Have They Found Noah's Ark ? - Again..... (page 10)

mindmelda

The earth started out as a huge sea, and that's where life began...but since then, there hasn't been any time that geologists can see where all of the earth was completely under water. You can tell from the plant and animal fossils found whether an area was under water or not in any geologic time period.

Even if all the polar ice caps melted, we'd still have mostly dry land. The water level would rise about 61 meters everywhere.

However, that would eliminate most of our present coastlines, no doubt about it.

bohm

perry: Look, i gave you an idea of how i try to form my ideas about the world. That involve combining data with my prior uncertainty of the state of the world. You then made a bunch of unrelated statements that was unrelated to that process - for example you said it was statistically impossible you should have been born into a cult, and you asked (?!) for the probability that scientists would falsify data. Thats not even an argument!

Well the probability that you are born into JW is about 0.1%. clearly thats not 0. I called you out on that previously, but you just ignored that your argument (i only call your jumble of statements that because you seem to base a conclusion upon them) clearly rest on a trivially false statement.

Yet you ignore that and deside you have somehow blown a deep hole in the very general method of inference i described. So yah, lets just say that my method of inference is not very reliable. Its the only one i know. So what is YOUR method for desiding what is true or false which, apparently, is different?

....

I have written many times that i feel you are trying to get off-topic by starting an irrelevant semi-philosophic discussion. You adress this by writing:

"Everyone on this thread who mocked the Noah's Ark "find" (and the event itself) once believed it was true. Now they believe it is not true. Learning how each was determined can be very insightful."

Again you begin your argument with a trivially false statement (i never believed in noahs ark) but woop-de-woop, lets just rephrase it to not explicitly mention noahs ark and we can surely agree that everyone here once believed something that we now think is false. IT IS STILL NOT RELEVANT. If it is relevant to this thread, surely that must be relevant to everything that is being discussed here of scientific or theological nature, and EVERY discussion here should be distracted in that way. Would that really accomplish anything?

To sum up: After your ran out of stuff to copy-paste and questions was posed to you you could not answer, you began to ask a question that is off-topic. You brush off answers to the question with demonstrateable false statements. You dont provide answer to your off-topic question yourself, ensuring you never have to show your complete inability to answer it, and allow the discussion to get back on topic.

Caedes

Now, there are 10, 000 scientists saying that science was manipulated in the global warming hoax. Whom should I believe?

Clearly not you, since the BBC article does not say what you say it does. Why are you lying Perry?

The article talks about government interference in a range of topics, as an example here is a quote from the article.

Last year, it triggered a major row when a discussion here resulted in the renowned US space agency climate scientist Dr James Hansen later claiming he had come under pressure not to talk to the media on global warming issues.

You would do well to look at the date on the article since it is from 2006 long before the so called 'global warming hoax' story become so popular with armchair experts such as yourself. Dr James Hansen doesn't believe global warming is a hoax.

BTW have you forgotten that your opinions on fossilised 'soft' tissue have been thoroughly skewered on this forum many times already?

What is truth? The opposite of anything you say, Perry, is a pretty good rule of thumb.

Black Sheep

They are too late. According to the street peddlar who sold me my coffee table, I got the last pieces.

Perry

So On The Way Out,

All your your scriptures regarding God Commanding Rape were dealt with and shown that that idea results mainly from a lack of understanding of history. Thank you for posting that link. The topic does come up periodacally and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond. I encourage anyone interested in the subject to review my posts on that link.

Do your own damned research.

Regarding the global coverage of water that is under discussion, why are you not willing to present your evidence of its impossibility? And if you can't or won't why mock the whole idea?

Isn't that what we all did as witnesses? We went around mocking things that we didn't know anything about?

What is so scary about just being honest in telling everyone how you know if something is true or not? What would make you avoid a "trick" question like that? And, remember the answer isn't what some people think.

Perry

Caedes,

I think my statement was a fair accessment:

Now, there are 10, 000 scientists saying that science was manipulated in the global warming hoax. Whom should I believe?

You said:

Clearly not you, since the BBC article does not say what you say it does. Why are you lying Perry?

It claims scientists working for federal agencies have been asked to change data to fit policy initiatives.

The Union has released an "A to Z" guide that it says documents dozens of recent allegations involving censorship and political interference in federal science, covering issues ranging fromglobal warming to sex education.

"In the last several years, we've seen an increase in both the misuse of science and I would say an increase of bad science in a number of very important issues; for example, in global climate change, international peace and security, and water resources."

Caedes,

The above are quotes from the article, You cannot change those quotes, they are facts. They can be read by anyone. I have no way of knowing if the statements are true, but that is what they say. You can split hairs and characterize them anyway you want to ....you have perfect freedom to do as you wish. You can even call me a liar if you want ...... see how freedom works?

Isn't anyone on the nay sayer side of this issue going to show the impossibility of this planet being covered in water?

bohm

Regarding the global coverage of water that is under discussion, why are you not willing to present your evidence of its impossibility?

And that, my friends, is a classical example of the logical fallacy called 'shifting the burden of proof'.

Anyway - lets just make an attempt: Perry, if the water fell from the orbit, it would be extremely hot from the potential energy when it hit the ground. If it was not in orbit i know of no other mechanisms to keep it from falling. So where did the water come from? What naturalistic explanation do you propose? (if you retort to miracles you must provide evidence that the miracle in question did indeed take place)

Perry

So bohn,

You detemine truth from statistical probability and from prior knowledge, right? The way deception works is not by performing the statistically improbable, but rather by performing the ordinary and playing off your "perception" of its improbability, get it? So a discussion of staistics is irrelevant in this case.

As for your prior knowlegde idea, towers of perfectly sound logic can be built (that are all false) on a false premise. So, while the edifice looks perfectly sound in dozens of testable ways, if the foundation is false the whole construct falls. Prior assumption is everything.

So the pertinent question becomes can you test all your assumptions so that you can "personally" know its validity?

Trying to pull this conversation back to topic:

Here is a picture of Mars:

Here is a picture of Earth:

Now what would make a person believe that it would be impossible for the Earth to be totally covered with water? What evidence is there supporting this "impossibility" that the very idea conjures mocking, derision, and gasps?

Black Sheep

What evidence is there supporting this "impossibility"

KIWIS CAN'T SWIM

notverylikely

So, can anyone determine for a certainty that a global flood is impossible?

Yes.

What is so scary about just being honest in telling everyone how you know if something is true or not? What would make you avoid a "trick" question like that? And, remember the answer isn't what some people think.

Why do you think someone is scared?

Anyway...."true" is a relative term depending what you are talking about. If I were to ask someone in China if the sun were up right now, they would say no, but for me that is false. 100 years ago if you were to ask someone if it were possible to run 1 mile in under 4 minutes, they would say no, no possible, and at that time it was true. now it isn't true.

You need to clarify what you are asking before you can get an answer. Specifically, what are you asking about?

Have They Found Noah's Ark ? - Again.....

Share this