|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 02/20/2005 : 19:12:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Mc
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
I notice that Henry Morris had his oar in it. As the big honcho of ICR, he is scarcly an objective observer. I'd also like to know where the plans for the model on the ark came from and of what materials were the 'boxes' constrcted.
Morris, by the bye, is the one who said; I paraphrase, "If the data disagrees with my interpretation of Scripture, then those data are flawed."
But the point is moot anyway. It is has been shown that the Flood could not have happened because -- how's your math?
First it's Evolution and now you want me to believe in Mt. Everest too??? 
So it's okay to rule out the flooded world thing, then?
Maybe I was overwhelmed by the equations, but I didn't see a "local flood" reference.
I had to read the 4.5 trillion number a couple of times to make sure I got it right.
I hope you already know how I feel about Dr. Morris' distasteful statement on scripture and data.
Still, if Dr. Morris was involved in the Ark research, the model they presented on the documentary did well. If it worked, it worked. I can't find an online diagram of the boat. I can't discount that what I observed based on his contrary spiritual beliefs.
35 flood stories certainly must point to some universal experience. That's interesting in itself. If we can find that flood, we can narrow down where all of those cultures came from.
There's some suspicion of a Black Sea flood.
Sure, why not Mt. Everest? It's a perfectly good mountain that has, unfortunatly, garnered an unsavory reputation because a few crazy people got themselved killled on it. But that's no reason to disbelieve the mountain...
I've forgotten the article(s) I read on the Black Sea, might look them up tomorrow, but I will agree that it might have started a few Flood myths -- not so mythical to the folk who lived in the area at the time.
Many cultures have some sort of a great flood story. Floods are a very common form of disaster, so it's pretty much natural that 'God' might use one to punish all but, "A few, good Hopis."
However, if all of these myths are true (hah!), the Bible stands debunked because it clearly states that only Noah and his immediate family survived, and the Hopis drowned, each and every one.
But enlighten me, please; where in the Bible does it say that the Flood was local. As I recall, it was described as universal -- everybody else drowned.
In my fractious youth, I spent, not all, but the best part of 10 years at sea, in the Navy. I am far from convinced that the shear violence of a tropical hurricane or a winter gale in the North Atlantic can be duplicated in the lab on an appropreate scale. How can hundreds of tons of water crashing over the forecastle, and the ship shuddering and groaning as if in pain, time after time, hour after hour -- some times day after day, be done in a mere tank? And had the Flood been possible and actually happened, weather patterns would have had a radical change, and not to the benefit of ancient sun-bathers. I suspect that the heavy weather I experienced would be a series of mild squalls by comparison.
O' course, Gopher wood might have had some magical properties of which I'm unaware -- hell, I don't even know what species 'gopher' is, but as soon as you start talking magic, anything at all can be explained no matter how ridiculous.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2005 : 19:34:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
From my point of view, if I believe that God Almighty was running the whole show, whether it be the Flood or anything else for that matter, then NOTHING would be impossible, would it??????
Where the fossils end up, how the ark could have stayed afloat, how they survived, how they cared for the animals: all of these things are moot if you are in the ark with God Almighty, isn't it?????
And herein lies the rub, as the Bard implied.
When you speak of 'God,' you are outside the realm of science. "God done it!" can be used to explain anything, be it a two-headed cow or an impossible flood. Therefore, as far as science is concerned, it is an invalid argument and cannot achieve validity until the existance of God can be confirmed.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2005 : 00:31:33 [Permalink]
|
There are many cultures with flood myths/legends.
The Zuni Indians of Nex Mexico have a really cool one. They even have a mountain right on their reservation that was the center of their particular flood legend, and that allowed their ancient ancestors to supposedly survive.
But, as filthy says, if theirs is true it is evidence against the biblical version, as god only spared Noah and his family from the flood.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2005 : 01:57:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pspano58
If you take the bible at it's word, then everything works out just fine except for the "predictions" of an "old" earth. There is where I cannot except conclusions of dating methods for this one simple reason: if you date something where we actually know the age of the sample, it doesn't work. Therefore, how can I trust the results of dating a sample where we DON'T know the actual age. To do so, in my HUMBLE opinion, would be foolish and unscientific.
It's easy to dismiss a dating method if you don't know anything about it. Like radiometric dating. Carbon14. There are several others.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2005 : 07:49:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Mc
Furshur,
Biblically, the Ark thing can happen. With racism so well known and how we know it was applied in 19th century America, "animalizing" another human race is quite possible. (i.e. Jew=Man and Gentile=Animal) Only a part of the Earth needs to be flooded to destroy "Man". There's plenty of room for life to continue as is. I know the concept shakes the foundations some, but there it is.
Reading back through the thread I found this and felt it should be addressed, as your argument is almost completely indefensible. Can you cite any reference to ancient Middle Eastern cultures referring to others as not human? Sure, the Egyptians hated the Kushites and called them things like "vile"-- they may have even used simile (e.g. "they are like dogs" or some such, though I cannot, off the top of my head, confirm that), but it's never stated that they weren't thought of as human.
Similarly, in Mesopotamia, while groups may have spoken about others in unflattering terms (the city-dwelling Sumerian and later Akkadian speakers often mocked the semi-nomadic Amorite people for not knowing how to brew beer), but they were always human. Indeed, the Sumerian language divides nouns into two groups which we call "animate" and "inanimate". The animate group was made up of humans and deities. The inanimate group was made up of everything else-- including animals. Humans-- no matter which "race" they belonged to-- were always animate. (Curious that they didn't-- like so many other languages-- have masculine and feminine nouns...)
So that argument is not sustainable.
Next, I'm not sure that your Jew/Gentile classification works when speaking about Noah. The distinction of a Hebrew/Israelite group isn't something that emerges until Abraham, who appears after the flood.
Overall, it's clear that at least to the Biblical author(s) intended that the whole of the earth-- including all humans and animals (save those on the ark with Noah), as noted in Genesis 6 (NRSV):quote:
6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the LORD said, ‘I will blot out from the earth the human beings I have created—people together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.'
And note also Genesis 7:quote:
21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all human beings; 22 everything on dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. 23 He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, human beings and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark. 24 And the waters swelled on the earth for one hundred fifty days.
The passage here is unambiguous. The Hebrew makes this clear. And while I don't have the resources to do it now, my guess is that even if we were to divide up the text according to conventional J and P designations, both stories would agree that the intent was for the entire earth to be destroyed. |
|
|
|
David Mc
Skeptic Friend
USA
63 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2005 : 16:26:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Reading back through the thread I found this and felt it should be addressed, as your argument is almost completely indefensible...
If you believe that it is impossible for one group of people to consider another group of people as animals, and you do not consider that referring to another person as a "dog" is dehumanizing, then you are correct. My post is completely indefensible in your court of opinion.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2005 : 16:33:51 [Permalink]
|
Why would Moses only be concerned with God's creation of the Jews if god was responsible for creating everyone? People at that time already believed in multiple deities, each responsible for a different facet of life or peoples' welfare.
The main claim of Mose's god was that he was THE god, creator of everything and everyone. For you to suggest that this same god would then entrust the telling of his supreme creation to a man so limited in vision as to only write about the creation of his own people and his own tribe insults the intelligence and authority of the very god you are attempting to defend.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/21/2005 16:45:06 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2005 : 16:41:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Mc
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Reading back through the thread I found this and felt it should be addressed, as your argument is almost completely indefensible...
If you believe that it is impossible for one group of people to consider another group of people as animals, and you do not consider that referring to another person as a "dog" is dehumanizing, then you are correct. My post is completely indefensible in your court of opinion.
Way to completely miss his point. There is a big difference between dehumanizing someone and never thinking of them as human to begin with. Since it is your claim, you need to back up your assertion within the text. Where in the bible are a group of people ever categorized as not human? Until you do it is an unjustified claim. Personal opinions have nothing to do with it.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/21/2005 16:43:32 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2005 : 18:41:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Mc
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Reading back through the thread I found this and felt it should be addressed, as your argument is almost completely indefensible...
If you believe that it is impossible for one group of people to consider another group of people as animals, and you do not consider that referring to another person as a "dog" is dehumanizing, then you are correct. My post is completely indefensible in your court of opinion.
Wonderful rhetoric, but it fails to hold up in reality. This is because there is a vast difference between poetic language and declarative statements. If I were to write "you (or whomever) are a jackass" I do not mean that I think you are an actual equid. It is a metaphor.
This is important, so you shouldn't gloss over it. (Also, I find it comical that you haven't actually provided viable evidence on your own; instead, you reply on my own suggested evidence, but refuse to accept it in context...) Take, for instance the Akkadian word kalbu. It means "dog" and is related to the Hebrew caleb (but surely you don't think that a person named Caleb was actually thought to be a dog, right?) It appears in personal names, and in letters. For instance, in Amarna Letter 60, the vassal ruler Abdi-Ashitrta says "[I am] the dust of your feet, the dog of the house of the king." Did he really think that he was both actual dust and a dog at the same time?!? And when, in Amarna Letter 88, Rib-Adda calls the sons of Abdi-Ashirta "dogs" does he really think that they are dogs-- that the king of the north-eastern Syrian coast is an actual dog?
Think about it. Perhaps your argument is wrong. Hmmmmm.
Moreover, all of this fails to address the real question: the Biblical flood account says that everything died. Eveything. That is, if you weren't in the ark with Noah, you died. Not just the people who happened to live around Noah's home, or the animals who live in the wilderness around Noah. Everything.
Address this, and quit trying (and failing) to score points on lame semantic grounds. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 02/23/2005 05:20:02 |
|
|
|
pspano58
New Member
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2005 : 21:23:13 [Permalink]
|
Okay. Examples of ineffective dating methods:
Carbon Dating:
Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61
Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2300 years old. Science vol. 141, 1963, pp.634-637
A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago! Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct. 1971, p.211
"One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000. --Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30.
"One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the "wood immediately around the carcass" was 9-10,000. --Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30
"The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY. --In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 124
"A geologist at the Berkeley Geochronology Center, [Carl] Swisher uses the most advanced techniques to date human fossils. Last spring he was re-evaluating Homo erectus skulls found in Java in the 1930s by testing the sediment found with them. A hominid species assumed to be an ancestor of Homo sapiens, erectus was thought to have vanished some 250,000 years ago. But even though he used two different dating methods, Swisher kept making the same startling find: the bones were 53,000 years old at most and possibly no more than 27,000 years— a stretch of time contemporaneous with modern humans." --Kaufman, Leslie, "Did a Third Human Species Live Among Us?" Newsweek (December 23, 1996), p. 52.
Potassium-Argon dating:
For years the KBS tuff, named for Kay Behrensmeyer, was dated using Potassium Argon (K-Ar) at 212-230 Million years. See Nature, April 18, 197, p. 226. Then skull #KNM-ER 1470 was found (in 1972) under the KBS tuff by Richard Leakey. It looks like modern humans but was dated at 2.9 million years old. Since a 2.9 million year old skull cannot logically be under a lava flow 212 million years old many immediately saw the dilemma. If the skull had not been found no one would have suspected the 212 million year dates as being wrong. Later, 10 different samples were taken from the KBS tuff and were dated as being .52- 2.64 Million years old. (way down from 212 million. Even the new "dates" show a 500% error!) Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow, pp. 247-266
Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily (122 BC) gave K-AR age of 250,000 years old.
Dalyrmple, G.B., 1969 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6-47 55. See also: Impact #307 Jan. 1999
Lava from the 1801 Hawaiian volcano eruption gave a K-Ar date of 1.6 Million years old.
Dalyrmple, G.B., 1969 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6-47 55. See also: Impact #307 Jan. 1999
Basalt from Mt. Kilauea Iki, Hawaii (AD 1959) gave K-AR age of 8,500,000 years old. Impact #307 Jan. 1999
Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily (AD 1972) gave K-AR age of 350,000 years old. Impact #307 Jan. 1999,
In addition to the above assumptions, dating methods are all subject to the geologic column date to verify their accuracy. If a date obtained by radiometric dating does not match the assumed age from the geologic column the radiometric date will be rejected. The so-called geologic column was developed in the early 1800's over a century before there were any radiometric dating methods. "Apart from very 'modern' examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils."Ager, Derek V., "Fossil Frustrations," New Scientist, vol. 100 (November 10, 1983), p. 425. Laboratories will not carbon date dinosaur bones (even frozen ones which could easily be carbon dated) because dinosaurs are supposed to have lived 70 million years ago according to the fictitious geologic column. An object's supposed place on the geologic column determines the method used to date it. There are about 7 or 8 radioactive elements that are used today to try to date objects. Each one has a different half-life and a different range of ages it is supposed to be used for. No dating method cited by evolutionists is unbiased.
In addition, A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach the point of equilibrium. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This would prove the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating.
Carbon-14 dating rests on two simple assumptions: the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable.
|
|
|
|
pspano58
New Member
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2005 : 21:56:42 [Permalink]
|
Flood Facts to consider:
1. Over 250 Flood legends from all parts of the world have been found. Most have similarities to the Genesis story.
2. Noah's ark was built only to float, not to sail anywhere. Many ark scholars believe that the ark was a "barge" shape, not a pointed "boat" shape. This would greatly increase the cargo capacity. Scoffers have pointed out that the largest sailing ships were less than 300 feet because of the problem of twisting and flexing the boat. These ships had giant masts on them and sails to catch the wind. Noah's ark need neither of those and therefore had far less torsional stress.
3. Even using the small 18-inch cubit (my height is 6-ft. 1-in. and I have a 21-in. cubit) the ark was large enough to hold all the required animals, people, and food with room to spare.
4. The length-to-width ratio of 6 to 1 is what shipbuilders today often use. This is the best ratio for stability in stormy weather. (God thinks of everything!)
5. The ark may have had a "moon-pool" in the center. The larger ships would have a hole in the center of the bottom of the boat with walls extending up into the ship. There are several reasons for this feature:
o It allowed water to go up into the hole as the ship crested waves. This would be needed to relieve strain on longer ships.
o The rising and lowering water acted as a piston to pump fresh air in and out of the ship. This would prevent the buildup of dangerous gasses from all the animals on board.
o The hole was a great place to dump garbage into the ocean without going outside.
6. The ark may have had large drogue (anchor) stones suspended over the sides to keep it more stable in rough weather. Many of these stones have been found in the region where the ark landed.
7. Noah lived 950 years! Many Bible scholars believe the pre-Flood people were much larger than modern man. Skeletons over 11 feet tall have been found! If Noah were taller, his cubit (elbow to fingertip) would have been much larger also. This would make the ark larger by the same ratio.
8. God told Noah to bring two of each kind (seven of some), not of each species or variety. Noah had only two of the dog kind which would include the wolves, coyotes, foxes, mutts, etc. The "kind" grouping is probably closer to our modern family division in taxonomy, and would greatly reduce the number of animals on the ark. Animals have diversified into many varieties in the last 4400 years since the Flood. This diversification is not anything similar to great claims that the evolutionists teach.
9. Noah did not have to get the animals. God brought them to him (Gen. 6:20, "shall come to thee").
10. Only land-dwelling, air-breathing animals had to be included on the ark (Gen. 7:15, "in which is the breath of life," 7:22). Noah did not need to bring all the thousands of insects varieties.
11. Many animals sleep, hibernate, or become very inactive during bad weather.
12. All animals (and people) were vegetarians before and during the Flood according to Gen. 1:20-30 with Gen. 9:3.
13. The pre-Flood people were probably much smarter and more advanced than people today. The longer lifespans, Adam's direct contact with God, and the fact that they could glean the wisdom of many generations that were still alive would greatly expand their knowledge base.
14. The Bible says that the highest mountains were covered by 15 cubits of water. This is half the height of the ark. The ark was safe from scraping bottom at all times.
15. The large mountains, as we have them today, did not exist until after the Flood when "the mountains arose and the valleys sank down" (Ps. 104:5-9, Gen. 8:3-8).
16. There is enough water in the oceans right now to cover the earth 8,000 feet deep if the surface of the earth were smooth.
17. Many claim to have seen the ark in recent times in the area in which the Bible says it landed. There are two primary schools of thought about the actual site of the ark (see my Creation Seminar Part 3 video for more on this). Much energy and time has been expended to prove both views. Some believe the ark is on Mt. Ararat, covered by snow (CBS showed a one-hour special in 1993 about this site). The other group believes the ark is seventeen miles south of Mt. Ararat in a valley called "the valley of eight" (8 souls on the ark). The Bible says the ark landed in the "mountains" of Ararat, not necessarily on the mountain itself.
18. The continents were not separated until 100-300 years after the Flood (Gen. 10:25). The people and animals had time to migrate anywhere on earth by then.
19. The top 3,000 feet of Mt. Everest (from 26,000-29,000 feet) is made up of sedimentary rock packed with seashells and other ocean-dwelling animals.
20. Sedimentary rock is found all over the world. Sedimentary rock is formed in water.
21. Petrified clams in the closed position (found all over the world) testify to their rapid burial while they were still alive, even on top of Mount Everest.
22. Bent rock layers, fossil graveyards, and poly-strata fossils are best explained by a Flood.
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2005 : 23:36:42 [Permalink]
|
I don't know if I should laugh at you, or pity you.....
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2005 : 01:46:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pspano58
Flood Facts to consider:
23. Superman could have carried any of the animals that did not fit in the arc to his arctic fortress.
24. For all other obvious blunders in the flood story: God made it so! He then removed the evidence to test your faith. |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2005 : 02:12:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
quote:
Originally posted by pspano58
Flood Facts to consider:
23. Superman could have carried any of the animals that did not fit in the arc to his arctic fortress.
Hahaha, shit, Starman. That one had me laughing out loud.
I'm sure someone has already come up with a complete list of counterpoints to address everything raised by whatever site this was copy and pasted from, but a few jumped out at me.quote:
7. Noah lived 950 years! Many Bible scholars believe the pre-Flood people were much larger than modern man. Skeletons over 11 feet tall have been found! If Noah were taller, his cubit (elbow to fingertip) would have been much larger also. This would make the ark larger by the same ratio.
All the "giant" skeletons uncovered have been revealed to be hoaxes (and some merely bad Photoshop jobs), so I find it comical that any fundy would actually try to use one to back up flood arguments. quote:
10. Only land-dwelling, air-breathing animals had to be included on the ark (Gen. 7:15, "in which is the breath of life," 7:22). Noah did not need to bring all the thousands of insects varieties.
Any creature having the "breath of life" sounds like any creature that is alive. It clearly refers to god's life-giving breath, not the animal's own breath. So bugs must certainly be accounted for. And I know insects don't have lungs, but don't they breathe? I mean I know flies can drown, so it sounds like insects should be collected regardless of your interpretation of the passage. Nope, no getting around it, bugs needed to be on board.quote:
18. The continents were not separated until 100-300 years after the Flood (Gen. 10:25). The people and animals had time to migrate anywhere on earth by then.
This is totally unsupported by the geological record. It's what we more commonly refer to as a lie.
Ahh, seriously pspano58. This is nothing new. We've all heard fundy apologetics before. It would be funny it grown men didn't actually believe such bullshit. If you want to enter into any kind of dialogue, you're going to have to do better then simple copying and pasting entire tracts from lunatics. You claim to be smarter than those who "have had too much education." Well then, show it. Start thinking for yourself and write something original. All you're demonstrating now is what a good little sheep you can be.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/25/2005 03:53:58 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2005 : 04:05:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pspano58
Okay. Examples of ineffective dating methods:
Carbon Dating:
Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61
I entered this sentence into Google and guess what? It produced Kent Hovind's site.
Why am I not surprised? You need to learn something, pspano58: Not even other creationists (like Answers In Genesis) thinks Dr? Dino is a good resource for pro-creation arguments.
quote:
Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2300 years old. Science vol. 141, 1963, pp.634-637
Another line that could also have been cut-and-pasted from Kent Hovind.
How much of this is coming from Kent Hovind? He's been a notorious liar from the get-go. Anything he comes up with will be tainted by this. And then it is the subject of his credential. He is misrepresenting himself as a Ph.D. It comes from a diploma-mill and his thesis is not even good enough for collage graduation.
quote:
A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago! Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct. 1971, p.211
Yep. Yet another Hovind quote. You are obviously a Kent Hovind cultist. Do some fresh and creative thinking on your own instead of parroting someone else's misrepresentation.
Here's an idea: Why not look up those references that Kent Hovind gives, and read the entire article. Then you'll see that the fact that he presents is quoted out of context.
Three strikes and you're out, I won't bother checking the rest of your "facts" since they are most probably from the same place.
Did you even consider the copyright issues of just copying and pasting the stuff above?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
