FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-18-2007, 03:48 PM   #461
mung bean
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen T-B View Post
Just an observation here, but the spectacle of gullibility spiraling out of control is alarming, because it shows how slight can be a person's grip on reality, and fascinating because it shows how wishful thinking can completely overwhelm reason, while reason is employed to make its being overwhlemed seem sensible.
Nicely worded. Yep, that's fundys for ya.
 
Old 07-18-2007, 03:50 PM   #462
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 36078
Posts: 849
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen T-B View Post
A question for Dave and/or Roger:
How did Noah and his immediate kin have such long lives considering everything was covered by a mile-deep sediment when they got off the Ark and if they'd killed any of the animals, they'd have wiped out entire species?
I'm not Dave and/or Roger, but I can tell you that Genesis says that some animals were immediately killed as a sacrifice. Many times I've thought the same as your assertion: so much for that species!

18 So Noah came out, together with his sons and his wife and his sons' wives. 19 All the animals and all the creatures that move along the ground and all the birds—everything that moves on the earth—came out of the ark, one kind after another.

20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. 21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though [a] every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.


I wouldn't be surprised, though, if apologists contend that those representatives of animal species that were sacrificed as burnt offerings were offspring born of pairs of animals that were born aboard the ark by Noah.

(Also, Noah, being a "man of the soil", planted a vineyard first thing, implying that he brought either plants or seeds along on the ark. Soon as that vineyard produced, Noah made wine and got drunk right away.)

Maybe they just ate fish until plants grew again?
Cege is offline  
Old 07-18-2007, 03:58 PM   #463
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,027
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWE View Post
I really try not to respond when I see population projections (or more accurately, population graphs) made by laypeople. Population modeling is so goddam complex that it means nothing to postulate a graph without a bunch of differential feedback loops.

I am very familiar with software that models population and I must reiterate, it takes math people combined with science people combined with programmers and a physical feedback loop (checking against real data over and over) to make any kind of accurate model and then it is still quite simple and useless if it can't be tuned (the results adjustable to fit real data) using a variety of parameters. And even then it's only partly useful, mostly to policy makers as a justification for doing what they want to do anyway.

Ghhhaaaa!
Scarlets79 tried a similar argument on RDF, assuming a population doubling every 150 years to get from some (undefined) number of people at some (undefined) point in time to get to the current world population. I pointed out to her that if you start with 8 people at the flood and wait a thousand years, you've got a bit more than 500 people worldwide.

Unfortunately, the thread was locked before she could post her devastating rebuttal.
ericmurphy is offline  
Old 07-18-2007, 04:03 PM   #464
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,027
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cege View Post
Maybe they just ate fish until plants grew again?
What fish? They all would have died in the flood. Just because fish live in water doesn't mean they can live in any water. Something I've pointed out to Dave at least two dozen times, to absolutely no response.
ericmurphy is offline  
Old 07-18-2007, 04:58 PM   #465
cajela
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

According to the bible, Noah took 7 pairs of the "clean" animals, so that particular argument's a wash.

But how did Noah know they were clean? Moses wasn't given the law about that until, like, later enough for Egypt to be rebuilt...
 
Old 07-18-2007, 05:14 PM   #466
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 36078
Posts: 849
Default

Quote:
What fish? They all would have died in the flood.
Hmmm. Ok, no live fishies.

Maybe they ate aigs (deep South pronounciation of 'eggs') from the birds and chickens and emu until the plants grew? And roasted a few of the offspring of the 6 remaining pairs of the 7 pairs of clean animals?
Cege is offline  
Old 07-19-2007, 04:22 AM   #467
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Liverpool, UK
Posts: 1,072
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericmurphy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cege View Post
Maybe they just ate fish until plants grew again?
What fish? They all would have died in the flood. Just because fish live in water doesn't mean they can live in any water. Something I've pointed out to Dave at least two dozen times, to absolutely no response.
Actually it's even worse than this. He's been pointed to swathes of aquatic taxa that would have been exterminated, along with several compelling reasons why they would have been exterminated, but has yet to respond with any answer that does not involve hand-waving or simple evasion.
Calilasseia is offline  
Old 07-20-2007, 12:05 PM   #468
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: California
Posts: 1,395
Default

Try to keep in mind that Dave is not conducting an argument. Dave is presenting arguments that other, more intelligent creationists have made. More bizarrely, he is presenting the conclusions of those other arguments as 'givens' that his opponents must disprove.

Dave is not capable of actually making an argument by himself.

I have posted on the debate thread; I was baffled about how to respond to his latest, most content-free post. I opted for simplicity.

I expected Dave to be a poor debater, but this is truly ridiculous. My three year-old could have done a more convincing job.
Constant Mews is offline  
Old 07-20-2007, 03:37 PM   #469
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 932
Default

CM - Umm . . . there is nothing posted on the debate thread from you in the past few days. Computer glitch?
gregor is offline  
Old 07-23-2007, 08:28 PM   #470
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Altadena, California
Posts: 3,271
Default

Bump. Dave, you have a few questions for you here.
deadman_932 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:36 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.