The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

bonkey

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The essential difference between a scientist and a creationist is that a scientist will only adopt testable initial assumptions.

More correctly, a scientist should only adopt falsifiable assumptions.

An assumption which could be established as correct by a positive result, but which could not be established as incorrect by any result is worthless.

In the context of creationism, a creationist could assert that the existence of God could someday be tested. Indeed, I'm fairly sure that somewhere in the deep history of this thread, just such an assertion was made. I very much doubt, however, that any Creationist would ever accept the possibility of a test which could establish that a creator could not exist.

wolfsbane

Hot Dog wrote: »

Reality should not be considered an obstacle.



the Wyoming had the advantage of steel trusses, comparatively modern ship building techniques. it also did not have to be absolutely enormous in order to fit all representatives of all creatures that have ever lived, dinosaurs, mammals, arthropods, etc, so it seems likely that the Wyoming was "built better" than the ark, and it was still a piece of ****. So unless you actually know of some better method, it looks like you are just grasping at straws.

For the thinking person, the claim of a resurrected Son of God must be considered in the light of the claim of a 6-day Creation in the same Book. If the latter is non-factual, how likely is the former to be fact? But without belief in the former as fact, one cannot be a Christian.

Granted, many can embrace Christianity without examining the coherence and consistency of the Bible - but many are also aware of the historic position the Church had on Creation and dismiss the gospel as a fairy-tale on that basis.

I suppose if we remove all scientific difficulties from the Bible story - Creation, Flood, genealogies, miracles, prophecies, resurrection - we would have a much more credible case for the prospective convert:
God initiates life by creation and the Big Bang, abiogenesis, evolution, take over. He only intervenes by imbuing Jesus with His Spirit, who lays done his life as an example to us. If we follow Jesus' advice, and the advice of the good men who followed him, we will live more fulfilled lives here and maybe there is an after-life for our spirits. We can't be terribly sure about all this, for the Bible is full of mistaken history and conflicting opinions of the writers. But we hope for the best.

That any help? Like to become a Christian now?

As to the Wyoming and modern shipbuilding techniques - the ancients got on pretty well building great structures in Egypt and Peru. Who knows what knowledge and skills Noah and his family had on hand as they worked some 120 years on the Ark?

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

The vast majority of Christians believe without rejecting science such as evolution, so that seems a pretty weak excuse.

In fact plenty of Christians view YEC itself as an obstacle to belief in the Bible, because they are concerned that people seeking salvation but not sure of which religion will believe Christians like you and think that to be a Christian and accept Jesus one must believe in the YEC interpretation of Genesis (which hardly anyone does for obvious reasons).

Because it is so obvious that YEC is nonsense it is in fact turning people away from Christianity, and the rest of Christianity is rather annoyed at you guys for doing that.

http://www.answersincreation.org

Of course one can be a Christian and believe in evolution. One can be a Christian and believe the British are the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel; or that it is a sin to eat pork; or marry outside your ethnic group, etc. It's just that none of these can be matched with the Bible.

Should we not confront these errors, lest it hinder those who believe them from coming to Christ? No, error is error and is to be confronted at the appropriate time.

But certainly, we must make it clear none of these secondary errors will keep a person from Heaven.

wolfsbane

Eschatologist said:

To the majority of people the Earth appears old regardless of what the Bible says.

Agreed - but how old? The untrained person is likely to think thousands of years is a vast time. Millions or billions of years only enter his mind when the experts declare it to be so. So the common sense apparant age is in line with the Biblical age.

My point was why not make the appearance of age consistent with the bible to begin with.

It is, as above.

And I know creationists already believe in that consistency, but the majority of scientists don’t. I was just curious of the disparity.

That is the point - the apparant age to them is based on their hypotheses, based on their assumtions. They have to learn the earth is not thousands of years old, but billions. It is not apparant to the ordinary Joe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
2. Deduced appearance of age: man working from assumptions - e.g. radioactive rates of decay being constant - applies those asumptions to the dating of objects.

The latter is the issue here. Have the rates ever changed? Can they change?

Assumptions are fine but there must be verifiable and repeated evidence. The majority of scientists do not dispute the theoretical (half life and decay equations) nor the experimental (hundreds of thousands of measurements) foundations on which nuclear physics is based and the practical uses we derive from such understanding. It's far more than just assumptions.

I find it incredible that some creationists can harp on about carbon isotopes, a direct application of the fundamentals of nuclear physics, as proof of a young Earth - never mind the delightfully convenient short half life and that somehow the rules apply for these short ages. Yet when they go to look at the vast literature on an old Earth and all those thousands of ages published in peer-reviewed journals – suddenly we’re dealing with “assumptions”. By that logic creationists would also have to give up on the carbon isotopes as proof of anything.

Indeed they would - but they are only pointing out that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
OK, but the geologist Ian Fuller differs.


See, that's my problem - you assure me as a geologist that the dating is secure of an old earth. But he is as qualified as you, and denies it - and he is not alone. Seems to me the issue is not as clear cut as we are led to believe.


Yes well, we also have creationist biologists saying evolution can't happen. Again, the majority of scientists feel the way I do – old Earth. I’m faintly incredulous that he can hold the stance he does, being of my field of science. Regardless of my opinion though, the vast evidence for an old earth remains.

Or, as Fuller would say, it doesn't. You are correct in saying you represent the majority. But that is what it comes down to - good scientists holding different explanations for the evidence before them.

wolfsbane

Killbot2000 wrote: »

Another point about the Ark story, if we condsider the length of time that the world was flooded, the Ark must have had to accomodate for all flying creatures as well, bats, birds, insects, pterosaurs etc. They have to land sometime. Perhaps this was pointed out before but I never thought about it like that.

Yes, certainly all the non-aquatic birds anyway. Still brings the total to a manageable total, around 16k in creationist estimates.
How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/595/

Here's a little bit about two of them:
Genesis 8:7 Then he sent out a raven, which kept going to and fro until the waters had dried up from the earth. 8 He also sent out from himself a dove, to see if the waters had receded from the face of the ground. 9 But the dove found no resting place for the sole of her foot, and she returned into the ark to him, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth. So he put out his hand and took her, and drew her into the ark to himself. 10 And he waited yet another seven days, and again he sent the dove out from the ark. 11 Then the dove came to him in the evening, and behold, a freshly plucked olive leaf was in her mouth; and Noah knew that the waters had receded from the earth. 12 So he waited yet another seven days and sent out the dove, which did not return again to him anymore.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Discrimination, as in identifying a clear difference between these terms, is essential.

Creationists are not scientists.

The terms are mutually exclusive. A scientist may believe in creationism, but if creationism enters into a person's work as the basis of their investigations, they are not a scientist of any description.

A scientist assumes an initial position without proof, however this position must be falsifiable- must be testable. Such a falsifiable initial assumption is called a hypothesis. Hypotheses that are disproven (or found to be untestable), are discarded and a new hypothesis is assumed by the scientist.

A creationist proceeds from the assumption that an omnipotent intelligence (specifically the Judeo-Christian God) created the universe and all life. His initial assumption cannot be falsified using the scientific method, and indeed his creator forbids any such efforts. The creationist's initial assumption cannot therefore be called a hypothesis and it follows that the creationist cannot be referred to as a scientist.

None of this forbids a scientist from having religious beliefs. The conflict arises when non-testable assumptions of any form are made in the process of his investigation.

Ok , help me here. The scientists who believe in the Big Bang, do they have a falsifiable starting assumption? If they assume that energy always was, are they no longer scientists? If they just ignore the initial conditions of the universe, does that rehabilitate them as scientists?

If a creationist starts with a mature universe, including its biosphere, ignoring the initial conditions of the universe - is he now a scientist?

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

In my capacity as a professionally qualified mechanical engineer (specializing in the mechanics of solids -- flexion, torsion, bending etc), it seems that you are refreshingly and unexpectedly accurate in suggesting that these guys don't have a clue.

.

Wow! They must be a grave threat to shipping safety. Just to take one, S.W. Hong, maybe you should inform these institutions, to start with? There are lots more institutions under the impression these guys know what they are talking about, if you google them. I look forward to reading the expose in the papers. :rolleyes:
International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers
http://202.120.57.205/cdbook/isope2002/pdffiles/general.pdf
The ISOPE, the International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, was granted on September 15, 1989 the status of tax-exempt, non-profit scientific and educational organization under Code 501(c)(3) from the United States Internal Revenue Code. The ISOPE opened its offices initially in the USA, the UK and Norway. The Society membership is open equally to all actively interested in promoting engineering and scientific progress in the fields of offshore and polar engineering. The membership comes initially from more than 30 countries, and encompasses a variety of activities including technical conferences, publications, scholarship and professional recognition programs, continuing education, and international cooperation. The Society's annual conference, the Annual International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, is one of the world’s largest of its kind with refereed papers. The conference has been held alternatively among the continents, and has had participants from more than 50 countries.
International Towing Tank Conferencehttp://ittc.sname.org/advisory.htm
The International Towing Tank Conference is a voluntary association of worldwide organizations that have responsibility for the prediction of hydrodynamic performance of ships and marine installations based on the results of physical and numerical modeling.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Well no, you posted a link done by people who work at the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Engineering. That is a bit different. I have a good friend who works at the London Met Office, but he works in databases and wouldn't be a expert in weather forecasting.

But anyway, the mistake these "experts" made is that they counted for 8 variables when in fact a study like this should include a 9th, forward velocity. They ignored how the actual movement of the boat itself would effect its sea worthiness.

The interesting thing about this study is that it is actually invalidated by another Creationist study that tried to model what the ocean currents on a world covered in water would be like

PATTERNS OF OCEAN CIRCULATION OVER THE CONTINENTS DURING NOAH'S FLOOD
JOHN R. BAUMGARDNER, Ph.D.
DANIEL W. BARNETTE, Ph.D.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_jb_patternsofcirculation

If Baumgardner and Barnette are right then the currents in the water would reach speeds of up to 87 meters per second. Baumgardner and Barnette use this high velocity water to explain rapid erosion btw.

The problem of course is that the Ark would have been pulled at high speed all over the place, and out to deep water and high seas. The Korean research works on the assumption that didn't happen, they treat the flood as if it was simply the Ark on a body of water like a lake, and therefore ignores the damaging effects of such effects.

This highlights one of the major issues with Creationist research.

Everyone is apparently afraid to combine their research with other research to form any type of over all picture because when they do the whole thing falls apart. Individual Creationist research invalidates other individual Creationist research far more than proper science tries to, and you can't say the other Creationists are biased or out to get the idea of a Biblical Creation. So Creationists stick to isolated individual studies. Which isn't how science is supposed to work

I checked out S.W.Hong as a sample. Not a junior operative - see my previous to robindch.

Forward velocity? Are you saying the Ark was meant to do other than float?

As to the very interesting article by Baumgardner and Barnette, do you think they developed this piece on Noah's Flood and forgot he was out on it in his Ark?

Do the currents they refer to cover all latitudes? I gathered not. Are they surface currents? I gathered not.

Would a world covered in water be subject to violent storms? Is it not the difference in temperature between landmass and seas that generate storms? (That's not rhetorical - I am interested in finding out).

Does non-creation individual scientific research not invalidate other individual research? Are they all complimentary?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Of course one can be a Christian and believe in evolution. One can be a Christian and believe the British are the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel; or that it is a sin to eat pork; or marry outside your ethnic group, etc. It's just that none of these can be matched with the Bible.

The Bible is a book and like all forms of communication require interpretation.

The over whelming conclusion by the vast vast majority of Christians is that you are interpreting the book wrong

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

Ok , help me here. The scientists who believe in the Big Bang, do they have a falsifiable starting assumption? If they assume that energy always was, are they no longer scientists? If they just ignore the initial conditions of the universe, does that rehabilitate them as scientists?

If a creationist starts with a mature universe, including its biosphere, ignoring the initial conditions of the universe - is he now a scientist?

If a scientist proposes the Big Bang as the starting point of the Universe, that is a falsifiable assumption. It has a wide variety of necessary implications, which can be tested - and the scientific journals are full of people battering away at the hypothesis.

If a Creationist proposes a mature universe, what are the necessary implications of that? Can such a starting point ever be disproved? Where are the legions of Creation scientists battering away testing it?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Forward velocity? Are you saying the Ark was meant to do other than float?

The Ark as described in the Bible can't do anything other than float, that is the problem. The Koreans ignore high speed forward velocity that another Creationist paper predict would be present in a Earth covered by water. They assume, incorrectly, that the Ark would just have to "float"

wolfsbane wrote: »

As to the very interesting article by Baumgardner and Barnette, do you think they developed this piece on Noah's Flood and forgot he was out on it in his Ark?

They didn't concern themselves with the Ark, they attempted to model fluid dynamics of a planetary body completely covered in water in an attempt to explain the erosion patterns on Earth. They found that on a planetary body completely covered in water high speed currents of water would be present, and they use this (rather unconvincingly) to explain erosion.

I think Creationist go out of their way not to combine their work with other Creationist work because they know the results with invalidate each other.

You can take isolated aspects described in the Flood and see if they could happen, but when you combine they all together the only conclusion is that it didn't happen.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Do the currents they refer to cover all latitudes? I gathered not. Are they surface currents? I gathered not.

Did you read the paper at all?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Would a world covered in water be subject to violent storms? Is it not the difference in temperature between landmass and seas that generate storms? (That's not rhetorical - I am interested in finding out).

Yes, but this paper isn't describing "storms" it is describing ocean currents.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Does non-creation individual scientific research not invalidate other individual research? Are they all complimentary?

Certainly, but then scientists change their theories.

What Creationists should be saying is that the evidence and models suggest that the Ark story as described literally in the Bible most likely didn't happen.

But of course they can't say that.

So they have to twist and bend the evidence, or keep conflicting models as far apart as possible.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote: »

If a Creationist proposes a mature universe, what are the necessary implications of that? Can such a starting point ever be disproved? Where are the legions of Creation scientists battering away testing it?

Nail on the freaking head!

Where are the legions of Creationist trying to demonstrate over and over that the Earth isn't mature! If they were really interested in science that is exactly what they would be doing. Science advances by demonstrating things wrong, not correct.

Not only are Creationists not doing this, they aren't even prepared to accept that it is possible to do so. It is as far away from science as possible.

Killbot2000

As there were only two representatives of every species on the Ark, it was very likely that many of the first generation offspring were all of the same sex. This would be disastrous for obvious reproductive reasons.

If against all probability every species had a son and daughter or equivalent thereof there is still the issue of survival. The survival rate of many species to sexual maturity is much lower than 50%.

The points against the Ark story are numerous yet you seem unable to counter any of them save for some God of the gaps arguments.

Killbot2000

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, certainly all the non-aquatic birds anyway. Still brings the total to a manageable total, around 16k in creationist estimates.
How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/595/

Here's a little bit about two of them:
Genesis 8:7 Then he sent out a raven, which kept going to and fro until the waters had dried up from the earth. 8 He also sent out from himself a dove, to see if the waters had receded from the face of the ground. 9 But the dove found no resting place for the sole of her foot, and she returned into the ark to him, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth. So he put out his hand and took her, and drew her into the ark to himself. 10 And he waited yet another seven days, and again he sent the dove out from the ark. 11 Then the dove came to him in the evening, and behold, a freshly plucked olive leaf was in her mouth; and Noah knew that the waters had receded from the earth. 12 So he waited yet another seven days and sent out the dove, which did not return again to him anymore.

I'm not aware of many fully staffed zoos that accommodate for 16,000 animals. Noah's feat of babysitting the biosphere seems comparable to Santa's annual exercise in breaking the laws of physics!

Hot Dog

Who knows what knowledge and skills Noah and his family had on hand as they worked some 120 years on the Ark?

The point is that you don't, so unless you can contribute some falsifiable, testable methodology for workable oversize ship building please post it. Arguments to "wisdom of the ancients" simply is not science. Your evidence for massively prolonged lifespan for prehistoric humans I assume is presently forthcoming

As to the Wyoming and modern shipbuilding techniques - the ancients got on pretty well building great structures in Egypt and Peru.

The reference to Egypt and Peru is moot, as there was no issue of physics they had to (magically?) resolve, the pyramids and such were wonders of organization, labour and technology - for the time.

That any help? Like to become a Christian now?

Please dont be so arrogant to assume you know anything of my religious or spiritual views. I am a Christian, though of a different breed to you I would reckon.


You still have not put forth one shred of evidence to suggest that the biblical account is true, where are your falsifiable assumptions? There is lots of " Oh, it might have worked this way" or " its possible in this circumstance" or " it could be true given so and so", but these are all special pleadings, and there is no evidence that things happened the way you suggest. There is lots of evidence that it happened a much simpler way entirely.

AtomicHorror

bonkey wrote: »

More correctly, a scientist should only adopt falsifiable assumptions.

I have defined it that way before but I'm trying to keep it as simple as I can without invoking Popper

AtomicHorror

Killbot2000 wrote: »

As there were only two representatives of every species on the Ark, it was very likely that many of the first generation offspring were all of the same sex. This would be disastrous for obvious reproductive reasons.

If against all probability every species had a son and daughter or equivalent thereof there is still the issue of survival. The survival rate of many species to sexual maturity is much lower than 50%.

The points against the Ark story are numerous yet you seem unable to counter any of them save for some God of the gaps arguments.

Combine with the above the fact that the genetic bottleneck generated by reducing a species to two individuals would generaly result in extinction. I reckon most of the species would have died out within a generation.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wow! They must be a grave threat to shipping safety.

If the ships they design are as poorly engineered as the ark is in this report, then these guys aren't competent to design bath toys.

Briefly, the first and largest part of the report concerns the center of gravity and seakeeping characteristics of the boat. Well, it's a box and if there's no holes, it's going to float and probably not capsize if they make it wide enough. No surprises there.

Then comes the curious bit where they document their "structural analysis" of the boat. Now, I've no idea what kind of structural analysis happens in the far east, but in this part of the world, you have to draw up your design, then do your finite element analysis. The details of neither are included in this document, which contains an amazingly vague and hand-wavey description together with the sudden, unexpected and totally unsubstantiated conclusion that the boat "could be said to have had safe structural performance.". This could be said by a clown or a creationist but certainly not by a naval architect who values his reputation. It's not worth listing the individual omissions, since they have omitted everything from their "design".

Incidentally, I was speaking with a good mate of mine this evening about this. He was one of the structural engineers working on the Mirabella V, the world's largest single-masted sailing vessel which was designed in Ireland (bet nobody knew that )

So, this evening, the two of us wept with laughter at the idea of Noah floating around in a 450 foot log cabin, with water pouring in through every joint, the whole edifice creaking and wailing like a banshee from the huge shearing forces, while surrounded by ten thousand animals intent on eating each other while flapping, crawling and swimming about in five feet of manure and ten feet of vomit, and the whole miserable show drifting without power in an ocean rising by nine feet per hour from rain and battered by 90 foot waves.

Creationism is always good for a laugh, but never as much as when it tries to be serious.

pH

I'm still reading, hoping that this thread will get to Jonah eventually.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Ok , help me here. The scientists who believe in the Big Bang, do they have a falsifiable starting assumption?

If their hypothesis is detailed and exhibits traits or effects which may be tested, yes. This is the case for the Big Bang model, and at this time the model is generally considered the best fit to the known facts. This may change, of course.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If they assume that energy always was, are they no longer scientists? If they just ignore the initial conditions of the universe, does that rehabilitate them as scientists?

Where is that assumption coming from? Remember that there's a difference between adopting an initial position in order to allow problem solving within a limited context (such as looking at Earth as a closed system, when in fact it is not) and adopting this position as a hypothesis. If the notion that energy has "always existed" (whatever that means) can be tested, it is a valid hypothesis. I have no idea if this is the case.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If a creationist starts with a mature universe, including its biosphere, ignoring the initial conditions of the universe - is he now a scientist?

By failing to assume that the initial condition of the universe was a void containing God saying "let there be light", he's certainly not a creationist. Whether he is a scientist depends on the purpose and testability of the assumption he has made.

AtomicHorror

robindch wrote: »

So, this evening, the two of us wept with laughter at the idea of Noah floating around in a 450 foot log cabin, with water pouring in through every joint, the whole edifice creaking and wailing like a banshee from the huge shearing forces, while surrounded by ten thousand animals intent on eating each other while flapping, crawling and swimming about in five feet of manure and ten feet of vomit, and the whole miserable show drifting without power in an ocean rising by nine feet per hour from rain and battered by 90 foot waves.

That got a laugh out of me!

Hot Dog

robindch wrote: »

So, this evening, the two of us wept with laughter at the idea of Noah floating around in a 450 foot log cabin, with water pouring in through every joint, the whole edifice creaking and wailing like a banshee from the huge shearing forces, while surrounded by ten thousand animals intent on eating each other while flapping, crawling and swimming about in five feet of manure and ten feet of vomit, and the whole miserable show drifting without power in an ocean rising by nine feet per hour from rain and battered by 90 foot waves.

Creationism is always good for a laugh, but never as much as when it tries to be serious.

This apparently is an obstacle to believing in God.

AtomicHorror

Hot Dog wrote: »

The reference to Egypt and Peru is moot, as there was no issue of physics they had to (magically?) resolve, the pyramids and such were wonders of organization, labour and technology - for the time.

Building an Ark containing a genetically viable sample of every species that would be able to resist the conditions ascribed to the Flood for over a month would be a wonder even with 21st century technology. With technology that is literally pre-historic... well now that'd have to be a "miracle", wouldn't it?

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

If the ships they design are as poorly engineered as the ark is in this report, then these guys aren't competent to design bath toys.

Briefly, the first and largest part of the report concerns the center of gravity and seakeeping characteristics of the boat. Well, it's a box and if there's no holes, it's going to float and probably not capsize if they make it wide enough. No surprises there.

Then comes the curious bit where they document their "structural analysis" of the boat. Now, I've no idea what kind of structural analysis happens in the far east, but in this part of the world, you have to draw up your design, then do your finite element analysis. The details of neither are included in this document, which contains an amazingly vague and hand-wavey description together with the sudden, unexpected and totally unsubstantiated conclusion that the boat "could be said to have had safe structural performance.". This could be said by a clown or a creationist but certainly not by a naval architect who values his reputation. It's not worth listing the individual omissions, since they have omitted everything from their "design".

Incidentally, I was speaking with a good mate of mine this evening about this. He was one of the structural engineers working on the Mirabella V, the world's largest single-masted sailing vessel which was designed in Ireland (bet nobody knew that )

So, this evening, the two of us wept with laughter at the idea of Noah floating around in a 450 foot log cabin, with water pouring in through every joint, the whole edifice creaking and wailing like a banshee from the huge shearing forces, while surrounded by ten thousand animals intent on eating each other while flapping, crawling and swimming about in five feet of manure and ten feet of vomit, and the whole miserable show drifting without power in an ocean rising by nine feet per hour from rain and battered by 90 foot waves.

Creationism is always good for a laugh, but never as much as when it tries to be serious.

You omitted the incessant humping that must have been going on, amist the vomit and faeces - not a pretty picture, what an odd master of the universe God is! Shiver me timbers indeed!

J C

Hot Dog
You seem to know a lot of both zoology, geology and cosmology……

True…..


Hot Dog
……. the validity of your pronouncements are what gives doubt to you having any scientific training at all.

Not true……

……..but how do you reconcile your initially saying that you believe that I “know a lot of both zoology, geology and cosmology"”…and in the next breath you say that you doubt that I have “any scientific training at all.” ??



Hot Dog
Also, your jack of all trades working knowledge, encompassing as it does astronomy, geology, engineering and zoology looks more like the (poorly understood) talking points form AIG than an honest to goodness polymath.

I am eminently scientifically qualified to make such pronouncements …….but I freely give all of the credit to God, as my ultimate Creator!!!



Hot Dog
Just about the ark, there are structural limits to wood, it bends and flexes and so forth.

http://home.houston.rr.com/bybayouu/Noahs_ark.html

Could I point out that the Wyoming was roughly the same length as Noah’s Ark …..and it sailed for FOURTEEN years. The Ark only needed to sail for ONE year.
The Wyoming relied on conventional caulking to make it watertight while Noah’s Ark was lined with flexible pitch. The bend-induced stresses were probably dealt with by the practice of using strake edge jointing and the plank shear issue was probably addressed by the use of mortise and tenon-jointing in the planks. Noah’s Ark was also technically an un-powered barge….and not a powered ship.

Yes Noah’s Ark was one of the largest wooden vessels ever built……and it was near the limits of wooden vessel construction ……but other very large ships were ALSO built in the ancient world….and Chinese Treasure ships 600 feet long are reputed to have existed!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Ships

…and the remains of an ACTUAL giant Roman ship were found during the construction of the Leonardo da Vinci Airport in Rome during the 1960’s. It is thought to have displaced over 7,000 tonnes and to have had a crew of over 700 men!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caligula%27s_Giant_Ship

…..and a Greek warship that had a compliment of over 7,000 crew, displaced over 10,000 tonnes and was 425 feet long is recognised by the Guinness Book of Records as the world's Largest Human Powered Vessel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessarakonteres



Hot Dog
Which is why the wonder of empirical evidence comes in, it has been observed that ships over a certain size leak a very great deal due to the flexible nature of wood. ……..
……..we can both appreciate the anecdote of the Wyoming being so beset by flexing and twisting that she needed pumping from day one. In any case, your article pays little attention to that phenomenon, instead addressing roll stability, pitch and yaw and such like.

The issue of structural safety, overturning stability, and seakeeping quality are indeed very important in the design of a ship and a leading (secular) Marine Engineering Company has determined that the dimensions of Noah’s Ark strike the perfect balance for overall seaway safety.

One of the largest moden wooden ships, the Appomattox, is often compared with the Ark. Measuring 319 feet long, with a beam of 42 feet, it was reinforced with steel bracing to keep it together, and it had to be bilged continuously by steam pumps in order to battle constantly leaking beams as stresses on the hull caused the timbers to separate.
Skeptics frequently point to this as an example of the vulnerability of wooden ships over 300 feet long, and argue that this demonstrates that Noah's Ark (carrying no steel bracing or steam bilge pumps), could not possibly have been practical. However, the Appomattox was designed completely differently to the Ark, being a steam powered ship and not a barge. It was also subjected to different stresses caused by having to tow a large unpowered barge behind it.

It is noteworthy that whilst much is made of comparisons between the Appomattox and the Ark, the unpowered barge which was towed by the Appomattox is never mentioned by the Skeptics. This is particularly odd since this ship (the Santiago), is a far more relevant vessel with which to compare the Ark.
Like the Ark it was made entirely of wood, carrying no steel bracing. Like the Ark it was not powered either by steam or sail. Like the Ark it was built as a barge. Not only this, but its dimension are even larger than those of the Appomattox, being 324 feet long, with a beam of 46 feet.

Unlike the Appomattox, the Santiago DID NOT SUFFER FROM LEAKING PROBLEMS. It served on the Great Lakes as a towed barge for almost 20 years (1899-1918), before finally being swamped in a gale. This wooden barge (though not as large as the Ark), WAS LARGER THAN the Appomattox which towed it, BUT SUFFERED FROM NONE OF THE STRUCTURAL DEFECTS of the Appotomox and had a service history over twice as long as that of the Appomattox, despite serving on the Great Lakes, notorious for their storm conditions and unpredictable waters. This is a far more accurate comparison to draw with the Ark, and demonstrates that wooden barges over 300 feet long are entirely practical.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/really-a-flood-and-ark
….and of course we should not forget the fact that Noah’s Ark was constructed by Noah under the direct inspiration of God……and He knows all there is to know about Marine Engineering and Ship’s Architecture!!!:)



AtomicHorror
Creationists are not scientists.

The terms are mutually exclusive. A scientist may believe in creationism, but if creationism enters into a person's work as the basis of their investigations, they are not a scientist of any description.

A scientist assumes an initial position without proof, however this position must be falsifiable- must be testable. Such a falsifiable initial assumption is called a hypothesis. Hypotheses that are disproven (or found to be untestable), are discarded and a new hypothesis is assumed by the scientist.

A creationist proceeds from the assumption that an omnipotent intelligence (specifically the Judeo-Christian God) created the universe and all life. His initial assumption cannot be falsified using the scientific method, and indeed his creator forbids any such efforts. The creationist's initial assumption cannot therefore be called a hypothesis and it follows that the creationist cannot be referred to as a scientist.

1. WHY can’t a Creationist be a scientist…..just like a Hindu or an Evolutionist can be a scientist???

2. WHAT is the scientific status of a conventionally qualified Scientist who starts to doubt Evolution and believe in Creation as the answer to the ‘origins question’….based on the evidence that s/he is repeatedly observing?

3. WHAT IF God did Create the Universe and all life (in six Days)………are you saying that this would be beyond the ability of science to evaluate…….and therefore the MOST LIKELY answer to the ‘origins question’ is beyond the ability of science to detect?


Soul Winner
The Church has a proven history of using faith to triumph over science.

The Evolution Creation debate ISN’T a debate between faith and science …..it is a debate between two faiths ……..and two scientific interpretations of the empirical evidence is utilised in this debate.
One faith believes in God…..while the other faith believes in the god-like ability of physical forces and the material world.
The Materialistic Evolutionists refuse to scientifically evaluate any possible actions of a God, while the Creationists use the scientific method to evaluate the evidence for an omnipotent infinitely intelligent ‘actor’ in the Creation of matter and life.




Soul Winner
When Christians switched to battling with the weapon of science, they began suffering one defeat after another. Evolutionists have good reason to crow about their victories in public schools and in institutes of higher learning. Over the years, they have mopped the floor up with creationists, having won virtually every major contest.

You are entitled to your opinion….but the increasingly empty pews in ‘Evolutionist’ churches and the thousands of young people who are deeply involved with and committed to Bible-believing churches doesn’t support your contention.

Equally, on this thread, ONE Creation Scientist has roundly defeated HUNDREDS of the best Evolutionist ‘brains’ on all substantive points across all scientific disciplines.

Do you honestly believe that the Evolutionists would have even bothered to debate with me if I wasn’t making devastating points about the scientific invalidity of Evolution????

Can you point to any example where faith has defeated science.....

.....and BTW I don't believe that blind faith 'defeating' science would be a good thing......it would be little better than the triumph of uninformed superstition and conjecture over logic and empirical observation......
…..and such a position is ultimately completely untenable in the modern scientifically literate world.

Hot Dog

Hot Dog
You seem to know a lot of both zoology, geology and cosmology……

True…..


Hot Dog
……. the validity of your pronouncements are what gives doubt to you having any scientific training at all.

Not true……

……..but how do you reconcile your initially saying that you believe that I “know a lot of both zoology, geology and cosmology"”…and in the next breath you say that you doubt that I have “any scientific training at all.” ??

Sorry, that should say "you claim to know a lot of zoology,geology and cosmology" , because as you have been shown here, your knowledge is really quite poor.

Hot Dog
Also, your jack of all trades working knowledge, encompassing as it does astronomy, geology, engineering and zoology looks more like the (poorly understood) talking points form AIG than an honest to goodness polymath.

I am eminently scientifically qualified to make such pronouncements …….but I freely give all of the credit to God, as my ultimate Creator!!!

So, still no qualifications, relevant experience in the industry? Just hot air? C'mon give us a hint, what is your discipline? We can play 20 guesses!

Could I point out that the Wyoming was roughly the same length as Noah’s Ark …..and it sailed for FOURTEEN years. The Ark only needed to sail for ONE year.

Full of animals? Riiiiiiiiight.....

From the wikipedia article on treasure ships

A Treasure ship is the name for a type of large wooden vessel commanded by the Chinese admiral Zheng He on seven voyages in the early fifteenth century. Scholars dispute about the factual accuracy and correct interpretation of accounts of the treasure ships

Italic part sound familiar?

J C

robindch wrote: »

.......So, this evening, the two of us wept with laughter at the idea of Noah floating around in a 450 foot log cabin, with water pouring in through every joint, the whole edifice creaking and wailing like a banshee from the huge shearing forces, while surrounded by ten thousand animals intent on eating each other while........

Your laughter is about as relevant as a modern bricklayer laughing at the idea that the multi-million tonne Great Pyramid in Giza could never have been built by a 'stone age' people.........
........because all he had ever built was a semi-D in Tallaght.......and he found it difficult to lift anything heavier than a breeze block!!!!!:D

robindch wrote: »

flapping, crawling and swimming about in five feet of manure and ten feet of vomit, and the whole miserable show drifting without power in an ocean rising by nine feet per hour from rain and battered by 90 foot waves.

Animals often react very unusually when great natural catastrophies are occurring or are about to occur. Many of the animals could have entered a type of 'hibernation' phase during the Flood. The feed could have been rationed. Providing water to them certainly wouldn't have been a problem.....and the dung could have easily been allowed to flow overboard!!!!

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

1. WHY can’t a Creationist be a scientist…..just like a Hindu or an Evolutionist can be a scientist???

I explained exactly why in my post that you quoted. A geneticist proceeds from falsifiable/testable hypotheses and is therefore a scientist. A Hindu may be a scientist if he does not allow his faith to conflict with his capacity to proceed from falsifiable hypotheses. A Creationist by definition proceeds from a non-falsifiable position.

As for your oft-cited "evolutionist"... He's not a scientist because he does not exist. The term is one that has been hijacked (from earlier usage) by creationists to create the implication that evolutionary theory and creationism are in some way comparable. Faith-based ideologies. They are not.

J C wrote: »

2. WHAT is the scientific status of a conventionally qualified Scientist who starts to doubt Evolution and believe in Creation as the answer to the ‘origins question’….based on the evidence that s/he is repeatedly observing?

Creationism requires God. The existence of God is not scientifically verifiable. To place Him into a hypothesis is contradictory to the term itself. God is speculation, in scientific terms. A scientist who decides that God is an appropriate explanation for some scientific data he has collected is not a scientist.

J C wrote: »

3. WHAT IF God did Create the Universe and all life (in six Days)………

If the world and life were created in 6 days this would be verifiable using the scientific method. The involvement of God in this process, by the Christian definition of God, cannot be verified by any means whatsoever.

J C wrote: »

...are you saying that this would be beyond the ability of science to evaluate…….and therefore the MOST LIKELY answer to the ‘origins question’ is beyond the ability of science to detect?

Whether the universe can ever be fully described by science is impossible to say. It will continue to be impossible to say until such time as the universe is fully undertsood, assuming this is possible. In other words, the question is irrelevant.

J C wrote: »

You are entitled to your opinion….but the increasingly empty pews in ‘Evolutionist’ churches and the thousands of young people who are deeply involved with and committed to Bible-believing churches doesn’t support your contention.

What the hell is an evolutionist church? Have you lost the plot?

J C wrote: »

Equally, on this thread, ONE Creation Scientist has roundly defeated HUNDREDS of the best Evolutionist ‘brains’ on all substantive points across all scientific disciplines.

Which Creation Scientist is this and how was his victory measured?

J C wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that the Evolutionists would have even bothered to debate with me if I wasn’t making devastating points about the scientific invalidity of Evolution????

Do you honestly believe that Creationists would have ever bothered to attack a perfectly reasonable scientific theory if it did not poke massive holes in their narrow-minded concepts of God? Don't fool yourself for a moment into thinking that this debate is an effort to convince you. We have no interest in making you see sense. Your worldview is a delusion. We're showing everyone else that.

iUseVi

I would bet that J C is no more than 14-15. Obviously he/she is not a scientist.

Why can I not stop reading this thread!? The stupidity is almost hypnotic.

Eschatologist

J C wrote: »

Hot Dog
You seem to know a lot of both zoology, geology and cosmology……

True…..

Could you perhaps repost where you describe the "intimate geology of Ireland" (you mentioned this in a previous post) in a flood context and how this fits in with the bigger picture of global geology?

I must have missed this sound demonstration of geological knowledge...