verdict.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I agree. He has appointed a Day in which all evil will be destroyed forever, all evil-doers eternally punished. But in the meantime, He allows a certain level of evil to exist, as a consequence of our fall into sin.
But why?

He doesn't say. Just that He knows better than us. I believe Him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Not sinned personally, but as members of the human race we suffer the consequences of man's fall.

But why? Why do we have to?

Apparently we are intimately connected to Adam, being born with his fallen nature. That's why we need to receive a new nature from God - Christ's nature.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
From the fact that God created a perfect world - which included genes.Far from perfect.

It was perfect until the Fall.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The question arises as to how you know them to be better options. You would need to see the total plan to assess that.

Because the best option available to a god is absolute perfection, and I very much doubt anyone would call the current universe perfection.

The only way you get away with saying that this is the best option is to restrain God.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, you can pit your wisdom and morality against His. I trust Him to do right, and have found Him gracious and merciful to me many times. Since He made the universe, I also trust Him to know how best to run it.

Well you shouldn't, since I don't think there is any logical argument that a person who makes something knows best what to do with it (as many a disastrous parent can testify to).

The fact that he is gracious to you is countered by all the times he isn't gracious to others, a bit like a mafia don rewarding some and inflicting suffering on others. I imagine you trust him because to you the alternative isn't worth contemplating, rather than because you have a good reason to.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Because my actual 'coincidences' are just as likely as the mutli lottery wins.

I very very much doubt that, and would be very interested in how you worked that out.

wolfsbane wrote: »

False reasoning - just becasue multi lottery wins don't happen does not mean equally improbable answers to prayer do not.

I see no evidence they do, nor have you (so far) presented any. If you have evidence that equally improbable things happen regularly to those who pray I would be very interested in seeing that evidence.

wolfsbane wrote: »

God intervenes directly in the latter - and I have experienced it.

I have no doubt that that is what you believe.

wolfsbane wrote: »

So deja vu is merely a chance event???

Deja vu is most likely (and there is some research to support this) an anomaly of how the human brains stores and categorizes memory. Something that just happened to us is incorrectly stored in memory associated with long term events, so we incorrectly believe that the memory from just a few seconds ago is in fact a memory from a while ago, and we get the sense that the event we just experienced has already happened to us some time ago.

This would explain why people cannot actually recall the details of the "long term" memory that they think they are recalling, just a vague sense that the have done this before.

It doesn't really have anything to do with chance. Are you sure you are using the term correctly?

wolfsbane wrote: »

I refered to specifics, not generalised flights.

So do I. Most people know the specifics of a flight they take.

As for recalling the face of the hostess, I very much doubt that that actually happened, I would imagine that when you saw the hostess your brain filled in the gaps, and from that point on when you recalled the hostess in the dream you saw the hostess you actually saw. This is a common phenomena humans do, not just for dreams but for any vagueness that is later filled in with detail, and is widely known in terms of criminal cases as it can effect witness recall of events.

Show me someone who rights down the name of the hostess before they get on the plane, that would be impressive

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, God allows some people to see into the future.

If that were true I would imagine he would use this for something a little more important than showing you a plane crash. Did you happen to stop the plane crash, or even avoid going on it?

wolfsbane wrote: »

So if you prayed about a bill for £500.56 and someone sent you a gift by PayPal from the USA in $ that worked out at exchange rate to give £500.56, you would see no connection to the prayer?

Not really considering that they both probably worked out to a round number in the reverse currency.

But even if that wasn't the case you are ignoring the fact that you probably pray for everything

Funny coincediences do happen. They happen to me all the time (and I don't pray). They also happen to you. The fact that you pray all the time will lead to a funny coincedience happening over something you pray about.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I think you are revealing how the evolutionist mind works.

I certainly hope so.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That is one of the points in dispute.

Not really, you guys already admitted it ain't science because these scientists are aren't formulating and testing models around the topics they claim to be investigating.

JC tried to get around that by saying that science isn't actually about formulating or testing models.

At which point everyone asked him where he studied science, to which he didn't reply.

You yourself said that it is based on the Bible, not on science. The "science" Creationists do is simply looking at stuff and guessing that it has something to do with what is in the Bible.

AtomicHorror said:

Genes are only fit to their current environment or not. There is survival or not. There are no "perfect" genes, the term is meaningless.

OK, let me say all the genes before the Fall were absolutely/perfectly fit for their current enviroment, and after the Fall became less so.

You do accept that all of us have what a non-scientist like myself calls 'genetic defects'? That we are not all perfectly fit for our current enviroment, but get by to a greater or lesser extent? That the defect that causes Downs Syndrome is really a defect from the optimum model fit for our current enviroment, not just an equally valid variation?

Evolution does not give objective meaning to life as an unbeliever. If one actually considers the theory true, there is no objective meaning to life. So to suggest that we push the pro-evolution agenda to create meaning for our lives is simply nonsensical and untrue. We don't have a motive to mislead on this matter Wolfsbane. But fundamentalists do.

The motive is to escape acknowledging the Creator revealed in the Bible, to stifle conscience when it accuses you of rebellion against Him and makes you feel guilty. If you can just set up a materialist scenario, to depart this life without fear of having to give an account, that is the reality you seek to establish.

I agree, it gives no real objective meaning to life - we just are. But that lack of meaning is the meaning you seek. It sets you free from God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I agree. I know the truth about the Flood, so being dispassionate about it would be inappropriate. Those who do not know, however, ought to be dispassionate in their search for truth.
You simply know? What would you say to me if I claimed to simply "know" that the theory of evolution is correct. I think you would call me faithful. I think you would call me a hypocrite. You'd be right to.

I agree. You would have absolutely no grounds for claiming to know. If however you were to say your God/gods revealed it to you, I would not suspect you of hypocrisy. I would consider you deluded, seeing I know to the contrary. However, if I were an unbeliever I would not be able to say you were deluded, as my knowledge is only based on interpretation of partial evidence.

This is why we scientists and sceptics reject your assertions. Your starting assumption cannot be overturned. So what is the value of any reasoning based upon it? In science the first assumption we make, our hypothesis, must be in some manner testable. Otherwise it is meaningless.

If the creationist scientific argument relied on God's fiat, then you would be right. But it stands alone, argued from a mature creation descending to what we have today. Never mind how that creation came to be - it is an alternative model of the historical/geological/biological record.

Who is refusing to examine the argument? So far I have seen little compelling evidence provided on the creationist side. Refuting original research does not equal original research.

Rubbishing all the creationist material like vibe666 did is really refusing to examine the argument.

We are all fully aware that knowledge was lost following the Egyptian dynasties, however little of that knowledge remains a mystery to us today. There is an enormous difference in technological terms between building an immobile structure from megaliths using slave labour and well-understood techniques versus building an ark from wood using older technology.

Older does not mean inferior - as later lost knowledge demonstrates for the subsequent generations.

Firstly, the time of the flood was clearly not as recent as 2000 BC as it conflicts with the Egyptian chronology as well the Sumerian chronology.

These chronologies are disputed.

Even if it was 4000 years ago though, all that source shows us is:

1) that the Egyptians may have able to build a vessel 128 meters long
2) that if the account is true, this occurred 1700 years after the latest possible date of the flood, but more like 3000 years after it
3) that the vessel in question approaches in size, the minimum size of the ark for it to be a viable. It would probably need to be closer to twice the size.

So what we are talking about when we talk about the ark is a wooden boat of a size unprecedented in antiquity, built thousands of years before anything even resembling it.

No, a boat bigger but near the size of the largest known ancient vessel, built hundreds or a thousand years beforehand.

Combine that with the outstanding conditions, a global flood rapidly appearing, a boat full of wild animals, genetic bottlenecks and countless others and what you have is something worthy of scepticism.

Scepticism I'm happy with. The arguments need to be made and rebutted. Arrogant dismissal without examination stems from a non-scientific presupposition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Remember too, the ark only had to float.

In a global flood. I'll bet that was real calm.

Possibly. But it could take a 60% tilt according to the article.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Not at all - they just point out the obvious flaws in the 'couldn't be done' argument.
This is worthy of scepticism. The burden of proof is on you guys in this matter, so refuting actual investigations is not going to cut the mustard.

We want to see actual investigations that disprove the viability of the ark, not just assertions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
See this for a more detailed examination:
Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a seawayhttp://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1773 I just knew you'd wheel that one out. We debunked this months ago in the creationism thread. How about showing me a source from somewhere other than a creationist website? The grammatical errors and constant use of scripture as a scientific source is really tiring.

I don't recall any debunk, just denials. And you think an non-creationist organization is going to do and publish research showing the ark was feasible?

The Bible is used not for scientific proof, but to give the only recorded details of the ark and its enviroment, as far as I can see.

Wicknight wrote: »

Not really, you guys already admitted it ain't science because these scientists are aren't formulating and testing models around the topics they claim to be investigating.

JC tried to get around that by saying that science isn't actually about formulating or testing models.

At which point everyone asked him where he studied science, to which he didn't reply.

You yourself said that it is based on the Bible, not on science. The "science" Creationists do is simply looking at stuff and guessing that it has something to do with what is in the Bible.

Stop dreaming. Smell the coffee.

For example:
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/33/33_3/sedimentation.htm

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1594/

wolfsbane wrote: »

Stop dreaming. Smell the coffee.

I'm afraid you'll have to do better than just calling it coffee to stop it smelling like bull$h1t.

vibe666 said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The scientists who wrote the articles would disagree with you. calling some fruitcake in a white coat a scientist doesn't make them one.

You need to take that up with the institutions who awarded them their degrees and Phd's. Here's an ABC to start with

:
Steven A. Austin, Ph.D.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3574
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3448
Dr Robert W. Carter
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4844/

i don't desperately want or need anything to be true to give meaning to my life, I'm doing fine thanks very much. it does seem very much like that's what you're doing though. from reading all your previous posts there is absolutely no way that anyone would be able to convince you to accept anything other than your own beliefs as the truth. if someone invented a time machine tomorrow and went back and recorded irrefutable evidence that the bible is a complete fabrication you simply wouldn't have the ability to believe it and would still find a way to justify your current beliefs.

there is simply no reasoning with a person such as yourself, nothing anyone says or does to try and prove anything you say wrong is even going to make a dent, so there's quite plainly no point in even trying.

I would have to admit the evidence strongly supported your case, if you had that ability of time travel. Just as I would have to today regards evolution, if it was true that the evidence has only an evolutionary interpretation. But it doesn't. A credible anti-evolution argument is present.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Have you confirmed the ark needed such techniques (it was required only to float, not sail), or that such techniques did not exist for the people who built the pyramids and had other skills lost to following generations?
I don't need to, plenty of other people have done so already, but it's pointless to try and argue with you about it as you are simply unwilling to accept anything other than your own opinion on the matter.

No they haven't. Just another baseless assertion.

your argument about the pyramids is totally invalid also. the pyramids and Stonehenge etc. were able to be built when they were due to a pretty solid grasp of mathematics and engineering by a great many people coupled with an almost inexhaustible supply of slaves who's lives meant practically nothing to their masters. of course another thing they had going for them was a very good idea of the value of Pi.

with enough time and expendable manpower, almost anything that is physically possible is achievable.

Thank you. That establishes my point:

unfortunately that does not extend to one man and his kids building a boat over an acre in size with the tools and materials that would have been available to him at that time.

Does 120 years and all the labour one can hire, and tools that would be likely as sophisticated as those that built the pyramids and edifices of Africa and America not validate my case?

as has already been said many times before, it just wouldn't stand up to the stresses required to withstand the flood. never mind it sailing anywhere, just floating in the middle of a flood like that would have been impossible without it being reinforced with steel.

Your facts? The measurements of the wood and planks? The type of joints used? The structure? On what do you base your criticisms?

that's not even taking into account that filling the earth with enough water to cover every mountaintop in the world would create such an increase in the air pressure as to kill everything on the boat (which would kind of defeat the purpose).

You are obviously ignorant of the creationist model of the Flood. The uplifts that created Everest, etc. would have occured post-flood, so no 5-mile high Flood needed.

if it were possible to build then how come nobody has built a replica? the closest I can find is one build by some Dutch bloke, but seemingly it's only 1/5 scale or a tiny one that a bunch of Greenpeace people built on the side of mount Ararat to highlight global warming.

you'd think that such an important cornerstone of your faith would have been reproduced by now by someone just to prove that it was possible and shut the rest of us nay sayers up wouldn't you? well it hasn't and that's because it's just not physically possible to do so.

If you care to put up the money, I think I can guarantee you the engineers willing to build it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, God could have done it in a moment, a year, etc. He chose to use means - the building of an ark, the preaching of the gospel as a witness to that generation, the gathering of the animals and feed, the water from above and below.
i guess that's alright then. your constant assertions that 'god did it' in answer to every question put to you are more than a little pointless and getting very boring. at least PDN makes the effort to be interesting with his arguments but I guess as a creationist all you need is your own faith and your book as proof and damn the rest of us all to hell, so there's really no point in trying to argue with you since you won't even entertain the possibility of anything else.

I point you to the scientific argument, which is not 'God did it'. You refuse to consider it. I am of course happy to deal with origins on the basis of 'God did it', rather than your position of 'It just happened'. It is the after stuff that belongs to the scientific argument on evolution.

I'm glad to hear any credible alternatives, but I seem to get a lot of assertions and claims that my arguments have been disproved - only on inspection they are no more than possible alternative interpretations, not disproofs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, I'm only saying they claim that defence, just as homosexuals do. I don't accept it as a determining factor, if it does exist (which I doubt). it's okay though because the pedos and gays will all be burning in hell together on the day of reckoning along with the rest of us sinners.

True. Rather, those pedos and gays and the rest of sinners who refuse to repent and believe. Those who do will be forgiven and transformed into the children of God.

when is that going to be again exactly? just wondering so i don't go making any long term plans and then have to go through the bother of cancelling them at the last minute.

Christ's coming is not known by any but God. But your going we can safely say will be any time from you read this till the next century. That will be just as terminal and disasterous for you, if you continue as you are.

that's fine then. God, "the original racist". i guess it's just their bad luck they were born human instead of mice or badgers or something else without sin.

I think you mean 'speciesist' - but I get your point.

Yes, God does make a difference in value between man and the animals. Strangely, so do most humans. I take it you believe the louse is as important as you and your neighbour.

that's fine then, lets just let them suffer unimaginable horrors and then they can thank god when they're dead and they'll be grateful that god was nice enough to let them go through that so he could save them afterwards.

We can have no valid complaints - sinners deserve nothing but wrath from a holy God. All else is a mercy. Salvation is an infinite mercy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, God could have prevented Adam & Eve from sinning - but He chose not to, allowing them instead to exercise their freewill. Is He to condemned for that? Who are you to sit in judgement on God? Why do you think you are smarter/wiser/more righteous than Him?
hmm, how's this? for one, I can confidently say in all honesty that although I may not be the smartest/wisest/most righteous person in the world, I do have one thing going for me and that's that I actually exist.

Good. We agree on that.

if your god wants to stop me from judging him in his non-existence then he can feel free to pop into existence and smite me. until that day comes (and I shan't hold my breath) I'll continue to judge your non-existent deity for his crimes against humanity however I like thanks very much, he's a nasty non-existent fecker and he'll get nothing but contempt from me as long as he continues to not exist. again, he can feel free to prove me wrong any time he wants.

He definitely will. Though how you know he doesn't exist is a bit of a mystery - I'd have thought you could only suspect it. Such great faith.:pac:

And now a question for you: i'm sorry, this is going to sound condescending but I can't find a way of putting it without doing so. okay, so here goes. how do you deal with the world around you on a day to day basis? do you just spend your days walking around smiting unbelievers?

No, I strive to love my neighbour as myself and to evangelise the lost - as I'm doing now - and edify the saints, as I do when I debate with JC, PDN, etc.

i mean what do you do for a living exactly?

See below.

admittedly based solely on your ranting on here I'm having trouble picturing you in a day to day setting carrying on as normal in society. do you hide your (obviously very strong) beliefs in public

No, I try to take every appropriate opportunity to tell men about God and His gospel.

and just keep praying for salvation in your head

No, I'm already saved - but I do pray for grace to live a Christ-honouring life.

24/7 to keep the demons out?

I don't live in fear of demons. That's a characteristic of pagans. I just ask God each day to deliver me from the Evil One, and leave it safely with Him.

just can't picture you being able to function in our (in your view) totally corrupted society without just going postal on everybody.

Bingo! You've got me sussed. I am currently a postal worker - a professional driver with Royal Mail. But I can confirm that most of my colleagues do not conform to the American psycho stereotype.

I'm obviously assuming you work in an office or a building site or something and you're not a priest of some sort where everyone you meet is likely to share the same or very similar views.

I was a pastor to prisoners before this, so I met a lot of very ungodly men and women, as well as some lovely saints. I was a TV service engineer before going into the ministry, so I met all types there too.

sorry, I just can't see someone with your views of the rest of us as being able to cope with all the heathens that must be around you on a daily basis.

On the contrary, I get on with my fellowcountrymen very well, even those I greatly differ with.

i don't remember anyone mentioning man falling anywhere? I thought Adam did all the falling and we just got to take the rap for it?

No, being of his nature, we are fallen just as surely as he was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
From the fact that God created a perfect world - which included genes. it's only a fact if you can back it up mate. wishing it to be true isn't going to make it so.

No, something is a fact regardless who believes it. Many facts of nature await discovery, not invention nor proof.

anyway, if he was so smart, why is his gene design constantly degrading (according to you)? doesn't seem like he was very good at it.

Remember the Fall? Death entered in?

I like the idea of noah's human genome project though, I'm sure he was doing something in the first 600 years of his life other than brushing up on his nautical engineering skills.

He didn't need to do genetic research - he just formed a key part of our genetic make-up. He is ancestor to everyone of us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You dodge the question. Why are you and I right about paedophilia and the paedophile wrong - it's not enough to appeal to majority opinion or say it is plainly so. It is not plainly so to the paedophile, nor have many sins/crimes been plainly so to majorities at different times and places.
i'm sorry, but are you seriously asking that question? I'm baffled that you would even make such a statement publicly for other people to see.

I want other people to see you have no objective basis for condemning any sexual perversion, given your presuppositions. You have just personal preferences and opinions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I find basing my morality on God's revealed will a lot more reasonable than doing it on my feelings or that of a majority. I leave the outworking of His plan of salvation and damnation to God.

good for you, i hope he doesn't make you wait too long.

He won't. I look forward to seeing him in the next 20 or 30 years, if not sooner.

I'm basing my morality on what i believe to be right and who are you exactly to judge me on my choices?

I don't judge you. I evangelise you. I tell you what God says about your present state and on His behalf urge you to turn. God will judge you and me.

vibe666 wrote: »

I'm afraid you'll have to do better than just calling it coffee to stop it smelling like bull$h1t.

A rose by any other name, etc.:D

Or to give a Biblical explanation:
2 Corinthians 2:15 For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing. 16 To the one we are the aroma of death leading to death, and to the other the aroma of life leading to life. And who is sufficient for these things? 17 For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Stop dreaming. Smell the coffee.

For example:
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/33/33_3/sedimentation.htm

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1594/

Yes you have posted them before and as has ALREADY been explained to those are not scientific models. Why? Because they cannot be disproven (most likely on purpose)

Galvasean

Why are we discussing Noah's Ark again? :mad:

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK, let me say all the genes before the Fall were absolutely/perfectly fit for their current enviroment, and after the Fall became less so.

You do accept that all of us have what a non-scientist like myself calls 'genetic defects'? That we are not all perfectly fit for our current enviroment, but get by to a greater or lesser extent? That the defect that causes Downs Syndrome is really a defect from the optimum model fit for our current enviroment, not just an equally valid variation?

With respect to the environment, yes there are many genetic defects of varying severity. So it is entirely contextual, rather than absolute. Thing is, there is no evidence at all that things have ever been otherwise. The genetic code does not have a perfect or optimum configuration. Even in cases when a given single gene is suited to an environment, it enters into genetic drift until it mutates again. There is never a time when all genes in an organism are in this state, in fact it would be rare to see even a significant minority in this state. You seem to be suggesting that the human genome might once have been stable and not mutating, but there is literally zero evidence for that and tons against it. Indeed, any organism that completely fails to mutate even in a stable environment will become extinct when the environment changes even slightly. A balance between mutation and stability is the optimum state for survival.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The motive is to escape acknowledging the Creator revealed in the Bible, to stifle conscience when it accuses you of rebellion against Him and makes you feel guilty. If you can just set up a materialist scenario, to depart this life without fear of having to give an account, that is the reality you seek to establish.

Tell me, how do you distinguish between beliefs that justifiably differ from yours because your interpretation of the bible is imperfect and those that are in defiance of God? You can apply the above motive to dismiss anything that confuses you. It is a question-ending answer. It is no better than "God did it".

wolfsbane wrote: »

I agree, it gives no real objective meaning to life - we just are. But that lack of meaning is the meaning you seek. It sets you free from God.

Again, this is a cop out. Why would a person willingly give up on meaning unless they were convinced by evidence? Why would a person discard God and all of the comforting things that come with Him without evidence? You imply that we wish to live consequence-free, but is there any evidence at all that atheists actually do live in a less moral manner than Christians? The evidence does not support your assumption Wolfsbane.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I agree. You would have absolutely no grounds for claiming to know. If however you were to say your God/gods revealed it to you, I would not suspect you of hypocrisy. I would consider you deluded, seeing I know to the contrary. However, if I were an unbeliever I would not be able to say you were deluded, as my knowledge is only based on interpretation of partial evidence.

If the creationist scientific argument relied on God's fiat, then you would be right. But it stands alone, argued from a mature creation descending to what we have today. Never mind how that creation came to be - it is an alternative model of the historical/geological/biological record.

It really isn't. The creationists begin with the assumption that it is, but have had to challenge practically every major standing theory in science in order to make their model fit. They have attempted to discredit radiometric dating, stratigraphy in geology, the fossil record in palaeontology, historical chronologies in history and archaeology, evolution, proteomics, morphological phylogenetics and molecular genetics in biology, the entire standard model of modern physics and of course statistics and probability in mathematics. And if we imagine for a moment that they are correct about all of these, it still doesn't fit.

Faced with such a troublesome hypothesis, a scientist would discard or at least modify his initial assumptions. The creationists seem to think that if they do this, they will show weakness. That is why they are not scientists.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Rubbishing all the creationist material like vibe666 did is really refusing to examine the argument.

That depends on whether Vibe read the material. I consider it to be rubbish as well. It is poorly written, illogical and extremely naieve.

wolfsbane wrote: »

These (Egyptian and Sumerian) chronologies are disputed.

Experts in the field have indeed disputed them. The most extreme of them calling for changes on the order of centuries. Only creationists are calling for changes on the order of millennia. Does that not suggest a bias to you? Historians are not an atheistic bunch by comparison to us scientists, so the atheist bias is really not going to fly on this one. As with evolution, the creationists are alone in their extreme criticism. The extremists within the fields in question regard the creationist arguments to be unsupported by the evidence.

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, a boat bigger but near the size of the largest known ancient vessel, built hundreds or a thousand years beforehand.

In your conservative view. Very well then. Is this not worthy of scepticism? Even the boat in question comes from a single primary source with an ambiguous meaning that has been debated much by historians.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Scepticism I'm happy with. The arguments need to be made and rebutted. Arrogant dismissal without examination stems from a non-scientific presupposition.

The scepticism regarding Noah's ark is not arrogant. The tale is based on a text with an unverifiable source. It is one that seems to also appear in varying forms in other folk tales that predate your great flood but which are regarded as myth. In the absence of evidence, scepticism is the most appropriate position for any rational individual. And since this constitutes an extraordinary claim, scepticism demands extraordinary evidence.

wolfsbane wrote: »

We want to see actual investigations that disprove the viability of the ark, not just assertions.

I repeat again, scepticism in the absence of evidence is the appropriate and indeed default position. The burden of proof is upon the creationists. Build the ark.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I don't recall any debunk, just denials. And you think an non-creationist organization is going to do and publish research showing the ark was feasible?

Quite possibly, as it would make for an extremely exciting piece of research. What would be much more exciting would be direct evidence of the event. Someone who could show either, or even both, would gain considerable acclaim, criticism and most importantly, attention. Book deals, documentaries, chat show appearances. That kind of find is sort of thing archaeologists dream of.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Bible is used not for scientific proof, but to give the only recorded details of the ark and its enviroment, as far as I can see.

So, where is the proof, if not in the Bible?

wolfsbane wrote: »

You need to take that up with the institutions who awarded them their degrees and Phd's. Here's an ABC to start with :
Steven A. Austin, Ph.D.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3574
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3448
Dr Robert W. Carter
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4844/

Just on this point... A Science PhD. does not make a person a scientist. It qualifies a person to be a scientist professionally, but nothing more. It demonstrates a person's ability to have firstly gotten a reasonably good third level degree. It also demonstrates their ability to follow the guidance of a scientist for 3-4 years of hard work. One's ability to self-determine during a PhD. is often quite limited. Certainly, the qualification demonstrates a reasonable understanding of practical techniques and of science itself. A good PhD. (they are not all equal) will set a new doctor on a good career path. However the scientist is determined by his adherence to the scientific method. Anyone, PhD. or otherwise, who understands and follows the principles of the method is a scientist. Perhaps not a professional scientist, and of course not necessarily even a very good scientist, but a scientist none the less. The quality of a professional scientist is determined not by qualification of any sort, but by research output. By publication, by presentation and most importantly by reason and creativity. All of these are challenged, burnt in the fire of peer review, confirmation and adversarial criticism.

I have seen some really mediocre, even weak PhD. graduates, a great many good ones and some, few, brilliant ones. "PhD." not the mark of a scientist, just the mark of someone who wants to be one. It is the beginning, but what comes after is what counts.

Gaviscon wrote: »

Why are we discussing Noah's Ark again? :mad:

I agree. This belongs on the Creation/evolution thread. I'll try to get all to agree when I answer the outstanding posts.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Just on this point... A Science PhD. does not make a person a scientist. It qualifies a person to be a scientist professionally, but nothing more. It demonstrates a person's ability to have firstly gotten a reasonably good third level degree. It also demonstrates their ability to follow the guidance of a scientist for 3-4 years of hard work. One's ability to self-determine during a PhD. is often quite limited. Certainly, the qualification demonstrates a reasonable understanding of practical techniques and of science itself. A good PhD. (they are not all equal) will set a new doctor on a good career path. However the scientist is determined by his adherence to the scientific method. Anyone, PhD. or otherwise, who understands and follows the principles of the method is a scientist. Perhaps not a professional scientist, and of course not necessarily even a very good scientist, but a scientist none the less. The quality of a professional scientist is determined not by qualification of any sort, but by research output. By publication, by presentation and most importantly by reason and creativity. All of these are challenged, burnt in the fire of peer review, confirmation and adversarial criticism.

I have seen some really mediocre, even weak PhD. graduates, a great many good ones and some, few, brilliant ones. "PhD." not the mark of a scientist, just the mark of someone who wants to be one. It is the beginning, but what comes after is what counts.

A good point. But it's relatively easy to follow the careers of many of the creationist scientists I listed. You will find many fine scientists.

Please take any responses to The Bible, Creationism And Prophecy thread.

AtomicHorror said:

You seem to be suggesting that the human genome might once have been stable and not mutating, but there is literally zero evidence for that and tons against it. Indeed, any organism that completely fails to mutate even in a stable environment will become extinct when the environment changes even slightly.

Indeed, but the perfect condition would only have existed in the short time in Eden, a totally stable enviroment. Since then our genes have been subject to disorder like everything else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The motive is to escape acknowledging the Creator revealed in the Bible, to stifle conscience when it accuses you of rebellion against Him and makes you feel guilty. If you can just set up a materialist scenario, to depart this life without fear of having to give an account, that is the reality you seek to establish.
Tell me, how do you distinguish between beliefs that justifiably differ from yours because your interpretation of the bible is imperfect and those that are in defiance of God? You can apply the above motive to dismiss anything that confuses you. It is a question-ending answer. It is no better than "God did it".

I could, but I would then be as guilty as you. You may well be unaware at a conscious level of your motivation, but I have no excuse for taking that course. I in fact would be happy to change my views to accord with the bible, if shown that they differ. I have done so before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I agree, it gives no real objective meaning to life - we just are. But that lack of meaning is the meaning you seek. It sets you free from God.

Again, this is a cop out. Why would a person willingly give up on meaning unless they were convinced by evidence? Why would a person discard God and all of the comforting things that come with Him without evidence? You imply that we wish to live consequence-free, but is there any evidence at all that atheists actually do live in a less moral manner than Christians? The evidence does not support your assumption Wolfsbane.

I would put it rather that some atheists are as outwardly moral as any theist. I'm sure you would admit that many however do not feel constrained to observe many of the Christian mores - regarding sexual purity, sobriety, worship of God, etc. Those areas provide enough sin to warrant a conscience-stifling denial of God, even if it means accepting there is no real meaning in life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If the creationist scientific argument relied on God's fiat, then you would be right. But it stands alone, argued from a mature creation descending to what we have today. Never mind how that creation came to be - it is an alternative model of the historical/geological/biological record.
It really isn't. The creationists begin with the assumption that it is, but have had to challenge practically every major standing theory in science in order to make their model fit. They have attempted to discredit radiometric dating, stratigraphy in geology, the fossil record in palaeontology, historical chronologies in history and archaeology, evolution, proteomics, morphological phylogenetics and molecular genetics in biology, the entire standard model of modern physics and of course statistics and probability in mathematics. And if we imagine for a moment that they are correct about all of these, it still doesn't fit.

It is the interpretations of these disciplines that they question, not the discipline itself. If the interpretations are wrong - fitted to the frame of evolution - then of course creationism won't fit.

Faced with such a troublesome hypothesis, a scientist would discard or at least modify his initial assumptions. The creationists seem to think that if they do this, they will show weakness. That is why they are not scientists.

Or they are not willing to go along with a 'frame-up'.

That depends on whether Vibe read the material. I consider it to be rubbish as well. It is poorly written, illogical and extremely naieve.

Maybe, maybe not. Strange that all creationist material gets the same treatment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
These (Egyptian and Sumerian) chronologies are disputed. Experts in the field have indeed disputed them. The most extreme of them calling for changes on the order of centuries. Only creationists are calling for changes on the order of millennia. Does that not suggest a bias to you? Historians are not an atheistic bunch by comparison to us scientists, so the atheist bias is really not going to fly on this one. As with evolution, the creationists are alone in their extreme criticism. The extremists within the fields in question regard the creationist arguments to be unsupported by the evidence.

Millennia? The standard dating of the Flood is at 2304 BC ± 11 years. From the below I gather the revised chronology gives Egypt emerging c2100 BC - entirely consistent with the Biblical record.

In a revised chronology, Egypt comes into existence soon after the dispersion from Babel, around 2100 BC...
In the traditional chronology, a pre-dynastic period of approximately 2,000 years precedes the first Egyptian dynasty. Genesis establishes a much shorter period of time. In addition, the 1988–1989 annual report of the Oriental Institute of Chicago published a summary of extensive archaeological research by Bruce Williams. Williams re-examined discoveries related to the pre-dynastic period and concluded:

Both articles are part of an expanding body of evidence that links the period once known as ‘predynastic’ so firmly to the ages of the pyramids and later, that the term should be abandoned.9

Williams has published several articles in archaeology journals, and his modern research appears to confirm the Genesis account.

To quote the former director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology, I know of no finding in archaeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen.http://creationwiki.org/Clifford_Wilson
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/582

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, a boat bigger but near the size of the largest known ancient vessel, built hundreds or a thousand years beforehand.

In your conservative view. Very well then. Is this not worthy of scepticism? Even the boat in question comes from a single primary source with an ambiguous meaning that has been debated much by historians.

Again, I don't mind scepticism from unbelievers. I do mind arrogant dismissal of even considering it might be right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Scepticism I'm happy with. The arguments need to be made and rebutted. Arrogant dismissal without examination stems from a non-scientific presupposition.
The scepticism regarding Noah's ark is not arrogant.

It's not the scepticism I object to - it is the arrogant dismissal without examination .

The tale is based on a text with an unverifiable source. It is one that seems to also appear in varying forms in other folk tales that predate your great flood but which are regarded as myth. In the absence of evidence, scepticism is the most appropriate position for any rational individual.

I agree.

And since this constitutes an extraordinary claim, scepticism demands extraordinary evidence.

No problem. But it cannot just dismiss all scientific argument in support of it. One should at least examine the possibilities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
We want to see actual investigations that disprove the viability of the ark, not just assertions.
I repeat again, scepticism in the absence of evidence is the appropriate and indeed default position. The burden of proof is upon the creationists. Build the ark.

So unless we build the ark, it cannot be considered a possibility? It is OK to absolutely affirm that such a structure could not be made?

Doesn't sound much like science to me!

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I don't recall any debunk, just denials. And you think an non-creationist organization is going to do and publish research showing the ark was feasible?
Quite possibly, as it would make for an extremely exciting piece of research.

It wouldn't get the man denied a tenure, for example?:rolleyes:

What would be much more exciting would be direct evidence of the event. Someone who could show either, or even both, would gain considerable acclaim, criticism and most importantly, attention. Book deals, documentaries, chat show appearances. That kind of find is sort of thing archaeologists dream of.

I fear their dreams would soon turn to nightmares, as they were branded closet creationists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The Bible is used not for scientific proof, but to give the only recorded details of the ark and its enviroment, as far as I can see.
So, where is the proof, if not in the Bible?

Proof for anything material is in the examination - for the ark, that would mean for a start showing that such a structure is possible (computer modeling?), and the only absolute proof of course being finding its remains. But even then, one could not prove it was the ark.

Anyway, proof of the ark is not what creationists seek. Just to show that it was feasible.

Please take any response to The Bible, Creationism And Prophecy thread.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Please take any response to The Bible, Creationism And Prophecy thread.

Done.