One question for Christians

[Statler Waldorf]

Any argument for a Global Flood is special pleading at its finest, sir. I mean, I didn't actually expect you to read my hurled elephant (you didn't, did you?), but it was meant as, "You believe in a Flood? I have many reasons why I don't, I care to unfurl them all in this moment, and arguing about it is a silly notion to me."

I’ve read that article before; it’s a common “elephant” with atheists.

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.

“Answer: This argument is often parroted, but is just as bogus as the others. The Ark was built for stability, not movement. 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. Woodmorappe points this out too, and much more, so Isaak is dishonest to ignore that. 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

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.

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.

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

“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.”

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.

“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.

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. 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.) 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.

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

Apparently not.

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.

I know it's true because of the mass of the earth, which is measurable and directly related to the force of gravity, another measurable phenomenon. We could change the outcome by dropping it on a moving elevator, or dropping it whilst on the moon, or even letting go of the pen while in space. But gravity's relation to the mass of an object and its relative direction and velocity to it are all that matters in this equation. Oh, and we can add in little factors here and there like surface tension against a non-vacuum space and all that jazz.

Sure, but that doesn’t answer either of my questions. 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.

Secondly, there’s a greater principle at work here that you have yet to justify. You assume that future results will resemble past results under identical conditions. That’s an assumption, and I want to know what your justification for that assumption is. If I drop a pen on Monday, how do I know it will behave the same if I drop it on Thursday? A week from today? In Kansas? In Canada? I want to know how you justify this belief in a purely material and natural Universe. Without this principle, science is impossible, keep that in mind.

The bold was my point.

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

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. 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.

Their evidence is special since they can't demonstrate it to others.

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

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.

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.

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?

Fair enough, but let it be noted that I'm being held on the branch against my will (let it also be noted that that was just a jab at your god's supposed free will). I don't believe in aliens, but their possible existence intrigues me. Do you think I should believe in aliens, even though there's absolutely no demonstrable proof that they are out there?

God’s free will? Not sure what you mean there. No, I was just seeing how consistent you were, kudos. 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 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. 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.

By the way, if you wanted to hear more about my Mormon days, then you should PM, and we'll get more into it that way. We should leave elements of this discussion out of that though, for I would rather this debate stay public.

Sounds good to me.