Freethought & Rationalism Archive

07-18-2007, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen T-B

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.

Cege · 07-18-2007, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen T-B

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?

ericmurphy · 07-18-2007, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWE

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 · 07-18-2007, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cege

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.

07-18-2007, 04:58 PM

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...

Cege · 07-18-2007, 05:14 PM

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?

Calilasseia · 07-19-2007, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericmurphy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cege

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.

Constant Mews · 07-20-2007, 12:05 PM

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.

gregor · 07-20-2007, 03:37 PM

CM - Umm . . . there is nothing posted on the debate thread from you in the past few days. Computer glitch?

deadman_932 · 07-23-2007, 08:28 PM

Bump. Dave, you have a few questions for you here.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-18-2007, 04:58 PM	#465
cajela Guest Posts: n/a	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...

07-20-2007, 12:05 PM	#468
Constant Mews Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: California Posts: 1,395	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.

07-20-2007, 03:37 PM	#469
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	CM - Umm . . . there is nothing posted on the debate thread from you in the past few days. Computer glitch?

07-23-2007, 08:28 PM	#470
deadman_932 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Altadena, California Posts: 3,271	Bump. Dave, you have a few questions for you here.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.