Biff the unclean

But you already know that neither people nor animals live that long. You know that for a fact. You ignore facts-truth-in favor of your story.

But you already know that volcanism doesn't work that way. That isn't water coming out of volcanos it's magma. The steam that comes out is from ground water. But you already know that. And you know that the rain is water that is already on the planet that evaporates and then condenses. You know that the water in rain is water that is already on the planet. But you ignore that fact. You know that if there was water at one time that covered the highest mountain there would still be that much water because there is no place for it to go. But you ignore that fact.

You know more than enough facts to realise that the Noah story is a myth. But you ignore all of them. That is dishonesty, there's no way around it.

Darth Dane

But you already know that neither people nor animals live that long. You know that for a fact. You ignore facts-truth-in favor of your story.

Could it be that God removed aging as long as they were on the ark?

Could it be that dispensed with some stuff, seeing the ark was endorsed by God?


I don't know if this is true, but given some of the bible's descriptions, God is almighty and so could change these things no?






DD - Love & Laughter

Biff the unclean

Could it be that God removed aging as long as they were on the ark?
You are aware of the fact that there is no such thing as magic. But you ignore it, that's a form of lying.

Could it be that dispensed with some stuff, seeing the ark was endorsed by God?
In other words reality must be changed to fit your story. Instead of your story being compared to reality to see if it is fictional or not. That dishonesty.

I don't know if this is true, but given some of the bible's descriptions, God is almighty and so could change these things no?
We are seeing if the bible is fictional or not by comparing it to what we know to be true (fact) and it fails. It clearly shows itself to be fictional. That a character in a novel is a superhero and can do magic proves nothing except that the book is a work of fiction.

You see that's the point. No Skeptic is saying "it's fictional because I say so." We are saying to compare it to what we know is the truth--what we can PROVE is the truth--and see if it matches or not.

Heathen Dawn

Why is it that everywhere we look in the Bible, we do not find any more knowledge than that was known to the writers of its time? If divine inspiration had occured, Biblical geography (to name just one point of contention) would be different. Even cosmogony wouldn't be too hard to write inspiredly. What exactly is the problem in describing our world as a "stone that circles a ball of fire?" That's plain and unscientific language enough, yet the Bible has none of that basic knowledge.

The Bible does not show any sign of having been divinely inspired.



The heat released from all the energy derived from such volcanism and seismic activity would be enough to boil the whole planet. (reference here)

Where did the rain come from? A cloud canopy or vapour canopy would raise atmospheric pressure to incredible levels. Why don't you just accept what the Bible says about the matter and acknowledge that the water came from a large reservoire above the firmament?

Dr Rick

Typical Answers in Genesis misrepresentation of a controversy in science; some recent studies called into question the dating of mitochodrial DNA, but the issue has for the most part been resolved and no scientist in the field found or even remotely suggested that there is evidence Mitochondrial Eve likely lived 6-6.5 thousand years ago:

"No-one in the science community thought that the Parsons et al study supported a matrilineal MRCA of 6,500 years. Nevertheless their work did result in discrepancies between the known date of human geographic dispersion (at least 60,000 years BP) and the apparently very high rate of mitochondrial mutation, which, if taken at face value, would yield a matrilineal MRCA 6,500 years ago.

Parsons says: 'Using our empirical rate to calibrate the mtDNA molecular clock would result in an age of the mtDNA MRCA of only ~6,500 y.a., clearly incompatible with the known age of modern humans'

Both Parsons and Howell use a technique called restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis. This technique uses restriction enzymes (enzymes which cut sequences of DNA between short identical sequences). The length of the cut pieces is analysed and the presence of mutations will cause the length of the excised sequences to vary. This does tell us a lot about the different alleles on mitochondrial DNA, but since RFLPs can be created by events other than single base pair substitutions, it can be misleading.


Nevertheless, on the face of it, there is a substantial discrepancy between the mutational or substitution rates as determined by phylogenetic analysis (comparing the mtDNA sequences of chimp and human, foe example) and pedigree analysis (data based on allelic differences between close family members).


Others who attempted to repeat Parson's results with pedigree data were unable to do so (10) and derived a rate little different from the rate given by phylogenetic data which yields an MRCA of 150,000 years. In order to help resolve these discrepancies, all the scientists have pooled their data and the result is a mutation rate of one every 1200 years based on the pedigree data - a rate which is still faster by a factor of five than the rate given by the phylogenetic approach.




So there is a substantial issue in how to resolve the rate of mutations in mtDNA, which appear to occur between one generation and the next, and the much lower rate of mutations that seem to be fixed after several million years in the genomes of the great apes. There is a further issue, that the data based on pedigree analysis of the D-loop gives widely varying mutation rates in different studies.

Subsequent studies have shown the following:

RFLP analysis (as used by Parsons et al and Howell et al) is not a an appropriate approach to determine mutational rates; whole genome sequencing as used by Ingman et al is more accurate
There is considerable disagreement between different studies of mutational rate, as measured by pedigree analysis of near relatives, concentrating on the D-loop
Some of this variation is simply the result of stochastic variations in small sample sizes
Much of this variation is due to genuinely different mutational rates on the D-loop in different populations
The rate of fixed mutations over many generations is much lower than the instantaneous mutational rate from generation to generation as a consequence of the elimination of slightly deleterious mutations from the gene pool
The presence of mitochondrial heteroplasmy will result in an elevated mutational rate in pedigree studies
The fixed mutational rate outside the D-loop over many generations is constant across primate species and can be used as an accurate mutational 'clock'
A study of a representative sample of humans from the worldwide population using whole genome analysis and excluding the D-loop yields an age for matrilineal MRCA (Mitochondrial Eve) of 150,000 to 200,000 years
The same humans give an X-chromosome MRCA of ~480,000 years as predicted.


It seems to be the nature of creationist apologists to misrepresent and misuse scientific work. The fact that so many creationists and creationist websites latch on to the Parsons et al paper ,and claim that it is proof for a biblical Eve living 6500 years ago, (even though Parsons et al claim no such thing), demonstrates two things:

They do not understand or they deliberately misrepresent the concept of the matrilineal Most Recent Common Ancestor which does not point to the only female human ancestor
They ignore the fact that subsequent research has largely resolved the issues that the Parsons et al paper raised.


It is my confident prediction that both ill-informed creationists and those who should know better will be using this discredited argument 20 years from now. They will be as wrong then as they are now."


http://www.evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial%20Eve.htm

There are also studies elsewhere to show that donkeys don't talk, by the way.

Darth Dane

Could it be that God removed aging as long as they were on the ark?
You are aware of the fact that there is no such thing as magic. But you ignore it, that's a form of lying.

I am not aware of such fact. According to the bible, Jesus healed people, that constitutes "magic"

As i said, if you don't believe anything in the bible per se, then it doesn't matter. I present logic based on what the bible says, since we are discussing an occurence from the bible.

Could it be that dispensed with some stuff, seeing the ark was endorsed by God?
In other words reality must be changed to fit your story. Instead of your story being compared to reality to see if it is fictional or not. That dishonesty.

As said above, since this story is from the bible, I will use other examples to support it, that included healing, time changes and what have you. If you wanna disprove the bible stories without using the bible as reference, then it's chidl play to disprove anything that doesn't fit in with the modern scientifically explanation model.
Compared to Reality? If it is your "reality" then no "magic" exists, anothers "reality" includes this.


You see that's the point. No Skeptic is saying "it's fictional because I say so." We are saying to compare it to what we know is the truth--what we can PROVE is the truth--and see if it matches or not.

Yes, Proof. Since you can't prove where your conciousness comes from or where it resides, you can't prove if it comes from a higher source. Afaik nobody can scientifically explain what conciousness is.

Give me proof, please.

Do you agree that you don't know the WHOLE truth?


Don't get me wrong, many of the stories is purely a metaphor for something else.






DD - Love & Laughter

Biff the unclean

According to the bible, Jesus healed people, that constitutes "magic"
And since there is no such thing as magic you know that the bible is fictional

As i said, if you don't believe anything in the bible per se, then it doesn't matter. I present logic based on what the bible says, since we are discussing an occurence from the bible.
But if you are trying to see if a book is fictional then you must compare it to TRUTH.
Magic happens in the Harry Potter books all the time. That's the way things work in Harry's little fictional world. However in the world we live in it never happens. That's how we are sure Harry is fiction. That's also how we are sure Jesus is fiction. You are being dishonest if you "believe" in a book that is obviously not stating the truth, when you can easily see the truth.

As said above, since this story is from the bible, I will use other examples to support it, that included healing, time changes and what have you. If you wanna disprove the bible stories without using the bible as reference, then it's chidl play to disprove anything that doesn't fit in with the modern scientifically explanation model.
That's right, because science deals only with facts, only with the truth. The bible did not. To ignore truth in favor of the bible is dishonest.
Compared to Reality? If it is your "reality" then no "magic" exists, anothers "reality" includes this.
No one's does. There is only one reality and to say something like that is to tell a lie. You sacrifice reality / fact / truth for your bible. That's dishonesty.

Yes, Proof. Since you can't prove where your conciousness comes from or where it resides, you can't prove if it comes from a higher source. Afaik nobody can scientifically explain what conciousness is.
That is only because you are being willfully ignorant.

Do you agree that you don't know the WHOLE truth?
The fact that I don't know everything is not to be taken as meaning that I don't know anything. You already know more than enough to know that the bible is fictional. That it is foolishness itself to believe it.

Don't get me wrong, many of the stories is purely a metaphor for something else.
That's a pathetic cop out. We have shown that the stories that you consider "fact" have no bases in reality.

If the bible told you that two plus two equaled five you would never count on your fingers to see if it were correct. That is being willfully ignorant; which is a form of dishonesty.

Gamer4Fire

Bingo!

wade-w

This what is commonly known as an argument from ignorance fallacy. Well, commonly known among those who are familiar with logic, anyway.

Darth Dane

Yes, Proof. Since you can't prove where your conciousness comes from or where it resides, you can't prove if it comes from a higher source. Afaik nobody can scientifically explain what conciousness is.

That is only because you are being willfully ignorant.

Excuse me? I am being ignorant? Please tell me where it(conciousness) is?

The physical science doesn't knwo this, or are you telling me that it does? Please refer me to where you got this knowledge.






DD - Love & Laughter