Obviously the koala's were so shagged out by the time they got from Turkey to the south coast they just said, "Aw, bugger it mate! I'm done. The fuckin' roos can have the rest".
I have seen koalas used in an argument against the flood but not like this. This is a whole new argument. This is a delightful little bit of info. Thank you for the info.
I was an atheist before I even knew what it meant. sitting in the school benches of my Christian school I was an annoyance for my teachers with my questions.
god made Adam then eve. they had no notion of right or wrong. but god told them it was wrong to eat from the apple tree. essentially setting them up. the size of the ark was a big issue for me too. they said it was 30 ell or something. so I asked how could they jam up like over 2 million different of mammals on it.
@jsheinon2 It was part of my jorney to free thinking. First with the study of snakes, evolution explained better all the different "kinds" and then knowing koalas the Noahs ark story just didn't wash, so to speak.
@TMSreptiles Agreed on the time it took. After all, he was one of the last of the long-livers of the bible. And considering there weren't many people helping him, it WOULD take him that long to build something that big...
@SiriusMined No dispute that MOST people of the time lived to say 120 years (or less. There was a small family that were long-lived, though AFTER the ark, they started rapid-fire breeding themselves at earlier ages, and seem to have worn a long-life gene down. I WOULD suggest getting a calculator out and start counting some begats. Cain's descendents seem to have been rapid-fire breeders at early ages. Seth's line didn't breed the next gen till a ripe age.
"No dispute that MOST people of the time lived to say 120 years "
No dispute amonst who, Creationists?
No, Cro Magnon lived to be, on average 29-30. Average live expectancy didn't cross There is ZERO historical evidence for people living to beyond 100 regularly.
@SiriusMined While we're at it, I'm just reading a Google Reader article about a mocassin found in Armenia which is 5500 years old and is thought to be an ancestor-precurser design to Irish "Pampooties". Damn good shoe technology in them thar old days, eh?
@SiriusMined Hmmm...I can accept BOTH the bible and science...but shut out Roman Church pagan cosmology and extremes of science in opposition to that church. And you still mistake me for a Christian. Do you know the question about getting a calculator to add up Genesis' begat list ALSO gets a similar response from my christian friends? It's too much active thought for them. I'm interested in truth, but not pronouncements from on high from EITHER side of the debate.
But you don't. You twist yourself in knots because you clearly HAVE to believe the Bible is correct, so whenever the two disagree, as near as I can tell, you just ignore the science.
" the question about getting a calculator to add up Genesis' begat list ALSO gets a similar response from my christian friends? It's too much active thought for them. "
I am completely familiar with James Ussher, so please drop the arrogant tone
@SiriusMined Actually, I've never heard of James Ussher and haven't even googled or wikipedia'd the name yet. I take he he also suggested getting a calculator to that begat list? You know, the begat list is BORING if it's a straight read without any intellectual input. It ONLY gets interesting when calculating those begats. 21 years ago I got my calculator out and made a timeline from it. Noticed some interesting years in it common to the C.E. calendar.
@geehall1 I've got Christian friends who won't get their calculators out. So it's hard for them to understand Noah's son being around at the same time as Jacob, or work out the flood was only 1600 years after Adam. Not arrogance, it's a reality. A lot of Christians don't exercise their brains with a bible. They just read/parrot it. That's an observation. That' why I don't go to Christians for answers on deeper questions about the book.
Well, he's the one that did the "calculator work" you referenced re: the age of the earth according to the Bible. If you are going to take up a position, you might want to know a little more about it. HE'S the one that "calculated the begats" originally
@SiriusMined I did my own calculating. It is possible to decide to do it independently of someone like Ussher. Still noting an interesting correlation between years after Adam's creation and the AD/CE calendar. But you'd have to do your own calculations to see what I mean.
@SiriusMined Let's see...science has a big problem with Christian creationists. Jews don't have the same argument with science. There's never been any Jewish argument with process or sequencing, only with the amount of zeros involved.
Flat earth? Science proved that wrong. That idea came from Rome, the Roman church and is pure pagan ideas. Easily disproved. Always disproveable
And I'm not Jewish, by the way. I've had my ancestry checked and couldnt find any Jewish ancestors.
@SiriusMined Not onterested in truth? Please explain to me why it took most of the scientific community 40 years to understand Piltdown Man was a fraud, when it took anyone with anatomy experience a mere fraction of that time.
"why it took most of the scientific community 40 years to understand Piltdown Man was a fraud"
Easily. No other scientists were able to examine the skull for a long time after the "discovery" to confirm the findings. Without being able to inspect it, how would anyone be able to spot the obvious forgery? And even still, there were doubts from the beginnnig.
Later, as legitmate hominid bones were discovered, "Piltdown Man" became increasingly anomalous, and this is what eventually led to the forgery being exposed. To me this shows how proper peer review and the scientific method WORKED, because the evidence was able to show the skull for what it was.
Go look up "Cold Fusion", and you'll see a similar story, although it played out much mroe quickly.
@SiriusMined From the quick wikipedia reference on it I read, they still took longer to really sort it out than they should. That's SLOW peer review. Also a few people DID get to see it, with the right expertise. Unfortunately, they weren't listened to because even in science you get BELIEF systems. I'd say there were still some people wanting Piltdown Man to have been that missing link and that's why it really took 40 years.
@SiriusMined Well, it's proven a little by the bible, but not quite as TMSreptiles put it. There were people living shorter lives than the bible partriarchs. This is why there's a mention of ages dropping to 120 just before the mention of Noah who lived a LONG time. Generations from Seth to Noah didn't breed their next generations very quickly, whereas anyone descended from Cain was probably begating at age 20-30. One famly, ten generations over 1500 years, the rest...a lot of generations.
Turns out that while they were on the ark they were sinners... They had pre- marital sex, stole Noah's blankets and worshipped one of the hippos that was on board. Because of this God made them fly to Austrailia after the flood and took away their wings as punishment!
@billflowers and what exactly caused you to change your ideas
noahs ark actually does exist you can go and see it its real and large but yes all fo the animals where on the ark according to the bible but more species have developed from those by inbreeding and genetic mutation etc.
the amount of animals in existence then was not at all large i believe and people lived extremely long lives according to research as the earth was young and pure
@billflowers Bill, I'm still waiting for an answer on whether there were natural predators in Tasmania that weren't found on the mainland. Could THAT have something to do with why there are no koalas in Tassie? The Tasmanian devil would be ONE...any others? You would have to factor that in as a POSSIBLE reason. And what temperature range do koalas thrive best in?
@geehall1 Devils, thylacines and marsupial lions were Australia wide. On the mainland thylacines died out about 2,000 years ago were as devils died out only 470 years ago. Parts of mainland Australia get colder than parts of Tasmania. Koalas live ok in the snow.
@billflowers Okay...valid point. So we still need an acceptable explanation of why no koalas on Tasmania. Scrub out differences in temperature or unique predators.
@geehall1 Hard to say because there is no trace of koalas ever exsisting on Tasmania or WA. How would you ever test it?
There is still the problem of how they got to eastern Australia from the ark? and why most of the marsupials went to Australia. and the big question that got Darwin thinking, Why do the fossils around the world look like living animals in that area. Giant sloths in South America, giant Kangaroo like animals in Australia?
Every couple years someone claims to have found the ark, but when somene actually examines the site, it is found NOT to be an ark.
"but more species have developed from those by inbreeding "
Inbreeding between disparate species doesn't work, and would not produce diversity but CONVERGENCE. The problem is, we don't see convergence, but diversity.
@SiriusMined I think the one Fasold looked at 17 miles from Mt. Ararat (but still IN the Ararat ranges as the bible ACTUALLY says) looks to be the most accurate site. And Fasold gave a convincing argument for it to be considered. A petrified giant read raft that high up, one even considered as the right site by Kurds of hundreds of years ago, looks to be a good candidate.
@geehall1 Is that the other ark site, a boat shape ark instead of box shape ark? Ian Plimer proved that it was just rock, no petrified wood or reeds there. Many of the stones in the area had been carved later by believers.
@billflowers I'll recognize there IS some contention that any drogue anchors weren't the stones found in the region. I've read it IS thought as a stone formation. By the same token, Fasold as a merchant marine knowing his boats "holds more water" with me. Then there's the fact the Kurds of the area AND some historical sources mention that site too. and it DOESN'T have to be on Ararat ITSELF, just in the RANGES. Bible records it as Ararat mountainS, plural.
@geehall1 That site has a more historical claim rather than the convenient disappearing box shape that most christians favour, but when a real geologist (Ian Plimer) looked at it, it was just rock. So I believe both are less credible than UFOs.
There is no reed boat on Ararat. Every couple years, someone makes the claim that there is, and that claim is found out to be false. In more than one instance, people have dragged pieces of wood up to try and perpetrate a hoax, and they are always found out. Even Answers in Genesis refutes it here: creation/v14/i4/report.asp
@SiriusMined Most ark searchers look for a WOODEN boat. Not a petrified REED boat. "Gopher wood" is a mistranslation of K-P-R, a pitch/tar word in ancient languages. Sirius...Fasold DID point out that even religious AND secular would be united in in NOT wanting to find the real ark. Incontrovertable evidence of the ark would rule out mere BELIEF, wouldn't it? And Christian faith isn't based on reason. Even Christians would find the ark confronting if real.
@SiriusMined By the way, Sirius, Josephus had to argue with some arrogant Greeks of his days as to the antiquity of the Jews. Joesphus pulled in HOSTILE witness testimony from ancient peoples. And in HIS day, maps hadn't changed as much as they have in OUR 2 millenia...place names were still there. He still showed which places were where the 70 grandsons of Noah settled. And flood narratives about 8 people on a boat were still found as far from the Middle East as China. Same story.
@SiriusMined Don't feel too bad, Sirius. I have religious/Christian friends who don't like me asking probing questions on the bible. I'm NOT a fan of the "don't have questions, just have faith" routine.
@SiriusMined Really? I have Christian friends who get teed off because I don't do the "don't question, just have faith routine." By the same token, while I ask more probing questions of Christians (which they really can't answer most times), I'm equally questioning of someone purporting to have a scientific viewpoint. One last point...Gilgamesh Epic had a bit more detail than "300 cubits by etc., etc." At least I'm recognizing source material outside the bible.
@SiriusMined We have a point of agreement. There is no ark on Ararat itself... Because it landed in the Ararat ranges. Not the specific mountain itself.
@TMSreptiles It's quite possible the animals on the ark were progenitors for all the variation in each species since that time. E.G. you'd only need a progenitor canine and perhaps at least one representative progenitor for the feline side of things. After getting off the boat, a bit of diversification and ADAPTION could result (mistaken as 'evolution.' Still, Bill has a point that koalas not being in Tasmania has to be better explained...
@SiriusMined I didn't say different species bred with one another. I postulated a progenitor ancestor. One type of feline for all breeds of feline to descend from, one canine ancestor for all subsequent breeds to descend from. What's so hard to contemplate there?
" I postulated a progenitor ancestor. One type of feline for all breeds of feline to descend from"
This would require substantially faster diverisfication than suggested by our knowledge of evolution. If one believes evolution can't happen, how could what you are talking about happen? Note that there are different feline SPECIES, they aren't all just different "breeds"
Biblical passages point to a long-life gene that watered down eventually in humans. Noah and his sons being the last long-lifers. So if that's with humans, one would presume there's something similar with animals at the same point of time.
A stronger form of koala, to get here. But once established, becomes more set to its environment.
Let's face it. God had to GET them on the ark. So for them to coexist even for the boat, there had to be a supension of the usual. How long did it last?
Just watched the whole video...broadband's slow today...and I DO have one point. Tasmania had two animals the mainland didn't. Predators or competition? In places where there's none, koalas thrive..
Would the Tasmanian devil and tiger as predators/competition make the difference, not the lack of eucalypts?
Interestingly, other nations have a flood myth. But each country puts its own spin on the story. I'd say they are all of the same event...but the bible account probably de-myths it.
On the other hand, the account of it in the Gilgamesh Epic gives a chilling description of when it started its journey and ripped its moorings, more technical information.
For the Christians in the discussion. The ark was a 512 foot reed raft. NOT a box shape. Two, look in the Ararat RANGES, as the book says, NOT specifically on Ararat itself.
@billflowers. Good point. There does need to be a better explanation of why certain animals are found ONLY on specific continents/islands. There's an answer there, but I doubt Christians have the depth of understanding of the bible to find it. I think a rabbi would have a better, intellectually satisfying answer.
@SiriusMined Gee, I don't remember the exact amount of rainfall that day being written anywhere...
That said...the ark was actually a 512 foot giant reed raft covered in pitch/tar. Would have had some buoyancy AND been a bit on the water-proof side. And perhaps a drogue anchor or five...
I calculated the rainfall. Genesis gives all the details needed to calculate how much water would have HAD to fall in order for the story to be accurate.
As for being covered in pitch, the boat would have needed airholes, or else everyone would have suffocated. At a rainfall rate of 363"/hr, the boat would have filled up with water and capsized, as the air would have contained a large amount of entrained water.
@SiriusMined To think the ark was box or wooden is more so. By the same token, there HAVE been scientific experiments showing DROGUE ANCHORS would stop the ark capsizing in huge waves. There IS some hint the ark DID have drogue anchors...and an air hole or two. But it was PITCH/TAR covered, so there'd be less water getting inside than some people would think. Oh, and a HULL pool in the middle for extra assistance against capsizing. HUGE reed boat, by the way...512 foot long.
I don't think you have any concept of what kind of flowrate we're talking about.
As for "an airhole or two", there would have to be several, or else everyone would have died due to oxygen deprevation. Hundreds or thousands of creatures in a ship of that size make the air unbreathable in no time.
I GET that was supposedly PITCH COVERED. I also know what ENTRAINED WATER IN THE AIR means, and apparently, you do not.
@SiriusMined Unfortunately, while you can calculate the flow rate, you can't be exactly sure what it was. And flawed though it might be, the Gilgamesh Epic is the best technical source from a nearly-eyewitness account. The flood was also different from what came before it. Hence the rainbow is only known AFTER it. Doesn't science posit a time when the earth was hotter and there was a cloud canopy surrounding the planet? The flood might have been the time it changed and cooled.
"Unfortunately, while you can calculate the flow rate, you can't be exactly sure what it was"
Actually, I can. There is enough information in the Genesis story to calculate the average. I don't need to know the peak instantaneous rate. If I know the average, I know the peak had to be AT LEAST AS heavy. It's simple mathematics.
And sorry, the Epic of Gilgamesh is not a "technical" source in any way, shape, or form.
@SiriusMined The Gilgamesh Epic at least describes the extra detail we don't see in the bible, plus describes the actual take-off of the ark.
One SLIGHT problem the Bablylonians and a few other ancient cultures had was they were prone to exaggerate the amount of zeros of years. Which leads to another point of yours I should answer. Does science tend to overdo the millions and billions of years a bit? HOWEVER, I acknowledge that the age of the earth is longer than the age of man.
"Does science tend to overdo the millions and billions of years a bit? "
No, because we know what the half-life of the elements are that we use to radiometrically date rocks. It was a progression that got us from a 6K yr old earth (based on the Bible) to a 4.5 billion year old earth. The earliest scientific attempts to age the earth was in the 10s of thousands, and the age kept getting BIGGER, not smaller, based on the evidence.
@SiriusMined You know, I had a look at thewikipedia entry on carbon-dating. Curiously, the half-life of carbon-14 is just over 5700 years...equating to the 5700 and a bit years in the calendar that ran continuously from Adam's creation (Israelite/Jewish)...and I'm NOT disputing that rocks are older than Man. Even the bible couches for that.
@SiriusMined That said, we don't DISAGREE on the age of the earth being older than the age of man. That's consistent between science and bible. We may debate the amount of ZEROS in how long things took.
That said, we still need to know why the Koala doesn't exist in Tasmania. I'm sure a rabbi has a better explanation than any Christian priest or minister on why not.
Wow, that's truly pathetic. We know what creates rainbows. It isn't magic. There is zero reason why a rainbow would not exist, even before humans walked the earth.
"Doesn't science posit a time when the earth was hotter and there was a cloud canopy surrounding the planet?"
"The flood might have been the time it changed and cooled. "
No. Look, it's impossible, once the continents formed, to cover the earth COMPLETELY under water, where even the highest mountains were 20ft under water (which is what Genesis says), and then have it all drain away in under a year. Or 10 years, Or 1000 years. If this event happened 4000 years ago, we'd have a huge cloud canopy NOW.
Look, believe in a god if you want, but this child's story never happened.
@SiriusMined You're assuming the mountains were the same BEFORE the flood. The upheaval OF a flood would tend to create a few mountain ranges. Assume less mountains prior to it. The cloud canopy is known to have condensed into the weather patterns we have now. So we're debating zeros, NOT the actual occurrence. Explain no rainbow PRIOR to the flood. Also...last I heard, the evidence for ice age and flood is EXACTLY the same. Large amounts of water mass. Where PRIOR to flood?
But that's just it. Upheaval takes a long time. Even if you want to lower the mountains a little bit, it's not going to substantially decrease the final result.
And flooding does NOT create uplift. That is caused as a byproduct of subduction, and we know and can measure this.
"Explain no rainbow PRIOR to the flood."
Easily. The text in the Bible is wrong. There were rainbows. The story is fiction.
@SiriusMined It probably did, but a lot of us would ignore the evidence even if the ark was sitting right in front of us. And some Roman church leaders would be confronted by the same ark.
"a lot of us would ignore the evidence even if the ark was sitting right in front of us"
You know, I'm not going to let this comment go without a comment. Given that you've been trying to jump through hoops to gerrymander the scientific evidence to fit your pre-conceived notion, I'm not going to accept your statement. Facts are facts. Produce a legitimate sample of the ark, and the story will gain credence.
How, I will say one thing..... even if an ark is found, in an of itself it would not alone prove that the story is literally true. It would prove that there was an historical Noah that built an ark, but it still wouldn't prove a global flood. It would require us then to see what other evidence there is, and take a new look at the other existing evidence. It'd be a good start. But it would not be the end of the subject. That's how science works
I'll say this..... I applaus you for all the reading you have obviously done. However as I said in the other post, I think you are trying very hard to make reality match your pre-conceived notion, rather than see what the evidence points to, and adjust your view based on the evidence.
As I said in an earlier post, I'm not trying to make you not believe in your god, but what I am trying to do is to get you to look at evidence objectively.
@SiriusMined On pre-conceived notions...stop thinking of me as Christian. I'm not taking this from a normative Christian viewpoint. What I'm trying to do is reconcile those parts of science and the Old Testament view that actually have common points. My reading found that the Roman Church ONLY promulgated Roman pagan cosmology. Science ALWAYS proves such cosmology WRONG. Unfortunately, some areas of science reacted against the Roman Church view. Opposites don't always lead to truth.
@SiriusMined And if you think this is bad, you should see the debates I have with Christian friends. Actually, Bill's girlfriend Jenny and I have been friends for just over 20 years and she can vouch for some debates I used to have with our other Christian friends.
My trouble is I don't blindly believe what either Christians deriving from the Roman church and its branches says, any more than I blindly believe some areas of science that may have misread clues.
" some areas of science that may have misread clues"
Well so far, all I've seen is that on multiple occasions, you have misread what the science is actually telling us.
Also, while it's good to question and verify, the fact is that most people aren't qualified to even evaluate the scientific data. I submit your many misreadings of the science as evidence.
That is not intended as a shot at you personally, it's just a fact.
@SiriusMined The earliest forms of science in the Enlightment questioned the accepted wisdom of the day (read: Roman dogma) and challenged belief systems. I only have a problem with any form of "science" that's accepted blindly without applying the same questioning or critical analysis. In such cases, it only makes a couple of branches of science belief systems, not science. Oh...and great scientists of the Enlightenment probably wouldn't be "qualified" either...but they still advanced things
@SiriusMined I've seen some areas in medicine where the science is dubious and questioning isn't allowed by some doctors. There's starting to be some dubious medicine that doesn't have enough INDEPENDENT testing.
Perhaps evolution science is one area I can think of. It's interpretive whether something is an adaptation or an evolution. After all, we see variation in humans depending on conditions, but we can't say any one lot is more "evolved" than the other. Not in current terms.
@SiriusMined Two cases I've had some personal experience with: diagnoses of gestational diabetes and a case where my second son was diagnosed in utero with the possiblity of Downs Syndrome. I had to apply denial of informed consent to the first son when a doctor wanted to affect his birth size. My second son died at three months gestation because the doctors stressed my missus. Post-mortem. DNA testing showed my second son would have been born normal otherwise. The doctors didn't like qstns.
@SiriusMined It does. Dubious medicine doesn't have as much real proof OR proper trials as more genuine. I remember a doctor trying to justify why there's LESS double-blind trials than for other areas. And it sounded TOO simple hearing a doctor wanting to adjust my first son's birth growth with insulin. I invoked DENIAL of consent to that. I was not convinced the science there was on solid ground.
"Dubious medicine doesn't have as much real proof OR proper trials as more genuine"
Acutally, there are TONS of trials done, constantly. I know this for a fact, as my wife is a coordinator for clinical trials in oncology. No amount of clinical trials are going to make medicine perfect.
My wife asked me to ask you how the diagnoses were done. Did they do amnioscentesis?
"I was not convinced the science there was on solid ground. "
@SiriusMined Try to remember which son under which diagnosis. We denied consent to amnioscentesis. The doctors were still pushing for it. Do you realize how few doctors pushing for amnio have NEVER met Down's Syndrome kids, have NO experience of it, yet push the idea its SUCH a tragedy to have one?
The diagnosis? Ultrasound, a fold in the neck noted. Flimsy reason for an amnio, as it's very interpretive. Wrong in the end. DNA-testing post-mortem proved he would have been normal.
@SiriusMined in my second son's case, the doctors were actually stressing my missus out trying to get her to take the amnioscentis. They're supposed to keep a pregnant woman calm. What sparked this was an interpretation of a fold on that son's neck in unltrasound. JUST that. The post-morten DNA test found there really had been NO need for amnioscentis testing. Bad science puttting us in that situation, a death sentence for the kid either way. And you say I have no right to question it?
@SiriusMined In both situations, the doctors didn't like questions, or requests for better scientific proof. In the case of my second son, there seemed to be more concern for a test that has PATENT profits, rather than for the wellbeing of my missus or child. And it appears doctors wanting the amnioscentis test are saying how bad Down's Syndrome is without really ever meeting a Down's Syndrome child. That amioscentis test can be a death sentence for a lot of kids in-utero. Even healthy ones
@SiriusMined Funny...they keep talking about medical "science." I'm beginning to think there's not a great difference between a modern doctor or an old-style witch doctor these days.
I am reminded of reading of a case where a man was diagnosed with a tumor and told he only had weeks to live. He died within weeks. Post-mortem? It had been a BENIGN tumor. Reminds me of something in the Australian aboriginial culture where a medicine man points the bone. It results in death-by-belief.
" am reminded of reading of a case where a man was diagnosed with a tumor and told he only had weeks to live. He died within weeks. Post-mortem? It had been a BENIGN tumor. Reminds me of something in the Australian aboriginial culture where a medicine man points the bone. It results in death-by-belief. "
That anecdote doesn't in any way indicate what caused the man to die.
@SiriusMined Now we're getting to the gist of things. When you consider the classist ideas of people in the nineteenth century, where they DID think of some groups as more "evolved" than others, we get an interpretation called "evolution." Except it still comes across to me as local adaptation. And again, no one group ever did "evolve" more than another in the past 5000 years. Great lot of diversity, though, humans AND animals.
"When you consider the classist ideas of people in the nineteenth century, where they DID think of some groups as more "evolved" than others, we get an interpretation called "evolution.""
And those people turned out to be wrong. Because the peer-reviewed science is NOT dogmatic, later evidence overcame the social biases of the day.
That's how science works, and evolutionary biology is no different. Your example just illustrates that the process DOES work,
"Except it still comes across to me as local adaptation."
I aksed you to define what you mean, and you still have not done so. You also have not described the basis for "local adaptation" over an evolutionary process, or how they are different. Please do so if we're to continue.
We know so much about some of these variations that we know where in the genome the change occurs, and how it manifests.
See wiki/Sickle-cell_disease#Genetics
Here is a mutation that probably occurred in multiple places, but only survived in areas where it's prescence could actually be useful. It's no accident that the areas where the mutation is most prevailent is in those areas where having sickle cells can help survivability against malaria.
@SiriusMined I'm never going to quibble with carbon-14 results within the 5700 year range. Human history and known dates back that up. No problem with that whatsoever. I'll even allow for rocks being way older than man, as that's backed up by the bible. But there's a certain point there's no independent witnesses for and where the zeros added to the amount of years gets questionable, because there's no real backup verification. Age of rocks by bible calculation would be 10-11,000 years
Here is a sign of your pre-conceived notions rearing their ugly heads. What you persist in doing is saying "I'll believe the stuff that coincides with a literal interpretation of the Bible, but I'll classify everything else as suspect because I don't want to believe it"
Well I have news for you. If the technique for C-14 dating works at 1 half-life, it works at 2.
And if you are going to use independent witnesses as a requirement, you just excluded MOST of the Bible.
@SiriusMined Actually, there IS one thing proving the bible that EVERY society unwittingly validates. So indepedent proof of truth of the book?
The days of the week are different in different cultures. But the amount of days is still 7 in EVERY culture. And EVERY culture treats Sunday as the FIRST day of the week.
"there IS one thing proving the bible that EVERY society unwittingly validates"
New York City appears in Spiderman comics. Does that mean that Spiderman comics are literally true because they contain a few pieces of factual information?
Not all cultures held Sunday as the first day (and they certainly didn't all call it "Sunday". NOW they do, because the dominant cultures on Earth do/did. That's all.
The word pajamas comes from sanskit, and many modern languages still possess the word, unchanged after thousands of years. Does that mean that ancient vedic texts are literally true?
I keep coming back to the point that you have a fundamental and MONUMENTAL lack of understanding of a lot of science.
Variation in current humans is caused by mutation and diploid inheritance. Natural and sexual selection affect which variants are more likely to survive AND reproduce.
Evolution is merely the accumulation of variations as a results of environmental (and in some cases, societal) perterbations which affect the selection criteria.
@SiriusMined If there's one other branch I'd scratch my head at, it's on anything claiming things go back millions or billions of years. Carbon-dating is the usually accepted form of dating, and I noted that even the best labs won't guarantee much accuracy back past 10,000-60,000 years. SO thinking back further than even that would be STRICTLY theoretical, and would need greater proof. I'd HAVE to question the millions-billions of years idea as a result. Greatest accuracy for carbon-14: 5700
"Carbon-dating is the usually accepted form of dating, and I noted that even the best labs won't guarantee much accuracy back past 10,000-60,000 years. SO thinking back further than even that would be STRICTLY theoretical, "
You left out a whole host of dating techniques that are accurate over a MUCH longer time span. Your statement re: carbon dating being the "usual" method is incorrect. Carbon dating is ONLY useful for formerly living things that have not fossilized.
Again, I'm left with having to say, once again, that your position is largely based on a lack of knowledge and/or understanding of science, scientific methods, etc.
Again, this is not a shot at you, but it happens to be a fact, as indicated by your posts.
Carbon dating is very good for those instances when it is applicable. It isn't used to date the earth, rocks, or fossils.
@SiriusMined I just read the wikipedia on entrained water. You need to explain it better than the wikipedia article. Perhaps also remember the ark only has to endure harsh conditions for around 40 days and the amount of time it took for the waters to settle. It doesn't have to survive it for decades. Since there is the possibility of a hull pool, there's also a run-off of any water that seeped through, preventing any sinking.
It's when there is so much water in a vapor that water droplets are carried along with the air. Not the raindrops themselves, but little droplets that will end up flowing WHEREVER the air goes. That includes our lungs when you breath it in.
When it rains, the humidity is at or near 100% (that's why it's raining). When there is THIS much water in the air, the air would become super-saturated with water. One would be drawing water into their lungs with every breath. Not good.
"Perhaps also remember the ark only has to endure harsh conditions for around 40 days "
Yeah, "only"
It's a reed boat. It's not going to survive a week, much less 40 days. I don't care how much pitch they put on it.
And again, with the amount of rainfall and the need for air exchange "run-off" is a gross understatement. This thing, if it did't break up, is going to capsize.
As for being "huge", that only makes it more unstable. It's not like it was built of steel. Structurally, a boat that large, in pitching seas, is in serious trouble.
@SiriusMined Interestingly, a more detailed description of the DAY the flood started isn't found in the bible...its found in the Gilgamesh Epic. Same story, from different viewpoints. The bible version probably tells it straighter, though you want TECHNICAL detail and description of the 1st day of the flood, the Gilgamesh Epic would expand it a bit.
The "first day" is irrelevant. I calculated the AVERAGE rainfaill rate, meaning that if there were times of slower rainfall, then there would have to be times of even heavier rainfall. That makes it WORSE for said reed craft.
I don't expect the average person to understand a lot about engineering, but seriously, you have no idea what you are talking about.
@SiriusMined I would presume we can consider the Gilgamesh Epic, of Babylonian origin, a HOSTILE witness testimony to the truth of the ark. Even if they changed things to suit the Bablylonian perspective, it still witnesses to the same event.
The bablylonians considered God a MINOR god in their own pantheon, or a nasty minor one. Or a Demiurge, as the later romans/greeks would call him.
@SiriusMined There's one further proof, Sirius...in the first century, historian Flavius Josephus was able to IDENTIFY countries of his time which still bore the names, or derivatives of the names, of the seventy grand-children of Noah. I've yet to see anyone shoot down THAT proof successfully. Too bad so much of the map and cultures of Asia Minor and Southern Europe have changed since the first century...
You're right I was never saved in the first place because there is no god.
I repented of my sins, trusted Jesus as my personal savior, accepted his sacrifice for my sins, got born again, got baptized, I took to the streets and preached the word of God to the unsaved.
@billflowers Might it have been that the group you were in just weren't real themselves? So many churches around with people calling themselves "Christian" without even having the foggiest idea what that Jewish guy from Nazareth was really on about. Heck, so many people think JC was Christian, Muslim, Palestinian, honorary gentile...and yet he was a Jew trying to get his people back on track in real terms.
@billflowers There was a book written by a guy named Fasold 20 years ago. It's a good view of things about the ark we haven't necessarily been told in the churches. And Fasold had the advantage of being from a merchant marine background, so he knew his boats and HISTORY of boats.
problems i have i believe in a god influnenced by christian god as this was how i was raised. fundamentalist christians say that what is in the bible is the exact word of god and exactly what happened and yet they have rewriten the bible more than once in the past. but it is infalable and yet we can poke holes in it that prove it wrong.
when they poke holes in evolution they act as if they've won a battle but evolution is still a thery in progress so it doesn't matter if you prove part of it wrong the theory 'evolves' around this making it stronger.
Epic beard is epic.
BlueChewingGum 5 months ago
well said mait you touch a point or nerve what about flora trees, plant, etc. i have not thught about it until now eureka moment have g'day mait
legolasgreenleaff 10 months ago
No fair using logic to contradict the bible. It was all done by magic.
bustermk2 1 year ago
Tasmania looks beautiful.
janellc122 1 year ago
Obviously the koala's were so shagged out by the time they got from Turkey to the south coast they just said, "Aw, bugger it mate! I'm done. The fuckin' roos can have the rest".
Noisegator 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
why did god make a talking snake?
erkziltonz 1 year ago
I want my half Koala half Wombat :( Great Vid!
MichaelLV99 1 year ago
You are da man.
And you got a knife strapped onto ya, that's just too freakin awesome.
kingkong8974 1 year ago
I have seen koalas used in an argument against the flood but not like this. This is a whole new argument. This is a delightful little bit of info. Thank you for the info.
hobbitsarecool 1 year ago
and i thought that the eucalyptus were brought here by the brits..
..there you go bill, your theory fails..
noah did..
by the way kudos to noah the first crocodile dundee...
amet1980 1 year ago
I was an atheist before I even knew what it meant. sitting in the school benches of my Christian school I was an annoyance for my teachers with my questions.
god made Adam then eve. they had no notion of right or wrong. but god told them it was wrong to eat from the apple tree. essentially setting them up. the size of the ark was a big issue for me too. they said it was 30 ell or something. so I asked how could they jam up like over 2 million different of mammals on it.
zool201975 1 year ago
Nice presentation about the isolation of Tasmania! Funny that you chose Koalas over the billions of other evidence that contradict that "true" story.
jsheinon2 1 year ago
@jsheinon2 It was part of my jorney to free thinking. First with the study of snakes, evolution explained better all the different "kinds" and then knowing koalas the Noahs ark story just didn't wash, so to speak.
billflowers 1 year ago
You kick ass man, I'm studying to be a paleontologist and marsupial evolution fascinates me. Anyway keep up the good work.
GeoWing2 1 year ago
@billflowers i still believe that noah took 100 years to make his boat as people lived a long time back then (and thats PROVEN)
and then the animals came to him by god
TMSreptiles 1 year ago
@TMSreptiles Agreed on the time it took. After all, he was one of the last of the long-livers of the bible. And considering there weren't many people helping him, it WOULD take him that long to build something that big...
geehall1 1 year ago
@TMSreptiles
"as people lived a long time back then (and thats PROVEN)
"
Actually, no. The opposite is EVIDENT from the many bones found.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined well thats just too bad
i believe what i believe
and "EVIDENT" doesnt mean proven
TMSreptiles 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SiriusMined well thats just too bad i believe what i believe and "EVIDENT" does not mean proven
TMSreptiles 1 year ago
@SiriusMined No dispute that MOST people of the time lived to say 120 years (or less. There was a small family that were long-lived, though AFTER the ark, they started rapid-fire breeding themselves at earlier ages, and seem to have worn a long-life gene down. I WOULD suggest getting a calculator out and start counting some begats. Cain's descendents seem to have been rapid-fire breeders at early ages. Seth's line didn't breed the next gen till a ripe age.
geehall1 1 year ago
@geehall1
"No dispute that MOST people of the time lived to say 120 years "
No dispute amonst who, Creationists?
No, Cro Magnon lived to be, on average 29-30. Average live expectancy didn't cross There is ZERO historical evidence for people living to beyond 100 regularly.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined Should I bring up Piltdown Man and the scientific fraud in THAT particular case??
geehall1 1 year ago
@SiriusMined While we're at it, I'm just reading a Google Reader article about a mocassin found in Armenia which is 5500 years old and is thought to be an ancestor-precurser design to Irish "Pampooties". Damn good shoe technology in them thar old days, eh?
geehall1 1 year ago
@SiriusMined No dispute from me.
geehall1 1 year ago
@geehall1
"I WOULD suggest getting a calculator out and start counting some begats"
This is what I told you before. You have this preconceived notion that the Bible is literally true, and won't accept anything else.
The Bible says one thing, but the archaelogical record (including TONS of human remains say otherwise). I'm putting my money on the evidence.
At this point, it is clear to me that it's pointless to discuss this further, because you really aren't interested in truth.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined Hmmm...I can accept BOTH the bible and science...but shut out Roman Church pagan cosmology and extremes of science in opposition to that church. And you still mistake me for a Christian. Do you know the question about getting a calculator to add up Genesis' begat list ALSO gets a similar response from my christian friends? It's too much active thought for them. I'm interested in truth, but not pronouncements from on high from EITHER side of the debate.
geehall1 1 year ago
@geehall1
"I can accept BOTH the bible and science"
But you don't. You twist yourself in knots because you clearly HAVE to believe the Bible is correct, so whenever the two disagree, as near as I can tell, you just ignore the science.
" the question about getting a calculator to add up Genesis' begat list ALSO gets a similar response from my christian friends? It's too much active thought for them. "
I am completely familiar with James Ussher, so please drop the arrogant tone
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined Actually, I've never heard of James Ussher and haven't even googled or wikipedia'd the name yet. I take he he also suggested getting a calculator to that begat list? You know, the begat list is BORING if it's a straight read without any intellectual input. It ONLY gets interesting when calculating those begats. 21 years ago I got my calculator out and made a timeline from it. Noticed some interesting years in it common to the C.E. calendar.
geehall1 1 year ago
@geehall1 I've got Christian friends who won't get their calculators out. So it's hard for them to understand Noah's son being around at the same time as Jacob, or work out the flood was only 1600 years after Adam. Not arrogance, it's a reality. A lot of Christians don't exercise their brains with a bible. They just read/parrot it. That's an observation. That' why I don't go to Christians for answers on deeper questions about the book.
geehall1 1 year ago
@geehall1
How is calculating the ages in the Bible doing anything different? You are STILL accepting the Bible on it's face, without REALLY questioning it.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@geehall1
"I've never heard of James Ussher"
Well, he's the one that did the "calculator work" you referenced re: the age of the earth according to the Bible. If you are going to take up a position, you might want to know a little more about it. HE'S the one that "calculated the begats" originally
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined I did my own calculating. It is possible to decide to do it independently of someone like Ussher. Still noting an interesting correlation between years after Adam's creation and the AD/CE calendar. But you'd have to do your own calculations to see what I mean.
geehall1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@geehall1
"I did my own calculating. It is possible to decide to do it independently of someone like Ussher."
You'll still end up with the same result. It still doesn't indicate anything at all.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@geehall1
"And you still mistake me for a Christian."
No, just a Creationist. So far you've only cited the OT, so for all I know, you are a Jewish Creationist.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined Let's see...science has a big problem with Christian creationists. Jews don't have the same argument with science. There's never been any Jewish argument with process or sequencing, only with the amount of zeros involved.
Flat earth? Science proved that wrong. That idea came from Rome, the Roman church and is pure pagan ideas. Easily disproved. Always disproveable
And I'm not Jewish, by the way. I've had my ancestry checked and couldnt find any Jewish ancestors.
geehall1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@geehall1
"..science has a big problem with Christian creationists. Jews don't have the same argument with science."
There ARE Jewish Creationists. Ben Stein is not the only one.
"Flat earth? Science proved that wrong."
It also proved wrong the 6K-10K yr old earth, but you don't want to accept that.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined Not onterested in truth? Please explain to me why it took most of the scientific community 40 years to understand Piltdown Man was a fraud, when it took anyone with anatomy experience a mere fraction of that time.
geehall1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@geehall1
"why it took most of the scientific community 40 years to understand Piltdown Man was a fraud"
Easily. No other scientists were able to examine the skull for a long time after the "discovery" to confirm the findings. Without being able to inspect it, how would anyone be able to spot the obvious forgery? And even still, there were doubts from the beginnnig.
(cont)
SiriusMined 1 year ago
(cont)
Later, as legitmate hominid bones were discovered, "Piltdown Man" became increasingly anomalous, and this is what eventually led to the forgery being exposed. To me this shows how proper peer review and the scientific method WORKED, because the evidence was able to show the skull for what it was.
Go look up "Cold Fusion", and you'll see a similar story, although it played out much mroe quickly.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined From the quick wikipedia reference on it I read, they still took longer to really sort it out than they should. That's SLOW peer review. Also a few people DID get to see it, with the right expertise. Unfortunately, they weren't listened to because even in science you get BELIEF systems. I'd say there were still some people wanting Piltdown Man to have been that missing link and that's why it really took 40 years.
geehall1 1 year ago
@geehall1
"From the quick wikipedia reference on it I read, they still took longer to really sort it out than they should. That's SLOW peer review."
In a new branch of science, when no one is able to examine the skill to confirm or falsfy it, it's not surprising it took that long.
"I'd say there were still some people wanting Piltdown Man to have been that missing link and that's why it really took 40 years. "
Probably, but EVIDENCE ruled the day, not belief
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined Well, it's proven a little by the bible, but not quite as TMSreptiles put it. There were people living shorter lives than the bible partriarchs. This is why there's a mention of ages dropping to 120 just before the mention of Noah who lived a LONG time. Generations from Seth to Noah didn't breed their next generations very quickly, whereas anyone descended from Cain was probably begating at age 20-30. One famly, ten generations over 1500 years, the rest...a lot of generations.
geehall1 1 year ago
@geehall1
No, it's ASSERTED by the Bible. That does not constitute proof.
I find it hilarious though that you take a story from one source as proof, but not the works of many hundreds of sources.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined Remember I included the Gilgamesh Epic.
geehall1 1 year ago
Koalas had wings prior to the flood.
Turns out that while they were on the ark they were sinners... They had pre- marital sex, stole Noah's blankets and worshipped one of the hippos that was on board. Because of this God made them fly to Austrailia after the flood and took away their wings as punishment!
jimrbsn 1 year ago
@jimrbsn So far you have explained it better than anyone else!
billflowers 1 year ago
@billflowers
I'm the new prophet :)
If you all kiss my ass hard enough ... I'll grant you a fabulous afterlife!
I demand beer and sexy women as offerings to prove your worth.... do not doubt the prophet!
jimrbsn 1 year ago
@jimrbsn I used to know a group exactly like that.
geehall1 1 year ago
@billflowers I'll agree there. Reminds me of a couple of Christian churches I know, that explanation.
geehall1 1 year ago
@jimrbsn Cute. Interesting theory. I kinda like it for the pure humor of it.
geehall1 1 year ago
Great video. I just found you today, but I wish I had before!
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@billflowers and what exactly caused you to change your ideas
noahs ark actually does exist you can go and see it its real and large but yes all fo the animals where on the ark according to the bible but more species have developed from those by inbreeding and genetic mutation etc.
the amount of animals in existence then was not at all large i believe and people lived extremely long lives according to research as the earth was young and pure
noah worked for one hundred years on the arc
TMSreptiles 1 year ago
@TMSreptiles
So how did koalas get to Australia?
billflowers 1 year ago
@billflowers Bill, I'm still waiting for an answer on whether there were natural predators in Tasmania that weren't found on the mainland. Could THAT have something to do with why there are no koalas in Tassie? The Tasmanian devil would be ONE...any others? You would have to factor that in as a POSSIBLE reason. And what temperature range do koalas thrive best in?
geehall1 1 year ago
@geehall1 Devils, thylacines and marsupial lions were Australia wide. On the mainland thylacines died out about 2,000 years ago were as devils died out only 470 years ago. Parts of mainland Australia get colder than parts of Tasmania. Koalas live ok in the snow.
billflowers 1 year ago
@billflowers Okay...valid point. So we still need an acceptable explanation of why no koalas on Tasmania. Scrub out differences in temperature or unique predators.
geehall1 1 year ago
@billflowers Have we ruled out possible diseases in Tasmania not found in the mainland that might have decimated any koala population?
geehall1 1 year ago
@geehall1 Hard to say because there is no trace of koalas ever exsisting on Tasmania or WA. How would you ever test it?
There is still the problem of how they got to eastern Australia from the ark? and why most of the marsupials went to Australia. and the big question that got Darwin thinking, Why do the fossils around the world look like living animals in that area. Giant sloths in South America, giant Kangaroo like animals in Australia?
billflowers 1 year ago
@TMSreptiles
Every couple years someone claims to have found the ark, but when somene actually examines the site, it is found NOT to be an ark.
"but more species have developed from those by inbreeding "
Inbreeding between disparate species doesn't work, and would not produce diversity but CONVERGENCE. The problem is, we don't see convergence, but diversity.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined I think the one Fasold looked at 17 miles from Mt. Ararat (but still IN the Ararat ranges as the bible ACTUALLY says) looks to be the most accurate site. And Fasold gave a convincing argument for it to be considered. A petrified giant read raft that high up, one even considered as the right site by Kurds of hundreds of years ago, looks to be a good candidate.
geehall1 1 year ago
@geehall1 Is that the other ark site, a boat shape ark instead of box shape ark? Ian Plimer proved that it was just rock, no petrified wood or reeds there. Many of the stones in the area had been carved later by believers.
billflowers 1 year ago
@billflowers I'll recognize there IS some contention that any drogue anchors weren't the stones found in the region. I've read it IS thought as a stone formation. By the same token, Fasold as a merchant marine knowing his boats "holds more water" with me. Then there's the fact the Kurds of the area AND some historical sources mention that site too. and it DOESN'T have to be on Ararat ITSELF, just in the RANGES. Bible records it as Ararat mountainS, plural.
geehall1 1 year ago
@geehall1 That site has a more historical claim rather than the convenient disappearing box shape that most christians favour, but when a real geologist (Ian Plimer) looked at it, it was just rock. So I believe both are less credible than UFOs.
billflowers 1 year ago
@geehall1
:sigh: This one again.
There is no reed boat on Ararat. Every couple years, someone makes the claim that there is, and that claim is found out to be false. In more than one instance, people have dragged pieces of wood up to try and perpetrate a hoax, and they are always found out. Even Answers in Genesis refutes it here: creation/v14/i4/report.asp
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined Most ark searchers look for a WOODEN boat. Not a petrified REED boat. "Gopher wood" is a mistranslation of K-P-R, a pitch/tar word in ancient languages. Sirius...Fasold DID point out that even religious AND secular would be united in in NOT wanting to find the real ark. Incontrovertable evidence of the ark would rule out mere BELIEF, wouldn't it? And Christian faith isn't based on reason. Even Christians would find the ark confronting if real.
geehall1 1 year ago
@SiriusMined By the way, Sirius, Josephus had to argue with some arrogant Greeks of his days as to the antiquity of the Jews. Joesphus pulled in HOSTILE witness testimony from ancient peoples. And in HIS day, maps hadn't changed as much as they have in OUR 2 millenia...place names were still there. He still showed which places were where the 70 grandsons of Noah settled. And flood narratives about 8 people on a boat were still found as far from the Middle East as China. Same story.
geehall1 1 year ago
@SiriusMined Don't feel too bad, Sirius. I have religious/Christian friends who don't like me asking probing questions on the bible. I'm NOT a fan of the "don't have questions, just have faith" routine.
geehall1 1 year ago
@geehall1
You don't strike me as a questioning sort in the least.
SiriusMined 1 year ago 2
@SiriusMined Really? I have Christian friends who get teed off because I don't do the "don't question, just have faith routine." By the same token, while I ask more probing questions of Christians (which they really can't answer most times), I'm equally questioning of someone purporting to have a scientific viewpoint. One last point...Gilgamesh Epic had a bit more detail than "300 cubits by etc., etc." At least I'm recognizing source material outside the bible.
geehall1 1 year ago
@SiriusMined We have a point of agreement. There is no ark on Ararat itself... Because it landed in the Ararat ranges. Not the specific mountain itself.
geehall1 1 year ago
@TMSreptiles It's quite possible the animals on the ark were progenitors for all the variation in each species since that time. E.G. you'd only need a progenitor canine and perhaps at least one representative progenitor for the feline side of things. After getting off the boat, a bit of diversification and ADAPTION could result (mistaken as 'evolution.' Still, Bill has a point that koalas not being in Tasmania has to be better explained...
geehall1 1 year ago
@geehall1
"After getting off the boat, a bit of diversification and ADAPTION could result (mistaken as 'evolution."
No, because all of these species cannot breed with one another.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined I didn't say different species bred with one another. I postulated a progenitor ancestor. One type of feline for all breeds of feline to descend from, one canine ancestor for all subsequent breeds to descend from. What's so hard to contemplate there?
geehall1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@geehall1
" I postulated a progenitor ancestor. One type of feline for all breeds of feline to descend from"
This would require substantially faster diverisfication than suggested by our knowledge of evolution. If one believes evolution can't happen, how could what you are talking about happen? Note that there are different feline SPECIES, they aren't all just different "breeds"
SiriusMined 1 year ago
Cute koalas! :D
JoakimfromAnka 1 year ago
Biblical passages point to a long-life gene that watered down eventually in humans. Noah and his sons being the last long-lifers. So if that's with humans, one would presume there's something similar with animals at the same point of time.
A stronger form of koala, to get here. But once established, becomes more set to its environment.
Let's face it. God had to GET them on the ark. So for them to coexist even for the boat, there had to be a supension of the usual. How long did it last?
geehall1 1 year ago
Just watched the whole video...broadband's slow today...and I DO have one point. Tasmania had two animals the mainland didn't. Predators or competition? In places where there's none, koalas thrive..
Would the Tasmanian devil and tiger as predators/competition make the difference, not the lack of eucalypts?
geehall1 1 year ago
Interestingly, other nations have a flood myth. But each country puts its own spin on the story. I'd say they are all of the same event...but the bible account probably de-myths it.
On the other hand, the account of it in the Gilgamesh Epic gives a chilling description of when it started its journey and ripped its moorings, more technical information.
geehall1 1 year ago
For the Christians in the discussion. The ark was a 512 foot reed raft. NOT a box shape. Two, look in the Ararat RANGES, as the book says, NOT specifically on Ararat itself.
@billflowers. Good point. There does need to be a better explanation of why certain animals are found ONLY on specific continents/islands. There's an answer there, but I doubt Christians have the depth of understanding of the bible to find it. I think a rabbi would have a better, intellectually satisfying answer.
geehall1 1 year ago
@geehall1
Yeah, and they believe that reed raft surived a rainfall rate of 363 inches of water PER HOUR. It's amazing how willfully ignorant they are.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined Gee, I don't remember the exact amount of rainfall that day being written anywhere...
That said...the ark was actually a 512 foot giant reed raft covered in pitch/tar. Would have had some buoyancy AND been a bit on the water-proof side. And perhaps a drogue anchor or five...
geehall1 1 year ago
@geehall1
I calculated the rainfall. Genesis gives all the details needed to calculate how much water would have HAD to fall in order for the story to be accurate.
As for being covered in pitch, the boat would have needed airholes, or else everyone would have suffocated. At a rainfall rate of 363"/hr, the boat would have filled up with water and capsized, as the air would have contained a large amount of entrained water.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@geehall1
And to think a reed boat would survive the pitching seas from THAT kind of storm is beyond gullible.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined To think the ark was box or wooden is more so. By the same token, there HAVE been scientific experiments showing DROGUE ANCHORS would stop the ark capsizing in huge waves. There IS some hint the ark DID have drogue anchors...and an air hole or two. But it was PITCH/TAR covered, so there'd be less water getting inside than some people would think. Oh, and a HULL pool in the middle for extra assistance against capsizing. HUGE reed boat, by the way...512 foot long.
geehall1 1 year ago
@geehall1
I don't think you have any concept of what kind of flowrate we're talking about.
As for "an airhole or two", there would have to be several, or else everyone would have died due to oxygen deprevation. Hundreds or thousands of creatures in a ship of that size make the air unbreathable in no time.
I GET that was supposedly PITCH COVERED. I also know what ENTRAINED WATER IN THE AIR means, and apparently, you do not.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined Unfortunately, while you can calculate the flow rate, you can't be exactly sure what it was. And flawed though it might be, the Gilgamesh Epic is the best technical source from a nearly-eyewitness account. The flood was also different from what came before it. Hence the rainbow is only known AFTER it. Doesn't science posit a time when the earth was hotter and there was a cloud canopy surrounding the planet? The flood might have been the time it changed and cooled.
geehall1 1 year ago
@geehall1
"Unfortunately, while you can calculate the flow rate, you can't be exactly sure what it was"
Actually, I can. There is enough information in the Genesis story to calculate the average. I don't need to know the peak instantaneous rate. If I know the average, I know the peak had to be AT LEAST AS heavy. It's simple mathematics.
And sorry, the Epic of Gilgamesh is not a "technical" source in any way, shape, or form.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined The Gilgamesh Epic at least describes the extra detail we don't see in the bible, plus describes the actual take-off of the ark.
One SLIGHT problem the Bablylonians and a few other ancient cultures had was they were prone to exaggerate the amount of zeros of years. Which leads to another point of yours I should answer. Does science tend to overdo the millions and billions of years a bit? HOWEVER, I acknowledge that the age of the earth is longer than the age of man.
geehall1 1 year ago
@geehall1
"Does science tend to overdo the millions and billions of years a bit? "
No, because we know what the half-life of the elements are that we use to radiometrically date rocks. It was a progression that got us from a 6K yr old earth (based on the Bible) to a 4.5 billion year old earth. The earliest scientific attempts to age the earth was in the 10s of thousands, and the age kept getting BIGGER, not smaller, based on the evidence.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined You know, I had a look at thewikipedia entry on carbon-dating. Curiously, the half-life of carbon-14 is just over 5700 years...equating to the 5700 and a bit years in the calendar that ran continuously from Adam's creation (Israelite/Jewish)...and I'm NOT disputing that rocks are older than Man. Even the bible couches for that.
geehall1 1 year ago
@geehall1
"equating to the 5700 and a bit years in the calendar that ran continuously from Adam's creation"
And the half life of a dozen other compounds is completely different. You are trying to drawe inferences where there are none.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined That said, we don't DISAGREE on the age of the earth being older than the age of man. That's consistent between science and bible. We may debate the amount of ZEROS in how long things took.
That said, we still need to know why the Koala doesn't exist in Tasmania. I'm sure a rabbi has a better explanation than any Christian priest or minister on why not.
Christian ministers hate the difficult questions.
geehall1 1 year ago
@geehall1
"Hence the rainbow is only known AFTER it"
Wow, that's truly pathetic. We know what creates rainbows. It isn't magic. There is zero reason why a rainbow would not exist, even before humans walked the earth.
"Doesn't science posit a time when the earth was hotter and there was a cloud canopy surrounding the planet?"
Yes, LONG before humans.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@geehall1
"The flood might have been the time it changed and cooled. "
No. Look, it's impossible, once the continents formed, to cover the earth COMPLETELY under water, where even the highest mountains were 20ft under water (which is what Genesis says), and then have it all drain away in under a year. Or 10 years, Or 1000 years. If this event happened 4000 years ago, we'd have a huge cloud canopy NOW.
Look, believe in a god if you want, but this child's story never happened.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined You're assuming the mountains were the same BEFORE the flood. The upheaval OF a flood would tend to create a few mountain ranges. Assume less mountains prior to it. The cloud canopy is known to have condensed into the weather patterns we have now. So we're debating zeros, NOT the actual occurrence. Explain no rainbow PRIOR to the flood. Also...last I heard, the evidence for ice age and flood is EXACTLY the same. Large amounts of water mass. Where PRIOR to flood?
geehall1 1 year ago
@geehall1
But that's just it. Upheaval takes a long time. Even if you want to lower the mountains a little bit, it's not going to substantially decrease the final result.
And flooding does NOT create uplift. That is caused as a byproduct of subduction, and we know and can measure this.
"Explain no rainbow PRIOR to the flood."
Easily. The text in the Bible is wrong. There were rainbows. The story is fiction.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@geehall1
"
"Also...last I heard, the evidence for ice age and flood is EXACTLY the same""
No. Glacial motion leaves dramatically different tell-tale evidence than flowing water.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined It probably did, but a lot of us would ignore the evidence even if the ark was sitting right in front of us. And some Roman church leaders would be confronted by the same ark.
geehall1 1 year ago
@geehall1
"a lot of us would ignore the evidence even if the ark was sitting right in front of us"
You know, I'm not going to let this comment go without a comment. Given that you've been trying to jump through hoops to gerrymander the scientific evidence to fit your pre-conceived notion, I'm not going to accept your statement. Facts are facts. Produce a legitimate sample of the ark, and the story will gain credence.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@geehall1
How, I will say one thing..... even if an ark is found, in an of itself it would not alone prove that the story is literally true. It would prove that there was an historical Noah that built an ark, but it still wouldn't prove a global flood. It would require us then to see what other evidence there is, and take a new look at the other existing evidence. It'd be a good start. But it would not be the end of the subject. That's how science works
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@geehall1
I'll say this..... I applaus you for all the reading you have obviously done. However as I said in the other post, I think you are trying very hard to make reality match your pre-conceived notion, rather than see what the evidence points to, and adjust your view based on the evidence.
As I said in an earlier post, I'm not trying to make you not believe in your god, but what I am trying to do is to get you to look at evidence objectively.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined On pre-conceived notions...stop thinking of me as Christian. I'm not taking this from a normative Christian viewpoint. What I'm trying to do is reconcile those parts of science and the Old Testament view that actually have common points. My reading found that the Roman Church ONLY promulgated Roman pagan cosmology. Science ALWAYS proves such cosmology WRONG. Unfortunately, some areas of science reacted against the Roman Church view. Opposites don't always lead to truth.
geehall1 1 year ago
@SiriusMined And if you think this is bad, you should see the debates I have with Christian friends. Actually, Bill's girlfriend Jenny and I have been friends for just over 20 years and she can vouch for some debates I used to have with our other Christian friends.
My trouble is I don't blindly believe what either Christians deriving from the Roman church and its branches says, any more than I blindly believe some areas of science that may have misread clues.
geehall1 1 year ago
@geehall1
" some areas of science that may have misread clues"
Well so far, all I've seen is that on multiple occasions, you have misread what the science is actually telling us.
Also, while it's good to question and verify, the fact is that most people aren't qualified to even evaluate the scientific data. I submit your many misreadings of the science as evidence.
That is not intended as a shot at you personally, it's just a fact.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined The earliest forms of science in the Enlightment questioned the accepted wisdom of the day (read: Roman dogma) and challenged belief systems. I only have a problem with any form of "science" that's accepted blindly without applying the same questioning or critical analysis. In such cases, it only makes a couple of branches of science belief systems, not science. Oh...and great scientists of the Enlightenment probably wouldn't be "qualified" either...but they still advanced things
geehall1 1 year ago
@geehall1
"I only have a problem with any form of "science" that's accepted blindly without applying the same questioning or critical analysis"
That wouldn't really be science, then. So which branches of science do you think are "belief systems"?
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined I've seen some areas in medicine where the science is dubious and questioning isn't allowed by some doctors. There's starting to be some dubious medicine that doesn't have enough INDEPENDENT testing.
Perhaps evolution science is one area I can think of. It's interpretive whether something is an adaptation or an evolution. After all, we see variation in humans depending on conditions, but we can't say any one lot is more "evolved" than the other. Not in current terms.
geehall1 1 year ago
@geehall1
"I've seen some areas in medicine where the science is dubious"
Be specific
'and questioning isn't allowed by some doctors"
That's a complete load of crap.
"There's starting to be some dubious medicine that doesn't have enough INDEPENDENT testing."
Again, be specific.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined Two cases I've had some personal experience with: diagnoses of gestational diabetes and a case where my second son was diagnosed in utero with the possiblity of Downs Syndrome. I had to apply denial of informed consent to the first son when a doctor wanted to affect his birth size. My second son died at three months gestation because the doctors stressed my missus. Post-mortem. DNA testing showed my second son would have been born normal otherwise. The doctors didn't like qstns.
geehall1 1 year ago
@geehall1
Sorry to hear about your loss, but that doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined It does. Dubious medicine doesn't have as much real proof OR proper trials as more genuine. I remember a doctor trying to justify why there's LESS double-blind trials than for other areas. And it sounded TOO simple hearing a doctor wanting to adjust my first son's birth growth with insulin. I invoked DENIAL of consent to that. I was not convinced the science there was on solid ground.
geehall1 1 year ago
@geehall1
"Dubious medicine doesn't have as much real proof OR proper trials as more genuine"
Acutally, there are TONS of trials done, constantly. I know this for a fact, as my wife is a coordinator for clinical trials in oncology. No amount of clinical trials are going to make medicine perfect.
My wife asked me to ask you how the diagnoses were done. Did they do amnioscentesis?
"I was not convinced the science there was on solid ground. "
Based on what?
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined Try to remember which son under which diagnosis. We denied consent to amnioscentesis. The doctors were still pushing for it. Do you realize how few doctors pushing for amnio have NEVER met Down's Syndrome kids, have NO experience of it, yet push the idea its SUCH a tragedy to have one?
The diagnosis? Ultrasound, a fold in the neck noted. Flimsy reason for an amnio, as it's very interpretive. Wrong in the end. DNA-testing post-mortem proved he would have been normal.
geehall1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@geehall1
"The diagnosis? Ultrasound, a fold in the neck noted. Flimsy reason for an amnio, "
While tragic, that still has NOTHING to do with science. A doctor isn't a scientist.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined in my second son's case, the doctors were actually stressing my missus out trying to get her to take the amnioscentis. They're supposed to keep a pregnant woman calm. What sparked this was an interpretation of a fold on that son's neck in unltrasound. JUST that. The post-morten DNA test found there really had been NO need for amnioscentis testing. Bad science puttting us in that situation, a death sentence for the kid either way. And you say I have no right to question it?
geehall1 1 year ago
@geehall1
Sorry, but this has nothing to do with "bad science", and everything to do with a bad diagnosis.
Examining an ultrasound and making a determination is NOT science. Not even close.
"And you say I have no right to question it? "
WHERE THE FUCK DID I SAY THAT??
I did not say that, NOT FUCKING ONCE.
And what you were questioning was the doctors JUDGEMENT AND DIAGNOSIS. THat has NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE
Don't ever put words in my mouth again, or this conversation is over.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@geehall1
"in my second son's case, the doctors were actually stressing my missus "
While stress certainly can lead to a spontaneous abortion, you are making an assumption that this is what happened.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined In both situations, the doctors didn't like questions, or requests for better scientific proof. In the case of my second son, there seemed to be more concern for a test that has PATENT profits, rather than for the wellbeing of my missus or child. And it appears doctors wanting the amnioscentis test are saying how bad Down's Syndrome is without really ever meeting a Down's Syndrome child. That amioscentis test can be a death sentence for a lot of kids in-utero. Even healthy ones
geehall1 1 year ago
@geehall1
"In both situations, the doctors didn't like questions, or requests for better scientific proof"
Again, that's unfortunate, but has nothing at all to do with what we're talking about. A doctor isn't a scientist.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined Funny...they keep talking about medical "science." I'm beginning to think there's not a great difference between a modern doctor or an old-style witch doctor these days.
I am reminded of reading of a case where a man was diagnosed with a tumor and told he only had weeks to live. He died within weeks. Post-mortem? It had been a BENIGN tumor. Reminds me of something in the Australian aboriginial culture where a medicine man points the bone. It results in death-by-belief.
geehall1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@geehall1
"...they keep talking about medical "science.""
The tools and medications are developed using the methods of science
The PRACTICE of medicine is NOT science.
Science goes into designing car engines. Your local machanic is not a scientist. Understand?
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@geehall1
" am reminded of reading of a case where a man was diagnosed with a tumor and told he only had weeks to live. He died within weeks. Post-mortem? It had been a BENIGN tumor. Reminds me of something in the Australian aboriginial culture where a medicine man points the bone. It results in death-by-belief. "
That anecdote doesn't in any way indicate what caused the man to die.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@geehall1
I'm still waiting for you to define "adaptation" as you understand it.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@geehall1
"interpretive whether something is an adaptation or an evolution"
Now if we can just get Creationists to define "adaptation", we can discuss this.
"After all, we see variation in humans depending on conditions, but we can't say any one lot is more "evolved" than the other"
No evolutionary biologist would EVER say something like that. Evolution is NOT A LADDER. There is no such thing as "more evolved" of ANY species.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined Now we're getting to the gist of things. When you consider the classist ideas of people in the nineteenth century, where they DID think of some groups as more "evolved" than others, we get an interpretation called "evolution." Except it still comes across to me as local adaptation. And again, no one group ever did "evolve" more than another in the past 5000 years. Great lot of diversity, though, humans AND animals.
geehall1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@geehall1
"When you consider the classist ideas of people in the nineteenth century, where they DID think of some groups as more "evolved" than others, we get an interpretation called "evolution.""
And those people turned out to be wrong. Because the peer-reviewed science is NOT dogmatic, later evidence overcame the social biases of the day.
That's how science works, and evolutionary biology is no different. Your example just illustrates that the process DOES work,
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@geehall1
"Except it still comes across to me as local adaptation."
I aksed you to define what you mean, and you still have not done so. You also have not described the basis for "local adaptation" over an evolutionary process, or how they are different. Please do so if we're to continue.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@geehall1
" And again, no one group ever did "evolve" more than another in the past 5000 years"
:sigh:
Because THERE IS NO "MORE" when it comes to evolution. There is only DIVERGENCE
And that variation in humans is BECAUSE of evolution. Isolated populations accumulated DIFFERENT sets of changes, due to differing local conditions.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@geehall1
We know so much about some of these variations that we know where in the genome the change occurs, and how it manifests.
See wiki/Sickle-cell_disease#Genetics
Here is a mutation that probably occurred in multiple places, but only survived in areas where it's prescence could actually be useful. It's no accident that the areas where the mutation is most prevailent is in those areas where having sickle cells can help survivability against malaria.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined I'm never going to quibble with carbon-14 results within the 5700 year range. Human history and known dates back that up. No problem with that whatsoever. I'll even allow for rocks being way older than man, as that's backed up by the bible. But there's a certain point there's no independent witnesses for and where the zeros added to the amount of years gets questionable, because there's no real backup verification. Age of rocks by bible calculation would be 10-11,000 years
geehall1 1 year ago
@geehall1
Here is a sign of your pre-conceived notions rearing their ugly heads. What you persist in doing is saying "I'll believe the stuff that coincides with a literal interpretation of the Bible, but I'll classify everything else as suspect because I don't want to believe it"
Well I have news for you. If the technique for C-14 dating works at 1 half-life, it works at 2.
And if you are going to use independent witnesses as a requirement, you just excluded MOST of the Bible.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined Actually, there IS one thing proving the bible that EVERY society unwittingly validates. So indepedent proof of truth of the book?
The days of the week are different in different cultures. But the amount of days is still 7 in EVERY culture. And EVERY culture treats Sunday as the FIRST day of the week.
Yom Rishon in Hebrew, translated to "first day.'
Your opinion on this?
geehall1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@geehall1
"there IS one thing proving the bible that EVERY society unwittingly validates"
New York City appears in Spiderman comics. Does that mean that Spiderman comics are literally true because they contain a few pieces of factual information?
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@geehall1
"Your opinion on this? "
Not all cultures held Sunday as the first day (and they certainly didn't all call it "Sunday". NOW they do, because the dominant cultures on Earth do/did. That's all.
The word pajamas comes from sanskit, and many modern languages still possess the word, unchanged after thousands of years. Does that mean that ancient vedic texts are literally true?
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@geehall1
I keep coming back to the point that you have a fundamental and MONUMENTAL lack of understanding of a lot of science.
Variation in current humans is caused by mutation and diploid inheritance. Natural and sexual selection affect which variants are more likely to survive AND reproduce.
Evolution is merely the accumulation of variations as a results of environmental (and in some cases, societal) perterbations which affect the selection criteria.
That's it.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined If there's one other branch I'd scratch my head at, it's on anything claiming things go back millions or billions of years. Carbon-dating is the usually accepted form of dating, and I noted that even the best labs won't guarantee much accuracy back past 10,000-60,000 years. SO thinking back further than even that would be STRICTLY theoretical, and would need greater proof. I'd HAVE to question the millions-billions of years idea as a result. Greatest accuracy for carbon-14: 5700
geehall1 1 year ago
@geehall1
"Carbon-dating is the usually accepted form of dating, and I noted that even the best labs won't guarantee much accuracy back past 10,000-60,000 years. SO thinking back further than even that would be STRICTLY theoretical, "
You left out a whole host of dating techniques that are accurate over a MUCH longer time span. Your statement re: carbon dating being the "usual" method is incorrect. Carbon dating is ONLY useful for formerly living things that have not fossilized.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@geehall1
Again, I'm left with having to say, once again, that your position is largely based on a lack of knowledge and/or understanding of science, scientific methods, etc.
Again, this is not a shot at you, but it happens to be a fact, as indicated by your posts.
Carbon dating is very good for those instances when it is applicable. It isn't used to date the earth, rocks, or fossils.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined I just read the wikipedia on entrained water. You need to explain it better than the wikipedia article. Perhaps also remember the ark only has to endure harsh conditions for around 40 days and the amount of time it took for the waters to settle. It doesn't have to survive it for decades. Since there is the possibility of a hull pool, there's also a run-off of any water that seeped through, preventing any sinking.
geehall1 1 year ago
@geehall1
It's when there is so much water in a vapor that water droplets are carried along with the air. Not the raindrops themselves, but little droplets that will end up flowing WHEREVER the air goes. That includes our lungs when you breath it in.
When it rains, the humidity is at or near 100% (that's why it's raining). When there is THIS much water in the air, the air would become super-saturated with water. One would be drawing water into their lungs with every breath. Not good.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@geehall1
"Perhaps also remember the ark only has to endure harsh conditions for around 40 days "
Yeah, "only"
It's a reed boat. It's not going to survive a week, much less 40 days. I don't care how much pitch they put on it.
And again, with the amount of rainfall and the need for air exchange "run-off" is a gross understatement. This thing, if it did't break up, is going to capsize.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@geehall1
As for being "huge", that only makes it more unstable. It's not like it was built of steel. Structurally, a boat that large, in pitching seas, is in serious trouble.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined Interestingly, a more detailed description of the DAY the flood started isn't found in the bible...its found in the Gilgamesh Epic. Same story, from different viewpoints. The bible version probably tells it straighter, though you want TECHNICAL detail and description of the 1st day of the flood, the Gilgamesh Epic would expand it a bit.
geehall1 1 year ago
@geehall1
The "first day" is irrelevant. I calculated the AVERAGE rainfaill rate, meaning that if there were times of slower rainfall, then there would have to be times of even heavier rainfall. That makes it WORSE for said reed craft.
I don't expect the average person to understand a lot about engineering, but seriously, you have no idea what you are talking about.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined I would presume we can consider the Gilgamesh Epic, of Babylonian origin, a HOSTILE witness testimony to the truth of the ark. Even if they changed things to suit the Bablylonian perspective, it still witnesses to the same event.
The bablylonians considered God a MINOR god in their own pantheon, or a nasty minor one. Or a Demiurge, as the later romans/greeks would call him.
geehall1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@geehall1
" I would presume we can consider the Gilgamesh Epic, of Babylonian origin, a HOSTILE witness testimony to the truth of the ark"
Actually, it is most likely the ORIGIN of the tale. Sadly (for you), no corroboration from most cultures in the world.
Not to mention, where did the New World flora and fauna come from?
"The bablylonians considered God a MINOR god in their own pantheon, or a nasty minor one"
Yes, the Canaanites stole the pantheon, and one of the cults....
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@SiriusMined There's one further proof, Sirius...in the first century, historian Flavius Josephus was able to IDENTIFY countries of his time which still bore the names, or derivatives of the names, of the seventy grand-children of Noah. I've yet to see anyone shoot down THAT proof successfully. Too bad so much of the map and cultures of Asia Minor and Southern Europe have changed since the first century...
geehall1 1 year ago
@geehall1
"I've yet to see anyone shoot down THAT proof successfully."
I seriously doubt you've looked, and if you did find it, you'd make excuses as to why it didn't (even if it did).
As for names on the maps changing it's not like there aren't copies of the maps from then.
But did you consider that people were naming places after names in the Bible BECAUSE they were in the Bible?
There's a Goshen, NY. Same thing.
SiriusMined 1 year ago
Just another false convert. The ark was very huge. Check out Answers in Genesis. That explains a lot!
aquaiz 2 years ago
20 years ago I would have agreed with you, but there are holes in 'Answers in Genesis' big enough to sail an ark thru.
Are you look for truth of something that supports what you want to believe?
billflowers 2 years ago 2
My point was this guy was never saved to being with. There's really no such thing as a "former Christian".
I studied evolution for 3+ years...and it's 100% impossible.
People only believe it because their told it's a fact. When in fact, it's not proven.
I don't have space to list all why it's impossible. But it is!
aquaiz 2 years ago
You're right I was never saved in the first place because there is no god.
I repented of my sins, trusted Jesus as my personal savior, accepted his sacrifice for my sins, got born again, got baptized, I took to the streets and preached the word of God to the unsaved.
What a waste of seven years.
billflowers 2 years ago 3
@billflowers Might it have been that the group you were in just weren't real themselves? So many churches around with people calling themselves "Christian" without even having the foggiest idea what that Jewish guy from Nazareth was really on about. Heck, so many people think JC was Christian, Muslim, Palestinian, honorary gentile...and yet he was a Jew trying to get his people back on track in real terms.
geehall1 1 year ago
Funny that no one ever has proven something that contradicts evolution so far (: it would win the nobel prize ;)
Ryosuke1208 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aquaiz
" studied evolution for 3+ years...and it's 100% impossible.
"
Reading "Answers in Genesis" and publications from the Discovery Institute doesn't constitute "research
SiriusMined 1 year ago
@billflowers There was a book written by a guy named Fasold 20 years ago. It's a good view of things about the ark we haven't necessarily been told in the churches. And Fasold had the advantage of being from a merchant marine background, so he knew his boats and HISTORY of boats.
geehall1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aquaiz
"Check out Answers in Genesis"
HAHAHAHA
SiriusMined 1 year ago
problems i have i believe in a god influnenced by christian god as this was how i was raised. fundamentalist christians say that what is in the bible is the exact word of god and exactly what happened and yet they have rewriten the bible more than once in the past. but it is infalable and yet we can poke holes in it that prove it wrong.
tomwilson88 2 years ago
when they poke holes in evolution they act as if they've won a battle but evolution is still a thery in progress so it doesn't matter if you prove part of it wrong the theory 'evolves' around this making it stronger.
tomwilson88 2 years ago