How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?

by hooberus 207 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  hooberus

  Hillary said:

  What you have quoted, despite them being context compromised ( another tool of psuedo-science! ) proves my point.

  If you are saying that the quotes are out of context please explain why.

  Can I ask you a question? Do you seriously believe that a scientist as aggressively Marxist as Lewontin is, would really be sympathizing in the slightest with creationist ideals.

  No, I never said nor implied that he does (nor did the site from which I pasted the quote). He was quoted to show his apriori bias toward materialism.
• 

  rem

  Hooberus,
  
  :My point was that many evolutionists apriori limit themselves to materialistic explanations
  
  Any person who does not do this is not a scientist - he is a pseudoscientist
  
  :and exclude creation as a possible conclusion
  
  Scientists do no apriori exclude creation. Creation could be materialistic. Unfortuntatly no evidence of materialistic creation exists, so real scientists don't waste their time on such topics that belong in the realm of philosophy and theology.
  
  :their philosophy of interpretation causes them to exclude the creation alternative as a possible conclusion.
  
  Their discipline requires that they reject hypothesis that have no evidence to back them. Creationists, on the other hand, ignore evidence because of their apriori rejection of evolution and acceptance of the Genesis account.
  
  You are confused about what science is. You put your faith in pseudoscience because of your apriori belief in the bible. I have no investment in any theory or philosophy. If there is a god, then that is great. If not, then that's fine too. I accept the theory that has the best evidence. Evolution has evidence. Creation does not.
  
  rem
• 

  hillary_step

  Hooberus,

  Rem concisely explained both my argument and your own. The scientists that you quote are *not* fulfilling the criteria of the question that I asked. Science *does not* start with pre-conceptions, it begins with theory and through process builds on theory, *that* is the point.

  When you understand the processes of science you will understand that it must be materially based as a matter of internal integrity, for without this basis the needs of truth upon which science always defaults, cannot be served. For an example of the distatrous consequences of what can happen to 'science' when it does not base itself on a material foundation, read any Creationsit web site. There you will note that priori and a non-material basis actually allow for an intellectual dishonesty to mould its direction.

  Creationists feel that by punching the windows out of the house of evolution, the house will collapse. The noise may be impressive, but the superstructure is unaffected. I respect your right to believe what you wish Hooberus, but I believe that when you understand how science works you will not view it as an enemy but respect its adherence to truth, to which it always must default.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  hooberus

  rem said:

  Any person who does not do this is not a scientist - he is a pseudoscientist

  So a scientist that does not apriori limit themselves to materialistic explanations is a pseudoscientist? So a scientist that considers both creation as well as evolution options and who does not apriori limit themself to only naturalsitic options is a pseudoscientist?
  
  
  

  Scientists do no apriori exclude creation.

  Those that limit themselves to materialistic explanations only do this. Some even admit that creation is to be excluded.

  Creation could be materialistic. Unfortuntatly no evidence of materialistic creation exists, so real scientists don't waste their time on such topics that belong in the realm of philosophy and theology.

  Many scientists (including former evolutionists) believe that there is much evidence for creation.
  
  

  Their discipline requires that they reject hypothesis that have no evidence to back them. Creationists, on the other hand, ignore evidence because of their apriori rejection of evolution and acceptance of the Genesis account.

  Many evolutionists apriori limit themselves to only naturalistic origins options, and exclude creation. It is a double standard. If an evolutionist apriori limits himself to evolution only origins options this is said to not invalidate his conclusions. He is still said to be a scientist. However if another scientist with the same qualifications apriori limits himself to creation only origins options then this is said to invalidate his conclusions. He is said to be a "pseudoscientist"
• 

  hooberus

  In the real world most creationist scientists received their formal science education from secular pro-evolution universities, so they are well aware of the evidences presented for evolution. Also, Many creationists were former evolutionists who after looking at the facts from both models of origins choose creation.

  I think that in the real world most evolutionists are just as biased towards evolutionary conclusions as creationists are to creationist conclusions. Therefore, if someone wishes to evaluate both models of origins a person needs to understand the data from various angels.
• 

  rem

  Hooberus,
  
  Perhaps you did not fully understand what I wrote. Please read it again and comprehend the words. I feel like a broken record here... we've gone over this stuff time and time again. It's not rocket science, man. I know you are smarter than this. That's probably what makes this so frustrating.
  
  rem
• 

  Faraon

  Hooberus,

  My point was that many evolutionists apriori limit themselves to materialistic explanations/ conclusions and exclude creation as a possible conclusion in their origins research. Though some have examined creationist evidence, their philosophy of interpretation causes them to exclude the creation alternative as a possible conclusion. Therefore they limit themselves only to naturalsistic/ evolutionary possibilities in their research.

  That explains why some of us are sons of a bitch. Following the Nichol people's creationist stories

  http://lectura.ilce.edu.mx:3000/biblioteca/sites/fondo2000/vol2/05/htm/SEC_2.html

  Cuentan que la madre de los dioses habló a un leñador anunciándole un diluvio en el que morirían todos los hombres, para salvarse debía encerrarse en un tronco hueco, en la curiosa compañía de una perra. Esto hizo el leñador y como la diosa cerró muy bien el tronco, éste flotó hasta que pasó la inundación y salieron el leñador y su perra. Se instalaron en una cueva y él salía diariamente a cortar leña. Como el leñador era el único hombre sobreviviente, le extrañaba muchísimo que, al regresar a la cueva, todos los días encontrara agua del río y tortillas calientes. Presa de curiosidad decidió esconderse y entonces vio que la perra se quitaba la piel y se convertía en una mujer. Mientras iba al río a traer agua, el leñador quemó la piel de la perra. La mujer inmediatamente empezó a gritar sintiendo terribles dolores en la espalda, y es que tenía la espalda quemada al igual que la piel de la perra. El leñador le echó el agua con la que se preparaba la masa para las tortillas y con eso se alivió. Después se casaron y sus hijos explican las palabras "linaje de perros".

  Basically it means that the mother of the gods talked to a lumberjack announcing a deluge in which all men would die. In order to save himself he had to enclose himself in a hole in a trunk acompanied by a bitch. The goddess closed the trunk and it floated until the deluge was over. They lived in a cave and he would go out in order to cut wood. Since he was the only survivor, he was amazed to find warm tortillas and water from the river. He saw that the bitch would take off her skin and turn into a woman. He took the skin and burned it while she left to get water from the river. The woman started to scream feeling terrible pains in her back the same as the bitch's fur. He took some of the water stored to prepare the tortillas and threw it at her and this cured her. After that they were married and their children explain the words "lineage of dogs" [Chichimeca is a word of a tribe of Native Mexicans. It literally means "sons of a bitch"]

  Some people get offended by this but I think that it is just as silly as being born from the dust or a rib.

  Some people would say that this is proof of a deluge. I don't think so.
• 

  avishai

  In answer to the question postulated in this post, it's very easy to figure out

  You take the p out of play, and the "f" out of way.
• 

  heianderen

  Answer: God is perfect in all his ways, thus having told the righteous man noah to build a ark to not only save all the animals but to also say yourself and your family, GOD who does not make mistakes or tell lies have given noah the right measurement to create it and to survive in it

  U.2.K. Tha Greate$t,

  This god is so perfect, that need to destroy almost everything on earth that he himself have created to put everything in order (again?). I used to destroy only the imperfect things that I've done, not the perfect ones. Therefore god creation must be imperfect, and then god is imperfect also.... maybe the Bible's God doesn't exists. Think a moment!!!!!, what kind of "loving" god can make this massacre!!! Not only he destroyed the whole human race (almost), including not born babies and children but also murdered almost every animal (WHY??, are they also siners?) and vegetation... oh my, this story is pure nonsense, this is the typical behaviour of a psyco, his creation is shit, because he made it that way, and then he got angry and destroyed everything.

  _Heianderen_
• 

  funkyderek

  It is a double standard. If an evolutionist apriori limits himself to evolution only origins options this is said to not invalidate his conclusions. He is still said to be a scientist. However if another scientist with the same qualifications apriori limits himself to creation only origins options then this is said to invalidate his conclusions. He is said to be a "pseudoscientist"

  The difference is that a scientist can be persuaded to change his mind. If a theory is falsified, then it must be rejected. Creationism cannot be falsified. No matter how overwhelming the evidence those who truly wish to believe can construct the kind of tortuous scenarios that you continually copy-and-paste from answersingenesis.org. When backed into a corner, they can simply claim a miracle or invoke the mysterious will of God. Yes, we may live in a universe whose true origins are supernatural and unfalsifiable but if this is the case, then all worldviews are equally valid. We could never, ever know for sure whether our beliefs were correct. So, in a way, you're right. Scientists do limit themselves to that which can potentially be disproven. Anything else is a waste of time. Regarding the subject at hand, a global flood within the last 6000 years, guess what? That actually qualifies as a scientific hypothesis. From what we know about the world, if there was a global flood at that time, there would be evidence (for example) in the fossil record. We can search for such evidence. The hypothesis would be falsified if (for example) dendrochronology showed no evidence such of a global flood. The vast amounts of evidence that should be available if this hypothesis were valid are conspicuously absent. Real scientists have no choice but to reject the hypothesis as completely lacking in merit. The motives of those who continue to propagate this demonstrably false claim have to be questioned.