Everything in the universe is so perfect that even in its inperfection is unbeleivebly unreal. as you know every single thing in our reality has to be with maths and all in all fitts
Many people feel the same: the writer Gerald Schroeder, a former professor of Nuclear Physics, compares the chances of the universe and life have arisen by chance at winning the lottery three times: "Before we can collect the third ticket awarded, we'll go on his way to jail for cheating. The possibility that someone wins three times, are followed or in the course of a lifetime, is so small that it is discarded as insignificant. "
Many people feel the same: the writer Gerald Schroeder, a former professor of Nuclear Physics, compares the chances of the universe and life have arisen by chance at winning the lottery three times: "Before we can collect the third ticket awarded, we'll go on his way to jail for cheating. The possibility that someone wins three times, are followed or in the course of a lifetime, is so small that it is discarded as insignificant. "
@caramandunga100 "compares the chances of the universe..." That's fallacious math; one can't calculate probabilities based off a single data point, which is all we really have.
"I can not believe that our existence in the universe is a mere quirk of fate" Just because you don't understand how it could have occurred naturally doesn't mean that its impossible
"Why is so fragmentary fossil record" Because fossilization is a process that relies upon a rare confluence of factors
First of all, what is meant by "well regulated"? Take for case the intensity of the fundamental physical forces: electromagnetism, gravity, strong nuclear and weak nuclear interaction .* The four act on all objects in the universe and are adjusted and balanced with such precision, that the slightest change end the existing life
Why are so precisely calibrated the four fundamental physical forces, which allows the existence of the universe and life?(The first big question has to do with how well regulated is the cosmos. Indeed, why is governed by physical laws of nature immutable and natural constants that are ideal for the Earth and the life within it?)
@caramandunga100 "why is governed by physical laws of nature " The laws of nature aren't prescriptive laws though, they're descriptive constructs we've made up to help us understand the universe.
"ideal for the Earth and the life within it" That's nothing more than painting a bulls-eye around the arrow. If life hadn't developed here, it would have eventually done so on one of the innumerable other planets out there.
What is god in the first place? You said your view of god may not reflect the actual nature of god so you are admitting you don't know what god really is, no? I would also like to hear this evidence that points to some kind of thing that you can't even define. Once you clearly define god, you can philosophically argue about its possible existence or nature. I love to hear peoples ideas about what they think god is. I have no idea what such a thing is so that is why I remain an atheist.
@ultradevon04 I love to hear peoples ideas about what they think god is
___
Human faculties of conception, perception and learning, and attributes of volition, intuition and apprehension cannot catch sight of His Person or fathom the extent of His Might and Glory. Reason and sagacity cannot visualise Him. His Attributes cannot be fixed, limited or defined. There is no difference between His Person and His Attributes, and His Attributes should not be differentiated or
@1tabligh To me that sounds like something that can not be defined and the loaded and arbitrary label of calling it a god is inadequate and useless. If we can't understand it or define it then why call it a god. It is just some unknown thing or process. Calling it a god implies consciousness and personal qualities which I highly doubt such a thing would have.
Whoever accepts His Attributes to be other than His Person then actually forsakes the idea of Unity of God and believes in duality ( He and His Attributes). Such a person in fact believes Him to exist in Parts. One who holds such a faith cannot form a true concept of God, he is IGNORANT and will always try to believe in some *creation* of his *imagination as his god.*
Intelligence, understanding and attainment cannot attain the depth of knowledge to study or scrutinise the Godhead. None can fully understand or explain His Being however hard he may try. There do not exist words in any language to specify or define His qualities, peculiarities, characteristics and singularities. He has not permitted human mind to grasp the Essence of His Being ***YET*** He has not prevented them from realising His Presence.
How can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@1tabligh Basic elements are produced in stars and then heavier element are produced in super nova explosions. With all we know about physics and chemistry, these are the best explanation for the origin of such element. The fact that we have evolved intelligence is irrelevant to the origin of existence. IMO existence has always existed in one way or another. We are just describing the nature of existence or at least the portion that we experience.
@1tabligh I will also admit that there is a lot that we don't know about the totality of existence.To make any assumptions about that which is beyond our scope of experience is jumping to conclusion or begging the question. I see no reason to posit a magic creator that is just complex by nature. It could be just as likely that existence is just complex by nature and no minds or gods are needed.
@ultradevon04 The Need of the World for One Without Need!
The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that *no* phenomenon originates in and of itself *without* the intervention of causes and agents.
Other facts which disprove the idea that a global flood actually happened. 1) There isn't enough water to cover the world; even if all the ice melted, sea levels would only rise about 60 meters. 2) There is no evidence of a global flood in the ice cores or tree rings. 3) There are no traces of such a flood on the sea floor. 4) Such a flood would have caused the polar ice caps would have floated off their beds and broken up.
The bible never states the world is round or the earth orbits the sun never ever. Science in no way disproves Noah and his ark. Having lived in extreme cold winters where agriculture is king I know of many storing of grains and fruit methods (w/out electricity) for months even years. Most contradictions in the Bible are only perceived through ignorance. The bible may have been put together later but the scriptures are timed favorable towards accuracy.
@piusvapor Ha! Haaaaa hahaa! Haha! Haaa!... wait, were you serious?
You're right of course, the bible never says that the Earth is round or that it orbits the sun.
Instead, it says that the Earth is flat with a big dome over it, and the sun and moon and the stars are all attached to the dome, and above the dome is an ocean.
That's what the bible says.
So yeah, you're right, but is that really what you wanted?
As for Noah's Ark not being disproven, well... PFFT!
@TheSmackerlacker Are you reading the biased atheist translation of the Hebrew bible, about a, never mentioned sky-dome. You must realize that there are much better, albeit wrong arguments, when expressing your faith driven beliefs of atheism.
@piusvapor Ahahaha! Faith driven beliefs of atheism? That's an oxymoron if I ever heard one, considering that atheism is, by definition, the rejection of faith entirely.
Look, you can "interpret" the bible any way you want, but at the end of the day, it says what it says. Either it's a factual account, written to say exactly what it means, or it's just a piece of fiction, and has no meaning whatsoever.
@TheSmackerlacker Faith is simply a choice to rely on something. That does NOT mean a lack of evidence. For example, I have faith in the scientific method as a sound means of obtaining and verifying information. Even as an atheist, I imagine that you at least have faith in logic, yes?
@Patience1138 I think you're confusing faith with trust. I trust the scientific method to provide fairly reliable information about the natural world, because it incorporates testable evidence as it's primary basis.
Trust and faith are not the same. Faith is a choice to trust something without adequate cause. I can trust that Santa Clause will bring me presents, because my parents told me so, or I can trust because last year I saw him come down the chimney.
@TheSmackerlacker You do make a good point. I am referring to the word "faith" as used in the Bible. This is the "faith" that everyone has a problem with, yes? Both the Hebrew (e.j. אֵמוּן) and the Greek (e.j. πίστις) words express the trustworthiness of something. Essentially, every time someone has "faith", it simply means that they TRUST something or someone. That is the faith that I mean.
@Patience1138 Trust is not an inherently good thing. It's possible to trust a homicidal maniac with your life, that doesn't mean that you should. Why should I trust god? Why should I believe the words of a person that I can't see, or hear, or sense at all?
Let's assume for a minute that god IS real. Does that make him trustworthy? What reason do I have to trust him? I know what he thinks about it. He said to Job, "I'm god, I can do what I want.". Is that the kind of person you put your faith in?
@Patience1138 Faith is not a good word to use for your example of (i have faith in the scientific method as a sound means of obtaining and verifying information) A better word to use would be (confidence). You can in fact verify that science is a good way of verifying and obtaining information. Since it can be reliably verified, this reinforces confidence that it is a reliable method. You cant do that with most things that actually require faith.
@ultradevon04 Your argument is logical and well conceived. While I disagree, I can't help but admire your presentation. I do in fact have confidence in science, even when it talks about things I cannot see. For example, for the longest time, we lacked any means of actually observing atoms or their structures (especially considering that they are mostly empty space.) However, the Greeks proved the existence of atoms through logic, and science has since confirmed via experimentation.
@ultradevon04 Even when scientists could not DIRECTLY observe atoms, scientists could easily study the EFFECTS of atoms and their properties for thousands of years! Even though we got the exact STRUCTURE a bit off each time, we still have a fairly good idea about what these unseen atoms are like. In the same way, I do not believe in a God because of blind faith. I have observed the evidence of residual Big Bang radiation, complexity of DNA, the perfect balance of natural forces, etc.
@ultradevon04 From the evidence, I can accept that even if my view of God does not reflect the actual nature of the real God, I am confident in the verifiable evidence available that He does exist.
@piusvapor Science *does* disprove Noah and his Ark. Neither the geological sediments, nor the present amount of water nor the distribution of species fits.
The bible was cobbled together by ignorant goat-herders who thought their little village *was* the world.
@TomFynn A) That is a truly interesting proposal. Where did you find this information? I would like to examine it for myself.
B) Sadly, that does really help. After all, by that logic, we should be able to track the migration patterns of creatures emerging from the primordial soup. Something tells me that lack of migration evidence in either case does not have any bearing of the validity of either theory. Fascinating thought, but I do not think that it helps one way or the other.
@TomFynn A) Indeed. I'm asking where you found out that there is in fact no sediment. You'd think that make the headlines, right? Lol Just want to check my sources. By the way, can you guess how many sea shells I have found embedded in rocks at 14,000 ft. in the Andes mountains? Does that count?
B) Just commenting that we have not found migration patterns from life emerging from the primordial soup. Does that disprove the theory? I should think not. The same applies to the Noah account.
@Patience1138 A) It does. If you can find the same sediment all around the world and it is - give or take - 6000 years old. Not 60 million or more as with the andes.
B) So what does not disprove a theory taking place about 4 billion years ago does also not disprove Noah's flood? Sorry, but LOL.
@Patience1138 A) A world wide flood would leave a worldwide sediment. There is none.
B) If - as the myth stipulates - all species originated and populated the world from one point, we would be able to trace that. There is no such trace.
@Patience1138 Are you seriously trying to defend the Noah's Ark story? Forget the flood. Let's hypothetically say you are right about a global flood. You still have a lot to address. My major concern with that story, disregarding the sheer improbability of a man gathering two or more of each animal into one boat, is how did all of these animals reproduce without genetic defects? Rampant incest is the scenario for this case. With incest comes a high chance for defects.
@Patience1138 Concern #2) How did Noah and his family feed these animals? Two Elephants alone consume tons of food in a matter of days. How about the carnivores? Noah would have had to bring much more than two of each animal to compensate for the carnivores. #3) Where did all the fecal matter go? Noah's Ark had one small window. They shoveled it all out of said window? #4) A global flood creates a mixture of fresh and salt water. The majority of fish would have died from this mixture.
@Patience1138 The only possible answer you can have for any of my concerns is, "God did it". You cannot scientifically default on a stance of divine intervention. If God went through that much trouble to help Noah, why did he go through the trouble at all? He could have just did what he wanted with a snap of his fingers. Through and through, Noah's Ark remains the shining example of the Bible's ludicrousness.
@iz2sicc 1) At no point does the Bible claim that Noah gathered every animal. He gathered animals by KIND, yes. So, rather than bring two of EVERY kind of dog, you just need two compatible dogs. As for genetic defects, there is actually an answer. It depends on if you put any stock in canopy theory. Sorry, it's a bit to long to leave in a comment.
2) Elephants CAN eat two tons a day. However, it stands to reason that animals in captivity and in such close quarters wouldn't have a big appetite.
@Patience1138 Why don't you ask a zookeeper how much an elephant in captivity eats, or even just try looking up how much captivity affects appetite? But no, instead you choose to spout claims which are completely unsupported by anything even resembling a fact. The same goes with your comments about freshwater/saltwater fish; there just wouldn't be enough time for that kind of diversification.
"He gathered animals by KIND" Define what a "kind" is then.
CONT You also still run into the other problems noted earlier: 1) There isn't enough water to cover the world; even if all the ice melted, sea levels would only rise about 60 meters. 2) There is no evidence of a global flood in the ice cores or tree rings. 3) There are no traces of such a flood on the sea floor. 4) Such a flood would have caused the polar ice caps to have floated off their beds and broken up.
@ArcanaKnight Question about flooding: Why would the flood need to COVER the planet? We've had an awful lot of flooding around here, but we're not COVERED in water.
On a side note, you seem very angry about this subject. What makes you so upset?
@Patience1138 The reason why the flood would have had to cover the planet is because that is what the story you're trying to defend says happened. Besides, according to the bible, the entire reason for the flood was to wipe away the wicked people of the earth, so what would have been the point if all the wicked people had to do would be to get to higher ground?
BTW, there's still the problem of there not being any actual evidence of a flood.
And this discussion "going nowhere" is because you've done nothing but present unsupported claims and try to change the subject after I show that your claims are already refuted by the facts. This is what happens when someone tries to claim that biblical stories are meant to be taken literally.
@ArcanaKnight yes it si very important to be very carefull with the use of every word when talking about this subject....every utterence must be defined and agreed apon before we expound such thoughts...the answer to this above is to teach students both id and evolution and let them decide and explore the issue feely.
@afaf233 No, that doesn't actually answer anything; its just an attempt to change the subject because you CAN'T define exactly what a "kind" is; I've asked this question of every creationist who tries to use the term, and I've yet to get the same definition, at least from the ones who have actually answered. You can't make the excuse that Noah only had to get each "kind" of animal if you can't even define what a "kind" is.
CONT Besides, not only is it inappropriate to teach ID in science class because ID just isn't science, but high school students don't have the foundational knowledge of biology that would be necessary to evaluate the evidence and determine whether something is valid or not. This is the same reason why its also not left up to high school students to evaluate new ideas in physics, chemistry, or mathematics.
@ArcanaKnight Duly noted about the elephants. Still, why isn't there enough time for diversification in fish? Scientists have measured major changes in the span of 100 years.
@Patience1138 Its not just about the freshwater adaptation to occurring and become ubiquitous, but every single freshwater fish species would also have had to have evolved from those first freshwater fish since then. I'm also going to need the source for your claim about major changes being measured in short periods.
@iz2sicc 3) One window? Something tells me that it had more than one. Even so, not sure how that point even helps your case. 4) Must fish have been fresh water or salt water for ALL time? It stands to reason that this could be a later development. I'm sure you've heard of natural selection, yes?
Hope that's a bit more in depth than just saying "God did it" for all of your questions.
In Afghanistan U.S. marines are foreigners. To the citizens of the sovereign nation of Afghanistan: U.S. marines speak (poorly) a foreign language; they exhibit strange, outlandish/foreign behavior; they disregard the law; they terrorize the citizenry with their weapons; they irradiate the land with uranium; they act with impunity; they are without honor.
☼ [Atheism is the impossible condition, for Human Beings, of being dog-like/worm-like & maggot-like; of emulating inferior life-forms that are incapable of spiritual advancement.] ☼
@Mogley52 Oh please, that's just another creationist repeating pretty much every single creationist strawman that they've made-up over the years. The article even makes the ridiculous claim that evolution says that there should have been a fish with half-fins, half-feet; that sort of thing is straight out of the crockoduck camp of creationist misunderstandings.
@FinallyTheNight are you serious..... You really are climbing up that crazy tree. The government will never allow for abortions without a mother's consent. To perform any medical procedure you need consent. Period. This does change for life/death situations where consent cannot be confirmed due to inability to respond. I.e. cardiac arrest. It is not virtually all by the way, it is all. Please show me one example of a physician conducting an abortion legally without consent of the patient.
I have come to learn that religious people in general are dishonest when it comes to defending their faith. Of course they have to be... because by default if they are going to try and defend something which is illogical and impossible to prove, then they have to lie.
But the depths to which these fundamentalist morons went to is totally shocking, thank God (pun intended) they got their assess kicked!
["This is the scientific reality that the seeds of all common fruits (except citrus) contain vitamin B17, an anti-cancer vitamin. If we ingest proper quantities of these vitamins, either in the pure form or through ingesting the nitrilosidic foods, we will be able to prevent cancer just as surely as we are able to prevent scurvy by the use of vitamin C or pernicious anemia by the use of vitamin B12." — Ernest Krebs, Jr.]
@FinallyTheNight That's the wrong definition. The difference between that definition and the definition of a scientific theory is the difference between speculative physics and the theory of gravity.
On page 723 of "Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus in Dictionary Form," Edited by the Princeton Language Institute, Barbara Ann Kipfer, Ph.D., Head Lexicographer (1993) ...we find the synonyms for: THEORY [n] hypothesis, belief -- approach, argument, assumption, base, basis, belief, code, codification, concept, conditions, conjecture, doctrine, dogma, feeling, formularization,
@FinallyTheNight That is still for the colloquial definition, not the scientific one, that should have been obvious when it started out saying it means hypothesis. Since you seem to be having problems distinguishing the difference on your own, here's a page that explains it in rather simple terms: tinyurlDOTcom/27vw8a
@FinallyTheNight Yes it is true that theory in a non-science context has that definition. How you are referring to evolution, in a scientific context, is referred to as a hypothesis. Darwins original hypothesis was able to be supported by not being shown evidence or texts that falsify . the theory has changed over the years to accomodate new aspects like punctuated equilibrium, endosymbiont theory, and hardy-weinberg, but the main point is incredibly well supported
@FinallyTheNight And your point is? These Stupid DISHONEST Fundies had their asses handed to them!
Evolution is REAL Science
ID or Creationism (same thing) is a bunch of lies created by some brainwashed MORONS who just want to promote THIER religious beliefs.. something which is unconstitutional in the USA.
@j919or Ha ha ha ha ha.... You are kidding right? There is no such thing as a Creationist Scientist, because the two words are in conflict with each other... but if he debated one of those MORONS who DARES to call themselves scientists, he would hand them their ass many times over, just as the court did.
@j919or 1) oxymoron 2) I love debating creationists, as long as you pick one fucking topic. You can start on evolution (common descent with modification) and then job over to abiogenesis. Then onto geology. Next they will argue against physics and chemistry (radiometric dating). Then pop over to a bit of cosmology and astronomy. As long as creationists pick one topic I love to argue, but the terms and definitions need to be met BEFORE the debate.
Here is another fallacy, Tomfynn states that "The only thing that is proven here is that you do not have the slightest understanding in science." He commits the fallacy of Appeal to authority. ANd he makes an assertion but doesnt support it. He doesnt define his terms as to what is science. The poor lemming doesnt even realize that evolution is not science but historical reconstruction.
This know nothing speaker presents the creationist argument of the flagella motor, that would have to exist for a cell to live. He then mocks creationists for focusing on this one argument, while he himself doesnt/cant refute it. He chuckles but cant refute it. The whole world is under the power of deception bc people love evil but hardly anyone will admit that they are evil. Evil people love evil.
@j919or Its possible that he didn't include the refutation of the bacterial flagellum as evidence of irreducible complexity because it has already been widely and repeatedly refuted. If you really want to see the refutation for yourself, Ken Miller does a pretty good presentation on it here: watch?v=0hW7ddJOWko
@ArcanaKnight It has been attempted. If you are so sure that it has been refuted then why dont u refute it? Miller is a clown/puppet. He poses an scenario, no more.
@j919or lol the flagella argument was refuted at the dover trial. It was quite funny because the lawyer refuted it, but also brought a large stack of journal articles and peer reviewed journals on how we know the origins of the flagellum in most bacteria. The argument is non-scientific. You cannot falsify the claim or test a way of indicating your hypothesis is indeed correct. Michael behe was put to shame at the trial.
YOu are all a bunch of fools. You cant even convey a coherent argument. You spout opinions in the form of emotional rants. You commit logical fallacies continuously. You make assertions and you cant/wont support them. But most of you make no assertions, but continuously just committ the fallacy of ad hominem. Yet you are all so sure that you know everything. Woe unto you all!
@j919or We don't know everything. We accept that. If we did, then science would have nothing to do. Please tell me how saying god did everything is not saying you have the answer? God did it fills all the blanks. Oh, but so does krishna did it, thor did it, ra did it, etc..... We understand how the flagellum would come about, we have hypothesis. This is the same with the eye, we can see some intermediate stages but we will never have steps 1 to 1000000
You must have forgotten about the function of hydrogen working inside of us as ordered by preexisting directives. It begs the question of how the entire universe and derivatives came to be working parts inside of us only when ordered.
It would be absurd to suggest that an arrowhead made of stone does not have a maker and yet hydrogen ion pumps forming an unequal gradient to power motors that manufacture ATP on or below the nanoscale is considered to be by chance.
@TomFynn The cycle is just part of the process. The actual fabrication of ATP is by the function of hydrogen ions that are pumped to one side of a membrane to form an uneven gradient which then is used to run ion motors that turn a shaft and manufacture 3 ATP molecules per revolution. So the function of hydrogen is crucial to the existence of life. It is not a mere "chain reaction". The bonds can also be zipped and unzipped just as easily. That is also a function.
@JungleJargon What do you mean ion motor and a shaft? There is glycolysis, citric-acid-cycle and beta oxidation, all reaction chains, none of which need an "uneven gradient" or transport through a membrane, other than the initial transport of the educts thorough the cell walls.
@TomFynn the creationist is correct in the H+ ion part. ATP synthase uses NDPH+ and the inner membrane of the mitochondria to create differing concentrations of the ions. This falls under election transport chain processes. ATP synthase is quite interesting, but the creationist argument has been well explained through intermediate stages of the proteins that compose it. It is really interesting though.
@JungleJargon "Electron transport chain". Yes, all chemical reaction require the transfer of electrons, or at least a change in electron density in the participating molecules. That's the definition of chemical reactions. Your point is?
@JungleJargon Ah, you mean the enzyme ATP synthase which catalyses ADP to ATP powered by the pH difference across the inner membrane of the mitochondrion generated by the NADH/H+ and FADH2 concentration produced by the citric acid cycle on the inside? Yes what of it?
@TomFynn The ion pumps run motors that turn shafts that fabricate 3 ATP molecules per revolution as I said before. You said there were no pumps gradients shafts or motors and you said there was not formation of 3 ATP molecules per revolution. There are billions of pumps, motors, shafts and nanomachines that make the energy molecule that we and all life forms need to live. You said, "no" and it turns out to be true after all.
@JungleJargon First I had to decipher your - for want of a better word - terminology. Cost me some considerable time to find out what exactly it was you were on about.
But anyway, your "this is biased" is moot, since it is the famous watch maker argument, an argument from incredulity: I can not imagine how X came to be, therefore it must have been God.
@TomFynn I don't need to know by whom or how an arrowhead was made to know that an arrowhead has a maker becuase it has a function and all functions have a maker of said functions.
The Maker of the function of hydrogen is greater than the universe itself which consists mostly of hydrogen.
All lesser functions have a maker and you are not able say anything to negate the fact that much more technical nano, atomic and quantum functions in life forms also have a Maker.
@JungleJargon Ah yes, the famous watch maker argument. I should have guessed. An argument from incredulity as always and therefore pointless as in the case of the eye, the flagellum, human genealogy....
@JungleJargon hmmm most common elements have essential functions. Would that be because there is more of them possibly? ever think of that? We understand where they came from and why there is more hydrogen and helium than anything else. Please tell me how saying god did it improves our knowledge at all. BTW arsenic is an relatively common element in comparisons to certain elements. it is severely toxic to most life, but humans fall into that category.
@JungleJargon A rock i pick up on the ground has many functions. I can use it to smash other rocks. It is good as a weight to drown something, or to use as a counterbalance. It is also good as a weapon or even a cutting instrument. I can also use it to catch my food. So many uses for a random rock I find, please tell me how this rock has a predetermined function and therefore a creator. EVEN if i grant you the creator argument. PROVE ITS YOUR GOD FFS
@TomFynn bonded chemicals are not nearly the same as chemicals bonded in a specific order billions of digits atom to atom six or more feet in length.
Fossils are proof of the biblical flood. Sedimentation is also proof of the biblical flood. Climate change is the result of the biblical flood. Erosion is a fraction of the amount of sediment that was deposited by the global flood.
@JungleJargon "fossils are proof of the biblical flood" How so?
"sedimentation is also proof of the biblical flood" Again, how so?
Climate change is the result of the biblical flood" Once again, how so?
Just stating things as if they are facts doesn't actually make them so, and its also all that the video you posted does (aside from quoting scripture). Here is one simple point that refutes the idea of the global flood; where did all the water go?
@TomFynn You are not addressing any issues because your case is lost. Objects do not design, make or order themselves and no one has ever proven that they do.
@JungleJargon You have never proven an object a god exists so we win period. In science they don't prove anything, except in math, all they do is disprove. One thing we can prove though is there was not a global flood, and especially not an ark. Even if I grant you the global flood, the concept of noah's arc is impossible. The amount of inbreeding depression would be lethal, not to mention every known pathogen and bacteria would have had to survive in SOMETHING
@braedencowbrough You presented a lot of your speculations. What we have to go by is the observable evidence that we have of over 100 million cubic miles of uniform layered sediments that covered every living thing on earth. What we do not know is how that much sediment was deposited without a global flood. We do know is that a global flood is the only thing capable of depositing that amount of sediment.
We have to work with the evidence of a global flood because there is no other possibility.
@JungleJargon "...because there is no other" Not true. In fact, very little of what you said is actually true. A global flood is impossible. Not only is there not enough water on earth (even if all the ice melted, sea levels would only rise about 66 meters), but a global flood would've produced evidence contrary to what we actually see (tinyurlDOTcom/3moz6hh). There's also nothing supporting your claim about there being 100 million cubic miles of sediments covering every living thing.
@JungleJargon We don't really have uniform layer sediments. we do know how the sediment was deposited. Through erosional processes. Igneous rock is formed. That rock is eroded through wind and water into smaller components. Those components form sedimentary soils like sand, clay, silt, loam, or mixtures. Those mixtures pile up over time. The weight of the sediment compacts the lower sediments into sedimentary rock. If the sedimentary rock is not exposed through uplift events
@JungleJargon then it will continually be buried. Then that rock will turn into metamorphic rock or return to the source of magma, get jumbled in a soup again, and become igneous rock once again. Also at any rock stage the rocks can be eroded if exposed. We know how it happened. How did a flood lay down layers of stratified rock patterns?
@JungleJargon You’re making the “issues” up. Things order themselves all the time. No one has ever proven the hand of a “maker”. It all works without that assumption.
@JungleJargon I have a rock. I want to use it to throw. I did not design this rock. It could really be any shape or size it really doesn't matter. My intended purpose of having an object to throw is met. No design was required. My needs were satisfied.
@JungleJargon argument for ignorance for one.... diffusion/osmosis is a fact reaction. Now heres a question. Why is that when a fatty acid is put into water it can form a membrane like bubble? This is similar to a cells. It allows certain things in but not others. We understand atp synthase. We have seen intermediate stages and know what proteins make it up. not everything has to be designed if its complicated. For example, a black hole is complicated out the ying yang.
@davnx The ark has not been found (I've been over Wyatt's bogus discoveries before with you), and the establishment of Israel or any other country has absolutely no bearing on geological or meteorological phenomena.
Here's a little logic..Because you cannot prove or disprove God with science, It takes a certain amount of faith to reject God's existence. To reject the possibility of God, is a religious belief. I don't think evolution rejects the existence of God anywhere, but it perhaps challenges the literal interpretation of Genesis.
Well if you actually read books about the things you are talking about you could answer the questions. And no, of course not believe in god isn't a religious belief. Please learn what a religion is first.
@piusvapor There is no reason to try, everyone believes what they wish to believe. If you have an interest in science then you can find the answers yourself. I would however be glad to give you a starting point, the leading scholar of archeology in the Levant is Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University and he also writes books for the layman. He is an excellent source of information on the historicity of the early Hebrew bible.
@petmensan simply because "everyone believes what they wish to believe" is no reason to quit trying. The pursuit of the truth is always a worthwhile endeavor, regardless of what everyone believes. I personally have never liked books written for the "layman", they are usually insultingly sensational with a philosophical agenda towards controversy; This does more for book sales and little for enlightenment.
@piusvapor worlds round, earth orbits sun, earth OLDER than 10000+ years, noah's ark can't have happened due to inbreeding, and just the sheer logistics of the ark, not to mention the impossibilities of maintaining the animal life when there was no plant life. We know the value of PIE. Even reading it we know that it contradicts itself several times. We know that the bible was put together by comittee after the scripture was written.
well actually that dating does work, albeit imperfectly. but that is what learning more does to a person. and just because someone was wrong about stratification one time still doesn't lend wealth to the idea that god is real or any of that. the idiocy of you and other people like you is this : radiocarbon dating isn't perfect thus god is real. the stratified land wasn't correct maybe, thus god is real. your bias for religion shows very ugly.
@Thephyguy Oh but it does. The stratification, the trees found running thru numerous layers point to the world flood model. The fact that the Ark of the Covenant has been found DOES PROVE GOD EXIST. The fact that Noah's Ark has been found proves the flood model, and that GOD judged the world before the flood.
The fact that Israel was recognized as a nation in 1948 proves we are the end generation.
And in 1948, an earth quack dropped the earth exposing Noah's Ark, and that proves GODS power.
@davnxs wonder why god seemed like he has better PR people working 2000 years ago when we didn't kno w what the fuck an earthquake, volcano, asteroid, star, planet, planet shape, bacteria, or viruses were.Wonder why he just doesn't do a global miracle that is repeatable.
@davnx "carbon dating doesn't work" That's still not true, and it still won't be true regardless of how many times you repeat it.
"stratification isn't formed the way we thought it was" Also not true. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you're you talking about the "research" by people like Berthault that is so flawed its only able to be published in creationist journals?
The Apostle Peter warned true believers in Jesus Christ that in the last days there would be those who would be willfully ignorant in other words dumb on purpose and they would deny that the Lord created all things in the heavens and under the heavens, Second Peter 3:4-5. These same people would also deny the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, Second Peter 3:3-4 and this would actually be a proof that we are in the days of His return.
Either its evolution, intelligent agents (creatures outside our simulated universe (if its simulated reallity)), or god. My bet its intelligent agents, having us as an experiment to progress their evolution from outside our simulated universe :P
This video is proof of creation because it shows the flaw in the current dating methods of rocks and strata formation and shows the truth of a worldwide flood, giving validity to the discovery of Noah's Ark v=1XvbbE_VwC8&feature=channel_video_title
This is a must watch video for anyone that believes in evolution.
Please, don't comment back unless you watch these videos.
Noah's Ark found, you can go there, see it touch it.
@davnxs I'm certainly not naive enough to believe in evolutionism however, I recommend you do more investigation regarding Noah's ark being found as: it's a bad fake.
What do you mean, (it's a bad fake)? I have done much research on Noah's Ark and I don't understand how people can say it's faked. Tell me what you say is fake, please, I'm listening. To just say something is fake is not proof of a fake. Evolutionist have taken a human skull and a jaw from an ape then called it a missing link, that's a fake. So if you are going to make a claim that it's fake, be more specific.
They claim that radiocarbon dates the wood to 4800 years before present, but the Ark was constructed of pre-Flood wood, which would mean that the carbon dating should be much, older.
2. The modern "Mt. Ararat" (Agri Dagh) is a post-Flood volcano. The Ark could not have landed on Agri Dagh because it did not exist at the end of the Flood, & even if it did land on modern Agri Dagh, it would have been destroyed by the many, many eruptions of Ararat since the Flood.
@Bereitwilligkeit Ck the fresh lava flows on Agri Dagh at Google Maps.
3. Given that the Flood survivors left the Ark to find a devastated world, the Ark would have been the best source of timber for the first decade or so. I think it highly likely that the Ark was dismantled to supply the growing population with building material for shelter.
@Bereitwilligkeit Ah, just how long ago do you think the flood was? 4800 yrs. is very close. And the boat is not on Mt. Ararat, it's on one of the smaller mountains, but still, yes there have been some lava flows. What has been found is now petrified, basically stone so lava would flow around it. Consider the other things like the earthquake in 1948 and the anchor stones in direct line to the boat, along with the name of the valley and village of 8, these are all significant if you ask me.
Everything in the universe is so perfect that even in its inperfection is unbeleivebly unreal. as you know every single thing in our reality has to be with maths and all in all fitts
caramandunga100 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Many people feel the same: the writer Gerald Schroeder, a former professor of Nuclear Physics, compares the chances of the universe and life have arisen by chance at winning the lottery three times: "Before we can collect the third ticket awarded, we'll go on his way to jail for cheating. The possibility that someone wins three times, are followed or in the course of a lifetime, is so small that it is discarded as insignificant. "
caramandunga100 1 week ago
Many people feel the same: the writer Gerald Schroeder, a former professor of Nuclear Physics, compares the chances of the universe and life have arisen by chance at winning the lottery three times: "Before we can collect the third ticket awarded, we'll go on his way to jail for cheating. The possibility that someone wins three times, are followed or in the course of a lifetime, is so small that it is discarded as insignificant. "
caramandunga100 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@caramandunga100 "compares the chances of the universe..." That's fallacious math; one can't calculate probabilities based off a single data point, which is all we really have.
"I can not believe that our existence in the universe is a mere quirk of fate" Just because you don't understand how it could have occurred naturally doesn't mean that its impossible
"Why is so fragmentary fossil record" Because fossilization is a process that relies upon a rare confluence of factors
ArcanaKnight 1 week ago
I can not believe that our existence in the universe is a mere quirk of fate, chance in a flash the great cosmic drama
caramandunga100 1 week ago
Comment removed
caramandunga100 1 week ago
Why is so fragmentary fossil record, and where are the links (intermediate bodies) between the major categories of living things?
caramandunga100 1 week ago
First of all, what is meant by "well regulated"? Take for case the intensity of the fundamental physical forces: electromagnetism, gravity, strong nuclear and weak nuclear interaction .* The four act on all objects in the universe and are adjusted and balanced with such precision, that the slightest change end the existing life
caramandunga100 1 week ago
Why are so precisely calibrated the four fundamental physical forces, which allows the existence of the universe and life?(The first big question has to do with how well regulated is the cosmos. Indeed, why is governed by physical laws of nature immutable and natural constants that are ideal for the Earth and the life within it?)
caramandunga100 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@caramandunga100 "why is governed by physical laws of nature " The laws of nature aren't prescriptive laws though, they're descriptive constructs we've made up to help us understand the universe.
"ideal for the Earth and the life within it" That's nothing more than painting a bulls-eye around the arrow. If life hadn't developed here, it would have eventually done so on one of the innumerable other planets out there.
ArcanaKnight 1 week ago
What is god in the first place? You said your view of god may not reflect the actual nature of god so you are admitting you don't know what god really is, no? I would also like to hear this evidence that points to some kind of thing that you can't even define. Once you clearly define god, you can philosophically argue about its possible existence or nature. I love to hear peoples ideas about what they think god is. I have no idea what such a thing is so that is why I remain an atheist.
ultradevon04 3 months ago
@ultradevon04 I love to hear peoples ideas about what they think god is
___
Human faculties of conception, perception and learning, and attributes of volition, intuition and apprehension cannot catch sight of His Person or fathom the extent of His Might and Glory. Reason and sagacity cannot visualise Him. His Attributes cannot be fixed, limited or defined. There is no difference between His Person and His Attributes, and His Attributes should not be differentiated or
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh To me that sounds like something that can not be defined and the loaded and arbitrary label of calling it a god is inadequate and useless. If we can't understand it or define it then why call it a god. It is just some unknown thing or process. Calling it a god implies consciousness and personal qualities which I highly doubt such a thing would have.
ultradevon04 1 month ago
@1tabligh That was quite eloquent if I might add.
ultradevon04 1 month ago
distinguished from His Person.
Whoever accepts His Attributes to be other than His Person then actually forsakes the idea of Unity of God and believes in duality ( He and His Attributes). Such a person in fact believes Him to exist in Parts. One who holds such a faith cannot form a true concept of God, he is IGNORANT and will always try to believe in some *creation* of his *imagination as his god.*
1tabligh 1 month ago
Intelligence, understanding and attainment cannot attain the depth of knowledge to study or scrutinise the Godhead. None can fully understand or explain His Being however hard he may try. There do not exist words in any language to specify or define His qualities, peculiarities, characteristics and singularities. He has not permitted human mind to grasp the Essence of His Being ***YET*** He has not prevented them from realising His Presence.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@ultradevon04 that is why I remain an atheist.
___
How can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh Basic elements are produced in stars and then heavier element are produced in super nova explosions. With all we know about physics and chemistry, these are the best explanation for the origin of such element. The fact that we have evolved intelligence is irrelevant to the origin of existence. IMO existence has always existed in one way or another. We are just describing the nature of existence or at least the portion that we experience.
ultradevon04 1 month ago
@1tabligh I will also admit that there is a lot that we don't know about the totality of existence.To make any assumptions about that which is beyond our scope of experience is jumping to conclusion or begging the question. I see no reason to posit a magic creator that is just complex by nature. It could be just as likely that existence is just complex by nature and no minds or gods are needed.
ultradevon04 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ultradevon04 The Need of the World for One Without Need!
The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that *no* phenomenon originates in and of itself *without* the intervention of causes and agents.
1tabligh 1 month ago
Other facts which disprove the idea that a global flood actually happened. 1) There isn't enough water to cover the world; even if all the ice melted, sea levels would only rise about 60 meters. 2) There is no evidence of a global flood in the ice cores or tree rings. 3) There are no traces of such a flood on the sea floor. 4) Such a flood would have caused the polar ice caps would have floated off their beds and broken up.
ArcanaKnight 3 months ago
The bible never states the world is round or the earth orbits the sun never ever. Science in no way disproves Noah and his ark. Having lived in extreme cold winters where agriculture is king I know of many storing of grains and fruit methods (w/out electricity) for months even years. Most contradictions in the Bible are only perceived through ignorance. The bible may have been put together later but the scriptures are timed favorable towards accuracy.
piusvapor 4 months ago
@piusvapor Ha! Haaaaa hahaa! Haha! Haaa!... wait, were you serious?
You're right of course, the bible never says that the Earth is round or that it orbits the sun.
Instead, it says that the Earth is flat with a big dome over it, and the sun and moon and the stars are all attached to the dome, and above the dome is an ocean.
That's what the bible says.
So yeah, you're right, but is that really what you wanted?
As for Noah's Ark not being disproven, well... PFFT!
TheSmackerlacker 4 months ago
@TheSmackerlacker Are you reading the biased atheist translation of the Hebrew bible, about a, never mentioned sky-dome. You must realize that there are much better, albeit wrong arguments, when expressing your faith driven beliefs of atheism.
piusvapor 4 months ago
@piusvapor Ahahaha! Faith driven beliefs of atheism? That's an oxymoron if I ever heard one, considering that atheism is, by definition, the rejection of faith entirely.
Look, you can "interpret" the bible any way you want, but at the end of the day, it says what it says. Either it's a factual account, written to say exactly what it means, or it's just a piece of fiction, and has no meaning whatsoever.
Take your pick.
TheSmackerlacker 4 months ago
@TheSmackerlacker Faith is simply a choice to rely on something. That does NOT mean a lack of evidence. For example, I have faith in the scientific method as a sound means of obtaining and verifying information. Even as an atheist, I imagine that you at least have faith in logic, yes?
Patience1138 4 months ago
@Patience1138 I think you're confusing faith with trust. I trust the scientific method to provide fairly reliable information about the natural world, because it incorporates testable evidence as it's primary basis.
Trust and faith are not the same. Faith is a choice to trust something without adequate cause. I can trust that Santa Clause will bring me presents, because my parents told me so, or I can trust because last year I saw him come down the chimney.
One is faith, one is not.
TheSmackerlacker 4 months ago
@TheSmackerlacker You do make a good point. I am referring to the word "faith" as used in the Bible. This is the "faith" that everyone has a problem with, yes? Both the Hebrew (e.j. אֵמוּן) and the Greek (e.j. πίστις) words express the trustworthiness of something. Essentially, every time someone has "faith", it simply means that they TRUST something or someone. That is the faith that I mean.
Patience1138 4 months ago
@Patience1138 Trust is not an inherently good thing. It's possible to trust a homicidal maniac with your life, that doesn't mean that you should. Why should I trust god? Why should I believe the words of a person that I can't see, or hear, or sense at all?
Let's assume for a minute that god IS real. Does that make him trustworthy? What reason do I have to trust him? I know what he thinks about it. He said to Job, "I'm god, I can do what I want.". Is that the kind of person you put your faith in?
TheSmackerlacker 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSmackerlacker What do you trust instead?
Patience1138 4 months ago
@Patience1138 Faith is not a good word to use for your example of (i have faith in the scientific method as a sound means of obtaining and verifying information) A better word to use would be (confidence). You can in fact verify that science is a good way of verifying and obtaining information. Since it can be reliably verified, this reinforces confidence that it is a reliable method. You cant do that with most things that actually require faith.
ultradevon04 3 months ago
@ultradevon04 Your argument is logical and well conceived. While I disagree, I can't help but admire your presentation. I do in fact have confidence in science, even when it talks about things I cannot see. For example, for the longest time, we lacked any means of actually observing atoms or their structures (especially considering that they are mostly empty space.) However, the Greeks proved the existence of atoms through logic, and science has since confirmed via experimentation.
Patience1138 3 months ago
@ultradevon04 Even when scientists could not DIRECTLY observe atoms, scientists could easily study the EFFECTS of atoms and their properties for thousands of years! Even though we got the exact STRUCTURE a bit off each time, we still have a fairly good idea about what these unseen atoms are like. In the same way, I do not believe in a God because of blind faith. I have observed the evidence of residual Big Bang radiation, complexity of DNA, the perfect balance of natural forces, etc.
Patience1138 3 months ago
@ultradevon04 From the evidence, I can accept that even if my view of God does not reflect the actual nature of the real God, I am confident in the verifiable evidence available that He does exist.
Patience1138 3 months ago
@piusvapor Science *does* disprove Noah and his Ark. Neither the geological sediments, nor the present amount of water nor the distribution of species fits.
The bible was cobbled together by ignorant goat-herders who thought their little village *was* the world.
TomFynn 4 months ago
@TomFynn Please explain.
Patience1138 4 months ago
@TomFynn A) A world wide flood would leave a worldwide sediment. There is none.
B) If all species emerged from one point, a migration pattern would be observed. There is none.
TomFynn 4 months ago
@TomFynn A) That is a truly interesting proposal. Where did you find this information? I would like to examine it for myself.
B) Sadly, that does really help. After all, by that logic, we should be able to track the migration patterns of creatures emerging from the primordial soup. Something tells me that lack of migration evidence in either case does not have any bearing of the validity of either theory. Fascinating thought, but I do not think that it helps one way or the other.
Patience1138 3 months ago
@Patience1138 A) Single worldwide flood -> Single worldwide sediment. You do the math.
B) I have no idea what you are talking about.
TomFynn 3 months ago
@TomFynn A) Indeed. I'm asking where you found out that there is in fact no sediment. You'd think that make the headlines, right? Lol Just want to check my sources. By the way, can you guess how many sea shells I have found embedded in rocks at 14,000 ft. in the Andes mountains? Does that count?
B) Just commenting that we have not found migration patterns from life emerging from the primordial soup. Does that disprove the theory? I should think not. The same applies to the Noah account.
Patience1138 3 months ago
@Patience1138 A) It does. If you can find the same sediment all around the world and it is - give or take - 6000 years old. Not 60 million or more as with the andes.
B) So what does not disprove a theory taking place about 4 billion years ago does also not disprove Noah's flood? Sorry, but LOL.
TomFynn 3 months ago
@TomFynn How do those things disprove Noah and his ark? Just making sure I understand your argument.
Patience1138 3 months ago
@Patience1138 A) A world wide flood would leave a worldwide sediment. There is none.
B) If - as the myth stipulates - all species originated and populated the world from one point, we would be able to trace that. There is no such trace.
TomFynn 3 months ago
@Patience1138 Are you seriously trying to defend the Noah's Ark story? Forget the flood. Let's hypothetically say you are right about a global flood. You still have a lot to address. My major concern with that story, disregarding the sheer improbability of a man gathering two or more of each animal into one boat, is how did all of these animals reproduce without genetic defects? Rampant incest is the scenario for this case. With incest comes a high chance for defects.
iz2sicc 3 months ago in playlist XChristian idiots,and rationalist's that debunk them
@Patience1138 Concern #2) How did Noah and his family feed these animals? Two Elephants alone consume tons of food in a matter of days. How about the carnivores? Noah would have had to bring much more than two of each animal to compensate for the carnivores. #3) Where did all the fecal matter go? Noah's Ark had one small window. They shoveled it all out of said window? #4) A global flood creates a mixture of fresh and salt water. The majority of fish would have died from this mixture.
iz2sicc 3 months ago
@Patience1138 The only possible answer you can have for any of my concerns is, "God did it". You cannot scientifically default on a stance of divine intervention. If God went through that much trouble to help Noah, why did he go through the trouble at all? He could have just did what he wanted with a snap of his fingers. Through and through, Noah's Ark remains the shining example of the Bible's ludicrousness.
iz2sicc 3 months ago
@iz2sicc 1) At no point does the Bible claim that Noah gathered every animal. He gathered animals by KIND, yes. So, rather than bring two of EVERY kind of dog, you just need two compatible dogs. As for genetic defects, there is actually an answer. It depends on if you put any stock in canopy theory. Sorry, it's a bit to long to leave in a comment.
2) Elephants CAN eat two tons a day. However, it stands to reason that animals in captivity and in such close quarters wouldn't have a big appetite.
Patience1138 3 months ago
@Patience1138 Why don't you ask a zookeeper how much an elephant in captivity eats, or even just try looking up how much captivity affects appetite? But no, instead you choose to spout claims which are completely unsupported by anything even resembling a fact. The same goes with your comments about freshwater/saltwater fish; there just wouldn't be enough time for that kind of diversification.
"He gathered animals by KIND" Define what a "kind" is then.
ArcanaKnight 3 months ago
CONT You also still run into the other problems noted earlier: 1) There isn't enough water to cover the world; even if all the ice melted, sea levels would only rise about 60 meters. 2) There is no evidence of a global flood in the ice cores or tree rings. 3) There are no traces of such a flood on the sea floor. 4) Such a flood would have caused the polar ice caps to have floated off their beds and broken up.
ArcanaKnight 3 months ago
@ArcanaKnight Question about flooding: Why would the flood need to COVER the planet? We've had an awful lot of flooding around here, but we're not COVERED in water.
On a side note, you seem very angry about this subject. What makes you so upset?
Patience1138 3 months ago
@Patience1138 The reason why the flood would have had to cover the planet is because that is what the story you're trying to defend says happened. Besides, according to the bible, the entire reason for the flood was to wipe away the wicked people of the earth, so what would have been the point if all the wicked people had to do would be to get to higher ground?
BTW, there's still the problem of there not being any actual evidence of a flood.
ArcanaKnight 3 months ago
@ArcanaKnight This discussion is going nowhere. Please elaborate some more.
Patience1138 3 months ago
@Patience1138 Elaborate about what, exactly?
And this discussion "going nowhere" is because you've done nothing but present unsupported claims and try to change the subject after I show that your claims are already refuted by the facts. This is what happens when someone tries to claim that biblical stories are meant to be taken literally.
ArcanaKnight 3 months ago
@ArcanaKnight Someone seems a bit bitter. What's the matter?
Patience1138 3 months ago
@Patience1138 I'm not bitter, I just have little patience in "discussions" with people who's only argument is one of ignorance.
ArcanaKnight 3 months ago
@ArcanaKnight Go on.
Patience1138 3 months ago
@Patience1138 Cool. You sound like ELIZA.
TomFynn 3 months ago
@TomFynn I'm sorry, what?
Patience1138 3 months ago
@Patience1138 JFGI
TomFynn 3 months ago
@TomFynn Still nothing.
Patience1138 3 months ago
@Patience1138 PMYMHMMFSWGAD
TomFynn 3 months ago
@ArcanaKnight yes it si very important to be very carefull with the use of every word when talking about this subject....every utterence must be defined and agreed apon before we expound such thoughts...the answer to this above is to teach students both id and evolution and let them decide and explore the issue feely.
afaf233 3 months ago
@afaf233 No, that doesn't actually answer anything; its just an attempt to change the subject because you CAN'T define exactly what a "kind" is; I've asked this question of every creationist who tries to use the term, and I've yet to get the same definition, at least from the ones who have actually answered. You can't make the excuse that Noah only had to get each "kind" of animal if you can't even define what a "kind" is.
ArcanaKnight 3 months ago
CONT Besides, not only is it inappropriate to teach ID in science class because ID just isn't science, but high school students don't have the foundational knowledge of biology that would be necessary to evaluate the evidence and determine whether something is valid or not. This is the same reason why its also not left up to high school students to evaluate new ideas in physics, chemistry, or mathematics.
ArcanaKnight 3 months ago
@ArcanaKnight Duly noted about the elephants. Still, why isn't there enough time for diversification in fish? Scientists have measured major changes in the span of 100 years.
Patience1138 3 months ago
@Patience1138 Its not just about the freshwater adaptation to occurring and become ubiquitous, but every single freshwater fish species would also have had to have evolved from those first freshwater fish since then. I'm also going to need the source for your claim about major changes being measured in short periods.
ArcanaKnight 3 months ago
@iz2sicc 3) One window? Something tells me that it had more than one. Even so, not sure how that point even helps your case. 4) Must fish have been fresh water or salt water for ALL time? It stands to reason that this could be a later development. I'm sure you've heard of natural selection, yes?
Hope that's a bit more in depth than just saying "God did it" for all of your questions.
Patience1138 3 months ago
In Afghanistan U.S. marines are foreigners. To the citizens of the sovereign nation of Afghanistan: U.S. marines speak (poorly) a foreign language; they exhibit strange, outlandish/foreign behavior; they disregard the law; they terrorize the citizenry with their weapons; they irradiate the land with uranium; they act with impunity; they are without honor.
FinallyTheNight 4 months ago
☼ [Atheism is the impossible condition, for Human Beings, of being dog-like/worm-like & maggot-like; of emulating inferior life-forms that are incapable of spiritual advancement.] ☼
FinallyTheNight 4 months ago
@FinallyTheNight Excellent. Now please translate that Gibberish into plain English.
TomFynn 4 months ago
@TomFynn : What is your native language?
FinallyTheNight 4 months ago
@FinallyTheNight Science.
TomFynn 4 months ago
Must read article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS. Just google the title.
Mogley52 5 months ago
@Mogley52 Oh please, that's just another creationist repeating pretty much every single creationist strawman that they've made-up over the years. The article even makes the ridiculous claim that evolution says that there should have been a fish with half-fins, half-feet; that sort of thing is straight out of the crockoduck camp of creationist misunderstandings.
ArcanaKnight 5 months ago
Virtually all abortions performed in the United States are with the mothers' consent. Soon, this will change.
FinallyTheNight 5 months ago
@FinallyTheNight are you serious..... You really are climbing up that crazy tree. The government will never allow for abortions without a mother's consent. To perform any medical procedure you need consent. Period. This does change for life/death situations where consent cannot be confirmed due to inability to respond. I.e. cardiac arrest. It is not virtually all by the way, it is all. Please show me one example of a physician conducting an abortion legally without consent of the patient.
braedencowbrough 4 months ago
I have come to learn that religious people in general are dishonest when it comes to defending their faith. Of course they have to be... because by default if they are going to try and defend something which is illogical and impossible to prove, then they have to lie.
But the depths to which these fundamentalist morons went to is totally shocking, thank God (pun intended) they got their assess kicked!
xNoReligionx 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
["This is the scientific reality that the seeds of all common fruits (except citrus) contain vitamin B17, an anti-cancer vitamin. If we ingest proper quantities of these vitamins, either in the pure form or through ingesting the nitrilosidic foods, we will be able to prevent cancer just as surely as we are able to prevent scurvy by the use of vitamin C or pernicious anemia by the use of vitamin B12." — Ernest Krebs, Jr.]
FinallyTheNight 5 months ago
Conjecture is important as one can't revise, invent, innovate, improve upon, or correct without imagination.
ScientificalnessUSA 5 months ago
theoretic n, pl theoretics : the speculative part of an art or science : THEORY ["Webster's Unabridged Dictionary," 1967]
FinallyTheNight 6 months ago
@FinallyTheNight That's the wrong definition. The difference between that definition and the definition of a scientific theory is the difference between speculative physics and the theory of gravity.
ArcanaKnight 6 months ago
foundation, grounds, guess, guesswork, hunch, idea, ideology, impression, method, outlook, philosophy, plan, position, postulate, premise, presentiment, presumption, proposal, provision, rational, scheme, speculation, supposal, suppose, supposition, surmise, suspicion, system, systemization, theorem, thesis, understanding
FinallyTheNight 6 months ago
On page 723 of "Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus in Dictionary Form," Edited by the Princeton Language Institute, Barbara Ann Kipfer, Ph.D., Head Lexicographer (1993) ...we find the synonyms for: THEORY [n] hypothesis, belief -- approach, argument, assumption, base, basis, belief, code, codification, concept, conditions, conjecture, doctrine, dogma, feeling, formularization,
FinallyTheNight 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FinallyTheNight That is still for the colloquial definition, not the scientific one, that should have been obvious when it started out saying it means hypothesis. Since you seem to be having problems distinguishing the difference on your own, here's a page that explains it in rather simple terms: tinyurlDOTcom/27vw8a
ArcanaKnight 5 months ago
@FinallyTheNight Yes it is true that theory in a non-science context has that definition. How you are referring to evolution, in a scientific context, is referred to as a hypothesis. Darwins original hypothesis was able to be supported by not being shown evidence or texts that falsify . the theory has changed over the years to accomodate new aspects like punctuated equilibrium, endosymbiont theory, and hardy-weinberg, but the main point is incredibly well supported
braedencowbrough 4 months ago
@FinallyTheNight And your point is? These Stupid DISHONEST Fundies had their asses handed to them!
Evolution is REAL Science
ID or Creationism (same thing) is a bunch of lies created by some brainwashed MORONS who just want to promote THIER religious beliefs.. something which is unconstitutional in the USA.
xNoReligionx 5 months ago
Intelligent Design = Creationist = NOT SCIENCE = Magic = ILLOGICAL = Religion = Brainwashing and Ignorance!
xNoReligionx 5 months ago
Comment removed
ArcanaKnight 6 months ago
This dude just name drops, he has no argument, he has no evidence. He speaks in a vacuum I dare this fool to debate a creation scientist.
j919or 6 months ago
@j919or Ha ha ha ha ha.... You are kidding right? There is no such thing as a Creationist Scientist, because the two words are in conflict with each other... but if he debated one of those MORONS who DARES to call themselves scientists, he would hand them their ass many times over, just as the court did.
You STUPID MORON!
xNoReligionx 5 months ago
@j919or 1) oxymoron 2) I love debating creationists, as long as you pick one fucking topic. You can start on evolution (common descent with modification) and then job over to abiogenesis. Then onto geology. Next they will argue against physics and chemistry (radiometric dating). Then pop over to a bit of cosmology and astronomy. As long as creationists pick one topic I love to argue, but the terms and definitions need to be met BEFORE the debate.
braedencowbrough 4 months ago
The pope is an anti christ, no wonder he believes in this myth of evolution.
j919or 6 months ago
@j919or "The pope is an anti christ"...even as an atheist, I have to conclude that this is one of the most BS arguments ever.
TomFynn 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here is another fallacy, Tomfynn states that "The only thing that is proven here is that you do not have the slightest understanding in science." He commits the fallacy of Appeal to authority. ANd he makes an assertion but doesnt support it. He doesnt define his terms as to what is science. The poor lemming doesnt even realize that evolution is not science but historical reconstruction.
j919or 6 months ago
This know nothing speaker presents the creationist argument of the flagella motor, that would have to exist for a cell to live. He then mocks creationists for focusing on this one argument, while he himself doesnt/cant refute it. He chuckles but cant refute it. The whole world is under the power of deception bc people love evil but hardly anyone will admit that they are evil. Evil people love evil.
j919or 6 months ago
@j919or Its possible that he didn't include the refutation of the bacterial flagellum as evidence of irreducible complexity because it has already been widely and repeatedly refuted. If you really want to see the refutation for yourself, Ken Miller does a pretty good presentation on it here: watch?v=0hW7ddJOWko
ArcanaKnight 6 months ago
@ArcanaKnight It has been attempted. If you are so sure that it has been refuted then why dont u refute it? Miller is a clown/puppet. He poses an scenario, no more.
j919or 6 months ago
@j919or lol the flagella argument was refuted at the dover trial. It was quite funny because the lawyer refuted it, but also brought a large stack of journal articles and peer reviewed journals on how we know the origins of the flagellum in most bacteria. The argument is non-scientific. You cannot falsify the claim or test a way of indicating your hypothesis is indeed correct. Michael behe was put to shame at the trial.
braedencowbrough 4 months ago
YOu are all a bunch of fools. You cant even convey a coherent argument. You spout opinions in the form of emotional rants. You commit logical fallacies continuously. You make assertions and you cant/wont support them. But most of you make no assertions, but continuously just committ the fallacy of ad hominem. Yet you are all so sure that you know everything. Woe unto you all!
j919or 6 months ago
@j919or We don't know everything. We accept that. If we did, then science would have nothing to do. Please tell me how saying god did everything is not saying you have the answer? God did it fills all the blanks. Oh, but so does krishna did it, thor did it, ra did it, etc..... We understand how the flagellum would come about, we have hypothesis. This is the same with the eye, we can see some intermediate stages but we will never have steps 1 to 1000000
braedencowbrough 4 months ago
. I can't see how raising a nation of scientific illiterates is going to be a positive thing.
rrpostalagain 6 months ago
You must have forgotten about the function of hydrogen working inside of us as ordered by preexisting directives. It begs the question of how the entire universe and derivatives came to be working parts inside of us only when ordered.
It would be absurd to suggest that an arrowhead made of stone does not have a maker and yet hydrogen ion pumps forming an unequal gradient to power motors that manufacture ATP on or below the nanoscale is considered to be by chance.
That is completely biased.
JungleJargon 7 months ago
@JungleJargon There is no function of hydrogen. there are hydrogen bond holding the stands of DNA and various other molecules together.
ATP is produced by a chemical cycle, similar to that of photosynthesis, a chain of reaction of molecules generated by evolution.
TomFynn 6 months ago
@TomFynn The cycle is just part of the process. The actual fabrication of ATP is by the function of hydrogen ions that are pumped to one side of a membrane to form an uneven gradient which then is used to run ion motors that turn a shaft and manufacture 3 ATP molecules per revolution. So the function of hydrogen is crucial to the existence of life. It is not a mere "chain reaction". The bonds can also be zipped and unzipped just as easily. That is also a function.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon What do you mean ion motor and a shaft? There is glycolysis, citric-acid-cycle and beta oxidation, all reaction chains, none of which need an "uneven gradient" or transport through a membrane, other than the initial transport of the educts thorough the cell walls.
TomFynn 6 months ago
@TomFynn Look up "ATP synthesis"
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon
uhm...nope. ATP synthetis is explained without using god. therefore ATP synthetis is proof that god doesn't exist.
transtlantic 6 months ago
@TomFynn the creationist is correct in the H+ ion part. ATP synthase uses NDPH+ and the inner membrane of the mitochondria to create differing concentrations of the ions. This falls under election transport chain processes. ATP synthase is quite interesting, but the creationist argument has been well explained through intermediate stages of the proteins that compose it. It is really interesting though.
braedencowbrough 4 months ago
@JungleJargon I already did. No mention of ion motors. Or gradients. Or 3 ATP molecules per revolution.
TomFynn 6 months ago
@TomFynn "Electron transport chain" to be specific.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon "Electron transport chain". Yes, all chemical reaction require the transfer of electrons, or at least a change in electron density in the participating molecules. That's the definition of chemical reactions. Your point is?
TomFynn 6 months ago
@TomFynn Look it up. In partucular, look at the manufacturing process of ATP.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon Which process? Glycolysis, citric-acid-cycle and beta oxidation?
TomFynn 6 months ago
@TomFynn ATP syntheis is part of the citric cycle. Let your fingers do the walking.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon Ah, you mean the enzyme ATP synthase which catalyses ADP to ATP powered by the pH difference across the inner membrane of the mitochondrion generated by the NADH/H+ and FADH2 concentration produced by the citric acid cycle on the inside? Yes what of it?
TomFynn 6 months ago
@TomFynn The ion pumps run motors that turn shafts that fabricate 3 ATP molecules per revolution as I said before. You said there were no pumps gradients shafts or motors and you said there was not formation of 3 ATP molecules per revolution. There are billions of pumps, motors, shafts and nanomachines that make the energy molecule that we and all life forms need to live. You said, "no" and it turns out to be true after all.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon First I had to decipher your - for want of a better word - terminology. Cost me some considerable time to find out what exactly it was you were on about.
But anyway, your "this is biased" is moot, since it is the famous watch maker argument, an argument from incredulity: I can not imagine how X came to be, therefore it must have been God.
In other words: Bullshit.
TomFynn 6 months ago
@TomFynn I don't need to know by whom or how an arrowhead was made to know that an arrowhead has a maker becuase it has a function and all functions have a maker of said functions.
The Maker of the function of hydrogen is greater than the universe itself which consists mostly of hydrogen.
All lesser functions have a maker and you are not able say anything to negate the fact that much more technical nano, atomic and quantum functions in life forms also have a Maker.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon Ah yes, the famous watch maker argument. I should have guessed. An argument from incredulity as always and therefore pointless as in the case of the eye, the flagellum, human genealogy....
TomFynn 6 months ago
@TomFynn You did not show me any other lesser function that does not have a maker.
You did not show me a particle or object that designs, makes and orders itself.
You are the one with incredulity. Show me one simple function that does not have a maker.
Tell me where the hundreds of cononsecutive layers in the strata on every continent containing fossils came from.
Most of the most common elements have essential functions in life forms and the ones that do not, serve other purposes.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon hmmm most common elements have essential functions. Would that be because there is more of them possibly? ever think of that? We understand where they came from and why there is more hydrogen and helium than anything else. Please tell me how saying god did it improves our knowledge at all. BTW arsenic is an relatively common element in comparisons to certain elements. it is severely toxic to most life, but humans fall into that category.
braedencowbrough 4 months ago
@JungleJargon A rock i pick up on the ground has many functions. I can use it to smash other rocks. It is good as a weight to drown something, or to use as a counterbalance. It is also good as a weapon or even a cutting instrument. I can also use it to catch my food. So many uses for a random rock I find, please tell me how this rock has a predetermined function and therefore a creator. EVEN if i grant you the creator argument. PROVE ITS YOUR GOD FFS
braedencowbrough 4 months ago
@JungleJargon Lesser function? What lesser functions?
Self-organized monolayers. Google it.
Fossil strata? Sedimentation. Change of climate. Erosion. Change of climate. Rain. Repeat.
"Most of the..." fine drivel sir, very fine drivel.
TomFynn 6 months ago
@TomFynn bonded chemicals are not nearly the same as chemicals bonded in a specific order billions of digits atom to atom six or more feet in length.
Fossils are proof of the biblical flood. Sedimentation is also proof of the biblical flood. Climate change is the result of the biblical flood. Erosion is a fraction of the amount of sediment that was deposited by the global flood.
watch?v=t0dcH9RFfX8
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon "fossils are proof of the biblical flood" How so?
"sedimentation is also proof of the biblical flood" Again, how so?
Climate change is the result of the biblical flood" Once again, how so?
Just stating things as if they are facts doesn't actually make them so, and its also all that the video you posted does (aside from quoting scripture). Here is one simple point that refutes the idea of the global flood; where did all the water go?
ArcanaKnight 6 months ago
@JungleJargon You are an idiot who has no idea what he's talking about. Get yourself some basic science education. I suggest kindergarten
TomFynn 6 months ago
@TomFynn You are not addressing any issues because your case is lost. Objects do not design, make or order themselves and no one has ever proven that they do.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JungleJargon
Why should i believe in your religious creationism, if you can't explain AB resistance or Plant speciation without using evolution theory?
a computer is an object that can design, make things and life can order itself.
how do you explain growth?
transtlantic 6 months ago
@JungleJargon You have never proven an object a god exists so we win period. In science they don't prove anything, except in math, all they do is disprove. One thing we can prove though is there was not a global flood, and especially not an ark. Even if I grant you the global flood, the concept of noah's arc is impossible. The amount of inbreeding depression would be lethal, not to mention every known pathogen and bacteria would have had to survive in SOMETHING
braedencowbrough 4 months ago
@braedencowbrough You presented a lot of your speculations. What we have to go by is the observable evidence that we have of over 100 million cubic miles of uniform layered sediments that covered every living thing on earth. What we do not know is how that much sediment was deposited without a global flood. We do know is that a global flood is the only thing capable of depositing that amount of sediment.
We have to work with the evidence of a global flood because there is no other possibility.
JungleJargon 4 months ago
@JungleJargon "...because there is no other" Not true. In fact, very little of what you said is actually true. A global flood is impossible. Not only is there not enough water on earth (even if all the ice melted, sea levels would only rise about 66 meters), but a global flood would've produced evidence contrary to what we actually see (tinyurlDOTcom/3moz6hh). There's also nothing supporting your claim about there being 100 million cubic miles of sediments covering every living thing.
ArcanaKnight 4 months ago
@JungleJargon We don't really have uniform layer sediments. we do know how the sediment was deposited. Through erosional processes. Igneous rock is formed. That rock is eroded through wind and water into smaller components. Those components form sedimentary soils like sand, clay, silt, loam, or mixtures. Those mixtures pile up over time. The weight of the sediment compacts the lower sediments into sedimentary rock. If the sedimentary rock is not exposed through uplift events
braedencowbrough 4 months ago
@JungleJargon then it will continually be buried. Then that rock will turn into metamorphic rock or return to the source of magma, get jumbled in a soup again, and become igneous rock once again. Also at any rock stage the rocks can be eroded if exposed. We know how it happened. How did a flood lay down layers of stratified rock patterns?
braedencowbrough 4 months ago
@JungleJargon You’re making the “issues” up. Things order themselves all the time. No one has ever proven the hand of a “maker”. It all works without that assumption.
TomFynn 6 months ago
@TomFynn The essential function that hydrogen has inside of us proves there is a Maker.
Nothing ever works as intended without design.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon I have a rock. I want to use it to throw. I did not design this rock. It could really be any shape or size it really doesn't matter. My intended purpose of having an object to throw is met. No design was required. My needs were satisfied.
braedencowbrough 4 months ago
@braedencowbrough You are the one with the function, not the rock.
JungleJargon 4 months ago
@JungleJargon The only thing that is proven here is that you do not have the slightest understanding in science.
TomFynn 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TomFynn You did not say anything to prove anything.
JungleJargon 6 months ago
@JungleJargon argument for ignorance for one.... diffusion/osmosis is a fact reaction. Now heres a question. Why is that when a fatty acid is put into water it can form a membrane like bubble? This is similar to a cells. It allows certain things in but not others. We understand atp synthase. We have seen intermediate stages and know what proteins make it up. not everything has to be designed if its complicated. For example, a black hole is complicated out the ying yang.
braedencowbrough 4 months ago
wwwdotExposingChristianitydotcom
GahdeMalprigi1488x 7 months ago
@davnx The ark has not been found (I've been over Wyatt's bogus discoveries before with you), and the establishment of Israel or any other country has absolutely no bearing on geological or meteorological phenomena.
ArcanaKnight 7 months ago
Comment removed
joiadentro 7 months ago
Here's a little logic..Because you cannot prove or disprove God with science, It takes a certain amount of faith to reject God's existence. To reject the possibility of God, is a religious belief. I don't think evolution rejects the existence of God anywhere, but it perhaps challenges the literal interpretation of Genesis.
joiadentro 7 months ago 2
@joiadentro
Well if you actually read books about the things you are talking about you could answer the questions. And no, of course not believe in god isn't a religious belief. Please learn what a religion is first.
Thephyguy 7 months ago
@joiadentro perhaps, perhaps not. But there is much that science can prove and disprove and it has succeeded in disproving much of the bible.
petmensan 7 months ago
@petmensan prove that science has disproved much of the bible.
piusvapor 7 months ago
@piusvapor *points at the next best sience book*
Done.
Helge129 7 months ago
@piusvapor There is no reason to try, everyone believes what they wish to believe. If you have an interest in science then you can find the answers yourself. I would however be glad to give you a starting point, the leading scholar of archeology in the Levant is Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University and he also writes books for the layman. He is an excellent source of information on the historicity of the early Hebrew bible.
petmensan 7 months ago
@petmensan simply because "everyone believes what they wish to believe" is no reason to quit trying. The pursuit of the truth is always a worthwhile endeavor, regardless of what everyone believes. I personally have never liked books written for the "layman", they are usually insultingly sensational with a philosophical agenda towards controversy; This does more for book sales and little for enlightenment.
piusvapor 5 months ago
@piusvapor worlds round, earth orbits sun, earth OLDER than 10000+ years, noah's ark can't have happened due to inbreeding, and just the sheer logistics of the ark, not to mention the impossibilities of maintaining the animal life when there was no plant life. We know the value of PIE. Even reading it we know that it contradicts itself several times. We know that the bible was put together by comittee after the scripture was written.
braedencowbrough 4 months ago
well actually that dating does work, albeit imperfectly. but that is what learning more does to a person. and just because someone was wrong about stratification one time still doesn't lend wealth to the idea that god is real or any of that. the idiocy of you and other people like you is this : radiocarbon dating isn't perfect thus god is real. the stratified land wasn't correct maybe, thus god is real. your bias for religion shows very ugly.
Thephyguy 7 months ago
@Thephyguy Oh but it does. The stratification, the trees found running thru numerous layers point to the world flood model. The fact that the Ark of the Covenant has been found DOES PROVE GOD EXIST. The fact that Noah's Ark has been found proves the flood model, and that GOD judged the world before the flood.
The fact that Israel was recognized as a nation in 1948 proves we are the end generation.
And in 1948, an earth quack dropped the earth exposing Noah's Ark, and that proves GODS power.
davnxs 7 months ago
@davnxs Wow, and you wonder why it's so hard for you to find friends or sleep at night?
Thephyguy 7 months ago
@davnxs Stratification directly disproves the global flood. And what you call the ark is what's called a fold.
Helge129 7 months ago
@davnxs wonder why god seemed like he has better PR people working 2000 years ago when we didn't kno w what the fuck an earthquake, volcano, asteroid, star, planet, planet shape, bacteria, or viruses were.Wonder why he just doesn't do a global miracle that is repeatable.
braedencowbrough 4 months ago
@davnx "carbon dating doesn't work" That's still not true, and it still won't be true regardless of how many times you repeat it.
"stratification isn't formed the way we thought it was" Also not true. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you're you talking about the "research" by people like Berthault that is so flawed its only able to be published in creationist journals?
ArcanaKnight 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Apostle Peter warned true believers in Jesus Christ that in the last days there would be those who would be willfully ignorant in other words dumb on purpose and they would deny that the Lord created all things in the heavens and under the heavens, Second Peter 3:4-5. These same people would also deny the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, Second Peter 3:3-4 and this would actually be a proof that we are in the days of His return.
stealthblack6 9 months ago
@stealthblack6 Take your stultifying supernatural nonsense elsewhere. You won't get away with such bullshitting here.
uscjd2004 8 months ago
Groan .... nutters:
Nyquistic 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I may have posted a shorter video for the Noah's Ark Discovery
I will now post the best 2 links I'v found to videos on this subject, there just wasn't enough information in the first one
v=3PSZNYdfawQ
and
v=_830WxtZQgQ&feature=related
The one above is a 5 part video, this is for part 1, you will have to find the other 4 parts.
The sedimentary n rock dating video
v=1XvbbE_VwC8&feature=channel_video_title
davnxs 9 months ago
Either its evolution, intelligent agents (creatures outside our simulated universe (if its simulated reallity)), or god. My bet its intelligent agents, having us as an experiment to progress their evolution from outside our simulated universe :P
ThermalHD 9 months ago
This video is proof of creation because it shows the flaw in the current dating methods of rocks and strata formation and shows the truth of a worldwide flood, giving validity to the discovery of Noah's Ark v=1XvbbE_VwC8&feature=channel_video_title
This is a must watch video for anyone that believes in evolution.
Please, don't comment back unless you watch these videos.
Noah's Ark found, you can go there, see it touch it.
v=2Y5ORpMTebI
davnxs 9 months ago
@davnxs I'm certainly not naive enough to believe in evolutionism however, I recommend you do more investigation regarding Noah's ark being found as: it's a bad fake.
Bereitwilligkeit 9 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit
What do you mean, (it's a bad fake)? I have done much research on Noah's Ark and I don't understand how people can say it's faked. Tell me what you say is fake, please, I'm listening. To just say something is fake is not proof of a fake. Evolutionist have taken a human skull and a jaw from an ape then called it a missing link, that's a fake. So if you are going to make a claim that it's fake, be more specific.
davnxs 9 months ago
@davnxs 1
They claim that radiocarbon dates the wood to 4800 years before present, but the Ark was constructed of pre-Flood wood, which would mean that the carbon dating should be much, older.
2. The modern "Mt. Ararat" (Agri Dagh) is a post-Flood volcano. The Ark could not have landed on Agri Dagh because it did not exist at the end of the Flood, & even if it did land on modern Agri Dagh, it would have been destroyed by the many, many eruptions of Ararat since the Flood.
(cont)
Bereitwilligkeit 9 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit Ck the fresh lava flows on Agri Dagh at Google Maps.
3. Given that the Flood survivors left the Ark to find a devastated world, the Ark would have been the best source of timber for the first decade or so. I think it highly likely that the Ark was dismantled to supply the growing population with building material for shelter.
Additionally, Google: Noah’s Ark PaleoBabble Update
Bereitwilligkeit 9 months ago
@Bereitwilligkeit Ah, just how long ago do you think the flood was? 4800 yrs. is very close. And the boat is not on Mt. Ararat, it's on one of the smaller mountains, but still, yes there have been some lava flows. What has been found is now petrified, basically stone so lava would flow around it. Consider the other things like the earthquake in 1948 and the anchor stones in direct line to the boat, along with the name of the valley and village of 8, these are all significant if you ask me.
davnxs 9 months ago