And the lesson for the day, kids, is this: confirmation bias separates science from junk/psuedo-science.

lol

The day they prove that this was Noah's Ark, and it fit 2 of every animal in it (including barney the dinosaurs), is the day I will circumcise my self with a mallet.

if the entire world was flooded where did all the water go?

Thank God for global warming then

DUCY

this is my problem with religious people, how can you trust the bible SO blindly that everything that is written in it so "clear and obvious"

you would read any other novel or story or watch a film even and be a little bit skeptical but THIS book is so different?

I have nothing against people who pray and go to church, but people who quote bible passages to use as actual evidence tilts the living **** out of me

ridiculous

Also according to Darwinist scientists IMO.

First of all, carbon dating is only accurate to a maximum of about 40,000 to 50,000 years even if you grant the evolutionists' assumptions, so when you talk about "millions" and "billions" of years old, you're talking about radiometric dating methods such as potassium-argon, uranium-lead, chlorine-36 dating, etc.

In the case of carbon dating, talkorigins.org (the pro-evolutionist site made specifically to debunk creationism) admits there are varying amounts of C-14 in the atmosphere at a given time:

Talkorigins also admits the limits of obtaining an accurate correction:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html

Beyond 8-9k years, it cannot be said to be very accurate in a large number of cases.

From Beta Analytic, Ltd., the largest radio carbon dating lab in the world, I found some delightful tidbits:

http://www.radiocarbon.eu/archaeology.htm

In simple English, the lab asks the client what age they want and makes sure they get it. If you say, "No, they just want to avoid cross-contamination", so your argument is that the way in which they go about this is not through their own, objective, empirical testing, but through asking the client their opinion of what age they think the sample should be? Are you serious? This is the bastion of empiricism and objective evidence you boast about all the day long?

Second, from the same source:

So if archeologists simply say, "Nah, I disagree", or "This is archeologically unacceptable" (lol), that is sufficient to reject the C-14 results, to dismiss them and throw them out the window? At the very least this proves the dating method is nowhere near definitive, otherwise this would be an impossibility (or fraud). And where I thought Creationists saying evolutionists pick and choose what dates they want was unlikely, here I see the world's largest radiocarbon dating lab admitting it right on their web page.

A good (albeit Christian) link for you to read if you care about learning about this subject is:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...rove-the-bible

One of the keys to the above link is the evolutionist's necessary assumption of the truth of evolution and the corresponding old earth in order to set the constant ratio of C-12 to C-14 (1 to 1 trillion) for their calculations used in the carbon dating method. If this assumption were changed or unknown, the results would be vastly different or unknowable. And it should be pointed out that using the assumption of millions/billions of years in order to set a constant in your calculation for a dating method is begging the question (!).

Another key to the above link is in the RATE testing, if you read up about that.

Lastly, a word about the dating methods I mentioned above, which are used for obtaining the "millions" and "billions" results. If you study this, those methods are not reliable for some similar reasons radiocarbon dating isn't reliable--they depend on assumptions that no one can prove:

http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp#Why...are inaccurate

Because all dating methods demand key assumptions which cannot be proven (hence why this is "historical science", and not "science" in the sense of rock-solid, absolute, repeat-it-in-a-lab empiricism), and because evolutionists have inserted assumptions based on an earth that is billions of years old (which begs the question, assuming what needs to be proved as part of the dating method used to prove it), these methods cannot be accurate.

For more reading on the problems of these dating methods, linked below is the pro-evolutionary source (albeit presenting them in the most favorable light possible):

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

You can also read:

http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp#Why...are inaccurate

Megenoita, apologies if you have covered this before, but I'm curious - how old do you believe the Earth and universe are, and why?

Yeah I know I was just testing the waters, it can be unclear for a few posts whether a new poster is a lunatic or not.

lol is this fellow a new creationist or has he been around here lately?

In the other thread, you were quite upset with me for sharing my "thoughts" (when the OP asked for thoughts). Now, I only post evidence and merited, documented evidence, and you ask for my thoughts. Make up your mind, would ya?

After you read all the links I posted, you should have something closer in the direction of an answer to your question, anyway.

Which poster are you referring to?

I think this is basically correct, but I'm a little surprised that you are choosing to make this argument, as I think it ends pretty badly for you.

Basically, it goes like this: this isnt really just "evidence against" a local flood theory, if it were somehow magically determined to really be the Ark that it is supposed to be, then it is basically convincing proof that the local flood theory is wrong.

On the other hand, while its true that this would in fact be evidence for a global flood theory, it would be a tiny little bit of evidence, massively swamped by all the counter evidence (as far as evidence something DIDNT happen goes) and so would essentially be trivial.

Finding the Ark up there means that it was NOT a local flood, but it doesnt mean there ever was a flood in the first place.

indeed

Oh I'm 100% sure.... I have to talk slow sometimes or Aro can't keep up.


It's just the panic in the air that makes me smile.

Still not upset, but even more puzzled. In the other thread, the OP suggested the Bible is fiction, and asked for thoughts about whether or not God actually exists. In your response, the first full paragraph went on about Darwinism the fairy tale and its accompanying worldview, and it popped up again throughout the post. You often mention Darwinism when it seems unrelated to the topic.

You wrote about fifteen hundred words in response to the OP and I commented on about twenty of them - making the simple point that your broad characterization of atheists can be applied to theists as well. And I asked for some support for your claims about Darwinism, because that word often appears in posts by theists, some of whom maintain that evolution has no consequences for their theology. It is a puzzling claim.

Anyway, none of that seems to indicate I was upset at you for sharing your thoughts. Learning about others' thoughts is one of the great benefits of this forum. And to clarify, here I am not asking for your thoughts, but for your beliefs and the evidence for them.

For example, if you believe that the Earth is more or less 4.5 billion years old and have evidence to support that - that will offer a sense of what science you accept, and what science you consider to be blatant lies by immoral yes-men. Or if you believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, then your views on science matter not at all in terms of evidence for evolution, since it simply cannot be true in that case. Of course, that will considerably broaden the areas of science that must belong to the atheistic cabal.

I don't recall you bringing up atheistic plate tectonicism, but some of your comments and the links you posted made me wonder if you believed in a young Earth. The links don't answer that question for me. So I thought I'd ask.

Wait a second. You cannot say that this is evidence that it was not a local flood, but that it doesn't mean that there was a global flood.

Either the boat (assuming that is what it actually is) got up there by means of a global flood, or it didn't get up there by means of a global flood.

If you affirm that it was a global flood thereby negating the local flood theory, then you have to maintain that there was a global flood. It cannot be evidence against a local flood as well as not evidence for a global flood.

What am I missing here?

Agree.

You can say that it's not evidence (or not significant evidence) for a global flood - and it's not - but you can't simultaneously say that it's evidence against a local flood.

Oshenz,

Thanks for continuing to present yourself in a diplomatic way. As I recall this is how you normally present yourself.

Let me clarify why I brought Darwinism into that thread. OP said in his OP:

*After death there is nothingness just like before you were born (a tenet of Naturalism, which follows from Darwinism)

*The universe has been around billions of years (Darwinistic evolutionary theory)

*and the earth a small fraction of that time and humans an even smaller fraction of the time (more clear evolutionary theory)

So he may not have said the word "Darwinism" or "evolution", but his worldview was apparent. Thus in my response I thought it appropriate to address his worldview.

As to my beliefs and evidence for them, I began to express them in my PM to you awhile back. If you want to know beliefs and evidence beyond what I volunteer for the sake of a thread, you can PM me and resume correspondence.

Thanks,
M

Meg some comments

1. Define Darwinism. This seems to be a term only use by creationists.

2. the age of the universe has nothing to do with evolution.

3. the age of the earth has nothing to do with evolution.

For what it's worth, Answers in Genesis (Ken Ham's site) is cautiously weighing the evidence on the supposed Ark discovery, and withholds judgment on the matter for now.

Has Noah’s Ark Been Found?

To think this is actual proof of anything is preposterous and shows that people want so badly to believe that they dismiss all logic and common sense.

I did a ton of googling and I could barely get any details on this "discovery". I did find a lot of info on past "discoveries" of Noah's Ark which were interesting (and looked just as good as this one), and I was going to link some, but 2.2 shut down when I had the links up.

Anyway, it's clear there needs to be a lot more information released. What baffles me is how they can be 99.9% sure or w/e--I mean, really? We're not 100% sure, but we're 99.9% or w/e %...that's going to end up being very exciting for Christians (because it is definitively found) or it's going to make a fool out of that organization because they acted like it was a lock and it was nowhere close. I can understand why the Noah's Ark Foundation or w/e would be excited , but they should have refrained from such a statement IMO.

I interpret the 99.9% sure as acknowledging the 0.1% probability it was a perfectly executed fake Ark, planted by Satan to deceive mankind.