One question for Christians

[Bad Writer]

You believe your buddy that wrote the article you pasted back at me refuted everything in my "elephant". If you believe his lies, then you're just as deluded as he is. If anything in his claims can be proven, then where the hell is his Peace prize for bringing this argument to rest? That's right...it shouldn't even be an argument because he's fucking insane, and so is whoever believes the story of Noah's ark to be a literal account.

Size of the Ark: Wood is structurally unsound at that size, especially with the number of animals on board.

I thought you said you read the article I posted? Or did you just read the beginning of it? Sarfati already addressed this question.

He didn't address horseshit, but he ate a pile of it before spewing it all back out.

"This argument is often parroted, but is just as bogus as the others. The Ark was built for stability, not movement."

The ark was built, but nothing else besides the size of it is known. Whether or not it was built for stability, movement, flight, or space travel is all speculation.

"A flat-bottomed barge like the Ark wouldn’t have problems with sag. If the lower deck were made of logs, four layers deep, it would have been very sturdy. If they were teak logs, especially specially treated by being buried for a while, the ark would have been especially seaworthy."

For each point he makes, they both begin with the word "if". His credibility is lost on people with brains.


"Woodmorappe points this out too, and much more, so Isaak is dishonest to ignore that."

Isaak doesn't speculate or believe in things that aren't demonstrably true. This guy is a real piece of work, SW.

"Korean naval architects have confirmed that a barge with the Ark’s dimensions would have optimal stability. They concluded that if the wood were only 30 cm thick, it could have navigated sea conditions with waves higher than 30 m (S.W. Hong et al., “Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a Seaway”, CEN Technical Journal 8(1):26–36, 1994. All the co-authors are on the staff of the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Ocean Engineering, Taijon.)” - http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp"

If certain conditions were met, there could have been an ark. We don't know what the conditions were, and we don't know exactly its composition, so we need to be more skeptical than speculative here. So far, your elephant has only speculated on how it could be true; it is still horseshit.

Unbelievable amounts of Shit: Shit shit shit, everywhere there's shit. Those 8 family members would be shoveling animal dung all day long.

This isn’t really a problem, using channeling systems most ships make it so gravity will do the shoveling for them, it’s not like you have to keep it on board the entire trip.

You don't know how they disposed of it, if they did, or if god magically whisked it away every day. You just don't know, so you can't claim anything here to be factual. The amount of shit there had to be on that ark is about the same that this Noah's Ark story amounts to.

Food: Storage and amounts would also be an issue. Where do the carnivores get the meat if there is only two of everything...I mean...there was only two of everything, right? Oh, no, the Bible actually contradicts itself again by saying there might have been 7 pairs of each, that is, 14 of each kind of animal. Which brings up the next point:

Carnivores (even snakes) can survive on a vegetarian diet, so that again is not a problem.

Ask any zookeeper, and they'll tell you how much of a problem it is when an animal goes without their normal diet. You are also assuming they didn't eat meat, so your counter-argument is completely unjustified. I still smell horseshit, SW.

As for your point about pairs and sevens, Sarfati already addressed that point as well in the article you’ve claimed to have read.

Just because I don't agree with the article doesn't mean I didn't read it. Do you really think the Bible would convert me if I read it cover to cover again? Do you think the Book of Mormon would convert you if you but read it? My point here should be pretty obvious, methinks.

“Isaak claims that the Flood account in Genesis is self-contradictory, apparently ignorant of the standard Ancient Near Eastern literary practice of making a general statement, then elaborating on specifics. The Bible first makes a general statement that a male and female of each kind of land vertebrate was to be loaded on board the Ark. Then it elaborates on this general rule by requiring seven of the very few clean animals. Gen. 7:9 says the animals went on to the Ark “by twos” (NASB), referring to the mode of entry, not the numbers.”

Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. Read literally, it's self-contradictory. With special knowledge and special pleading, it's not. His interpretation is just that: an interpretation, and it's about as worthless as all the horseshit on that ark.

How many animals on the ark? : You seriously can't tell me you think that Noah put all of the 1 1/2 million kinds of animal on such a small, wooden boat? Then there's that food issue again...

Again, this point was already addressed in the article that I am beginning to suspect you only read the first couple paragraphs of.

You suspected that a bit ago, and you're allowed to think I didn't read it. I don't care. I can go ahead and believe that you slept with a male prostitute last night, and I can either be right or wrong in my assumption.

---

“Creationists have long pointed out that the biblical “kind” was broader than today’s “species”. Sorting and loss of the already existing genetic information has resulted in all the “species” we have today (this is not evolution, which requires new genes and new information). The article Ligers and Wholphins: What Next? (Creation 22(3):28–33, June–August 2000 ) covers the extent of the biblical “kinds” in more detail. This article shows that many so-called different species and genera can actually interbreed and produce fertile offspring, showing that they are really a single polytypic biological species. And animals that can hybridise, at least up to fertilisation, are members of the same created kind. Thus Noah would have needed comparatively few “kinds” of land vertebrate. Woodmorappe assumes that each “kind”would be the ancestor of all “species” in a modern “genus”, so only about 16,000 animals would have been on board. And this assumption is generous to the evolutionists — the article Ligers and Wholphins shows that many “kinds” could even each be the ancestors of a whole “family” if so, then only 2000 animals would have been required on board.”

---

2,000 animals? That’s far fewer than most major zoos have.

I actually focused on this little snippet the most, because it's the only part of the article that actually delved into any kind of science. But in the end, it's simply wrong because the fossil record paints a very different picture of history and how many different species were alive back then. I'm going to stick with 1 1/2 million.

Also, 2000 animals for eight people to take care of? What a logistical nightmare. Apparently, not only did God kill everyone else on earth, but he must have had an underlying hatred for Noah as well as to make his family suffer on a cramped boat with, as your buddy says, 2000 animals.

---

Even the mountains covered: Okay...I know this god of yours can do anything, but where did he get all that water, and where did it go afterwards? I guess it was magic. And if the polar ice caps melted, there's no evidence of that occurring in 2000 B.C., and if the entire earth was flooded, all marine life would have ended because of the water inconsistencies...but they didn't. All plant life would be dead...but it wasn't. This story is stupid, stupid, stupid, and you ARE a special kind of retard if you believe it. Even from a non-scientific standpoint, it is utterly bogus. You want to believe in something that's obviously a fairy tale.

---

You seem to be getting a bit flustered; that happens.

I'm flustered because you're acting like a stubborn five year old when I know you're much smarter than this! If you believe this rot, then why is it so hard, let's say, to believe that Hercules accomplished his twelve labours?

You should actually read the entire article because the question about the mountains is addressed in the article as well (even you believe the highest mountains were covered by water at some point in time, they have marine fossils.)

From a flood that supposedly lasted a year and 10 days? Not because of that, no. But if you knew how mountains formed (meaning their elevation was not always so high), then you wouldn't even need to postulate a global flood.

If the oceanic floors raised, which is supported by the creation model, there’d be more than enough water to cover the entire globe. You obviously are just not very familiar with the material on this subject.

You're right, I'm not as familiar on these things. But that's because I don't make it a habit of researching things that require bucketloads of speculation. The Oceanic floors raised? You only get that from first assuming that there was a seven day period of creation. That kind of thinking isn't for me. I like to use my imagination on theories that have potential.

(And I read your piece of shit article that you pasted back at me.

Apparently not.

I suppose you'll never know for sure. I'm sure glad I'm not going to try and convince you that I did.

You're ill-informed if you believe that. This argument is true for the former, but it doesn't work that way for the latter. How do you know the hypothesis was that the earth was 6000 years old, but was proven wrong when it turned out to be much, much more? Science turns up wrong hypotheses all the time, which lead to amazing discoveries. You've just proven to me that you have no grounds to argue against science because you have no idea how it comes up with results. Please come down from bullshit mountain, SW.

Simmer down. Old ages for the Earth rely entirely upon uniformitarian assumptions (which were first postulated by Lisle, who did not believe the Earth was 6,000 years old, so your assertions about testing the biblical hypothesis were plain wrong), of course this assumes that no global flood ever occurred; so you’ve adopted anti-biblical assumptions in order to argue that the Bible is wrong, that’s begging the question and proves nothing.

You mean no scientist out there wanted to prove the Bible correct with evidence?

Also, why should we assume a Global Flood happened? Because the Bible said so? This is such a huge logical fallacy. Say the flood really happened, but there was no Bible - scientists would measure the age of the earth without factoring in a flood, but they would probably stumble upon the evidence for one. Take that example, and flip the evidence, that is, there is a bible, but there was no flood.

You need to stop this conspiracy theory of yours that there is an agenda against the Bible. Defending that piece of crock doesn't get anyone very far in this life. I ridicule the thing because it is worthy of a good mockery. However, I can't say any research into scientific theories is anti-biblical because when I do sit down to learn and read, I don't even factor the bible into my studies. Now piss off about that idea, unless you want to move on to talk about your holy book.

Scientific laws are descriptive, so to say they “cause” anything is a category error. I want to know what actually causes the pen to fall to the ground. Simply asserting that “gravity” does isn’t going to cut it.

The term gravity itself is descriptive. I'm not going to go down this ill-fated rabbit hole with you. I'm okay that you don't like my answer. BTW, have you ever known the properties of gravity to change?

Also, science only changes because new evidence arises. If a scientific theory is wrong today, I'm okay with propagating it anyway because I'm still being true to the available, demonstrable and reproducible evidence. You are being true to zero evidence when you put your faith in god.

There’s no bold in what you typed, go back and check.

I must unfortunately come to the conclusion that you are blind. The point was lost on you anyway, so I'm done with that.

---

You may think he's justified in doing it, but I abhor his actions, which is why, even if he's real, I will not worship him. He's a murderous twat, and he should be avoided at all costs. I mean, what if you hear a voice in your head that tells you to kill me? Would you kill me if you attributed that voice to God? (I would hope that you doubt that it's from God and instead trust your better judgment.)

---

Whether or not you like what God does is irrelevant.

It's very relevant if he wants me to worship him.

Direct revelation is closed, so God is not telling anyone to kill anyone else. Why is it morally wrong for God to kill someone? I am not following your logic on that one at all.

You're not squirming out of this one so easily. Say that your assumption that direct revelation was closed was wrong (and god was real, and direct revelation was true, and yadda yadda), then if God told you to kill me, would you feel justified doing so?

Sure they can, most people who come to the faith come to the faith because of reasons presented by other believers.

You condone turning people into Lemmings? I just wonder if these people are only subsisting on another person's testimony or if they are actually considering the concepts for themselves.

On that note, I talk with you not because I want to deconvert you, however nice that would be, but instead to get rational thoughts flowing between us. You can choose to listen or not, but I'll feel good if I at least get my point across.

---

So I can't, say, compare a belief in a Christian God Jehovah/Jesus to a belief in the Mormon God Elohim? The numbers of believers for each faith is very different from one another, Mormons having fewer, yet they both rely on one thing in order to believe: faith. I would hope that a rational man would use the same standard of evidence when scrutinizing either's religious claims. I hold the same true for stories of alien abductees, for if a person is to believe those stories, it would take a huge leap of faith without demonstrable evidence, even thought there are much fewer alien-probed people out there than there are in the Christian population.

---

My reasons for rejecting Mormonism are not based upon evidence or a lack of evidence (I am still not sure what you‘d accept as evidence for God), it is far more fundamental than that. Mormonism is polytheistic in nature, and polytheism is not logically defensible. That’s why I reject Mormonism.

Now it feels like we're getting someplace good with this. Maybe we should drop the whole Noah's Ark thing because it pisses me the fuck off and instead focus a bit more on this stuff, what do you say to that?

Anyway, I want to hear more about why you think monotheism is more defensible than polytheism. To me, either claim seems just as baseless as any claim to a supernatural being or beings, but I suppose you're coming from a position that already accepts god as true. Is it because the OT says in the Ten Commandments that there will be no other gods before Yahweh? I'm assuming there's much more to this.

Oh, you mean forcing Atheism on a nation? Man, I'm talking about natural Atheism caused by reason and understanding on a personal level.

That’s not possible because Humans naturally prefer theism over atheism.

All babies are born atheists. They have to be indoctrinated before they can believe in a god. This may be considered by the Christian community as Atheist Propaganda...and I don't care because it's spot on.

You mean, have I seen any peer reviews or reproducible evidence? Please don't throw a strawman at me.

You only believe in that which has been peer-reviewed? Really?

What do you think? I'm not doing this silly dance with you; we were talking about claims that are out of the ordinary.

You’re far more consistent than most atheists who ridicule belief in God but then will argue until they are blue in the face that little green men exist.

I'm pretty cool like that. My wife and I tell each other that we're good for one another since we aren't afraid to call the other out on his or her bullshit.

I don't believe in the use of faith, so no. The disbelief in god(s) is, when restated, a negative belief, or the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is also the standard position that one should take before being convinced with evidence that meets one's standard.

Any position can be stated as the negative position, so that’s not going to work.

Actually, that's exactly why it works.

You’ll have to first prove that neutral ground exists before you start asserting that atheists are standing on such ground when they examine the veracity of scripture.

Do you mean I'm not allowed to disbelieve scripture? Disbelief doesn't need to be proven, so I'm not going there with you.