A book that says everything in is true...ok.

A method to examine reality and make tentative claims based upon evidence, with the ability to re-evaluate as more evidence becomes available and better methods for understanding emerge.

Fuck me, one old book must be best.

(October 19, 2017 at 3:15 pm)JackRussell Wrote: We have treasure ships in England too..

The Mary Rose would be a great example for the thread.  Going by Huglogic..the presence of oversized english warbows on the wreck must demonstrate the existence of fucking giants. They couldn't possibly have been unfinished blanks..or worse, decorative.

(October 19, 2017 at 3:25 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(October 19, 2017 at 3:15 pm)JackRussell Wrote: We have treasure ships in England too..

The Mary Rose would be a great example for the thread.  Going by Huglogic..the presence of oversized english warbows on the wreck must demonstrate the existence of fucking giants.

$20 says he actually believes in giants in "the old days".

(October 19, 2017 at 3:25 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(October 19, 2017 at 3:15 pm)JackRussell Wrote: We have treasure ships in England too..

The Mary Rose would be a great example for the thread.  Going by Huglogic..the presence of oversized english warbows on the wreck must demonstrate the existence of fucking giants.  They couldn't possibly have been unfinished blanks..or worse, decorative.

Ahh the Nephillim walked the earth.

We have bronze age boats too; viz the Dover boat.

They must be untrue though coz Noah could build a boat holding 10 million 'kinds', but the locals here could only dig out a trunk with a copper tool.

I know we English have always been thick, but Noah must have been the Einstein of his time.

I suppose he lived for over 900 years; that's believable too.

I must be a really thick cunt to not believe all this bible stuff without evidence.

(October 19, 2017 at 12:56 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Not to mention the second article debunks the idea that the mountains rose quickly at all, never mind the fact that the article states that they were the same height 14 million years ago that they are at presently. Did they stop growing all of the sudden 14 million years ago?  
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...131817.htm

Quote:Dr Evenstar said: "It seems highly likely that the Andes have gone up slowly over at least the last 30 million years, and are the result of gradual thickening of the crust.

L. A. Evenstar is just making rise more precise and also Andes are pretty long chain and it didn't all grow at the same time. Here's her whole explanation:

The Atacama Desert on the western margin of the Central Andes is one of the driest and oldest deserts in the world. It is defined by a distinct and ancient surface, known as the Pacific Paleosurface (PPS) or Atacama Paleosurface. The age of this surface is determined as the time at which sediment deposition ceased, and the surface was effectively abandoned. Early studies suggested that this abandonment took place between 14 and 10 Ma, and was related to both the uplift of the Andes and the onset of hyperaridity in the region. Here we provide a regional re-examination of the PPS, compiling existing work on the underlying geology, sedimentology, surface exposure dating, and seismic profiling. We also present new multispectral satellite maps of the PPS and 45 new cosmogenic 3He and 21Ne surface exposure ages in order to constrain the formation age, and the preservation and incision history of the paleosurface. We conclude that the PPS is not a single paleosurface, but instead is a mosaic of smaller surfaces that were formed by aggradational and degradational processes over 19 million years (or more) and should be termed collectively as the Pacific Paleosurfaces. The time at which individual paleosurfaces formed is related to regional climate, where the location of each is controlled by regional tectonic activity. Cosmogenic surface exposure ages suggest that the surfaces are a record of regional scale climate events.

https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/...bac2).html

(October 19, 2017 at 12:41 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: This shows that all that was required on the ark was two cats, not EVERY species of cat that existed, so that reduces the number of animals required significantly

No it doesn't. You still need more cats. I mean you can do the experiment yourself by getting two cats whose progeny will reproduce only by itself and then their progeny and so on and you'll see that it fails.

What was Antarctica doing while The Flood was going on? Ice generally doesn't do well underwater, yet scientists recently drilled out an ice core dating back 2.7 million years. Did the polar cap just sit there patiently, doing the exact opposite of what ice does, or did it float around and then conveniently find its way back to Antarctica in time for the water to disappear?

So I guess It's safe to say that no one has put forth any evidence that proves the flood wrong?

Shall we move on? I believe next on Matilda's list was "a bat is not a bird".

(October 21, 2017 at 3:19 am)Huggy74 Wrote: So I guess It's safe to say that no one has put forth any evidence that proves the flood wrong?

Shall we move on? I believe next on Matilda's list was "a bat is not a bird".

Post #406 addresses this, but as is usual, you've managed to ignore it entirely.

(October 19, 2017 at 12:41 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 19, 2017 at 12:14 pm)Mathilda Wrote: Your point being Huggy? We know that the Wyoming only managed to stay afloat by pumping out water and eventually sank. Yet your ark not only has to carry two of each species, but multiple specimens of each species, enough to maintain genetic diversity so that the species can surviv in the wild (remember the minimum viable population I mentioned). You'd need a ship much larger than 600 feet to achieve that. Not that we know whether a 600 foot ship, if it was ever built even sailed without sinking because or that the rudder was even used on a ship that large because all they have is a rudder.

It is known that all species of cats (for example) that exist today, have a common ancestor.

---

---

This shows that all that was required on the ark was two cats, not EVERY species of cat that existed, so that reduces the number of animals required significantly.

This is hilarious. So you accept the theory of evolution now? In which case also accept that evolutionary science has demonstrated the minimum viable population that I referred to earlier. There is not enough genetic diversity for a population of two cats to survive.

Your response to this is that there could have been more of each species yet when I point out that a wooden ship can only be a certain size your response is that you only need two of each species. So which is it? Is Noah's ark demolished by science because of a lack of genetic diversity or because a wooden ship can't be built big enough?

This is a clear example of you believing what you want to believe even if it means holding two mutually exclusive beliefs in your head at the same time.

Also nobody proved that Battle of the Hornburg didn't happen.