Apologist Ken Ham's response to atheists, skeptics who 'scoff' at Noah's Ark

  
Via:  Trump 2024  •  5 days ago  •  191 comments

By:   Billy Hallowell

Apologist Ken Ham's response to atheists, skeptics who 'scoff' at Noah's Ark
Ham believes he’s giving visitors the chance to see the biblical epic in a much clearer light. “It makes the Bible come alive in a way that people can’t experience elsewhere,” Ham said. “And it answers these skeptical questions.” The apologist believes the Ark Encounter underscores the great flood as an “integral event in history”

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

The flood was a real global event as it was described. It was an earth changing event from the near perfect world of creation to the present less stable version it is now. All the earth quake and volcanic activity, the axis it’s on now and the polar ice as well as all the mixed up fossil layers are due to this event.  It was real and did happen, despite the naysaying of the atheists among us. 


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



100254_w_450_300.jpg

Apologist Ken Ham, CEO and founder of Answers in Genesis, is no stranger to making headlines as he embraces innovative and uncommon ways of spreading the Christian faith.

But he attracted an entirely new level of international attention when he opened the Ark Encounter in 2016, a lifesize replica of Noah’s Ark, located in Williamstown, Kentucky.

Ham, author of the new book, Will They Stand: Parenting Kids to Face the Giants , recently shared with the “Edifi With Billy Hallowell” podcast the path that led him to build the 510-foot long structure, and his quest to help people better understand scripture.

“Noah’s flood is a very important event … and yet it’s so scoffed at by atheists,” he said, noting that a persistent question always plagued him when he worked as a teacher back in the 1970s.

Listen to Ham discuss this question, his response — and his plea for parents to properly equip their kids to face the giants of the day:

Ham said students would often try to poke holes in the Noah narrative, questioning how all of the animals could have possibly fit inside the ark. They argued that, due to the seemingly insurmountable task, the worldwide flood account simply couldn’t be a real-life story.

This persistent question and argument later left Ham pondering what he could do to better bring the biblical account to life — and that’s where the roots of the Ark Encounter were set.

“What if we built Noah’s Ark to scale using the measurements in the Bible?” he pondered.

That quest culminated in the creation of the massive ark replica, an attraction that is one-and-a-half times the length of a football field. With three decks of exhibits inside the Ark Encounter, Ham believes he’s giving visitors the chance to see the biblical epic in a much clearer light.

“It makes the Bible come alive in a way that people can’t experience elsewhere,” Ham said. “And it answers these skeptical questions.”

The apologist believes the Ark Encounter underscores the great flood as an “integral event in history” and as a reminder of God’s love.

“Noah’s Ark, itself, is a picture of Jesus, as Noah and his family went through one door to be saved,” Ham said. “So we need to go through a door to be saved.”

Listen to Ham discuss the ark as well as his new book urging parents to better equip children for an increasingly chaotic culture here.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
1  seeder  MAGA    5 days ago
“Noah’s flood is a very important event … and yet it’s so scoffed at by atheists,” he said, noting that a persistent question always plagued him when he worked as a teacher back in the 1970s.

This persistent question and argument later left Ham pondering what he could do to better bring the biblical account to life — and that’s where the roots of the Ark Encounter were set.

“What if we built Noah’s Ark to scale using the measurements in the Bible?” he pondered.

That quest culminated in the creation of the massive ark replica, an attraction that is one-and-a-half times the length of a football field. With three decks of exhibits inside the Ark Encounter, Ham believes he’s giving visitors the chance to see the biblical epic in a much clearer light.

“It makes the Bible come alive in a way that people can’t experience elsewhere,” Ham said. “And it answers these skeptical questions.”

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Senior Participates
1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  MAGA @1    5 days ago

The flood was a real global event as it was described. It was an earth changing event from the near perfect world of creation to the present less stable version it is now. All the earth quake and volcanic activity, the axis it’s on now and the polar ice as well as all the mixed up fossil layers are due to this event.  It was real and did happen, despite the naysaying of the atheists among us. 

No it did not. That's just another biblical myth. I'd explain why it didn't really didn't happen, but since you reject real science and scoff at observable and proven facts, I won't waste my time

 
 
 
devangelical
Masters Expert
1.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    5 days ago

oh come on, is that any way to talk to a distant cousin?

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
1.1.2  seeder  MAGA  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    5 days ago

Global Flood

Global-Flood-1.jpg

The Four Great Global Events of Genesis The Flood

As we talk about the Genesis Global Flood and its significance, it is important to, first of all, determine if it was a global or a local event. Did the Flood cover the whole earth or just Mesopotamia?

Genesis indicates that the Flood was global, affecting all of the earth. If this was not the case, then the rainbow that the Lord gave as a sign of His promise would have been a promise given just to the people of Mesopotamia and would have had no significance for the rest of the world. Why does the world need to be reminded that the Lord would never flood Mesopotamia again? This would have been a huge waste of time and space to take four chapters of Genesis to tell a story that is irrelevant to future generations.

Global Flood:

We also need to decide if the story of the Flood is anything more than a myth. It is true that the Flood cannot be proven by science, but the same is true of the uniformitarian view of our earth. Uniformitarianism also can not prove that the earth is a product of processes over millions of years. To be classified as science, it must be able to be tested, observed, and repeated. This is not possible with uniformitarianism.

Scripture is not intended to be a scientific dissertation on geology, but it is a historical record that presents the global Flood as a real historical event. The real question to address is, can the Flood explain the geological landforms, rocks, and fossils that we see today? And the answer is, yes.

Global Flood:

There are two major stages as recorded in the Scripture concerning the Flood – the filling stage, or the inundation stage. This is found in Genesis 7:23-24. The second stage, the receding stage, is found in Gen 8:1-16. Although there is no scientific terminology in either of these passages, there are quite a few geological implications in these passages.

Here are the verses and activity/geological implications:

Gen.7:4 – Extinction

Gen. 7:11 – Tectonic upheaval

Gen. 7:11 – Torrential and violent rain, massive flooding

Gen. 7:17 – Massive amounts of rock and sediment torn up and moved

Gen. 7:18 – The waters and their strength increase, causing erosion and transportation of sediments

Gen. 7:19 – The Flood was deep, covering the entire earth

Gen. 7:21 – The Flood was devastating to life, which is what the fossil record shows

Gen. 7:22 – Dead things buried in rock layers all over the earth

Ge. 7:23 – All air-breathing, land-dwelling life outside of the ark perished

Gen. 7:24 – It took 150 days for the water to reach a maximum depth

Gen. 8:1 – Water draining off the earth carved great ravines, channels, and planation surfaces

Gen. 8:2 – Wet sediments torn up by the Flood begin to settle

Gen. 8:3 – Receding flood waters would have caused rapid and catastrophic cutting and planation

Ge. 8:5 – Continued planation and channelized erosion

Gen. 8:34 – Some sediments during this time would have hardened, others would have warped during the tectonic processes of the Flood
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
1.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.1.1    5 days ago

Decent folk get to respectfully disagree. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Masters Expert
1.1.4  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    5 days ago

are those the same folks that think they're descendants of noah's family houseboat orgy?

 
 
 
Tacos!
PhD Guide
1.1.5  Tacos!  replied to  MAGA @1.1.2    5 days ago
If this was not the case, then the rainbow that the Lord gave as a sign of His promise would have been a promise given just to the people of Mesopotamia and would have had no significance for the rest of the world.

Yep. That might have been the case. Not everything I say is for everyone I know, either.

One of the key foundational purposes behind all of the rules in Leviticus is that the Hebrew people were supposed to live differently from their Egyptian and Canaanite neighbors. Not that there was anything wrong with the way Egyptians and Canaanites lived. It's just that the Hebrews were going to follow different rules. It solidified them as a community.

That's literally what it meant to be "Holy" - i.e. "set apart." So it's actually more consistent to imagine that this event and the rainbow were meant only for these people. The Bible is a collection of writings, stories, and songs that tell the story of this specific culture and their particular relationship with God.

This would have been a huge waste of time and space to take four chapters of Genesis to tell a story that is irrelevant to future generations.

That's a terrible argument. There is no reason to think that time or space was a concern for the people who wrote down the scriptures. The was no mandate from the editor like, "Make sure you can get this story told in four chapters, because our readers hate a long story, and GODDAMMIT I'M NOT MADE OF PAPYRUS!!!"

There is tons of stuff in scripture that couldn't possibly be relevant to future generations, particularly in other parts of the world. Genealogies of Adam? Including their ages? Does anyone need to know that a guy named Enosh lived to be nine hundred and five years old?

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1.1.7  pat wilson  replied to  MAGA @1.1.2    5 days ago
The Flood was deep, covering the entire earth

Then how and where did it recede ? Did it evaporate really fast ? Lol

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
1.1.8  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.5    5 days ago
GODDAMMIT I'M NOT MADE OF PAPYRUS

Always loved Bill Cosby's version of noah talking togod and after getting the "measurements " of the Ark, asks, "what's a cubit"?

Does anyone need to know that a guy named Enosh lived to be nine hundred and five years old?

and what was considered a year back then? 30 days?

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
1.1.9  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    5 days ago
Decent folk get to respectfully disagree. 

Rational folk do not believe in fairy tales, much less accept them as fact or truth. Especially when there is evidence to the contrary.

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
1.1.10  Gordy327  replied to  pat wilson @1.1.7    5 days ago
Then how and where did it recede ? Did it evaporate really fast ? Lol

I addressed points like that in a previous article.   

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.9    5 days ago

rational folk.

so everyone who believes in God is irrational to you?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.11    5 days ago

This seed is not speaking of general belief in a god.   It is expressing the ridiculous specific  beliefs of Young Earth Creationism.

Young Earth Creationism beliefs are demonstrably irrational.  

For example, do you believe that human beings coexisted with dinosaurs?   Do you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old?

Those are two (of many) irrational YEC beliefs.

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
1.1.13  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.11    5 days ago

Yes. Belief in general is irrational. Especially when claims are  made based on nothing but belief or otherwise contrary to established evidence or facts.

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
1.1.14  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.12    5 days ago
This seed is not speaking of general belief in a god.  

True. I already addressed that irrationality a few months back.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.13    5 days ago

I am just wondering how you rationalize voting for irrational people.

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
1.1.16  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.15    5 days ago

Best bet is to vote for the most rational of the irrationals. Options do tend to be limited. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.16    5 days ago

I see.

Right.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Junior Principal
1.1.18  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.9    5 days ago
Rational folk do not believe in fairy tales, much less accept them as fact or truth. Especially when there is evidence to the contrary.

And yet we are wasting mucho moolah on the fairy tale of extraterrestrial life.  Zero evidence supports the billions of dollars being wasted on launching our disposable junk into space to pollute the rest of the solar system.  The Perseverance rover is as much a theme park publicity stunt as Ken Ham's Ark Encounter.  And the Perseverance rover cost a helluva lot more than did the Ark Encounter; just so the NASA publicity department can show us pictures of a dead planet and beg for more public money.

Claiming that rational folk don't believe in fairy tales simply isn't true.  NASA is proof of that.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
PhD Principal
1.1.19  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.18    5 days ago

Again, you demonstrate that you willfully conflate the goals of science and religion.  Religion looks for that which confirms its preconceived conclusions.  Science follows the evidence.  Perseverance wasn't launched on the assumption that life or evidence of past life would be found on Mars.  If it finds it, fine.  If not, also fine.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Junior Principal
1.1.20  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.19    5 days ago
Again, you demonstrate that you willfully conflate the goals of science and religion.  Religion looks for that which confirms its preconceived conclusions.  Science follows the evidence.  Perseverance wasn't launched on the assumption that life or evidence of past life would be found on Mars.  If it finds it, fine.  If not, also fine.

Yeah, right.  NASA spins a fairy tale and then spends boatloads of of public money to obtain evidence.  And if the evidence doesn't support the fairy tale then NASA just does a rewrite.  As long as the money keeps flowing then all is good.

The only goal of science is to obtain money and resources.  That's it.  And what does science provide for all the resources it takes away from society?  Science provides no comfort and offers no hope.  Every new scientific discovery establishes a new existential crisis that requires diverting resources away from public use.

Science would twist the flood story into an existential crisis.  It's happened before and it can happen again.  We must spend hundreds of 12-zeros to study, watch, and prepare.  But science never seems ready when a crisis actually arrives.  Science always needs more money and resources but it's never enough.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
PhD Principal
1.1.21  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.20    5 days ago

Your resentment of science is obvious.  What do you have against knowledge?

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Senior Guide
1.1.22  Thrawn 31  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.20    5 days ago

Nerm, science is the reason you lived past childhood. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Junior Principal
1.1.23  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.21    5 days ago
Your resentment of science is obvious.  What do you have against knowledge?

That's a strawman argument that falsely elevates science as the only source of knowledge.  You do realize that the Biblical stories are based upon and presents knowledge of human behavior.  The Bible isn't about God; the Bible is about humans.  And the knowledge presented in the Bible isn't very flattering, is it?

Science sycophants apparently wish to divert attention away from the knowledge contained in the Bible so they can repeat the human failings that Biblical knowledge tells us about.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Junior Principal
1.1.24  Nerm_L  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1.1.22    5 days ago
Nerm, science is the reason you lived past childhood. 

That is an unsupported claim that could easily be refuted by a narcissistic telling of my life story.  I choose to heed the knowledge presented in the Bible (because I have been granted free will) and avoid the hubris of extroverted grab-asses.

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
1.1.25  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.18    5 days ago
And yet we are wasting mucho moolah on the fairy tale of extraterrestrial life.  Zero evidence supports the billions of dollars being wasted on launching our disposable junk into space to pollute the rest of the solar system. 

Spare us your anti-science rhetoric. Searching for life is as much about exploring the universe (especially our own solar system) around us as it is looking for life. And there's plenty of evidence that life may exist elsewhere.

The Perseverance rover is as much a theme park publicity stunt as Ken Ham's Ark Encounter. 

And I suppose you think the moon landings were faked too?

And the Perseverance rover cost a helluva lot more than did the Ark Encounter

Money well spent.

Claiming that rational folk don't believe in fairy tales simply isn't true.  NASA is proof of that.

Nice ad hom attack.

And if the evidence doesn't support the fairy tale then NASA just does a rewrite. 

NASA explores because of the evidence.

The only goal of science is to obtain money and resources.  That's it. 

As Sandy correctly points out, "Your resentment of science is obvious."

And what does science provide for all the resources it takes away from society?  Science provides no comfort and offers no hope. 

Science is why you can live in a house and not a cave. Science is why you can live a long life and be reasonably healthy too. Science is why you can travel practically anywhere in the world instead of having to walk everywhere. Science is why you can post your hatred of it on the internet in forums like this. Science is why we can enjoy modern luxuries. 

Science would twist the flood story into an existential crisis.

Science contradicts the flood story.

You do realize that the Biblical stories are based upon and presents knowledge of human behavior.  The Bible isn't about God; the Bible is about humans.

Within that parameter, the bible is no more different or special than many other books printed which highlights or deals with the human condition.

Science sycophants apparently wish to divert attention away from the knowledge contained in the Bible so they can repeat the human failings that Biblical knowledge tells us about.

You fail to understand the purpose of science then.

That is an unsupported claim that could easily be refuted by a narcissistic telling of my life story. 

That claim is a demonstrable fact, as shown through the lens of medical advancements. More children survive infancy and childhood thanks to medical science. People in general can survive serious injury or disease thanks to science. People live longer and more active lives thanks to science. To disagree or claim otherwise is just plain willfully ignorant and in denial of fact!

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.26  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.25    5 days ago
And there's plenty of evidence that life may exist elsewhere.

What evidence of any life anywhere exists, and what did those "lives" look  like?

And how can the evidence prove life MAY exist?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Junior Principal
1.1.27  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.25    5 days ago
And I suppose you think the moon landings were faked too?

Another strawman argument.  Disney World isn't fake.  But the purpose of Disney World is to make money.  The same is true of space exploration.  Neil Armstrong risked his life for NASA's future funding requests.  We sent men to the moon, they took pictures, and we all got T-shirts.

NASA explores because of the evidence.

NASA obtains evidence after spinning a fairy tale.  And if the evidence doesn't match the fairy tale then NASA just rewrites the fairy tale.  What happened with OCO-2?

As Sandy correctly points out, "Your resentment of science is obvious."

When did presenting truth become resentment?  Answering that question may provide insight into science's resentment of religion.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.28  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.20    5 days ago
The only goal of science is to obtain money and resources. 

Now that is irrational cynicism.    Either you have your own special definition for the word ‘science’ or you have no concept of science.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
PhD Principal
1.1.29  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.23    5 days ago

That's a strawman on your part. Where did I say science was the only source of knowledge?

Your comment reveals a resentment of the search for knowledge via science.

Any amateur psychologist can tell us as much about human nature as the Bible, with no fairy tales or empty threats needed.

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
1.1.30  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.27    5 days ago
Another strawman argument.

Not at all. The idea of the Mars rovers being publicity stunts is no different than the claims of faked moon landings.  Many probably thought the moon landings were fakes as a publicity stunt too.

Disney World isn't fake.  But the purpose of Disney World is to make money.  The same is true of space exploration. 

A false equivalency.

NASA obtains evidence after spinning a fairy tale.  And if the evidence doesn't match the fairy tale then NASA just rewrites the fairy tale.  What happened with OCO-2?

Another baseless anti science allegation.

When did presenting truth become resentment?  Answering that question may provide insight into science's resentment of religion.

Your own bias is not truth. You seem to want to spin your own idea of truth. Science doesn't deal with religion. The idea that science resents religion is a fantasy you made up in your own mind. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.31  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.20    5 days ago
Science provides no comfort and offers no hope.

Correct.  Science reveals the unabashed facts of reality (as best as can be determined by existing methods).

You criticize science because it does not invent comforting alternate realities??

Lots of fear projected in that comment.

Buy a vowel.

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
1.1.32  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.26    5 days ago
What evidence of any life anywhere exists, and what did those "lives" look  like?

Earth itself is the evidence! Since life exists here, it's probable it can exist elsewhere. Especially in a universe with trillions and trillions of stars and planets.

And how can the evidence prove life MAY exist

See previous statement. Given our technological limitations, finding actual life elsewhere is a challenge. All we need to absolutely prove life exists elsewhere is to find a single microbe. Imagine if the Perseverance rover finds so much as a microbe. That will be proof right there!

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
1.1.33  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.31    5 days ago
You criticize science because it does not invent comforting alternate realities??

Apparently, some people cannot cope with actual reality. So they turn to religion to provide emotional comfort, even if it means rejecting science or actual reality.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.34  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.32    5 days ago
Since life exists here, it's probable it can exist elsewhere.

Probable? So no such proof forthcoming?

finding actual life elsewhere is a challenge. All we need to absolutely prove life exists elsewhere is to find a single microbe.

So NO proof exists of life anywhere else but Earth.

Good to know the science is inconclusive at best and supposes there MIGHT be life elsewhere because life exists here.

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
1.1.35  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.34    5 days ago
Probable? So no such proof forthcoming?

I never said proof.

So NO proof exists of life anywhere else but Earth

I never said it did either. 

Good to know the science is inconclusive at best and supposes there MIGHT be life elsewhere because life exists here.

Yes, because science follows the evidence to where it leads and that can lead to new discoveries, including proof. Science never said life absolutely exists elsewhere. Only that it possibly does.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.36  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.35    5 days ago

What evidence exists that there is life besides Earth?

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
1.1.37  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.20    5 days ago
And what does science provide for all the resources it takes away from society?  Science provides no comfort and offers no hope. 

So does that mean you don't intend to get vaccinated? 

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
1.1.38  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.36    5 days ago

Earth itself is evidence, as I previously stated. Earth is subject to the same laws of physics as the rest of the universe. We know the myriad of conditions in which life can originate and evolve. Given the number of stars and planets in the universe (and planets within their stars habitable zone), it becomes mathematically probably that there is life. That's why we're searching for it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.39  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.38    5 days ago
Earth itself is evidence,

Of life on earth.

Just seems weird that it is "irrational" to believe in God without "proof" but not irrational to believe in life beyond earth without proof.

Got it now, thank you.

 
 
 
expatingb
Freshman Silent
1.1.40  expatingb  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.38    5 days ago
We know the myriad of conditions in which life can originate and evolve.

As we know life, but that is not to say that other forms of life don't exist.

The best part about life and science is that we don't even know the questions to ask to determine what we don't know.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.41  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.34    5 days ago
So NO proof exists of life anywhere else but Earth.

This is news to you??

Good to know the science is inconclusive at best and supposes there MIGHT be life elsewhere because life exists here.

It is news to you that science does not declare omniscience??

Seriously, Texan, Gordy makes accurate statements and you respond as though he were contradicting himself. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
1.1.42  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.39    4 days ago
Of life on earth.

Of life in the universe. The universe is capable of hosting life. 

Just seems weird that it is "irrational" to believe in God without "proof" but not irrational to believe in life beyond earth without proof.

Proof is nice. But I never said proof. You did. Earth is proof that life exists in this universe. The conditions for life and the mathematics involved is evidence life could exist elsewhere in the universe. If we do find life elsewhere, even to the smallest degree, that will be proof life exists elsewhere. Some might believe there's life elsewhere in the universe, which is also irrational. But one can speculate life exists based on Earth and mathematical probability. There is neither evidence nor proof of any god/s (depending on how god/s are defined). 

Got it now,

I would hope so, considering I have had to explain it multiple times now.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.43  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.39    4 days ago
Of life on earth.

Open your mind just a tiny little bit and consider what Gordy wrote.

Earth is a product of the same fundamental physics that has produced the entire universe.   Earth is evidence that these fundamental physics of reality (as we know it) can produce life.

It is possible that Earth is the only planet in the universe that has life.   But it is entirely wrong-headed to ignore the fact that life did emerge from the fundamental physics of the universe.   Current estimates suggest (assuming one planet per solar system) that the universe contains 400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 exoplanets.    All those laboratories for life, based on the same fundamental physics and many running with more time than was needed on Earth.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.44  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.43    4 days ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
1.1.45  Gordy327  replied to  expatingb @1.1.40    4 days ago
As we know life, but that is not to say that other forms of life don't exist

That is correct. If we did discover forms of life outside of how we current define or understand life (i.e. inorganic, silicon based, ect.) that would profoundly change our understanding of the universe and of life itself.

The best part about life and science is that we don't even know the questions to ask to determine what we don't know.

I'll go one step further and say when answers are found, it only leads to more questions to be answered. The process of discovery and learning only expands and never ends.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.46  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.43    4 days ago
Open your mind just a tiny little bit and consider what Gordy wrote.

I have never needed your condescension.

No thanks today!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.47  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.39    4 days ago
Just seems weird that it is "irrational" to believe in God without "proof" but not irrational to believe in life beyond earth without proof.

A blatant misrepresentation of what Gordy wrote.   He did not write that exolife exists but that it is likely.   Monster difference between certainty and likely.

Got it now, thank you.

Intellectual dishonesty.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Junior Principal
1.1.48  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.30    4 days ago
Not at all. The idea of the Mars rovers being publicity stunts is no different than the claims of faked moon landings.  Many probably thought the moon landings were fakes as a publicity stunt too.

That's a strawman argument because I never claimed the moon landing was fake.  The moon program was as real as the launch of the Perseverance rover and Elon Musk's launch of a Tesla automobile into space.  What I stated is that all of those real events were pursued for publicity value.

We landed men on the moon to beat the Russians.  The moon program was pursued for purposes of national prestige and publicity value.  That's why the moon program lost public attention so quickly and why we haven't been back.  NASA couldn't spin a new fairy tale that warranted throwing more money at the moon.

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
1.1.49  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.43    4 days ago
  All those laboratories for life

And that's a lot of laboratories. jrSmiley_7_smiley_image.png

Earth itself is but 1 laboratory for life. Out of all those possible laboratories, all we need is just 1 with even the simplest of life to prove there is life elsewhere in the universe. 

 
 
 
expatingb
Freshman Silent
1.1.50  expatingb  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.43    4 days ago
400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Are you sure that's the number of planets and not the national debt?

400 sextillion should be easy for Biden and company to beat next week.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.51  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.47    4 days ago
A blatant misrepresentation of what Gordy wrote.

No, it simply wasn't.

Intellectual dishonesty.

Sanctimonious crap.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Junior Principal
1.1.52  Nerm_L  replied to  Dulay @1.1.37    4 days ago
So does that mean you don't intend to get vaccinated? 

Such silly questions.  Of course I intend to get vaccinated.  But I don't delude myself into believing that the vaccines are the result of scientific altruism.

Scientific knowledge has commercial value.  And commercial rewards drives the pursuit of science.  Greed drives science; not the pursuit of knowledge.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.53  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.46    4 days ago

Well if you are not going to even acknowledge what Gordy wrote then why reply?   

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
1.1.54  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.48    4 days ago
That's a strawman argument because I never claimed the moon landing was fake. 

Read what I said again! I never said you made such a claim. I compared the claims.

The moon program was as real as the launch of the Perseverance rover and Elon Musk's launch of a Tesla automobile into space. 

I'm glad we agree on that.

What I stated is that all of those real events were pursued for publicity value.

Momentous events always carry public interest and publicity value. But that's just a bonus. There's nothing wrong with stirring interest and inspiration. Such events also carry scientific, economic, military, or political value too. 

That's why the moon program lost public attention so quickly and why we haven't been back.  NASA couldn't spin a new fairy tale that warranted throwing more money at the moon.

We were also limited by technology and understanding. But the value of going to the moon beyond publicity has been recognized for decades.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.55  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.53    4 days ago
Well if you are not going to evenacknowledgewhat Gordy wrote then why reply?

I did, just not in the manner of which YOU approve.

Meh.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.56  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.51    4 days ago

No explanation, just a nuh’uh.   Note that I explain my observations.  I back up my claims.   

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.57  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.56    4 days ago

Proud of you!

Yay!!!

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Junior Principal
1.1.58  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.28    4 days ago
Now that is irrational cynicism.    Either you have your own special definition for the word ‘science’ or you have no concept of science.

Scientific knowledge has commercial value.  The next scientific breakthrough provides an opportunity to become rich overnight.

Even Ken Ham utilizes bits of science for it's commercial value.  Science transformed dinosaurs into pop culture icons that has proven to be very lucrative.  The Bible doesn't say anything about creatures that could be interpreted as dinosaurs.  Dinosaurs are only included in the Ark Encounter because science created the commercial opportunity.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.59  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.58    4 days ago
Scientific knowledge has commercial value. 

Yes.   And ... ?

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
1.1.60  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.58    4 days ago
Even Ken Ham utilizes bits of science for it's commercial value

No, he uses peoples ignorance and gullibility for that.

Science transformed dinosaurs into pop culture icons that has proven to be very lucrative.

Actually, Steven Spielberg did that.

The Bible doesn't say anything about creatures that could be interpreted as dinosaurs.  Dinosaurs are only included in the Ark Encounter because science created the commercial opportunity.

Mr. Hamm (among others) seems to genuinely believe dinosaurs coexisted with humans.

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
1.1.61  seeder  MAGA  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.32    4 days ago

there is the same likely hood of other life in the universe as there is that God exists.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
1.1.62  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @1.1.61    4 days ago
there is the same likely hood of other life in the universe as there is that God exists.  

Did you even bother reading my other posts? I actually touched on that particular point. I'll leave it to you to figure out where.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.63  TᵢG  replied to  MAGA @1.1.61    4 days ago

Wrong.

There is no evidence of any god, ever.  Much less the Christian God.   Nothing.   Just claims from human beings.

There is essentially undeniable evidence (as close to proof that one can get in reality) that life has emerged from the fundamental physics of the universe.

What one can defensibly say is this:

  • It is possible that a sentient creator exists.
  • It is possible that exolife exists.
 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
1.1.64  seeder  MAGA  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.47    4 days ago

Texan is right on correct here.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.65  TᵢG  replied to  MAGA @1.1.64    4 days ago

Then you are blatantly misrepresenting what Gordy wrote as well.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Junior Principal
1.1.66  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.54    4 days ago
Read what I said again! I never said you made such a claim. I compared the claims.

What you wrote in @1.1.30 was "Not at all. The idea of the Mars rovers being publicity stunts is no different than the claims of faked moon landings.  Many probably thought the moon landings were fakes as a publicity stunt too."

Publicity stunts do not require faking anything as Elon Musk demonstrated.  You've made a strawman argument to establish a false equivalency by equating publicity stunts with fakes; no one claimed anything was faked. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Junior Principal
1.1.67  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.59    4 days ago
Scientific knowledge has commercial value. 
Yes.   And ... ?

And greed drives the pursuit of scientific knowledge.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.68  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.67    4 days ago
And greed drives the pursuit of scientific knowledge.  

That reads as though you believe all scientists are driven by greed.   That belief is both profoundly wrong and highly cynical. 

If one is driven by greed, one should major in Finance and work in the financial market.   One should not pursue a career in science because those are inherently low paying careers (relatively speaking).

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1.1.69  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.67    4 days ago

Nerm,

I have two daughters who are both in medical sciences and I can tell you that they follow the findings and money has nothing to do with it. Even when they were at Hopkins, all the research followed the science. How else do you think they could make all the breakthroughs they have?

There might be some fields that are influenced by money, but the majority of science research follows the scientific method. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
1.1.70  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @1.1.64    4 days ago
Texan is right on correct here.

No, he's not. And the fact that he cannot explain or support his position, but instead goes meta and makes personal attacks only demonstrates the weakness of his argument.

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
1.1.71  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.66    4 days ago
You've made a strawman argument to establish a false equivalency by equating publicity stunts with fakes; no one claimed anything was faked. 

I didn't say anyone claimed these event were faked. Although there are those conspiracy theorists who deny the moon landings actually happened. I said claiming such endeavors are publicity stunts is not different than saying they are faked. Those who claim falsehood will also claim such "demonstrations" were a publicity stunt in themselves.

And greed drives the pursuit of scientific knowledge.  

Yes, scientific endeavors require funding. But to claim or even imply that science is driven solely by greed is disingenuous and wrong! 

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
1.1.72  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.52    4 days ago
Such silly questions.  Of course I intend to get vaccinated. 

Not silly at all. 

But I don't delude myself into believing that the vaccines are the result of scientific altruism.

Moving the goal posts as usual Nerm.

The FACT that the vaccine does indeed provide comfort and hope is in NO WAY diminished by the fact that it invention and production isn't a selfless act. 

Scientific knowledge has commercial value.  And commercial rewards drives the pursuit of science.  Greed drives science; not the pursuit of knowledge.

See above Nerm...

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.73  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.70    4 days ago

meta??

personal attacks???

lmao

didn't know it was open mike at the comedy club!!

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
1.1.74  seeder  MAGA  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.73    4 days ago

Welcome to one of my seeds the secular minded can’t stand.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
1.1.75  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.73    4 days ago

Considering you already have a comment that was deleted, I'd say my assessment is correct.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.76  TᵢG  replied to  MAGA @1.1.74    4 days ago

Translation:  your claims have been challenged and the responses (rare) to the challenges have been pathetic.

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
1.1.77  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @1.1.74    4 days ago
Welcome to one of my seeds the secular minded can’t stand. 

Hardly. More like the secular (and rational) mind just laughs at. Like Texan said, "open mike at the comedy club!" 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.1.78  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.75    4 days ago

yep, you can SAY anything you want, and it doesn't even have to be true!

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
1.1.79  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.76    4 days ago
Translation:  your claims have been challenged and the responses (rare) to the challenges have been pathetic.

In other words, the standard reply.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Senior Participates
1.1.80  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.79    4 days ago
In other words, the standard reply.

sounds like you've earned the ARC de Triumph

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.81  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.79    4 days ago

Always, predictable.   Hard to imagine the perceived value of posting comments that are almost always obviously wrong, are shown to be wrong, and are not defended (because there is no defense).  

How can anyone think that the ark story is real in spite of countless fact-based explanations showing that it is (of course) simply a story.   How can these facts simply be ignored with zero consideration to verify that they might indeed be correct?

Denying all information contrary to a religious belief is the only way I can see anyone today actually holding notions such as a worldwide flood.   Modern civilization is replete with easily available information on subjects like this.

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
1.1.82  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.81    4 days ago
How can anyone think that the ark story is real in spite of countless fact-based explanations showing that it is (of course) simply a story.   How can these facts simply be ignored with zero consideration to verify that they might indeed be correct?

Self delusion. 

Denying all information contrary to a religious belief is the only way I can see anyone today actually holding notions such as a worldwide flood.  

That's what religion can do: convince someone to reject critical thinking and anything which might contradict a belief. 

Modern civilization is replete with easily available information on subjects like this.

Some seem to prefer to remain willfully ignorant.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
Senior Participates
1.1.83  igknorantzrulz  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.81    4 days ago
Denying all information contrary to

uncommon, common sense, is what America has become, a country of the ignorant and dumb, who irregardlessly feel the need to prove they are off speed, pitched while caught, purchased while bought, lowered in stature, lower than i could have thought less of, cause more on, and i could go on, but against my religion, so i will, cause where there is a Will, someone must a just died, like our country but slower, as Russian to show US the weigh down, yet wait not long, as impatient's don't care about being crazy, but i find them to be intellectually Lazy, boy , girl, women, men, as it doesn't matter what the facts produce, cause facts aren't for them, and a pier to be just moored too stupid to care, but hey, look at under wear they go commando, asz none of their 'gods' need cloths of clothes for closure, they prefer ignorance, and an over exposure, and with that i'll depart without closure, but i will have some on sum, a factored in product i'll produce, sooner than later, cause like ringing rungs on a lowering former latter, i know how to clean up my mess, with a Hell of a lot to splatter, butt that is but another fecal matter, i shall soon deal with, cause i've vented on too many, and some vents, i've got too damn many a plenty, and wish to share with not all, just a few known as ANY .   Good to see you TiG, be back, gotta few more graves to dig

 
 
 
MrFrost
Masters Principal
1.1.84  MrFrost  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.69    4 days ago

There might be some fields that are influenced by money, but the majority of science research follows the scientific method. 

If it doesn't, it's not science. Not sure why people have such a hard time understanding that. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Junior Principal
1.1.85  Nerm_L  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.69    4 days ago
I have two daughters who are both in medical sciences and I can tell you that they follow the findings and money has nothing to do with it. Even when they were at Hopkins, all the research followed the science. How else do you think they could make all the breakthroughs they have? There might be some fields that are influenced by money, but the majority of science research follows the scientific method. 

Science depends upon many more people than just scientists.  And science involves much more than the scientific method.  

Scientific progress depends on sponsors, administrators, publicists, and publishers as much as it does on scientists.  Scientists are only one cog in the machinery that is science.  The organized institutional human endeavor of science is motivated by pursuit of money and resources.  Science cannot advance without money and resources in our modern world.  That constraint on institutional science drives research towards the next breakthrough; the next big thing that can be bubble packed, place on the shelf, and used to entice the public to spend more money.

Researchers who work toward reducing the flow of money into healthcare, reduce the environmental footprint of medicine, and improve affordability/access to medical care do not grab headlines and become rock stars in science.

Even Ken Ham has used science in the Ark Encounter to attract tourists.  Dinosaurs are pop culture icons that cannot be found, in any form, in Biblical writing.  

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Junior Principal
1.1.86  Nerm_L  replied to  Dulay @1.1.72    4 days ago
The FACT that the vaccine does indeed provide comfort and hope is in NO WAY diminished by the fact that it invention and production isn't a selfless act. 

That doesn't align with what is being reported in the news.  The science surrounding the vaccines have created anxieties, doubts, conflict, anger, and fear.  We are witnessing the panoply of human behavior described in the Bible.  The pandemic is playing out as the Bible describes the great flood.

And we've deliberately chosen to ignore the knowledge and lessons presented in the Bible.

People are hoping the vaccines work as institutional science said they would.  But that sort of hope isn't providing any comfort.  Institutional science could still be wrong; we just don't know.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.87  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.85    4 days ago

You describe the most expansive meaning of 'science' (science writ large) which essentially includes all factors that influence science (e.g. funding, politics,ego, ...).   Which is fine if that is what you are talking about.   But then you use this definition as the only meaning for the word 'science' regardless of the context in which it is used.  

Clearly you can see that others use the word 'science' in other contexts, especially:  the application of the scientific method to pursue explanations of phenomena in reality.    You see this, but do not acknowledge it.   Instead you argue science writ large (as you define it) regardless of the context used by others.   You substitute your writ large meaning and ignore their conventional usage.

So, for example, Perrie was referring to the application of science by her daughters.   This is the conventional usage of the word 'science' — scientists engaging in pure research for the purpose of discovering useful information.   She was countering your general, cynical (and wrong) declaration:

Nerm @1.1.67 — And greed drives the pursuit of scientific knowledge.  

The above is cynical even when speaking of science writ large.   But it is a total misrepresentation of science as conventionally used and that is what most people refer to when they use the term 'science'.   When speaking of science writ large one should explicitly expand 'science' by naming the layers of politics, business, etc. of interest.   To just lump all of this together and use that as the meaning of the word 'science' unqualified misrepresents the common meaning of the word.  

But worse, when you see others clearly speak of science and you stubbornly argue science writ large without qualification (calling it 'science') that shows arguing for the sake of argument.   Playing semantic games with a word.    I suspect that makes people not want to engage.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Junior Principal
1.1.88  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.87    4 days ago
You describe the most expansive meaning of 'science' (science writ large) which essentially includes all factors that influence science (e.g. funding, politics,ego, ...).   Which is fine if that is what you are talking about.   But then you use this definition as the only meaning for the word 'science' regardless of the context in which it is used.  

That seems an odd comment to make on a seeded article where intellectual opposition to Ken Ham's Ark Encounter utilizes an expansive meaning of Christianity.  The intellectual arguments seem based upon the idea that a tourist attraction is representative of all Christianity.

And that tourist attraction is utilizing the pop culture aspect of expansive science to attract tourists.

Clearly you can see that others use the word 'science' in other contexts, especially: the application of the scientific method to pursue explanations of phenomena in reality.  You see this, but do not acknowledge it.   Instead you argue science writ large (as you define it) regardless of the context used by others.   You substitute your writ large meaning and ignore their conventional usage.

Unless, of course, when scientists do not use the scientific method.  Observation, cataloging, and classification does not utilize the scientific method.  Theoretical science does not utilize the scientific method.  The scientific method is only utilized by a portion of the institutional body of science.  And the portion of institutional science utilizing the scientific method appears to be shrinking.  Statistical correlation has been replacing causal descriptions because statistical correlation is faster, requires fewer resources, and is less expensive.

The public has been influenced by the pop culture presentation of science.  Jurassic Park is how the public perceives science.  Pop culture science fiction is how the public perceives science.  The public is being spoon fed the graphic novel version of science and scientists are attempting to conform to that graphic novel perception.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.89  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.88    4 days ago
That seems an odd comment to make ...

My comment was not an argument.   It was an observation intended to illustrate a fundamental problem.

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
1.1.90  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.86    4 days ago
That doesn't align with what is being reported in the news.  The science surrounding the vaccines have created anxieties, doubts, conflict, anger, and fear.

Actually, it's the type of political hyperbole contained in your comments that has created most of that. 

You also seem desperate to ignore the reports in the news of people crying from relief when they get their first shot. 

We are witnessing the panoply of human behavior described in the Bible. The pandemic is playing out as the Bible describes the great flood. And we've deliberately chosen to ignore the knowledge and lessons presented in the Bible.

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

People are hoping the vaccines work as institutional science said they would. 

See, there's that hope thingy...

But that sort of hope isn't providing any comfort.

Perhaps not for you but for millions upon millions, it does.

Institutional science could still be wrong; we just don't know.

We do know Nerm. 200 MILLION vaccines have been administered and the data PROVES that it is mitigating the effects and spread of the virus. EVERY study documents that. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Junior Principal
1.1.91  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.89    3 days ago
My comment was not an argument.   It was an observation intended to illustrate a fundamental problem.

And I presented observations that illustrate a fundamental problem with general understanding of science, too.  Science is also pop culture entertainment and recreation.  Pop culture portrayals of scientists are more myth than reality.

Bird watching is considered science and is utilized in science education.  Collecting tree leaves is considered science and is utilized in science education.  A paper mache model of a volcano with baking soda lava is considered science and is utilized in science education.  Building model rockets is considered science and is utilized in science education.  These activities do not require the scientific method so are they science?  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.92  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.91    3 days ago
These activities do not require the scientific method so are they science?  

Really, Nerm, very few give a shit about such a broad umbrella usage of the word 'science'.   Redefining science to include 'bird watching' and 'collecting tree leaves' is pointless and obnoxious.

Now, if by 'collecting tree leaves' you are making a sarcastic, demeaning and over-simplified reference to Botany or similarly 'bird watching' as a sarcastic, demeaning and over-simplified reference to Ornithology then I see that as simply more cynicism and negativity towards science itself.  

I have no interest discussing science with someone who demeans scientific research itself and has some strange chip-on-shoulder bias against science.

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
1.1.93  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.92    3 days ago
I have no interest discussing science with someone who demeans scientific research itself and has some strange chip-on-shoulder bias against science.

I cannot understand how or why someone would hold such mentalities regarding science too.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Junior Principal
1.1.94  Nerm_L  replied to  Dulay @1.1.90    3 days ago
Actually, it's the type of political hyperbole contained in your comments that has created most of that. 

Really?  What does efficacy mean?  Why do people who have been vaccinated still need to wear a mask?  Why the concern over mutations and variants?  Why do the experts keep moving the possibility of returning to normal into the future?  Is vaccination necessary to open schools or not?

See, there's that hope thingy...

Well, let's state it in a more realistic manner.  People are hoping they haven't been misled by the experts.  

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
1.1.95  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.94    3 days ago
Really?

Yes really. 

Well, let's state it in a more realistic manner.  People are hoping they haven't been misled by the experts. 

Those two sentences are contradictory...

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
1.1.96  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.94    3 days ago
Really?  What does efficacy mean?  Why do people who have been vaccinated still need to wear a mask?  Why the concern over mutations and variants?  Why do the experts keep moving the possibility of returning to normal into the future?  Is vaccination necessary to open schools or not?

Are those serious questions, or are you trying to be obtuse again?

 
 
 
Veronica
Sophomore Guide
1.1.97  Veronica  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.69    2 days ago
There might be some fields that are influenced by money,

And it is not just in the science arena.  Look at the money changers in our religious communities (including this Noah's Ark - dinosaurs are a great way to draw in kids & with them comes mommy & daddy & their billfolds).  

 
 
 
devangelical
Masters Expert
1.2  devangelical  replied to  MAGA @1    5 days ago
Listen to Ham discuss the ark as well as his new book urging parents to better equip children for an increasingly chaotic culture here .

why are there ad links left in the body of this article?

 
 
 
bbl-1
PhD Quiet
1.2.1  bbl-1  replied to  devangelical @1.2    5 days ago

( christian grift? )

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
1.2.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.2    5 days ago

You just concentrate on the discussion.

 
 
 
Tacos!
PhD Guide
1.2.3  Tacos!  replied to  devangelical @1.2    5 days ago
why are there ad links left in the body of this article?

Because you haven't lived until you have drunk apple cider vinegar straight. Also I really need to know what I have to do every day so I don't need Viagra.

Am I sharing too much?

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
1.2.4  pat wilson  replied to  devangelical @1.2    5 days ago

Lazy seed publishing

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Senior Guide
1.2.5  Thrawn 31  replied to  devangelical @1.2    5 days ago

Cuz apparently god can do anything except print money.

 
 
 
devangelical
Masters Expert
1.2.6  devangelical  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.3    5 days ago
Am I sharing too much?

not if you tell me where all the asian and russian women are in my town that prefer old men.

 
 
 
devangelical
Masters Expert
1.2.7  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.2    5 days ago
You just concentrate on the discussion.

you just concentrate on poor group moderation.

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
1.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @1.2    5 days ago
why are there ad links left in the body of this article?

To keep your attention?

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
1.2.9  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.2.7    4 days ago
"You just concentrate on the discussion."
"you just concentrate on poor group moderation."

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MAGA @1    5 days ago

Please do not do any kinds of promotion without my permission. TY

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
1.3.1  seeder  MAGA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3    5 days ago

It’s simply an article as written directly from the Christian Post.  And I did delete all the adds that were   there within the article at the source.  

 
 
 
bbl-1
PhD Quiet
2  bbl-1    5 days ago

Ken Hamm is a ham and a professional grifter.

Biblical account?  From a cadre of men using ignorance and fear to maintain power.

 
 
 
Freefaller
PhD Guide
3  Freefaller    5 days ago

I'll assume extremist political bunk wasn't creating enough divisiveness so we're switching back extremist religious bunk.

 
 
 
devangelical
Masters Expert
3.1  devangelical  replied to  Freefaller @3    5 days ago

noah's ark - follow the wacky adventures of an incestuous xtian family crowded on a houseboat with their own private zoo during the monsoon season. season 1, episode 1 - the dinosaurs are hungry again.

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
3.1.1  seeder  MAGA  replied to  devangelical @3.1    5 days ago
 
 
 
sandy-2021492
PhD Principal
3.1.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  MAGA @3.1.1    5 days ago

Just the first 3 points use the Bible to "prove" the Bible.

Circular argument.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
3.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @3.1    5 days ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
3.1.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.2    5 days ago
Just the first 3 points use the Bible to "prove" the Bible.

That's not what a religion does. You either take it on faith or you don't.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.4    5 days ago

When someone tries to make a religious argument, that argument is subject to the same rules of logic as any other argument.   Circular religious arguments are fallacious as are circular non-religious arguments.

It is common to argue (in not so few words) that the Bible is divine because the Bible says so.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
PhD Principal
3.1.6  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.4    5 days ago
That's not what a religion does.

Of course circular arguments are one of the things religion "does".  "It's true because we say it's true."  That doesn't mean it's actually true.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.3    5 days ago

Do you hold that the ark story is true ... that there was a global flood that destroyed all life except that preserved by the ark and that all creatures are descendants of the ark inhabitants?

Do you also hold that dinosaurs were on the ark?

Do you hold that the Earth is < 10,000 years old?

 
 
 
cjcold
PhD Quiet
3.1.8  cjcold  replied to  devangelical @3.1    5 days ago

The weather started getting rough, the tiny ship was tossed.

If not for the courage of the fearless crew the Minnow would be lost.

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
3.1.9  seeder  MAGA  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.5    5 days ago
The story of Noah and the flood has sparked intense interest and seemingly endless discussion for hundreds of years. The historical reality of a global deluge was accepted without question by most Christians until the beginning of the 19th century. Until the early 1800s, geological information was, more often than not, used as evidence of the biblical flood.

Belief in the traditional biblical account of the flood changed radically during the period from 1800 to 1850. [1] 1 As geologists explored the sedimentary record and debated its meaning, the flood gradually became reduced from a catastrophic global deluge responsible for the stratigraphic column to a more tranquil flood responsible for only a surficial layer of "diluvium." By about mid-century, the flood had been reduced to a local event that affected only humans. By the end of the century, it was even doubted that the flood affected all of humanity, and was restricted to the Mesopotamian Valley. [2]

Various factors were suggested as possible causes for a local flood. Rising sea level might have flooded the Mesopotamian Valley, [3] or perhaps it was flooded by a tsunami generated by volcanic activity in the Mediterranean. Melting glaciers might have supplied water for a local flood. [4] In an interesting repeat of history, new forms of these ideas have resurfaced recently, with some new twists.
The idea of inundation by rising sea level in the Persian Gulf has recently been revived by an international team of geologists. [5] They attribute the rise in sea level to glacial melting, which is believed to have raised sea level more than 100 meters. As the Persian Gulf is only about 100 meters in depth, it would have been dry land during the height of the Ice Age. According to the proposal, it would have taken some 1000 years to fill the Persian Gulf, but the rising waters would have driven the inhabitants from their ancestral land and provided the basis for stories that were handed down through the generations. It is not clear how seriously this theory will be considered. The gradual rise of sea level seems difficult to reconcile with the catastrophic event described in Genesis.

Another flood theory has been suggested by Glen Morton. [6] Morton proposes that the biblical flood occurred when the Mediterranean basin was catastrophically filled during the Pliocene, some five million years ago. According to the Mediterranean flood theory, [7] the Miocene collision of Africa and Europe sealed off the Mediterranean basin. The basin eventually dried up, leaving a deposit of salt on the basin floor. Then, at the beginning of the Pliocene, the dam broke, and Atlantic Ocean water poured through the strait at Gibralter, cutting through the dam, and filling the Mediterranean in a hundred years or so. Morton's proposal is that the Mediterranean basin was populated by primitive humans in the form of erectines, or possibly australopithecines, and this accounts for the story told in Genesis. It is doubtful that this theory will become accepted, since australopithecines are not generally regarded as humans, and there is no evidence for the presence of either erectines or australopithecines in the area at the beginning of the Pliocene.

A more widely known flood theory was published in 1998 by William Ryan and Walter Pitman. [8] Their theory is similar to that of Morton, except for the location and the timing. In their theory, the catastrophic filling occurs in the Black Sea, and occurred over seven thousand years ago. Because Ryan and Pitman have attracted considerable interest in their theory, presented in a video and a book written in a popular-style narrative, a more detailed review of their arguments follows.

In their book, Ryan and Pitman survey the history of flood exploration, beginning with the deciphering of cuneiform writing and ending with attempts to link the biblical flood to Woolley's discovery of a clay layer in the city of Ur.

The authors then lay out their own theory of a rapid inundation of the Black Sea basin when sea level breached the natural barrier separating the Black Sea basin from the Aegean Sea. They present evidence that the Black Sea was once a freshwater lake, much smaller than the present Sea. The argument is built from data collected from underwater currents, seafloor sediments, fossils, and paleomagnetism. Their conclusion is that about 7600 radiocarbon years ago, the lake was rapidly inundated with sea water, cutting a channel through the former barrier, and raising the level of the lake to that of the global ocean.

Archeological evidence, cultural legends, and considerable speculation is invoked to support a story of destruction of a lake-shore farming community due to sudden flooding of the Black Sea basin. The former residents migrated away from the Black Sea, scattering throughout Europe and southwestern Asia. Finally, the authors review the story they have created and compare it with ancient Mesopotamian flood legends.

I was struck by the story-telling ability of the authors their book reads more like a novel than a scientific report. The personal stories of the authors add to the captivating writing style. The basic story line seems plausible. The Black Sea basin once held a freshwater lake, isolated from the sea by a narrow land barrier. The barrier was breached by the sea, presumably by rising sea level. Inflowing sea water cut through the barrier, creating the present connection between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, and converting the lake into a brackish sea. This flood might well have made a lasting impression on any human inhabitants of the region. However, it is a long stretch to identify this event with the biblical flood.

Several features of this and other alternative flood scenarios are in conflict with the biblical flood description. Most obviously, the biblical flood ended, while the Persian Gulf, Mediterranean basin, and Black Sea basin each remain flooded. The biblical flood left no refuge for escape, and so killed all but eight of the human race. The other proposed flood locations are virtually surrounded by potential refuges, and the proposed floods would have killed at most a small proportion of the human population. The biblical ark landed in the mountains of Ararat, which is geographically distant from the Black Sea or the Mediterranean Sea. In the biblical story, the human population was given advance warning of the impending flood. An ark would be unnecessary to escape a local flood, since the population could simply migrate to a new area.

It seems clear that catastrophic floods have occurred on a scale not seen in modern history, [9] and their stories are interesting and informative. However, these local floods do not explain important features of the biblical flood.

LITERATURE CITED

read more:
 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
3.1.10  seeder  MAGA  replied to  cjcold @3.1.8    5 days ago
Don’t just take our word for it, though. Take a look at the evidence right beneath your feet.

Evidence 1: Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents

We find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers that cover all the continents. For example, most of the rock layers in the walls of Grand Canyon (more than a mile above sea level) contain marine fossils. Fossilized shellfish are even found in the Himalayas.

Award-Winning Creation Magazine

Packed with relevant articles, stunning photos, and illustrations that reveal the latest creation science news while equipping you for the culture war in society today.

Focus in: High & Dry Sea Creatures

Evidence 2: Rapid burial of plants and animals

We find extensive fossil “graveyards” and exquisitely preserved fossils. For example, billions of nautiloid fossils are found in a layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon. This layer was deposited catastrophically by a massive flow of sediment (mostly lime sand). The chalk and coal beds of Europe and the United States, and the fish, ichthyosaurs, insects, and other fossils all around the world, testify of catastrophic destruction and burial.

Focus in: The World’s a Graveyard

Evidence 3: Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas

We find rock layers that can be traced all the way across continents—even between continents—and physical features in those strata indicate they were deposited rapidly. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone and Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon can be traced across the entire United States, up into Canada, and even across the Atlantic Ocean to England. The chalk beds of England (the white cliffs of Dover) can be traced across Europe into the Middle East and are also found in the Midwest of the United States and in Western Australia. Inclined (sloping) layers within the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon are testimony to 10,000 cubic miles of sand being deposited by huge water currents within days.

Focus in: Transcontinental Rock Layers

Evidence 4: Sediment transported long distances

We find that the sediments in those widespread, rapidly deposited rock layers had to be eroded from distant sources and carried long distances by fast-moving water. For example, the sand for the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon (Arizona) had to be eroded and transported from the northern portion of what is now the United States and Canada. Furthermore, water current indicators (such as ripple marks) preserved in rock layers show that for “300 million years” water currents were consistently flowing from northeast to southwest across all of North and South America, which, of course, is only possible over weeks during a global Flood.

Focus in: Sand Transported Cross Country

Evidence 5: Rapid or no erosion between strata

We find evidence of rapid erosion, or even of no erosion, between rock layers. Flat, knife-edge boundaries between rock layers indicate continuous deposition of one layer after another, with no time for erosion. For example, there is no evidence of any “missing” millions of years (of erosion) in the flat boundary between two well-known layers of Grand Canyon—the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Formation. Another impressive example of flat boundaries at Grand Canyon is the Redwall Limestone and the strata beneath it.

Focus in: No Slow and Gradual Erosion

Evidence 6: Many strata laid down in rapid succession

Rocks do not normally bend; they break because they are hard and brittle. But in many places we find whole sequences of strata that were bent without fracturing, indicating that all the rock layers were rapidly deposited and folded while still wet and pliable before final hardening. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone in Grand Canyon is folded at a right angle (90°) without evidence of breaking. Yet this folding could only have occurred after the rest of the layers had been deposited, supposedly over “480 million years,” while the Tapeats Sandstone remained wet and pliable.

Focus in: Folded Rock Layers

What now?

The Bible’s history is reliable throughout—
read more:

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  MAGA @3.1.9    5 days ago

@3.1.9  is simply the pasting of another's words.   I ignore those comments and I suspect most others do as well.

 
 
 
Tacos!
PhD Guide
3.1.12  Tacos!  replied to  devangelical @3.1    5 days ago
noah's ark - follow the wacky adventures of an incestuous xtian family crowded on a houseboat with their own private zoo during the monsoon season.

Don't be a hater. Let's see you spend six weeks on a boat and keep it in your pants with no internet porn.

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
3.1.13  seeder  MAGA  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.11    5 days ago

The words of Christians in science who express far better than I the points I want to have made here.  Whether one with their mind already made up reads them or not is of no concern to me.  

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
3.1.14  seeder  MAGA  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.12    5 days ago

There were for sets of husbands and wives on that ship.  No reason at all for any incest aboard it.  And they likely spent over a year on the ship from the angel closing the door to opening it.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  MAGA @3.1.13    5 days ago
The words of Christians in science who express far better than I the points I want to have made here.  

... are wasted.   Pasting the equivalent of a seed in a comment — especially when you provide zero summary to indicate the point you wish to convey — encourages people to ignore your comment.   So you wind up wasting your time.

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
3.1.16  seeder  MAGA  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.15    5 days ago

Not as much as you wasted typing words I’ll never consider.  Not counting the counter seed I’ll never post on.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.17  TᵢG  replied to  MAGA @3.1.16    5 days ago

The counter seed is for others.   Your participation is not important;  in fact, it is probably best that you continue to play your little boycott game.

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
3.1.18  seeder  MAGA  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.17    5 days ago
"For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be" ( Matthew 24:38-39 ).

The Lord Jesus Christ not only believed in the special, recent creation of all things by God (note Mark 10:6-8), but also in the worldwide Flood of Noah's day, including the special preservation of life on the Ark. The Flood in which He believed was obviously not a "local flood," for He compared it to the worldwide future impact of His Second Coming.

Neither was it a "tranquil flood," nor a "selective flood," for Jesus said, "the flood came, and destroyed them all" ( Luke 17:27 ). It is clear that He was referring to--and that He believed--the Genesis record of the great Flood! There it says that the whole earth was "filled with violence" ( Genesis 6:13 ), having first been filled with people, and that the resulting world-cleansig deluge was so cataclysmic that "every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth" ( Genesis 7:23 ). Indeed, "the flood came, and took |literally `lifted'| them all away."

This is what Jesus said, and what He believed, and therefore, those who are truly His disciples must also believe this. The destructive effects of the Flood can still be seen today, not only in the Biblical record, but also in the abundant evidences of cataclysmic destruction in the rocks and fossil graveyards all over the world. To refuse this evidence, as do many modern intellectuals, can only be because they "willingly are ignorant," as Peter said in referring to this testimony (II Peter 3:5).
read more:
 
 
 
sandy-2021492
PhD Principal
3.1.19  sandy-2021492  replied to  MAGA @3.1.18    5 days ago

Circular argument plus ad hominem.

Weak.

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
3.1.20  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @3.1.1    5 days ago
Is There Evidence of a Global Flood?

No. No there is not! Just the opposite actually.

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
3.1.21  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.4    5 days ago
That's not what a religion does. You either take it on faith or you don't.

If religion makes an affirmative claim, especially as fact (as it often does), it subjects itself to logical scrutiny. Faith doesn't make something factual or true. Neither does belief equal fact.

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
3.1.22  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.12    5 days ago
Let's see you spend six weeks on a boat and keep it in your pants with no internet porn.

That sounds like my version of Hell. jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
3.1.23  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @3.1.16    5 days ago
Not as much as you wasted typing words I’ll never consider.  Not counting the counter seed I’ll never post on.  

So much for honest debate or discourse. You merely demonstrate an extreme bias.

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
3.1.24  seeder  MAGA  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.7    5 days ago

I don’t believe dinosaurs were on the ark. I believe that they were left outside to not survive to the post flood earth.  I disagree with Ham on that. I believe that Adam and Eve sinned less than 10,000 years ago.  I make no claim as to the time between their creation and their fall to sin.  

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
3.1.25  seeder  MAGA  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.17    5 days ago

I will almost never post in a seed from a group owned by a secularist and or progressive member here.  My posts rarely get fair treatment in those places from their owners and their designees.  

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
3.1.26  seeder  MAGA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.19    5 days ago

The secularists never take Gods words seriously

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.27  TᵢG  replied to  MAGA @3.1.24    5 days ago
I don’t believe dinosaurs were on the ark. I believe that they were left outside to not survive to the post flood earth.  

The dinosaurs were extinct 65 million years before human beings existed.   So there were no dinosaurs around to even be denied entrance to the ark.   But second, what is your biblical basis for thinking God excluded dinosaurs?     This one sentence makes me think that you purposely write the most outrageous, stupid comments you can devise.   How you find that valuable is a mystery.

I disagree with Ham on that. I believe that Adam and Eve sinned less than 10,000 years ago.  I make no claim as to the time between their creation and their fall to sin.  

Human beings have been around for 200,000 years.   While there is no single Adam and Eve human beings from which we are all descended, if there were, they would have existed 200,000 years ago.

Also, good grief man, there is physical evidence of civilized human beings dating back more than 10,000 years.    Jericho has evidence of existing as a civilization 11,000 years ago.   There are artifacts of human beings (well prior to civilization) dating back over 165,000 years.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.28  TᵢG  replied to  MAGA @3.1.25    5 days ago

You have nothing to complain about my treatment of you on my articles.   Your claim of mistreatment is just a bullshit excuse.

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
3.1.29  seeder  MAGA  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.21    5 days ago

No one will survive this world to the next without faith. Caiaphas and his co conspirators will one day see the signs and wonders they once demanded at the trial they presided over.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.1.30  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MAGA @3.1.29    5 days ago
Caiaphas and his co conspirators will one day see the signs and wonders they once demanded at the trial they presided over.

There have not been high priests in about 2,000 years after the destruction of the second temple, so what are you talking about?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
PhD Principal
3.1.31  sandy-2021492  replied to  MAGA @3.1.26    5 days ago

Of course not.  Why would we?

Anyway, those mostly weren't the supposed words of your supposed god.  They were the words of somebody weaponizing belief in your god, badly.  A familiar tactic.

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
3.1.32  seeder  MAGA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.30    5 days ago
Jesus Before the Sanhedrin

57  Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the teachers of the law and the elders had assembled. 58  But Peter followed him at a distance, right up to the courtyard of the high priest. He entered and sat down with the guards to see the outcome.

59  The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. 60  But they did not find any, though many false witnessescame forward.

Finally two came forward 61  and declared, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’”

62  Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 63  But Jesus remained silent.

The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”

64  “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” [ a ]

65  Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66  What do you think?”

“He is worthy of death,” they answered.

67  Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him

Read full chapter
read more:

This trial took place a little more than 30 years before what you describe.  

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
3.1.33  Thomas  replied to  MAGA @3.1.10    5 days ago

As a geologist, I find your (and the author's) belief in rapid sedimentation to be fanciful, as well as just plain wrong. 

Pick up a geology textbook. It will enlighten you.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
PhD Principal
3.1.34  sandy-2021492  replied to  Thomas @3.1.33    5 days ago
It will enlighten you.

Unlikely.  That would require a desire to be enlightened, rather than confirmed in one's prior beliefs.

MAGA's primary resources in these debates come from Answers in Genesis, which specializes in deliberate confirmation bias, dishonesty encouraged.

 
 
 
Dig
Junior Guide
3.1.35  Dig  replied to  MAGA @3.1.10    5 days ago
Evidence 1: Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents We find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers that cover all the continents. For example, most of the rock layers in the walls of Grand Canyon (more than a mile above sea level) contain marine fossils. Fossilized shellfish are even found in the Himalayas.

Yup. All through the rock, too. Deep down, not just on the surface where the 'flood' would have deposited them.

Makes sense... jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

I can't believe obviously fraudulent stuff like this is still making rounds.

Hey MAGA, do you ever stop and think about the crap you post?

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
3.1.36  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @3.1.29    5 days ago
No one will survive this world to the next without faith.

That's what religion would say or have one believe. But I'm not one to merely accept the words of a proverbial used car salesman, no questions asked. Especially since those who make such declaration cannot possibly know what God would do or allow. Such arrogant presumption does not lend credibility, much less inspire any kind of faith.

The secularists never take Gods words seriously

Not without at least some evidence. Why would anyone?

 My posts rarely get fair treatment in those places from their owners and their designees.  

Perhaps because you never offer any evidence or logical summary for your posts. All you offer is empty declarations and cut and pasting.

 I disagree with Ham on that.

What makes either you or Hamm right on that? If you can't even agree on the same fairy tale, then how can such a story have validity?

 
 
 
bbl-1
PhD Quiet
3.1.37  bbl-1  replied to  MAGA @3.1.26    4 days ago

Neither do the small 'c' christians.

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
3.1.38  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @3.1    4 days ago

a31261101cab1e54e8155018d6e72e54.jpg

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
3.1.39  Gordy327  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.38    3 days ago

Now that's a classic. jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Thomas
Freshman Guide
3.1.40  Thomas  replied to  MAGA @3.1.1    3 days ago

She's lying, there is an Apple on her computer....

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.41  TᵢG  replied to  MAGA @3.1.1    3 days ago

Do you actually believe this bullshit?   Seriously, man, Dr. Purdom is arguing that the evidence of a global flood is that if there were not a global flood then the Noah story would be inconsistent.    For example, she notes that the rainbow is a reminder that no such flood will ever occur.  Thus since there are rainbows, God certainly was not referring to a local flood (which occur all the time) and thus Noah's flood had to be global.

This is nothing more than a variation of trying to use the Bible itself as evidence that the Bible is true.  

Surely you see the problem with that, right?

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
3.1.42  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.41    3 days ago
Dr. Purdom is arguing that the evidence of a global flood is that if there were not a global flood then the Noah story would be inconsistent. 

That's essentially trying make the evidence fit one's own conclusion. It's intellectually dishonest at the very least.

This is nothing more than a variation of trying to use the Bible itself as evidence that the Bible is true.

Circular logic, which is a logical fallacy. Of course, some don't really care about that and are not interested in logic or intellectual honesty.

Surely you see the problem with that, right?

Doubtful.

 
 
 
cjcold
PhD Quiet
3.1.43  cjcold  replied to  MAGA @3.1.26    19 hours ago

Since there is no god; we just don't take religionist' words seriously.

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
3.1.44  Gordy327  replied to  cjcold @3.1.43    15 hours ago
Since there is no god; we just don't take religionist' words seriously.

And since there is no evidence for any god/s, we do not take the claims of or on behalf of a god seriously. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
PhD Quiet
3.2  bbl-1  replied to  Freefaller @3    5 days ago

Basically Mr. Freefaller, the political bunk and the religious bunk are identical.

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
3.2.1  seeder  MAGA  replied to  bbl-1 @3.2    5 days ago

Not completely but there is some considerable connection between the holding of certain religious and political beliefs that are not very popular on big tech social media. There are though some thoroughly secular conservatives and a few deeply religious lefties out there and even here.  

 
 
 
bbl-1
PhD Quiet
3.2.2  bbl-1  replied to  MAGA @3.2.1    5 days ago

There are always outliers on everything.  It means nothing.  Truth is truth, fact is fact and those who accept it understand and those who don't------don't.

 
 
 
Freefaller
PhD Guide
3.2.3  Freefaller  replied to  bbl-1 @3.2    5 days ago
the political bunk and the religious bunk are identical.

Not sure I completely agree with that, I would say the reasons for the seeder posting both (and anything else) are identical 

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
3.2.4  Split Personality  replied to  MAGA @3.2.1    4 days ago

Please don't respond to a comment and then 19 hours later decide to flag for being off topic per seeder.

Very bad form.

Request denied

 
 
 
bbl-1
PhD Quiet
3.2.5  bbl-1  replied to  Freefaller @3.2.3    4 days ago

Cheek in tongue.  Thanks for proving my point.

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
3.3  seeder  MAGA  replied to  Freefaller @3    4 days ago

Who is this we you are accusing of posting extremist political and religious content? 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Senior Guide
4  Thrawn 31    5 days ago

That huckster is still in business somehow and still pitching that dumbass ark thing? 

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Participates
5  Hallux    5 days ago

One more theory:

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Participates
6  Hallux    5 days ago

The Old Testament is a mix of history and allegory, you will do your God a great disservice if you claim them to be one in the same.

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
6.1  seeder  MAGA  replied to  Hallux @6    5 days ago

Well in regards to the seeded issue, Jesus Himself is quoted saying Noah and the flood were quite real and he said that it was a preview of what the human condition would be at His second coming.   Noah and the global flood were mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament as well. While that may not persuade an atheist, a self professed Christian who doesn’t believe in a literal global flood is basically calling Jesus a liar and opening up everything He said to their cafeteria style pick what you want to believe and pass on the rest version of faux Christianity.  

 
 
 
devangelical
Masters Expert
6.1.1  devangelical  replied to  MAGA @6.1    5 days ago
calling Jesus a liar and opening up everything He said to their cafeteria style pick what you want to believe and pass on the rest version of faux Christianity

... like teavangelicals are so adept at doing, otherwise known as cherry-picking.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Senior Guide
6.1.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  MAGA @6.1    5 days ago

We agree we on something! In order to be a real Christian you have to buy every bit of bullshit in the Bible hook line and sinker. If not then you are admitting the Bible is mostly crap and in that case why believe any of it? 
No, to be a true Christian you have to force yourself to believe some of the most absurd crap ever written down, and absolutely look like an idiot defending it. And that right there is the central problem of religion, you have to live in an alternate reality in order to really believe it.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
PhD Principal
6.1.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  MAGA @6.1    5 days ago

Circular argument and ad hom, again.  It's almost like that's all you have.

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
6.1.4  Dulay  replied to  MAGA @6.1    5 days ago

How many generations have passed since 'Jesus Himself' said that Xx? 

 
 
 
bbl-1
PhD Quiet
6.1.5  bbl-1  replied to  Thrawn 31 @6.1.2    4 days ago

Thanks for mentioning that.  I need clarification.  I'm still stuck on the 'seafood' thing.  Can you help?

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
6.1.6  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.1.3    3 days ago
It's almost like that's all you have.

Nothing almost about it. More like certain.

 
 
 
Dulay
PhD Principal
6.1.7  Dulay  replied to  Dulay @6.1.4    3 days ago

C'mon Xx, how many generations have passed? Easy question. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
6.1.8  Gordy327  replied to  Dulay @6.1.7    3 days ago

Don't be surprised if you don't get an answer. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Principal
6.1.9  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  MAGA @6.1    3 days ago

Jesus Himself is quoted saying ...

Lol.  There are historical records of many contemporaries in the time frame of Jesus.  There is nothing of historical record that lends evidence towards his supposed existence.  Think about that - the one figure that tens of billions of faithful believers over time, for whom they would consider arguably to be the most important figure in the history of mankind, and there are no historical references to him.  The argument used to be that literacy was so uncommon in that era that it’s not surprising that there’s not a single historical reference to Jesus that exists in any non-biblical context.  But a few years back archeologists had made a discovery that included ancient writings from commoners of that era, like shopping lists.  The explanation is simple - Jesus is a creation of man.  His legend is pure fiction.  There might have been some random mental case with his name, the equivalent of a modern day street preacher, who shot his mouth off enough to get himself executed, but he sure as hell wasn’t worth remembering.

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
6.1.10  seeder  MAGA  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6.1.9    3 days ago

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Principal
6.1.11  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  MAGA @6.1.10    3 days ago

As I said, Christus or whatever his name was could have been some random nutcase that got himself executed.  But a superhuman who can walk on water, multiply food, heal the sick, raise people from the dead, etc. - hell no.  Anyone with those kinds of abilities in that time period would certainly have been written about prolifically.  Didn’t happen.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Senior Guide
6.1.12  Thrawn 31  replied to  bbl-1 @6.1.5    3 days ago

I can’t get past the “no wearing different types of fabric” thing.

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
6.1.13  Gordy327  replied to  Thrawn 31 @6.1.12    2 days ago
I can’t get past the “no wearing different types of fabric” thing.

That one is just plain stupid and makes no sense. Unless ancient people were such fashionistas that they forbade different fabrics as the ultimate fashion faux pas. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Participates
6.1.14  evilgenius  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6.1.9    2 days ago
There is nothing of historical record that lends evidence towards his supposed existence.

Not for at least a 100 years after what is considered the death of Jesus. The 20th century biblical scholar Fredrick Fyvie Bruce talks about Sextus Julius Africanus in c. 220 quoting the lost historian Thallos in 55 CE as the first non-biblical mentions of Jesus. Jewish historian Josephus wrote the Antiquities of the Jews around 93-94 AD and included two references to the biblical Jesus. There are doubts on the authenticity of the writings. Tacitus referred to Chistus and and his execution by Pontius Pilate in c. AD 116. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Freshman Principal
6.1.15  Gsquared  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.13    2 days ago

The evidence suggests that clothing of mixed wool and linen was worn exclusively by the high priest.  That it was considered as a consecrated kind of clothing.  Thus, it was a prohibition against common people dressing as only the high priest could.

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
6.1.16  Gordy327  replied to  Gsquared @6.1.15    2 days ago

Still just plain stupid.

 
 
 
Tacos!
PhD Guide
6.1.17  Tacos!  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6.1.11    2 days ago
Christus or whatever his name

This, alone, shows you have a lot to learn about it before you go making the claims you’re making.

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
6.1.18  seeder  MAGA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.1.3    2 days ago

Circular argument and ad hom, again.  It's almost like that's all you have.

 
 
 
MAGA
Senior Guide
6.1.19  seeder  MAGA  replied to  Thrawn 31 @6.1.12    2 days ago

Everyone has their own limitations....

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
PhD Principal
6.1.20  sandy-2021492  replied to  MAGA @6.1.18    2 days ago

Point out where my comments contain circular reasoning.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Principal
6.1.21  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.17    2 days ago
Christus or whatever his name

This, alone, shows you have a lot to learn about it before you go making the claims you’re making .

From c4p’s link above:

“Some scholars also believe Roman historian Suetonius references Jesus in noting that Emperor Claudius had expelled Jews from Rome who “were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus.””

Lol.  Common sense isn’t learned, it’s inherent.  Unfortunately some folks have none.  Imagine you lived in an age where disease is rampant and totally misunderstood, and famine was rampant because there is no practical agricultural scientific understanding. They don’t even know where babies come from.  Along comes a guy who can overcome all of that with a wave of his hand.  On top of that he can walk on water and raise people from the dead.  I don’t care what comes out of that guy’s mouth, the last thing any human in that day and age would consider doing is killing him.  The whole story is so fucking stupid that it had to twist itself into the pretzel logic of “he had to die to save us from our sins”.  Dumbest. Story. Ever.

 
 
 
Gordy327
PhD Principal
6.1.22  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.1.20    2 days ago

It doesn't. It's the Pee Wee Herman tactic of repeating what you say. It's just a juvenile response when one has no valid or rational argument to make.

 
 
 
Tacos!
PhD Guide
6.1.23  Tacos!  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6.1.21    2 days ago

Yeah, same problem. So much wrong there.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Ender


22 visitors