Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Science proves creatinists wrong.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/10/2013 7:23:30 PM   
WantsOfTheFlesh


Posts: 1226
Joined: 3/3/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
There's remnants of a few middle eastern and Chinese boats that predate Christ cheerfully rotting away in museums, are there not?

yup but do ya not thunk wooden ships survivin' from 3000 bc are uncommon?

the remains of a 4000 year old ship were found in Egypt with timbers in good shape.

The flood of Noah supposedly took place about 2348 BCE, which means that the Egyptian pyramids and ruins are nothing more than holograms.

sometimes wood survives in particular conditions but the exception rather than da rule. even if it survived it would still need ta be discovered so its absence cant be used against da story. thought the flood is dated between 3,200 an 2,900 BC.

_____________________________

"I had lot's of luck but its all been bad"

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 201
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/10/2013 7:40:44 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
There's remnants of a few middle eastern and Chinese boats that predate Christ cheerfully rotting away in museums, are there not?

yup but do ya not thunk wooden ships survivin' from 3000 bc are uncommon?

the remains of a 4000 year old ship were found in Egypt with timbers in good shape.

The flood of Noah supposedly took place about 2348 BCE, which means that the Egyptian pyramids and ruins are nothing more than holograms.

sometimes wood survives in particular conditions but the exception rather than da rule. even if it survived it would still need ta be discovered so its absence cant be used against da story. thought the flood is dated between 3,200 an 2,900 BC.


If you take the time when the flood happened, about 1650 years after creation, and figure in the ages of the patriarchs, it ends up being around 2348 BCE.

Even if we take your period, between 3,200 and 2,900 BCE, we have a problem with the ruins of thriving civilizations that were growing since 4000 BCE with no break, add to that the early Egyptian ruins...

Which means that the ruins dated to the time of the flood are nothing but holograms projected by aliens to fool us.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to WantsOfTheFlesh)
Profile   Post #: 202
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/10/2013 8:23:45 PM   
WantsOfTheFlesh


Posts: 1226
Joined: 3/3/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
There's remnants of a few middle eastern and Chinese boats that predate Christ cheerfully rotting away in museums, are there not?

yup but do ya not thunk wooden ships survivin' from 3000 bc are uncommon?

the remains of a 4000 year old ship were found in Egypt with timbers in good shape.

The flood of Noah supposedly took place about 2348 BCE, which means that the Egyptian pyramids and ruins are nothing more than holograms.

sometimes wood survives in particular conditions but the exception rather than da rule. even if it survived it would still need ta be discovered so its absence cant be used against da story. thought the flood is dated between 3,200 an 2,900 BC.

If you take the time when the flood happened, about 1650 years after creation, and figure in the ages of the patriarchs, it ends up being around 2348 BCE.

Even if we take your period, between 3,200 and 2,900 BCE, we have a problem with the ruins of thriving civilizations that were growing since 4000 BCE with no break, add to that the early Egyptian ruins...

Which means that the ruins dated to the time of the flood are nothing but holograms projected by aliens to fool us.

dont buy inta the 6000 yr old earth r strict biblical dating unless we accept noah really was 600 yrs old lol. way i see it is that egyptian history begins after 3000 bc an' a bit earlier wit sumer so some dating clash but not that much. some folks date da great flood ta just before da big cities of sumer & there is arch evidence of a flood dat may tie in wit noah.

< Message edited by WantsOfTheFlesh -- 2/10/2013 8:34:55 PM >

_____________________________

"I had lot's of luck but its all been bad"

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 203
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/10/2013 9:26:11 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh
dunno how much da story is to be believed lol but 440 feet by 44 feet by 74 is kinda big

Oh certainly a wooden vessel of that size built by a drunk is absurdly huge like within the realm of the ridiculous.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh
an' maybe their understandin' of what was a species waz different

Doesn't matter what definition of species you want to use, without evolution if it exists on land it had to be on there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jan-feb/63#.URhqMvKPaSo
Last year researchers at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia released the most rigorous estimate yet of how many species live on our planet: 8.7 million, not counting bacteria. Nearly 6.5 million of these species live on land versus 2.2 million in the ocean, according to the analysis.


So you've got to fit 6.5 million species onto a wooden boat which while unbelievably huge for a vessel of that type is a mere fraction of the size of our biggest zoos which are only capable of housing thousands of animals:

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.ratestogo.com/blog/best-zoos/
The Toronto Zoo also ranks amongst the largest in the world, spanning over 700 acres and housing over 5,000 animals!


To do the math out for you that's 30,492,000 square feet putting this fictional 95,000 square foot boat to shame and yet the Toronto zoo only manages to hold a few thousand animals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh
wit some sayin' it can be done http://scofieldprophecystudies.org/Research/noahsark.htm

There are some "sayin'" that the earth is flat, doesn't make the claim any less stupid. It's really important to be able to distinguish between reliable sources and koolaid drinkers for Jesus.

(in reply to WantsOfTheFlesh)
Profile   Post #: 204
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/10/2013 9:58:03 PM   
WantsOfTheFlesh


Posts: 1226
Joined: 3/3/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh
dunno how much da story is to be believed lol but 440 feet by 44 feet by 74 is kinda big

Oh certainly a wooden vessel of that size built by a drunk is absurdly huge like within the realm of the ridiculous.

i said i doubted da story, only that it has its own internal logic an' a story of a flood fits the date. you firing strawmen at me sez more bout yer own views of religion.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh
an' maybe their understandin' of what was a species waz different

Doesn't matter what definition of species you want to use, without evolution if it exists on land it had to be on there.

already said i didnt doubt evolution. was just arguing that it wasnt incompatible wit faith.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jan-feb/63#.URhqMvKPaSo
Last year researchers at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia released the most rigorous estimate yet of how many species live on our planet: 8.7 million, not counting bacteria. Nearly 6.5 million of these species live on land versus 2.2 million in the ocean, according to the analysis.

So you've got to fit 6.5 million species onto a wooden boat which while unbelievably huge for a vessel of that type is a mere fraction of the size of our biggest zoos which are only capable of housing thousands of animals:

most species are insects and flying ones at dat. no mention of them in da story far as i know. in fact da story may suggest only a few hundred species were taken onta da ark http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/animals.htm

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://www.ratestogo.com/blog/best-zoos/
The Toronto Zoo also ranks amongst the largest in the world, spanning over 700 acres and housing over 5,000 animals!


To do the math out for you that's 30,492,000 square feet putting this fictional 95,000 square foot boat to shame and yet the Toronto zoo only manages to hold a few thousand animals.

yer comparing apples ta oranges. no one sez da animals were living in spacious recreations of their habitat on da ark! lol

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh
wit some sayin' it can be done http://scofieldprophecystudies.org/Research/noahsark.htm

There are some "sayin'" that the earth is flat, doesn't make the claim any less stupid. It's really important to be able to distinguish between reliable sources and koolaid drinkers for Jesus.

wasn't making any absolute claims, just pointing out ta moonhead that the scale of the ship made stuffing a large num of animals on it a possibility.

< Message edited by WantsOfTheFlesh -- 2/10/2013 10:06:33 PM >

_____________________________

"I had lot's of luck but its all been bad"

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 205
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/10/2013 10:02:48 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

So you've got to fit 6.5 million species onto a wooden boat which while unbelievably huge for a vessel of that type is a mere fraction of the size of our biggest zoos which are only capable of housing thousands of animals...

There are some "sayin'" that the earth is flat, doesn't make the claim any less stupid. It's really important to be able to distinguish between reliable sources and koolaid drinkers for Jesus.

It's also important to distinguish between myth and reality. What's stupid is reading a myth as if it represented in all its particulars a literal truth; and then laughing like a jackass at the absurdity of it. Myths of a great flood are ubiquitous. Whether they reflect something archetypal in the human psyche, or whether they have come down to us from a distant time when peoples around the world experienced catastrophic inundations, remains an open question. But one thing not in question is that believing them literally and dismissing them as bad science reflect an equal degree of ignorance.

K.

< Message edited by Kirata -- 2/10/2013 10:13:26 PM >

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 206
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/10/2013 10:51:53 PM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

So you've got to fit 6.5 million species onto a wooden boat which while unbelievably huge for a vessel of that type is a mere fraction of the size of our biggest zoos which are only capable of housing thousands of animals...

There are some "sayin'" that the earth is flat, doesn't make the claim any less stupid. It's really important to be able to distinguish between reliable sources and koolaid drinkers for Jesus.

It's also important to distinguish between myth and reality. What's stupid is reading a myth as if it represented in all its particulars a literal truth; and then laughing like a jackass at the absurdity of it. Myths of a great flood are ubiquitous. Whether they reflect something archetypal in the human psyche, or whether they have come down to us from a distant time when peoples around the world experienced catastrophic inundations, remains an open question. But one thing not in question is that believing them literally and dismissing them as bad science reflect an equal degree of ignorance.

K.


Well there does appear that there is some scientific evidence of a Great Flood. As to myth and reality..you may want to read "Myth and Reality by Mircea Eliade

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070907150931.htm

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 207
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/10/2013 11:57:07 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh
you firing strawmen at me sez more bout yer own views of religion.

Please don't misunderstand me your skeptacism here was noted:
quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh
dunno how much da story is to be believed lol

You did however explain what some people believe and I in turn explained to you why those people are idiots.

(in reply to WantsOfTheFlesh)
Profile   Post #: 208
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/11/2013 12:35:28 AM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Master2811
Yes, I am aware of this effort to debunk the C14 equilibrium case. However there is no way you can expand the 30,000 years C14 equilibrium time over billions of years.


Somehow you've been conned by the stupidest, most transparent scam I've ever seen.


(in reply to Master2811)
Profile   Post #: 209
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/11/2013 4:56:33 AM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

So you've got to fit 6.5 million species onto a wooden boat which while unbelievably huge for a vessel of that type is a mere fraction of the size of our biggest zoos which are only capable of housing thousands of animals...

There are some "sayin'" that the earth is flat, doesn't make the claim any less stupid. It's really important to be able to distinguish between reliable sources and koolaid drinkers for Jesus.

It's also important to distinguish between myth and reality. What's stupid is reading a myth as if it represented in all its particulars a literal truth; and then laughing like a jackass at the absurdity of it. Myths of a great flood are ubiquitous. Whether they reflect something archetypal in the human psyche, or whether they have come down to us from a distant time when peoples around the world experienced catastrophic inundations, remains an open question. But one thing not in question is that believing them literally and dismissing them as bad science reflect an equal degree of ignorance.

K.

You are Immanuel Velikovsky, and I claim my five pounds.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 210
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/11/2013 7:04:08 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

You are Immanuel Velikovsky

And you are a Moonhead.

K.

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 211
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/11/2013 7:20:53 AM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

You are Immanuel Velikovsky

And you are a Moonhead.

K.

quote:

Immanuel Velikovsky


Oh gee looks who is name calling....by the way Immanuel Velikovshi is an author. Any you complain about others...

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 212
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/11/2013 7:37:00 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

by the way Immanuel Velikovshi is an author.

Oh c'mon, gimme a little credit, everybody has heard of the famous "Velikovshi".

K.

(in reply to Nosathro)
Profile   Post #: 213
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/11/2013 7:38:12 AM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

by the way Immanuel Velikovshi is an author.

Oh c'mon, gimme a little credit, everybody has heard of the famous "Velikovshi".

K.


Not you

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 214
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/11/2013 7:40:35 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

by the way Immanuel Velikovshi is an author.

Oh c'mon, gimme a little credit, everybody has heard of the famous "Velikovshi".

Not you

You got that right. In fact, I'll bet nobody has except you.

K.

(in reply to Nosathro)
Profile   Post #: 215
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/11/2013 7:53:18 AM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

by the way Immanuel Velikovshi is an author.

Oh c'mon, gimme a little credit, everybody has heard of the famous "Velikovshi".

Not you

You got that right. In fact, I'll bet nobody has except you.

K.


Immanuel Velikovshi work has been contraverisal, but he has inspired the creation of The Society for Interdisciplinary Studies and a spin off The Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences. So alot of people have heard of Immanuel.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 216
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/11/2013 7:57:03 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

Immanuel Velikovshi work has been contraverisal...

Isn't it a little early in the day for cocktails?

K.

(in reply to Nosathro)
Profile   Post #: 217
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/11/2013 8:05:51 AM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

Immanuel Velikovshi work has been contraverisal...

Isn't it a little early in the day for cocktails?

K.


I am still working on my 20th cup of coffee

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 218
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/11/2013 8:28:47 AM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

So you've got to fit 6.5 million species onto a wooden boat which while unbelievably huge for a vessel of that type is a mere fraction of the size of our biggest zoos which are only capable of housing thousands of animals...

There are some "sayin'" that the earth is flat, doesn't make the claim any less stupid. It's really important to be able to distinguish between reliable sources and koolaid drinkers for Jesus.

It's also important to distinguish between myth and reality. What's stupid is reading a myth as if it represented in all its particulars a literal truth; and then laughing like a jackass at the absurdity of it. Myths of a great flood are ubiquitous. Whether they reflect something archetypal in the human psyche, or whether they have come down to us from a distant time when peoples around the world experienced catastrophic inundations, remains an open question. But one thing not in question is that believing them literally and dismissing them as bad science reflect an equal degree of ignorance.

K.


Can somebody explain to the guy that he's off topic. This is a thread about creationists who have a very literal belief in the factuality of these fictional stories, a position which he acknowledges is really stupid.

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 219
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/11/2013 8:35:01 AM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

So you've got to fit 6.5 million species onto a wooden boat which while unbelievably huge for a vessel of that type is a mere fraction of the size of our biggest zoos which are only capable of housing thousands of animals...

There are some "sayin'" that the earth is flat, doesn't make the claim any less stupid. It's really important to be able to distinguish between reliable sources and koolaid drinkers for Jesus.

It's also important to distinguish between myth and reality. What's stupid is reading a myth as if it represented in all its particulars a literal truth; and then laughing like a jackass at the absurdity of it. Myths of a great flood are ubiquitous. Whether they reflect something archetypal in the human psyche, or whether they have come down to us from a distant time when peoples around the world experienced catastrophic inundations, remains an open question. But one thing not in question is that believing them literally and dismissing them as bad science reflect an equal degree of ignorance.

K.


Can somebody explain to the guy that he's off topic. This is a thread about creationists who have a very literal belief in the factuality of these fictional stories, a position which he acknowledges is really stupid.


It is a waste of time, effort and he thinks he is always right anyway.

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 220
Page:   <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109