Woodmorappe proving the Ark is possible. - Page 3

Dinwar · 13th July 2012, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

But when Noah's Ark comes up, then everyone becomes a walking dictionary citing fact after fact indicating that without God's divine intervention no one could have met dietary needs, waste needs, breeding population needs, space needs, construction needs, joinery needs, etc. Yes! Without God's intervention, even the teeny-tiniest aspect of the Flood story is impossible. But if you are talking about a Being that created Heaven and Earth, then stopping animals from pooping is not that insurmountable of a task.

Jesus' resurectoin isn't a direct attack against my profession.

Deluge Geology isn't merely a Christian fancy. It was, at one point, a serious and supported scientific theory. Well, a component of a number of them, anyway. And back when it was seriously considered by the scientific community there was some evidence to support it, some rational for believing it. The problem is, the theory lost all credibility a few hundred years ago, and those who still cling to it are dragging my science back to its most primitive form. While they're at it, many of them lie about the research me and my coleagues do, and often about what I personally do (if you say "Transitional forms have never been found", you're calling me a liar, because I've found them; if you say that stratigraphy is false you're calling me a liar, because I use those principles constantly; if you call radiometric dating fictitious you're calling me a liar, because I use C14 and other dating methods quite frequently; etc).

Jesus rising from the dead? A cute story, with no real practical outcome anymore. The Flood? Now you're taking the food from my mouth and the roof out from over my wife's head.

Quote:

The appropriate response to those chuckleheads is to say, "OK, build an ark. Either construct a wooden seagoing vessel with the ark's exact dimensions or construct a building of the ark's exact dimensions and put in all the animals and food that you would need."

Why do we seldom hear of anyone actually trying to the the latter?

We do. There were several threads on this. A Biblically accurate ark would be a death trap. It couldn't handle sea voyages--it'd break itself to pieces.

Originally Posted by Brian-M

Presumably they could pack the dried meat, fish and fruit in salt to act as a desiccant, but what about the hay?

Not really. Salt was extremely valuable in the past. Our word "salary" comes from the Latin word for salt, and "isn't worth his salt" is still an insult. The Bible itself (Psalms) uses "salt for the Earth" to describe the chosen people, implying their value. Packing meat in salt would be like using gold as a means of food preservation, in terms of money.

AvalonXQ · 13th July 2012, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by Steve

Because Noah held the patent, and he built wooden boats, not buildings.

If he had applied for and gotten a patent, then 20 years later the published patent would have entered the public domain and everyone would have been able to refer to it and use it in their engineering.

People really need to take a few minutes to learn what patents, copyrights, and trademarks actually are.

catsmate1 · 13th July 2012, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by Modified

The minimum viable population to prevent extinction due to inbreeding for most species is far higher than two. The Ark would have needed to carry hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of large mammals alone.

Magic.

Originally Posted by DC

i wonder where he got the Cangoroos from.

Magic.

Originally Posted by Nay_Sayer

Does it cover the massive amounts of urine and feces and how noah dealt with it?

Or how he kept the predators from eating the smaller animals?

Magic and magic.

Originally Posted by Myriad

Waste chutes are fine. They can even vent below the water line, provided that their linings are all as strong and water-tight as the outer hull, up to the level of the gunwales. The receiving (top) end of the chute must therefore be as high as the gunwales, or else each chute becomes a very large leak when waves are encountered.

Easier to strap the animals into stalls set into the hull like the balconies on a cruise ship, with their rear ends suspended over the briny abyss. That would make all those kids' Noah's Ark toys a bit more fun and educational.

However -- does any part of scripture specifically rule out a catamaran design? With that configuration, the animals could be housed throughout the center span, with their nether ends positioned over holes opening directly upon the water.

Respectfully,
Myriad

I'm reminded of this book.

Originally Posted by temporalillusion

That's my question, why don't we see a genetic bottleneck in every extant species at about the same time in history?

No common bottleneck, no ark.

Magic.

TimCallahan · 13th July 2012, 09:11 AM

AvalonXQ:

Does this book deal with the problems I brought in the other thread on the flood regarding freshwater and marine organisms? They are, as I recall:

1) How did freshwater fish, snails, bivalves, crustaceans, etc. get to the ark in the first place?

2) Assuming the marine species were left in the oceans, how did they survive the dilution of the oceans' salinity during the rain?

3) After the flood subsided, how were the freshwater species dispersed throughout the world? they obviously couldn't walk across dry land. they also couldn't have swam through the saline oceans to get to the mouths of rivers.

Beelzebuddy · 13th July 2012, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Take a look at the amount of questioning of my intelligence, maturity, and honesty that has gone on just in the last two pages.

Why should I have to comb through taunts, denegration, and ridicule to get to actual arguments to address? Not to mention the Gish Gallop that comes from two dozen different posts making different arguments all at once.

And it's not like I can just find one or two posts making good points and address those -- any post I skip over, choose not to address, or fail to address in the way others feel I should is automatically the "killer argument" that "Avalon has no answer for."

It's not worth my time.

How about addressing one argument: the topic of this thread. Does Woodmorappe prove the Ark was possible? You've read the criticisms, you've at least seen links for critical reviews in the last thread, you have the book itself in front of you. What of it? What mysteries are contained therein? Does it satisfactorily answer how the Ark was seaworthy, how its cargo was cared for, how the animals repopulated the earth? Or does it prevaricate and dissemble, with a poop chute here and a water tank there, and bad geology scattered about?

The fact that you are already preparing to bail on this thread gives me a pretty good guess what the answer is, but corrections are always welcome.

gnome · 13th July 2012, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear gnome,

(1) Because God is a God of emotion and symbolism. "Poofing" things carries very little symbolic weight. The tangible forces of nature being commanded by God creates an emotional effect that would otherwise be absent.

(2) What would the parable possibly mean, if it were truly just a parable?

Cpl Ferro

So, you're supposing here that he killed all the animals and flooded the land instead of "poofing" because he wanted to make a point to a family that wasn't giving him grief in the first place?

aggle-rithm · 13th July 2012, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

It's not worth my time.

Are you saying your beliefs are not worth defending?

Look, if you choose to adhere to your beliefs no matter what the evidence is, then that's your perogative. Just admit to it. Don't pretend that there's a rational basis for what you believe.

If there were a rational basis, then you would at least be able to offer an opinon on how to account for the rarity of marsupials in that area in the middle east from which you believe they all migrated a few thousand years ago.

Beerina · 13th July 2012, 09:47 AM

Given how much of the water covering the world is new, what happened to the saltwater fish is probably a bigger concern than freshwayer fish.

Mudcat · 13th July 2012, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

"Avalon has no answer for this."

Liberal snipping mine. This is all you need say, because there is no answer to explain the flood story. None, save magic. Admit to it or grow up, already.

Edited to add:
But hey, let's assume that all of this is true. An 'all knowing, wise, caring, and endless other ass kissing platitudes' god just up and notices that the world has become consumed with evil...

Well how stupid of him, why wasn't his eyes on the ball before? How did this sneak up on an all knowing and all seeing god?

This absolute moron whose hands our fate in and supposed to be all just decides that death is the only way to cleanse the world. Okay, I can go with that, sort of sounds like the start of your standard RPG.

But not only is this incompetent moron an incompetent moron instead of choosing a champion to fight for his cause, assemble the Master Sword, wear green, take directions from an annoying fairy, and cleanse the land of evil... This god decides everything must die... By drowning.

I'm sorry, is there some definition of justice in use here that I'm unfamiliar with?

AvalonXQ · 13th July 2012, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

Are you saying your beliefs are not worth defending?

I'm saying it's not worth being attacked.

Challenged, yes. Attacked, no.

I discuss things on here because I get something out of it. When the abuse gets too thick, what I get out isn't worth what I endure.

Belz... · 13th July 2012, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Noah took 120 years. I have a feeling the theme park wants it done more quickly.

MAkes you wonder why he didn't just snap his fingers and make people die.

tsig · 13th July 2012, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

Are you saying your beliefs are not worth defending?

Look, if you choose to adhere to your beliefs no matter what the evidence is, then that's your perogative. Just admit to it. Don't pretend that there's a rational basis for what you believe.

If there were a rational basis, then you would at least be able to offer an opinon on how to account for the rarity of marsupials in that area in the middle east from which you believe they all migrated a few thousand years ago.

Christians used to face down lions now they run for the hills at a perceived rude comment on a message board.

They need better arguments or thicker skins.

aggle-rithm · 13th July 2012, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I'm saying it's not worth being attacked.

Challenged, yes. Attacked, no.

Are you sure you're not confusing being challenged with being attacked?

You haven't responded to any of the points I've brought up, and I've tried hard not to make it personal.

Beelzebuddy · 13th July 2012, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I'm saying it's not worth being attacked.

Challenged, yes. Attacked, no.

I discuss things on here because I get something out of it. When the abuse gets too thick, what I get out isn't worth what I endure.

You'd endure less if you contributed more.

AvalonXQ · 13th July 2012, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

MAkes you wonder why he didn't just snap his fingers and make people die.

Well,

Originally Posted by Woodmorappe

Why was the Ark needed at all if God could have judged and destroyed the world miraculously? To understand this question, note the impossibility of pinning God down to one modus operandi....
Saying, as Moore (1983, p. 37) does, that God "should" have just dispensed with the Ark (and taken Noah's family to heaven, destroyed the earth, and then replaced Noah's family on earth) is as foolish as it is presumptuous. Clearly, the fact that God chooses to work miraculously in one situation does not in any way prevent Him from working thorugh naturalistic means in other cases (in fact, in the vast majority of cases).

aggle-rithm · 13th July 2012, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

Christians used to face down lions now they run for the hills at a perceived rude comment on a message board.

As I've mentioned recently in another thread, there are countries TODAY where practicing Christianity can be a death sentence. Western Christians are mere dabblers compared to them.

ddt · 13th July 2012, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Why should I have to comb through taunts, denegration, and ridicule to get to actual arguments to address? Not to mention the Gish Gallop that comes from two dozen different posts making different arguments all at once.

One nitpick about the wording "Gish Gallop": it's not. The "Gish Gallop" is a fast moving of the goal posts within a debate between two. Here, many different arguments are raised against the flood story by different people who have their different angle and point of interest to the question. And it's simply the fact that all of those questions must be answered in the affirmative for the flood story to be possible at all.

tsig · 13th July 2012, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I'm saying it's not worth being attacked.

Challenged, yes. Attacked, no.

I discuss things on here because I get something out of it. When the abuse gets too thick, what I get out isn't worth what I endure.

2 Timothy
8 Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel, 9 for which I am suffering even to the point of being chained like a criminal. But God’s word is not chained. 10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.

Are you saying that we are beyond salvation?

AvalonXQ · 13th July 2012, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

You'd endure less if you contributed more.

I've never noticed a difference in the volume of attacks based on how much or how little I've contributed at any given time.

AvalonXQ · 13th July 2012, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by ddt

One nitpick about the wording "Gish Gallop": it's not. The "Gish Gallop" is a fast moving of the goal posts within a debate between two.

As I understand the term, a "Gish Gallop" is when so many different, wide-ranging topic or points are presented, that the responder cannot reasonably been expected to address all of them.
You're correct, though, that the term is usually used between two people in the context of a debate. I think it fits in this situation, though, where a bunch of different people dogpile different arguments many of which aren't even in the same general subject area as the others.

aggle-rithm · 13th July 2012, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Why was the Ark needed at all if God could have judged and destroyed the world miraculously? To understand this question, note the impossibility of pinning God down to one modus operandi....
Saying, as Moore (1983, p. 37) does, that God "should" have just dispensed with the Ark (and taken Noah's family to heaven, destroyed the earth, and then replaced Noah's family on earth) is as foolish as it is presumptuous. Clearly, the fact that God chooses to work miraculously in one situation does not in any way prevent Him from working thorugh naturalistic means in other cases (in fact, in the vast majority of cases).

The problem with this sort of argument is that it doesn't really explain anything. There is no cause-and-effect relationship here, such as, "God wanted to cleanse the world, so obviously he used some natural and some supernatural forces in a convoluted way to somehow make a simple narrative from a primitive people match current scientific understanding." Compare this to a scientific idea, like "species change over millions of years, so naturally areas that have been geographically isolated for millions of years will have different species than those that are not." The latter actually explains something because it involves real cause-and-effect relationships, while the former just makes presumptions about what must have happened if our beliefs are to be vindicated.

AvalonXQ · 13th July 2012, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

Are you saying that we are beyond salvation?

Are you saying that you think I should take addressing minutiae in Ark logistics and other technical details as being evangelism?

I think I've explained before that I'm not here to preach.

aggle-rithm · 13th July 2012, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

As I understand the term, a "Gish Gallop" is when so many different, wide-ranging topic or points are presented, that the responder cannot reasonably been expected to address all of them.
You're correct, though, that the term is usually used between two people in the context of a debate. I think it fits in this situation, though, where a bunch of different people dogpile different arguments many of which aren't even in the same general subject area as the others.

Why don't you pick a couple of arguments you find both challenging and reasonable and address those? That will make us all happy.

AvalonXQ · 13th July 2012, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

The problem with this sort of argument is that it doesn't really explain anything.

I think it's reasonable to refute "why didn't God use more miracles in this event," with "we have lots of examples of God using primarily mundane, rather than miraculous, mechanisms in His events, so it is not a break in pattern for Him to do the same here."

AvalonXQ · 13th July 2012, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

Why don't you pick a couple of arguments you find both challenging and reasonable and address those? That will make us all happy.

You really think so?

I'd put dimes to donuts that whichever two arguments I chose, someone else would either accuse me of something (cowardice, dishonesty, and stupidity seem to be the big three) or declare victory over me for failing to address theirs.

aggle-rithm · 13th July 2012, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

The problem with this sort of argument is that it doesn't really explain anything.

Also, Belz was not arguing that it was impossible for God to use both natural and supernatural means to bring about the Flood, he was just (I believe) commenting on the general absurdity of the idea.

aggle-rithm · 13th July 2012, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I'd put dimes to donuts that whichever two arguments I chose, someone else would either accuse me of something (cowardice, dishonesty, and stupidity seem to be the big three) or declare victory over me for failing to address theirs.

Neither of which would mortally wound you. Give it a try.

aggle-rithm · 13th July 2012, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I think it's reasonable to refute "why didn't God use more miracles in this event," with "we have lots of examples of God using primarily mundane, rather than miraculous, mechanisms in His events, so it is not a break in pattern for Him to do the same here."

Not everyone would agree that these natural events were examples of direct intervention from God.

AvalonXQ · 13th July 2012, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

Not everyone would agree that these natural events were examples of direct intervention from God.

I was talking about Biblical examples. That's actually what was in the elipsis in the Woodmorappe quote -- several examples of God doing the same thing in different ways, some less miraculous than others.

NoahFence · 13th July 2012, 10:46 AM

How did I..er...how did he cage mosquito's and why?

aggle-rithm · 13th July 2012, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I was talking about Biblical examples. That's actually what was in the elipsis in the Woodmorappe quote -- several examples of God doing the same thing in different ways, some less miraculous than others.

Again, though, no one is arguing that it would be impossible for God to do this, just that it would make little sense. Parsimony suggests that any narrative that neither makes sense nor explains anything useful should be disregarded.

Nay_Sayer · 13th July 2012, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

AvalonXQ:

Does this book deal with the problems I brought in the other thread on the flood regarding freshwater and marine organisms? They are, as I recall:

1) How did freshwater fish, snails, bivalves, crustaceans, etc. get to the ark in the first place?

2) Assuming the marine species were left in the oceans, how did they survive the dilution of the oceans' salinity during the rain?

3) After the flood subsided, how were the freshwater species dispersed throughout the world? they obviously couldn't walk across dry land. they also couldn't have swam through the saline oceans to get to the mouths of rivers.

iirc: Just animals that breath through their nostrils, Which also means no insects, effectively killing any species that eats insects.

I wonder how Noah managed to get a whale into the ark.

ddt · 13th July 2012, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

As I understand the term, a "Gish Gallop" is when so many different, wide-ranging topic or points are presented, that the responder cannot reasonably been expected to address all of them.
You're correct, though, that the term is usually used between two people in the context of a debate. I think it fits in this situation, though, where a bunch of different people dogpile different arguments many of which aren't even in the same general subject area as the others.

I stand corrected on that. RationalWiki says

Quote:

The Gish Gallop is a skeptics' jargon term, named after creationist Duane Gish, for the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time.

And Wiki says

Quote:

Gish has been characterized as using a rapid-fire approach during a debate, presenting arguments and changing topics very quickly. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, has dubbed this approach the "Gish Gallop," describing it as "where the creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour, spewing forth torrents of error that the evolutionist hasn't a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate"

The distinctive difference, though, is, that a forum thread is not constrained for time like a live debate is. You have all the time in the world to address them one by one. To quote Chairman Mao: A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.

Upchurch · 13th July 2012, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Noah took 120 years. I have a feeling the theme park wants it done more quickly.

So, we're allowing magic in this feasibility study?

Lukraak_Sisser · 13th July 2012, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Well,

But the thing is, naturalistic explanations do NOT allow the ark to exist.
Barring everything else, it simple CANNOT float. A wooden boat of that size will fall apart.
Centuries of wooden boat building have very clearly defined the upper limit of a wooden ship, and that is with all the advances made in shipbuilding during the great ages of sail.
So even its very not sinking requires a miracle.

aggle-rithm · 13th July 2012, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Are you saying that you think I should take addressing minutiae in Ark logistics and other technical details as being evangelism?

Your characterizing the holes in logic as "minutiae" brings to mind one of the tools in the Carl Sagan Baloney Detection Kit:

If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.

Similarly, if there is a naturalistic justification for the Ark story, then every aspect of the Ark story, no matter how unimportant it may seem, requires a naturalistic explanation.

If ANY detail requires supernatural intervention, then there's no need to justify ANY of it, rendering Woodmorappe's book pointless.

Steve · 13th July 2012, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

If he had applied for and gotten a patent, then 20 years later the published patent would have entered the public domain and everyone would have been able to refer to it and use it in their engineering.

People really need to take a few minutes to learn what patents, copyrights, and trademarks actually are.

Yeah, well, my attempts at light humor seldom work.

TimCallahan · 13th July 2012, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by Nay_Sayer

iirc: Just animals that breath through their nostrils, Which also means no insects, effectively killing any species that eats insects.

I wonder how Noah managed to get a whale into the ark.

It seems to me that the only way to overcome all the problems of salinity for marine life forms, gathering (before the flood) and distributing (after the flood) the freshwater species, the problems of feed and manure, and survival of species reduced to a single breeding pair is to appeal to the supernatural. However, this would make pass / fail tests impossible and automatically take the subject out of the realm of science. Therefore, anyone attesting to the historical reality of the Genesis flood account would have to do so on the basis of faith alone.

For all that, the geological traces of a worldwide flood should still be within the realm of science.

So, AvalonXQ, is your adherence to the biblical flood based on faith, with supernatural explanations used to answer scientific objections, or is it based on science? If the former is the case, would you extend the faith / supernatural explanation to cover the failure of flood geology? If your belief in the biblical flood is based on scientifically testable evidence, please answer the science-based objections I and others have raised.

BTW, does Woodmorappe have website or forum where he fils questions?

AvalonXQ · 13th July 2012, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by NoahFence

How did I..er...how did he cage mosquito's and why?

There was no instruction to cage mosquitos. God's instructions were limited to terrestrial vertebrates.

Overall, Woodmorrape identifies 86 living and distinct orders of terrestrial vertebrates having in total approximately 7800 genera, yeilding a little under 16,000 animals total. This is considered to likely be a gross overestimate, as in many cases the family rather than genus level is probably the "kind" level.

TimCallahan · 13th July 2012, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

There was no instruction to cage mosquitos. God's instructions were limited to terrestrial vertebrates.

Overall, Woodmorrape identifies 86 living and distinct orders of terrestrial vertebrates having in total approximately 7800 genera, yeilding a little under 16,000 animals total. This is considered to likely be a gross overestimate, as in many cases the family rather than genus level is probably the "kind" level.

Concerning the hilited area: How, then, did terrestrial invertebrates, particularly insects, survive the flood?

13th July 2012, 08:02 AM	#81
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,945	Originally Posted by Ladewig But when Noah's Ark comes up, then everyone becomes a walking dictionary citing fact after fact indicating that without God's divine intervention no one could have met dietary needs, waste needs, breeding population needs, space needs, construction needs, joinery needs, etc. Yes! Without God's intervention, even the teeny-tiniest aspect of the Flood story is impossible. But if you are talking about a Being that created Heaven and Earth, then stopping animals from pooping is not that insurmountable of a task. Jesus' resurectoin isn't a direct attack against my profession. Deluge Geology isn't merely a Christian fancy. It was, at one point, a serious and supported scientific theory. Well, a component of a number of them, anyway. And back when it was seriously considered by the scientific community there was some evidence to support it, some rational for believing it. The problem is, the theory lost all credibility a few hundred years ago, and those who still cling to it are dragging my science back to its most primitive form. While they're at it, many of them lie about the research me and my coleagues do, and often about what I personally do (if you say "Transitional forms have never been found", you're calling me a liar, because I've found them; if you say that stratigraphy is false you're calling me a liar, because I use those principles constantly; if you call radiometric dating fictitious you're calling me a liar, because I use C14 and other dating methods quite frequently; etc). Jesus rising from the dead? A cute story, with no real practical outcome anymore. The Flood? Now you're taking the food from my mouth and the roof out from over my wife's head. Quote: The appropriate response to those chuckleheads is to say, "OK, build an ark. Either construct a wooden seagoing vessel with the ark's exact dimensions or construct a building of the ark's exact dimensions and put in all the animals and food that you would need." Why do we seldom hear of anyone actually trying to the the latter? We do. There were several threads on this. A Biblically accurate ark would be a death trap. It couldn't handle sea voyages--it'd break itself to pieces. Originally Posted by Brian-M Presumably they could pack the dried meat, fish and fruit in salt to act as a desiccant, but what about the hay? Not really. Salt was extremely valuable in the past. Our word "salary" comes from the Latin word for salt, and "isn't worth his salt" is still an insult. The Bible itself (Psalms) uses "salt for the Earth" to describe the chosen people, implying their value. Packing meat in salt would be like using gold as a means of food preservation, in terms of money.
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,945	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

13th July 2012, 08:04 AM	#82
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by Steve Because Noah held the patent, and he built wooden boats, not buildings. If he had applied for and gotten a patent, then 20 years later the published patent would have entered the public domain and everyone would have been able to refer to it and use it in their engineering. People really need to take a few minutes to learn what patents, copyrights, and trademarks actually are.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

13th July 2012, 09:11 AM	#84
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,129	AvalonXQ: Does this book deal with the problems I brought in the other thread on the flood regarding freshwater and marine organisms? They are, as I recall: 1) How did freshwater fish, snails, bivalves, crustaceans, etc. get to the ark in the first place? 2) Assuming the marine species were left in the oceans, how did they survive the dilution of the oceans' salinity during the rain? 3) After the flood subsided, how were the freshwater species dispersed throughout the world? they obviously couldn't walk across dry land. they also couldn't have swam through the saline oceans to get to the mouths of rivers.
TimCallahan Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,129

13th July 2012, 09:38 AM	#86
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,872	Originally Posted by CplFerro Dear gnome, (1) Because God is a God of emotion and symbolism. "Poofing" things carries very little symbolic weight. The tangible forces of nature being commanded by God creates an emotional effect that would otherwise be absent. (2) What would the parable possibly mean, if it were truly just a parable? Cpl Ferro So, you're supposing here that he killed all the animals and flooded the land instead of "poofing" because he wanted to make a point to a family that wasn't giving him grief in the first place?
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,872	__________________

13th July 2012, 09:38 AM	#87
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 14,150	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ It's not worth my time. Are you saying your beliefs are not worth defending? Look, if you choose to adhere to your beliefs no matter what the evidence is, then that's your perogative. Just admit to it. Don't pretend that there's a rational basis for what you believe. If there were a rational basis, then you would at least be able to offer an opinon on how to account for the rarity of marsupials in that area in the middle east from which you believe they all migrated a few thousand years ago.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

13th July 2012, 08:04 AM	#83
catsmate1 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland) Posts: 7,122	Originally Posted by Modified The minimum viable population to prevent extinction due to inbreeding for most species is far higher than two. The Ark would have needed to carry hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of large mammals alone. Magic. Originally Posted by DC i wonder where he got the Cangoroos from. Magic. Originally Posted by Nay_Sayer Does it cover the massive amounts of urine and feces and how noah dealt with it? Or how he kept the predators from eating the smaller animals? Magic and magic. Originally Posted by Myriad Waste chutes are fine. They can even vent below the water line, provided that their linings are all as strong and water-tight as the outer hull, up to the level of the gunwales. The receiving (top) end of the chute must therefore be as high as the gunwales, or else each chute becomes a very large leak when waves are encountered. Easier to strap the animals into stalls set into the hull like the balconies on a cruise ship, with their rear ends suspended over the briny abyss. That would make all those kids' Noah's Ark toys a bit more fun and educational. However -- does any part of scripture specifically rule out a catamaran design? With that configuration, the animals could be housed throughout the center span, with their nether ends positioned over holes opening directly upon the water. Respectfully, Myriad I'm reminded of this book. Originally Posted by temporalillusion That's my question, why don't we see a genetic bottleneck in every extant species at about the same time in history? No common bottleneck, no ark. Magic.

13th July 2012, 09:21 AM	#85
Beelzebuddy Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 1,717	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Take a look at the amount of questioning of my intelligence, maturity, and honesty that has gone on just in the last two pages. Why should I have to comb through taunts, denegration, and ridicule to get to actual arguments to address? Not to mention the Gish Gallop that comes from two dozen different posts making different arguments all at once. And it's not like I can just find one or two posts making good points and address those -- any post I skip over, choose not to address, or fail to address in the way others feel I should is automatically the "killer argument" that "Avalon has no answer for." It's not worth my time. How about addressing one argument: the topic of this thread. Does Woodmorappe prove the Ark was possible? You've read the criticisms, you've at least seen links for critical reviews in the last thread, you have the book itself in front of you. What of it? What mysteries are contained therein? Does it satisfactorily answer how the Ark was seaworthy, how its cargo was cared for, how the animals repopulated the earth? Or does it prevaricate and dissemble, with a poop chute here and a water tank there, and bad geology scattered about? The fact that you are already preparing to bail on this thread gives me a pretty good guess what the answer is, but corrections are always welcome.

13th July 2012, 09:47 AM	#88
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Given how much of the water covering the world is new, what happened to the saltwater fish is probably a bigger concern than freshwayer fish.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

13th July 2012, 10:04 AM	#89
Mudcat Man of a Thousand Memes Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 3,687	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ "Avalon has no answer for this." Liberal snipping mine. This is all you need say, because there is no answer to explain the flood story. None, save magic. Admit to it or grow up, already. Edited to add: But hey, let's assume that all of this is true. An 'all knowing, wise, caring, and endless other ass kissing platitudes' god just up and notices that the world has become consumed with evil... Well how stupid of him, why wasn't his eyes on the ball before? How did this sneak up on an all knowing and all seeing god? This absolute moron whose hands our fate in and supposed to be all just decides that death is the only way to cleanse the world. Okay, I can go with that, sort of sounds like the start of your standard RPG. But not only is this incompetent moron an incompetent moron instead of choosing a champion to fight for his cause, assemble the Master Sword, wear green, take directions from an annoying fairy, and cleanse the land of evil... This god decides everything must die... By drowning. I'm sorry, is there some definition of justice in use here that I'm unfamiliar with?
	__________________ The major problem with Ocham's Razor is that while the simplest answer may be the best answer that doesn't make it the only answer or the right one. Kopji: A perfect utopia where everyone follows the rules is more like a hell than a heaven. Last edited by Mudcat; 13th July 2012 at 11:25 AM.

13th July 2012, 10:10 AM	#90
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by aggle-rithm Are you saying your beliefs are not worth defending? I'm saying it's not worth being attacked. Challenged, yes. Attacked, no. I discuss things on here because I get something out of it. When the abuse gets too thick, what I get out isn't worth what I endure.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

13th July 2012, 10:12 AM	#91
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,516	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Noah took 120 years. I have a feeling the theme park wants it done more quickly. MAkes you wonder why he didn't just snap his fingers and make people die.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

13th July 2012, 10:18 AM	#92
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,777	Originally Posted by aggle-rithm Are you saying your beliefs are not worth defending? Look, if you choose to adhere to your beliefs no matter what the evidence is, then that's your perogative. Just admit to it. Don't pretend that there's a rational basis for what you believe. If there were a rational basis, then you would at least be able to offer an opinon on how to account for the rarity of marsupials in that area in the middle east from which you believe they all migrated a few thousand years ago. Christians used to face down lions now they run for the hills at a perceived rude comment on a message board. They need better arguments or thicker skins.

13th July 2012, 10:18 AM	#93
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 14,150	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ I'm saying it's not worth being attacked. Challenged, yes. Attacked, no. Are you sure you're not confusing being challenged with being attacked? You haven't responded to any of the points I've brought up, and I've tried hard not to make it personal.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

13th July 2012, 10:19 AM	#94
Beelzebuddy Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 1,717	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ I'm saying it's not worth being attacked. Challenged, yes. Attacked, no. I discuss things on here because I get something out of it. When the abuse gets too thick, what I get out isn't worth what I endure. You'd endure less if you contributed more.

13th July 2012, 10:24 AM	#95
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by Belz... MAkes you wonder why he didn't just snap his fingers and make people die. Well, Originally Posted by Woodmorappe Why was the Ark needed at all if God could have judged and destroyed the world miraculously? To understand this question, note the impossibility of pinning God down to one modus operandi.... Saying, as Moore (1983, p. 37) does, that God "should" have just dispensed with the Ark (and taken Noah's family to heaven, destroyed the earth, and then replaced Noah's family on earth) is as foolish as it is presumptuous. Clearly, the fact that God chooses to work miraculously in one situation does not in any way prevent Him from working thorugh naturalistic means in other cases (in fact, in the vast majority of cases).
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

13th July 2012, 10:24 AM	#96
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 14,150	Originally Posted by tsig Christians used to face down lions now they run for the hills at a perceived rude comment on a message board. As I've mentioned recently in another thread, there are countries TODAY where practicing Christianity can be a death sentence. Western Christians are mere dabblers compared to them.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

13th July 2012, 10:24 AM	#97
ddt Mafia Penguin Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 10,323	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Why should I have to comb through taunts, denegration, and ridicule to get to actual arguments to address? Not to mention the Gish Gallop that comes from two dozen different posts making different arguments all at once. One nitpick about the wording "Gish Gallop": it's not. The "Gish Gallop" is a fast moving of the goal posts within a debate between two. Here, many different arguments are raised against the flood story by different people who have their different angle and point of interest to the question. And it's simply the fact that all of those questions must be answered in the affirmative for the flood story to be possible at all.
	__________________ Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group

13th July 2012, 10:25 AM	#98
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,777	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ I'm saying it's not worth being attacked. Challenged, yes. Attacked, no. I discuss things on here because I get something out of it. When the abuse gets too thick, what I get out isn't worth what I endure. 2 Timothy 8 Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel, 9 for which I am suffering even to the point of being chained like a criminal. But God’s word is not chained. 10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory. Are you saying that we are beyond salvation?

13th July 2012, 10:25 AM	#99
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy You'd endure less if you contributed more. I've never noticed a difference in the volume of attacks based on how much or how little I've contributed at any given time.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

13th July 2012, 10:29 AM	#100
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by ddt One nitpick about the wording "Gish Gallop": it's not. The "Gish Gallop" is a fast moving of the goal posts within a debate between two. As I understand the term, a "Gish Gallop" is when so many different, wide-ranging topic or points are presented, that the responder cannot reasonably been expected to address all of them. You're correct, though, that the term is usually used between two people in the context of a debate. I think it fits in this situation, though, where a bunch of different people dogpile different arguments many of which aren't even in the same general subject area as the others.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

13th July 2012, 10:31 AM	#101
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 14,150	Quote: Why was the Ark needed at all if God could have judged and destroyed the world miraculously? To understand this question, note the impossibility of pinning God down to one modus operandi.... Saying, as Moore (1983, p. 37) does, that God "should" have just dispensed with the Ark (and taken Noah's family to heaven, destroyed the earth, and then replaced Noah's family on earth) is as foolish as it is presumptuous. Clearly, the fact that God chooses to work miraculously in one situation does not in any way prevent Him from working thorugh naturalistic means in other cases (in fact, in the vast majority of cases). The problem with this sort of argument is that it doesn't really explain anything. There is no cause-and-effect relationship here, such as, "God wanted to cleanse the world, so obviously he used some natural and some supernatural forces in a convoluted way to somehow make a simple narrative from a primitive people match current scientific understanding." Compare this to a scientific idea, like "species change over millions of years, so naturally areas that have been geographically isolated for millions of years will have different species than those that are not." The latter actually explains something because it involves real cause-and-effect relationships, while the former just makes presumptions about what must have happened if our beliefs are to be vindicated.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

13th July 2012, 10:32 AM	#102
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by tsig Are you saying that we are beyond salvation? Are you saying that you think I should take addressing minutiae in Ark logistics and other technical details as being evangelism? I think I've explained before that I'm not here to preach.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

13th July 2012, 10:33 AM	#103
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 14,150	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ As I understand the term, a "Gish Gallop" is when so many different, wide-ranging topic or points are presented, that the responder cannot reasonably been expected to address all of them. You're correct, though, that the term is usually used between two people in the context of a debate. I think it fits in this situation, though, where a bunch of different people dogpile different arguments many of which aren't even in the same general subject area as the others. Why don't you pick a couple of arguments you find both challenging and reasonable and address those? That will make us all happy.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

13th July 2012, 10:34 AM	#104
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by aggle-rithm The problem with this sort of argument is that it doesn't really explain anything. I think it's reasonable to refute "why didn't God use more miracles in this event," with "we have lots of examples of God using primarily mundane, rather than miraculous, mechanisms in His events, so it is not a break in pattern for Him to do the same here."
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

13th July 2012, 10:36 AM	#105
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by aggle-rithm Why don't you pick a couple of arguments you find both challenging and reasonable and address those? That will make us all happy. You really think so? I'd put dimes to donuts that whichever two arguments I chose, someone else would either accuse me of something (cowardice, dishonesty, and stupidity seem to be the big three) or declare victory over me for failing to address theirs.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

13th July 2012, 10:38 AM	#106
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 14,150	Originally Posted by aggle-rithm The problem with this sort of argument is that it doesn't really explain anything. Also, Belz was not arguing that it was impossible for God to use both natural and supernatural means to bring about the Flood, he was just (I believe) commenting on the general absurdity of the idea.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

13th July 2012, 10:40 AM	#107
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 14,150	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ I'd put dimes to donuts that whichever two arguments I chose, someone else would either accuse me of something (cowardice, dishonesty, and stupidity seem to be the big three) or declare victory over me for failing to address theirs. Neither of which would mortally wound you. Give it a try.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

13th July 2012, 10:41 AM	#108
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 14,150	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ I think it's reasonable to refute "why didn't God use more miracles in this event," with "we have lots of examples of God using primarily mundane, rather than miraculous, mechanisms in His events, so it is not a break in pattern for Him to do the same here." Not everyone would agree that these natural events were examples of direct intervention from God.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

13th July 2012, 10:44 AM	#109
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by aggle-rithm Not everyone would agree that these natural events were examples of direct intervention from God. I was talking about Biblical examples. That's actually what was in the elipsis in the Woodmorappe quote -- several examples of God doing the same thing in different ways, some less miraculous than others.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

13th July 2012, 10:46 AM	#110
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,323	How did I..er...how did he cage mosquito's and why?
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau

13th July 2012, 10:48 AM	#111
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 14,150	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ I was talking about Biblical examples. That's actually what was in the elipsis in the Woodmorappe quote -- several examples of God doing the same thing in different ways, some less miraculous than others. Again, though, no one is arguing that it would be impossible for God to do this, just that it would make little sense. Parsimony suggests that any narrative that neither makes sense nor explains anything useful should be disregarded.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

13th July 2012, 10:50 AM	#112
Nay_Sayer Muse Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Long Island Posts: 744	Originally Posted by TimCallahan AvalonXQ: Does this book deal with the problems I brought in the other thread on the flood regarding freshwater and marine organisms? They are, as I recall: 1) How did freshwater fish, snails, bivalves, crustaceans, etc. get to the ark in the first place? 2) Assuming the marine species were left in the oceans, how did they survive the dilution of the oceans' salinity during the rain? 3) After the flood subsided, how were the freshwater species dispersed throughout the world? they obviously couldn't walk across dry land. they also couldn't have swam through the saline oceans to get to the mouths of rivers. iirc: Just animals that breath through their nostrils, Which also means no insects, effectively killing any species that eats insects. I wonder how Noah managed to get a whale into the ark.

13th July 2012, 10:50 AM	#113
ddt Mafia Penguin Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 10,323	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ As I understand the term, a "Gish Gallop" is when so many different, wide-ranging topic or points are presented, that the responder cannot reasonably been expected to address all of them. You're correct, though, that the term is usually used between two people in the context of a debate. I think it fits in this situation, though, where a bunch of different people dogpile different arguments many of which aren't even in the same general subject area as the others. I stand corrected on that. RationalWiki says Quote: The Gish Gallop is a skeptics' jargon term, named after creationist Duane Gish, for the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. And Wiki says Quote: Gish has been characterized as using a rapid-fire approach during a debate, presenting arguments and changing topics very quickly. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, has dubbed this approach the "Gish Gallop," describing it as "where the creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour, spewing forth torrents of error that the evolutionist hasn't a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate" The distinctive difference, though, is, that a forum thread is not constrained for time like a live debate is. You have all the time in the world to address them one by one. To quote Chairman Mao: A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.
	__________________ Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group

13th July 2012, 10:52 AM	#114
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,426	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Noah took 120 years. I have a feeling the theme park wants it done more quickly. So, we're allowing magic in this feasibility study?

13th July 2012, 10:57 AM	#115
Lukraak_Sisser Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 1,619	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Well, But the thing is, naturalistic explanations do NOT allow the ark to exist. Barring everything else, it simple CANNOT float. A wooden boat of that size will fall apart. Centuries of wooden boat building have very clearly defined the upper limit of a wooden ship, and that is with all the advances made in shipbuilding during the great ages of sail. So even its very not sinking requires a miracle.