Seek help.

LOL? Yes I can, quite easily. Like for example, there arent any local pink unicorns, but at the same time, there arent any global ones either.
I agree, and the answer is obviously the latter. It exiting up there is, in some small way, positive evidence for a global flood. As would be random horsey hoofprints found outside my door be some small positive evidence for invisible pink unicorns.
Yes, you can. There can be evidence that supports something while at the same time that thing being false. The KC Royals batting average is evidence that they are a good team...but they are not a good team.
I agree. It is evidence against a local flood, and evidence for a global flood. It is just SLAM DUNK evidence against, and basically trivial, irrelevant evidence for.
Give it another shot with the above clarifications.

Yes, you can. Well, ok fine its not like its evidence against the existence of local floods in general. It is just amazingly strong evidence against a ship made by Noah having been through a local flood in the region it was purported to be.

And at the same time, not in any way significant evidence that there was at one time a global flood.

I really dont quite understand the difficulty, to be honest. Surely you arent claiming that FUNDAMENTALLY something cannot be evidence that two contradictory theories are BOTH incorrect...are you?

I mean...that would be insane. Imagine, if you are capable, the following hypothetical: Noah comes back from the dead and in zombie form explains to you that he never built an ark. Voila! Evidence against a local flood, AND AT THE VERY SAME TIME, evidence against a global flood.

Unsurprisingly, it turned out to be a fake

While I won't be surprised if that is true, gonna need more than some guy with a blog saying he got an email...

I'm not following. Assume we find a boat from a time and in a place where no-one expected to find a boat. That is some evidence about the history of boats. But I don't see how it is evidence against Noah and a local flood, let alone amazingly strong evidence.

It may speak to the timing of the flood. If large boats were available much earlier than we thought, then other people may have been in possession of large boats and could have survived the flood. OTOH, God could have just poked a hole in those boats, so never mind.

Certainly, one thing can be evidence against two possibilities at the same time, or for one and against the other. I just don't see how that applies here.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749...found-19362376

Its not a boat, its the supposed Ark. I think the disconnect here is that I'm assuming that this is actually somehow magically confirmed as the actual genesis of the Noah's ark story. Like they find "Noah wuz here" scratched into a plank over the toilet or something. It is amazing evidence against a local flood because it is found far away from where the local flood was supposed to have taken place, and on top of a mountain.
It doesnt apply here, I've made that quite clear. This would in my hypothetical be evidence against a local flood and evidence for a global flood. It would just be extremely poor evidence for a global flood in the grand scheme of things.

The reason I brought it up was because it seemed as if Jib and Autocratic were arguing that it could not POSSIBLY be evidence against both theories at the same time, which is bizarre, since of course it COULD be. I dont think it is in this case, however.

let's assume that it is a fake... and this guy's blog is legit. I'm left wondering....

Is the point of the fake to get expedition money? Who is the "they" they are referring to? The members of the Chinese expedition?

Also- I think its funny how the media (including GMA) repeats that experts say they're 99.9% certain it is Noah's ark... yet no one questions who these experts are or how they could verify that it belonged to Noah. Any expert making such a claim from finding some wood on a mountain and declaring it Noah's is, without doubt, not qualified to be an expert. (perhaps they had the Vin# of Noah's boat and can identify it that way?)

1. Here are some of your evolutionist colleagues:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html

2 (+3). The theories can be separated in a sense. For instance the belief in an old (relative to Creationists) earth was around before Darwin. However evolution absolutely needs millions of years+ for its theory to be plausible. Furthermore, if you study the history of the dating of the age of the universe/earth, it is certainly linked to evolutionary theory.

Darwin's theory was published in 1859. Edwin Hubble came along in the early 1900's once the theory had caught serious steam in the scientific community, and built upon that foundation (not to neglect a whole host of other scientists who had been working on these same ideas since the early 1900's) to establish the Big Bang theory--where Darwin started with his theory on the origin of species (beginning with the assumption of the first cell), Hubble continued with a theory on the origin of the ordered universe, a natural progression of thought in explaining where we and all we observe originate. In order to establish the plausibility of the Big Bang theory, Hubble and other proponents had to extrapolate how to go from the Big Bang to the events making the way for evolution to the necessarily slow process of evolution to where we are now. The estimation of the age of the universe largely depended on his observations and theories, for instance his belief that the universe is finite was critical in formulating an equation that would in part help date the universe. You can read more about it here:

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

And the belief in Naturalism (all of the universe has naturalistic explanations), Uniformitarianism (the same natural laws that are in effect now have always been the same)-critical in assuming constants for measuring distances to stars, planets, etc.-and other philosophies and presuppositions were paramount to dating the age of the universe (and earth).

The connection of the dating of the age of the universe to the Big Bang theory is clearer from the NASA website:

(emphasis mine)

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

A lot of extrapolation in there--but extrapolating "back" to the Big Bang means starting from the present day expansion of the universe --> extrapolating to the evolution of species --> extrapolating to the Big Bang. The dating of the universe (and by implication the earth, as it is part of the universe) involves an overwhelming amount of extrapolation based on-depending on-modern scientific theory (Evolution and the Big Bang).

Some other time I'd like to go into how the dating methods beg the question, but I'm too tired right now. I hope this sufficiently answers your questions, although I wish I had more time to supply you with a fuller explanation and more links to evolutionist resources.

Edited to add: After re-reading my post to which you were replying, I should be clear that when I spoke of "evolutionary theory", I was not speaking of it in the strictest sense, but I was referring to the evolutionary theory's very typical corresponding worldview (it would have been more precise to say, "evolutionary theory and all that tends to go with it"), which if you read the writings of evolutionists, the worldview seeps in very tangibly. It has a high tendency to include atheism and naturalism.

M

FWIW, that is quite a stretch to get to Darwin, but whatever. I guess you see what you want to see. And not that it matters to you, but egregious errors like that raise serious doubts about your position on evolution, and everything else.

As for your beliefs, if you choose to hint at them but not reveal them, that's your choice. As before, I'm not interested in a private discussion.

Oh well.

I'm pretty sure he's a YEC but knows it will hurt his credibility to admit it.

The point of my first post. Which was going under the assumption the global flood and ark were real.

You make it sound like Hubble's research was some sort of conspiracy to validate evolution, when in fact it would have progressed in exactly the same way even if Darwin had never existed.

Neither of those theories have anything to do with dating the earth. If neither evolution nor the big bang had ever been discovered we would still know the earth is 4.5 billion years old based on nuclear physics.

99.9% sure.

What a joke.

Please read my above post.

Thank you and have a pleasant evening.

Yep, that seems most likely.

Scam.

http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabbl...obabble-update

and the people who 'discovered' this are also behind this. http://www.noahsark.com.hk/eng/aboutus1.php

Shocking! Who would have guessed that the latest group of jerks to claim they found Noah's Ark were probably full of crap.

Deliberate scam, deluded fools, what's the difference anyway? The people with an uncontrollable urge to believe will keep on believing, maybe adding this particular bull**** story to their retinue of "proof," and people who aren't desperate to believe don't need to read or study the particulars to know that people claiming to have found "Noah's Ark" can safely be ignored.

How did they possibly think they could get away with this?

Can't see past the $ signs imo.

You're reading your own assumptions into my statements.

As the NASA link clearly states, one of the influences of the dating of the universe is to "measure the rate of expansion and extrapolate back to the Big Bang Theory". This means they go from present-day and conjecture back through time all the way to the Big Bang Theory. Reading on your own will lead you to this fact. It's not denied by evolutionary theory.

You declare it's a stretch. You declare it's an egregious error. You provide no evidence, no warrant. You don't refute my reasoning or the evidence I've given ITT with documentation from evolutionist resources such as NASA. If you want to talk about credibility, you should first look at yourself and what you're offering as a retort other than dogma.

Edited to say: I'm sorry for the hijacking of this thread away from the news story; I'll refrain from posting off-topic from this point forth.

I really doubt it was about the money. People who want a lot of money probably wouldn't have "Noah's Ark" in their name . More likely, they are like abortion clinic bombers--so desperate to make events correspond with their views that they go to extremes to manufacture results. I don't want to judge them, but this would be my guess from the little info that I have.