Spirituality
03 Dec 09
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasif i told you to watch the movie "men who stare at goats" would you refuse to watch it because you wouldn't like watching a movie about men who stare at goats? and if you someday watch the trailer on youtube and realize the movie is not about that at all, would you feel silly?
No, of course not. I haven't read 'Mein Kampf' either, still I'm sure I don't like Nazism.
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziDon't know. Haven't heard of the film. Is it about Jesus and his twelve boy friends?
if i told you to watch the movie "men who stare at goats" would you refuse to watch it because you wouldn't like watching a movie about men who stare at goats? and if you someday watch the trailer on youtube and realize the movie is not about that at all, would you feel silly?
04 Dec 09
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnashow about you do what you should have done with the http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html link in the first place? look it up and see for yourself.
Don't know. Haven't heard of the film. Is it about Jesus and his twelve boy friends?
and read more than the first paragraph.
unless you don't trust me and think i would post links to gay bestiality porn.
so it's http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
and "men who stare at goats"
EDIT: i tried to show you that if you stick to your misconceptions without keeping an open mind and researching and verifying for yourself you will begin to resemble your most beloved nutjob. (i realize it is most insulting and i am sorry. but you have to be warned before it's too late)
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziIt's nice to talk to you, but it's robbie who should answer questions posed to him. Not any links where you have to find his answers yourself.
how about you do what you should have done with the http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html link? look it up and see for yourself.
unless you don't trust me and think i would post links to gay bestiality porn.
so it's http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
and "men who stare at goats"
He sais the great flooding is a historic scientific fact, and still he doesn't have his own answers, but ask me to find his answers myself. Tha'ts a new rehtoric.
I counter answer with the same method: "Yes, i know I'm right, go see www.Wikipedia.com yourself!" Nonsense, eh?
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasif i post some paragraphs from that link and prove you wrong, will you post a picture here of yourself eating a hat of your choosing?
It's nice to talk to you, but it's robbie who should answer questions posed to him. Not any links where you have to find his answers yourself.
He sais the great flooding is a historic scientific fact, and still he doesn't have his own answers, but ask me to find his answers myself. Tha'ts a new rehtoric.
I counter answer with the same method: "Yes, i know I'm right, go see www.Wikipedia.com yourself!" Nonsense, eh?
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziI've forgot, where was I wrong? The small detail about the global flooding not having any scientific bearing? Okay, go ahead. Send a faulty proof from a link providing faulty proofs. Would be entertaining.
if i post some paragraphs from that link and prove you wrong, will you post a picture here of yourself eating a hat of your choosing?
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasstarting with the paragraph you read that lead you to believe the site is a creationist's propaganda tool:
I've forgot, where was I wrong? The small detail about the global flooding not having any scientific bearing? Okay, go ahead. Send a faulty proof from a link providing faulty proofs. Would be entertaining.
1. Building the Ark
Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. [premise, it establishes there is a limit to wood ship building] The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped.[another premise: the longest ship ever built was awful] The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy? [and now the correlation to the ark: it was 150 longer than the longest wooden ship(which was awful). by the flow of premises, it leads to the conclusion that the arc was 150 ft more awful than the awful 300 ft ship. the question that you say doesn't give an answer is sarcastic. rhetorical. as in "duh, of course it can't be seaworthy"]
now, if you would have kept reading and not dismissing it as "science dreamt up by the carrobie" you would have come across more lovely bits of wisdom:
Why is there no mention of the Flood in the records of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilizations which existed at the time? Biblical dates (I Kings 6:1, Gal 3:17, various generation lengths given in Genesis) place the Flood 1300 years before Solomon began the first temple. We can construct reliable chronologies for near Eastern history, particularly for Egypt, from many kinds of records from the literate cultures in the near East. These records are independent of, but supported by, dating methods such as dendrochronology and carbon-14. The building of the first temple can be dated to 950 B.C. +/- some small delta, placing the Flood around 2250 B.C. Unfortunately, the Egyptians (among others) have written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. (the Great Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300 years before the Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian inscriptions of this global flood around 2250 B.C.
How did the human population rebound so fast? Genealogies in Genesis put the Tower of Babel about 110 to 150 years after the Flood [Gen 10:25, 11:10-19]. How did the world population regrow so fast to make its construction (and the city around it) possible? Similarly, there would have been very few people around to build Stonehenge and the Pyramids, rebuild the Sumerian and Indus Valley civilizations, populate the Americas, etc.
Why do other flood myths vary so greatly from the Genesis account? Flood myths are fairly common worldwide, and if they came from a common source, we should expect similarities in most of them. Instead, the myths show great diversity. [Bailey, 1989, pp. 5-10; Isaak, 1997] For example, people survive on high land or trees in the myths about as often as on boats or rafts, and no other flood myth includes a covenant not to destroy all life again.
Why should we expect Genesis to be accurate? We know that other people's sacred stories change over time [Baaren, 1972] and that changes to the Genesis Flood story have occurred in later traditions [Ginzberg, 1909; Utley, 1961]. Is it not reasonable to assume that changes occurred between the story's origin and its being written down in its present form?
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziWhere do I find the scientific notion of a flood was there? The year was about "placing the Flood around 2250 B.C.", right? Is this scientific?
starting with the paragraph you read that lead you to believe the site is a creationist's propaganda tool:
1. Building the Ark
[b]Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough ...[text shortened]... ccurred between the story's origin and its being written down in its present form?[/b]
Then it should be easy to see the effects of the flooding in the Australian deserts, in the plain of middle of USA, traces in the ice cap of Greenland and Antarctica, and, if the whole earth was flooded up to the highest mountain, at the heights of Himalyans. Do we see any such traces? No, we don't. Find these or eat your hat.
There is a nothion of carbon-14 dating method. When it is use to contra-proove cthe creation theory, than it is said to be faulty. But when it is used in service to the fundamentalist creationst, then it is suddenly a good and working method. Funny...
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziPut him out of his misery
if i post some paragraphs from that link and prove you wrong, will you post a picture here of yourself eating a hat of your choosing?
Fabian, TalkOrigins is not a creationist site. It is a science-based site aimed at providing scientific analysis and assessment of creationist claims.
It is well worth reading.
The creationist equivalent site is called TrueOrigins, and is quite funny in the classic creationist way.
--- Penguin.
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by PenguinIf it claims to be scientific, and yet claims the global flooding in human history, then it could easily answer my question: Why haven't we seen any evidence in the ice cap of Greenland?
Put him out of his misery
Fabian, TalkOrigins is [b]not a creationist site. It is a science-based site aimed at providing scientific analysis and assessment of creationist claims.
It is well worth reading.
The creationist equivalent site is called TrueOrigins, and is quite funny in the classic creationist way.
--- Penguin.[/b]
Are you also willing to eat your hat?
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasIt does NOT claim there was a global flood. It provides lots of information and evidence against a global flood.
If it claims to be scientific, and yet claims the global flooding in human history, then it could easily answer my question: Why haven't we seen any evidence in the ice cap of Greenland?
Are you also willing to eat your hat?
It lists creationist claims and then systematically presents the evidence against the claim.
--- Penguin.