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.

---

Actually he’s a genius (was published in Nature at the age of 22, beat 14 people at chess simultaneously, while he was blind-folded), and personally attacking him or me for that matter does nothing to establish your position.

Offense is taken, not given, though I will admit that I like to ruffle feathers a bit. If you feel like I'm compromising this guy's genius status, then maybe I am. Besides, all you've proven to me is that he's good at writing articles, and he is really damn good at chess. As far as subscribing to something that may or may not be true...that doesn't sound very smart to me.

The ark’s purpose was to house animals and to survive a flood, therefore it was built for stability, not for traveling.

A man built his house out of straw for stability, but the wind still blew it down. I could have a stable deck of cards, but a breath of air can topple it.

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

Is this supposed to be a point? We’re dealing with the feasibility of the flood account, and he’s demonstrating that it’s very feasible. Noah didn’t build the Ark in a week; he had more than enough time to get it right.

You don't have to like it, but the point I'm making is that it's all conjecture....so yes, it's a point.

So what's "more than enough time" mean? How many years are we talking about? Ballpark.

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

Isaak speculates! He speculates about how many animals would need to be taken aboard the ark, he speculates about how much food they’d need, he speculates about the structure of the ark, he speculates about how long it’d take to load the ark; Sarfati just proves his speculations are ill-founded and un-reasonable. Not only this, but Isaak claims to have read Woodmorappe’s book, and yet the majority of his points were already addressed in that book; so he was really just wasting everyone’s time.

Don't twist my words! Of course Isaak has to speculate on what the conditions had to be like for the flood to have occurred, but those aren't the reasons why he doesn't believe the flood. He's providing other ways of looking at things in order to think critically about an outrageous claim like saying the Noah's Ark story is true.

What I'm saying that he doesn't speculate about are the things that Isaak does believe in. As for wasting everyone's time, it all depends on what you consider a waste. I suppose if he got you to read his arguments, don't you think he probably thinks of that as a win, even if he didn't convince you?

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.

You don’t know how they dispersed of it either, and yet you claimed it was not possible to do so. I am merely pointing out that it is very feasible to disperse of all of the waste on the ark. You’re trying to shift the goalposts.

I never claimed to know. I'm definitely saying that we can't know this for a fact. We can't know any of this for a fact. We have to trust a 2000 year old text, and that's why I don't believe in it. Why don't we trust the "Epic of Gilgamesh"?

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.

I am just basing my argument on the facts, all animals can resort to a vegetarian diet when needed, that’s a fact; so asserting they needed meat aboard the ark is not a valid objection.

Asserting they went without meat is not a valid claim either, because you have no proof that that's what they did. What kept the animals higher up on the food chain from instinctually going after their natural prey?

What kept them from eating Noah's family?

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.

No, the Bible would not necessarily convert you, but that has no bearing on whether it’s true or not. The merits of arguments are not measured by their ability to persuade.

Actually, they are. The definition clearly states that arguments are started for the purpose of persuading:

ar·gu·ment
/ˈärgyəmənt/
Noun
1. An exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one: "I've had an argument with my father".
2. A reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

By this logic, arguing the Bible is either:

1. Meant to incite anger in me
or
2. Meant to persuade me

...since the definition of a species is dependent upon producing fertile offspring you cannot use the fossil record to determine how many species there were. What Sarfati wrote is absolutely true, the Biblical “kind” could have been close to what we call families today, which means only 2,000 animals were needed aboard the ark, this would be enough to account for the species we observe today.

The idea of "families" in regards to the biblical "kinds" is an interesting premise. In science, families include both animals and plants. Noah took care of all the kinds/families of animals, but what about the plants that could not survive under water?

How did the olive tree survive?

Is there a clear definition given in the bible as to what "kind" is?

Also, 2000 animals for eight people to take care of?

Actually, there would have been a ton of space on the ark.

What did it look like inside the ark?

Maybe there's space for the animals, but what about all the space for the food? Could this food have lasted for a year give or take? If it did, how did they do it?

How did they condition the wood of the ark not to decay?

Not only this, but the people on board the ark would have had plenty of time every day to tend to the animals (each person tending to 12 animals an hour would be more than sufficient even if every animal needed daily attention, which is not the case, many animals such as reptiles do not require tending to on even a weekly basis); like I said, Noah had plenty of time to plan this voyage.

By your calculations, the family had at best 3 hours of sleep per person each day for over a year. Is that correct?

How old was each family member?

What was the ratio of men to women?

Did the animals breed?

Did any die?

...why is it so hard, let's say, to believe that Hercules accomplished his twelve labours?

I do not reject the existence of Hercules based upon that story.

That's not what I asked. His actual existence aside, I asked why you can't believe that Hercules accomplished these labours of his? Why is it easier to believe in the Noah's Ark story?

In order to establish an old age for the Earth you must first assume uniformitarianism; that is that we explain phenomena we observe using the present rates of change we observe.

This concept was conceived in the 18th century, and even modern geologists don't hold as strictly to it as they used to.

This assumption rules out a global flood a priori because it ignores catastrophes.

And that's why geologists dismiss it. They are forced to factor in meteors hitting the earth, global ice ages, etc.

When we take into account a catastrophe such as a global flood the evidence is exactly what we would expect to find, billions of animals and plants buried (suddenly) in rock layers laid down as water deposited sediment all over the earth.

Why does this conclude a global flood? There are sediments all over the globe, but there are reasonable explanations how they got there, and it didn't have to be at the same time.

How can you be certain that these sediments settled merely 4000 years ago all at once? How do you know that it was sudden?

I’ve gotten plenty far in life defending God’s word. When you attack scripture with theories that assume scripture is wrong ahead of time you’re really only begging the question though.

Assuming that they're right in the first place is fallacious. Why is this mode of thinking looked down upon? Do we not assume innocence until proven guilty?

So you cannot tell me what actually causes the pen to fall? Additionally, you cannot appeal to past trials in order to justify your assumption that future trials will resemble past trials because this form of justification makes that same assumption, so it’s a circular rationalization.

No, you're proposing that I chase after a strawman. All I needed to do was describe gravity and its properties, not show you the engine it runs on. Why are you trying to bait me into chasing you down a rabbit hole?

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.

Yes, you’re trusting that the venture that has always been wrong in the past is somehow right today. I am trusting in He who actually makes that venture even possible in the first place.

I'm not at all suggesting that the venture was/is wrong; you did.

By this bit of reasoning that you hold to science, how do you trust in the Bible then? Were the translations of the Bible in the past wrong since new translations are always coming out?

No bold, go back and check.

I don't know why you weren't able to see it, but here it is, reproduced:

Me: You can't justify what you don't know. For all we can tell god created a giant firefly in the sky to light the world for that day.
SW: Sure, but that would still give us days without the Sun, so what’s your point?

The bold was my point here.

Everyone will [worship him] eventually, some in life- the rest after death.

I'm going to lose my free will and be forced to worship him?

If God is real and direct revelation is true then I cannot be wrong because God has said he’s closed revelation (Revelation 22 and Jude 3). Your hypothetical is impossible and therefore meaningless.

My hypothetical is a hypothetical. Hypotheticals create situations that may or may not ever be real. This particular hypothetical was definitely a bit of a no win situation. I really appreciate the fact that you are more moral than your god.

Why is it morally wrong for God to kill someone?

Yes.

Your purpose would be better served by not engaging in personal attacks and fallacious appeals to ridicule.

You're right. I should watch what I say or She bears might jump out from hiding in the woods and maul me.

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.

It’s actually fairly simple, in a polytheistic world it’d be impossible to know anything because the preconditions of knowledge require that only one God exists.

Can you leave out the special knowledge? I want to know why it's easier to defend monotheism than polytheism. How is it impossible to know anything in a polytheistic world? Why wouldn't the many gods make themselves or their plans known as the one Yahweh supposedly has?

Mormonism is obviously just a perversion of Christianity; one that has introduced several logically fatal flaws to the faith. Take for example the law of eternal progression; Mormons cannot explain where that law came from and why all of the gods must follow it.

Perhaps it's a perversion, but how do you know that? How do you know their claims to being the original Church of Christ are not true? For that matter, how do you know that Islam isn't true?

Speaking of eternal progression, they actually can explain where it came from: their prophet Joseph Smith revealed it to them. Was Joseph Smith a false prophet?

No, babies are not philosophically capable of being atheists or theists.

Being an atheist means that one does not believe in a god, whether it's intentionally or ignorantly. A baby is the latter: they do not have any beliefs in a deity, so they are atheists, or non-theists, if you will.

As I have already established, “God exists” is a very ordinary claim. “God doesn’t exist” is in fact the fringe claim to make.

Abolition of slavery was once a fringe idea, and so was women's rights. Gay rights are becoming more and more prominent every day. What does atheism being a fringe idea have anything to do with a belief in god being more or less valid? Was abolition of slavery always valid, or did it become more valid over time?

For the record, I do not claim "God does not exists". I simply do not believe in claims about deities. No claim, just rejection of claims.

Is your wife religious?

Irrelevant.

Actually, that's exactly why it works.

Huh? You said that the positive claim bears the burden of proof, and yet any claim can be made into a negative claim so that rule won’t work.

You don't make the rules, and neither do I. Wikipedia: Philosophic Burden of Proof

Disbelief does not require proof? Well fine, I disbelieve in materialism, I disbelieve in atheism, I disbelieve in Darwinism, I disbelieve in secularism, I disbelieve in agnosticism, and I disbelieve in naturalism. That was easy enough

You can disbelieve all you want, but things that demonstrably exist, such as Buddhism, must be recognized as real (no belief or faith necessary). Atheism and agnosticism are real, and since they have no tenets, there is nothing to disbelieve, since they are merely statements of disbelief themselves.

SW, I've posed a ton of questions to you in this last post. I would greatly appreciate it if you answered them. I do my best to answer your questions, and I'm positive you can do the same for me. I do enjoy this debate; I hope you know that.