What? How do you figure that? Please present your reasoning.
The Durupinar Noah's Ark Site
- Thread starter SetiAlpha6
- Start date
SetiAlpha6:
The problem with your quote here is twofold. One is that the claim that the rock formations testify "unmistakably" to what the Creationists claim they testify to is just a Creationist error , deliberate or otherwise. The other is the assumption that the question can be settled by religious "testimony", whether or not that is ignored by evolutionists.
Your mistake is in assuming there's something scientific in the quote.
The Creationists might be mystified about how fossilised fish can end up on mountain tops, but geologists certainly are not. It's like the creationists have never heard of plate tectonics.
Some creationists, no doubt, are just stupid and/or ignorant, but realise that others know better and are actually actively trying to pull the wool over your eyes. Don't be a sucker, SetiAlpha6. Don't let yourself be conned.
If you're not just trolling for a reaction from "evolutionists", then you really need to start reading beyond the "Creationist" literature. Your problem is quite obviously that you're mired in a morass of Creationist lies. If you never read anything outside that bubble then you'll go your whole life as ignorant as you are now.
The problem with your quote here is twofold. One is that the claim that the rock formations testify "unmistakably" to what the Creationists claim they testify to is just a Creationist error , deliberate or otherwise. The other is the assumption that the question can be settled by religious "testimony", whether or not that is ignored by evolutionists.
Your mistake is in assuming there's something scientific in the quote.
Again, you really need to stop reading the Creationist literature and start reading up on some actual science.
The Creationists might be mystified about how fossilised fish can end up on mountain tops, but geologists certainly are not. It's like the creationists have never heard of plate tectonics.
Some creationists, no doubt, are just stupid and/or ignorant, but realise that others know better and are actually actively trying to pull the wool over your eyes. Don't be a sucker, SetiAlpha6. Don't let yourself be conned.
You want me to literally believe a translation of a translation of an oral history produced by people who believed in a flat Earth?
I can believe that at sometime a guy named Noah built a boat that saved his family from a flood and that the story was embellished in the retelling.
Not at all. Most people don't.
However, the more thumpish of the Bible thumpers pull the Bible out all the time to "prove" their claims. Thus in this case, it seemed relevant.
Yep. And indeed, that flood was likely the Black Sea deluge - which to a farmer would look and feel identical to the story in the Bible.
The Scientific Hypothesis is...
There was a Global Flood and the Biblical account of Noah’s Ark is true.
What would you except as Scientific evidence for Noah’s Ark and for the Global Flood?
Please don’t go with those who say...
“There is no evidence because there can’t be any evidence because I don’t want there to be any evidence. Basically, because I want to have sex whenever and however I want to.”
We all know that is unscientific.
And everyone knows that Naturalism has never been proven. And is only a belief.
And yes, they will certainly call you crazy or ignorant. And yes, in some Atheist countries they will even threaten your career, or throw you in prison, or kill you. But really, have a little backbone and stand up to them all. Even though millions have been martyred for centuries with no end in sight, and you could become part of that.
Again...
What would you except as Scientific evidence for Noah’s Ark and for the Global Flood?
Your response could help frame the parameters of the research now being done by the government of Turkey.
There was a Global Flood and the Biblical account of Noah’s Ark is true.
What would you except as Scientific evidence for Noah’s Ark and for the Global Flood?
Please don’t go with those who say...
“There is no evidence because there can’t be any evidence because I don’t want there to be any evidence. Basically, because I want to have sex whenever and however I want to.”
We all know that is unscientific.
And everyone knows that Naturalism has never been proven. And is only a belief.
And yes, they will certainly call you crazy or ignorant. And yes, in some Atheist countries they will even threaten your career, or throw you in prison, or kill you. But really, have a little backbone and stand up to them all. Even though millions have been martyred for centuries with no end in sight, and you could become part of that.
Again...
What would you except as Scientific evidence for Noah’s Ark and for the Global Flood?
Your response could help frame the parameters of the research now being done by the government of Turkey.
Last edited:
Then...
What would you except as Scientific evidence for Noah’s Ark and for the Global Flood?
Ok.
If you were well versed in the arguments both for and against Noah’s Ark, and if new Scientific evidence was uncovered for it, would you consider it?
Or do you just think the researcher’s lives should be threatened and destroyed instead?
In current Atheistic dictatorships like China and North Korea, they would be singled out and deliberately imprisoned or killed.
Last edited:
Why the fuck would you want to burden me with that shit when I specifically said I was interested in sex?
I am happy you are here, anyway!
First, you have to understand that those are two separate things. If there was evidence of a global flood, that says nothing about the Noah's ark story being true. And also, if there was evidence for the Noah's ark story, that says nothing about a global flood. One does not "prove" the other - nor does either of them have anything to do with whether or not naturalism is "true".
Evidence for floods is common. I've seen a few floods myself. The problem arises when you try to prove that the whole earth was flooded at one time. The question you should be asking yourself is: How do YOU distinguish between a series of individual local floods over a long period of time and one global flood at one time?
As for Noah's ark, stories like that happen all the time in local floods. Sometimes they survive the flood; sometimes they don't. Again, the scientific ball is in YOUR court. IF you can show that the flood happened, THEN you would also have to show that somebody survived that flood in the manner described in the Bible.
Finding the remains of a giant boat somewhere on earth does not come close.
Nope. There is no scientific evidence that there was a global flood that covered every part of the planet. You can have a hypothesis, of course. That does not make it scientific.
There is some scientific evidence that A Noah's Ark (Noah's Raft actually) is true - that a farmer saved himself and some animals during the Black Sea deluge.
A reasonable explanation for where the water came from and where the water went, for starters. "God did it" is a religious belief, not scientific evidence.
Nope. Science is a PROCESS, not a belief.
I knew you guys would not accept any evidence for the existence of God.
So, I guess, it is looking like none of you have free will.
At least we got that one resolved.
So, I guess, it is looking like none of you have free will.
At least we got that one resolved.
Simple...
If God exists then Naturalism is false.
Noah could not have humanly known in advance either one, that a Worldwide Flood was coming, or that he needed to build the Ark to prepare for it.
God had to tell him.
If God told him in advance,
then God exists.
If God exists Nauralism is false.
Evidence for the Flood and/or Noah's ark is NOT evidence for God.
Of course it is evidence for God.
Ok, then please prove Naturalism.
Sure. (I will go with your archaic word for science.)
Scientists can predict what will happen inside a nuclear reactor with great accuracy. Specifically, they can set up a reactor, fuel it, withdraw the control rods, and see exactly (to within a tenth of a percent or so) the energy production they expect. They do this via science; the process of experimentation, hypothesis, test, then validation. The process called science works.
Theologians have never, ever set up an experiment that has proven God exists. They can set up an experiment - say, put a rock on a table and have the Pope himself pray to God to lift it. They could quote every Biblical reference to "God answers your prayers" and "nothing is impossible for God." The rock will never move. Hence, the power of prayer is falsified.
How? Show your logic.