Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

He's the guy who found the Titanic...

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#81  Postby Zadocfish2 » Dec 10, 2014 11:25 am

Scot Dutchy wrote:
Zadocfish2 wrote:
No answer is given except "unless you have faith you cannot understand".


The answer is "The world is filled with bad things. This is because of choices man has made and the way other living things work. You want to place blame, place it on the disease that is causing the suffering, same as when a dog mauls somebody. You don't blame a higher power, you blame the dog (the disease) or the owner (humanity, stewards of the Earth). Why blame the landlord?"


Who is blaming anyone that is a xtian concept. There is no landlord. I don't have the concept of stewards of the Earth that again is another xtian concept that is used to describe something that is intangible. There is no such thing. No super power. Nothing but that concept is totally outside the logic of the xtian mind. There must be an answer. A why.

Religion of any sort is only about one thing and that is power. Power over the minds of people. That is why the pope is talking to muslim leaders because both are losing power.


I understand you don't believe, and I understand better than most why. You said you never got an answer to the question, and I answered it from the Christian perspective, whether you accept or agree with it or not.
User formerly known as Falconjudge.

I am a Christian.
User avatar
Zadocfish2
 
Name: Justin
Posts: 608
Age: 29
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#82  Postby monkeyboy » Dec 10, 2014 11:38 am

Chris Putnam wrote:Hi Weaver. God does not need me to defend Him with regard to name calling. I'm sure He can take care of that Himself as He sees fit. I simply find it sad when supposed rational thinking people think "name calling" refutes an argument.

I see nobody here doing that. Calling a spade a spade however, is perfectly reasonable.
Also, what I observed earlier seems to hold up, and my evidence is a lifetime of observing this. Many people reject the God of the Bible because they despise Him. Not for lack of a reason to believe He is there.

I had this accusation from a friend recently. What I had to explain to him is that the lack of belief came to me as I read the bible and understood it more as I got old enough to do so. Too many inconsistencies, too much contradiction with reality, too many questions unanswered or as I was discovering, far better answered by the sciences. The bible was clearly a compendium of the camp fires tales of an old Jewish tribe or tribes, cobbled together in the hope of being regarded as eternal wisdom on the how and why we are here and how we should behave. Back in the day people were generally ignorant, and I don't mean that as any form of insult, they were. They knew very little compared to our collective knowledge now I'm sure the bible was a compelling set of stories back in its day. It isn't so much so now though.
I suppose that I must be incompetent with regard to the sciences and have not attempted to singularly build my case for a world wide flood on that. As I said before, scientists change their conclusions based on new studies and I see no need to abandon my position based on someones interpretation of the "facts". I spent today looking at websites and I own books by PH d scientists who believe in a world wide flood. There are plenty of them.

I'm nothing like a PHD. I'll leave the science to others better equipped to deal with it. I'm more of a common sense kind of guy. Perhaps we can keep it at that level.
So Noah built his boat and gathered to him the representatives of all the species on earth who had been selected to repopulate the planet after god's (insert your own epithet for mass murder/annihilation/final solution/extermination). He gathered all the carnivores and he gathered all their prey. Now I understand the idea of gathering breeding pairs for repopulating. Don't you think the authors of this story might have overlooked the fact that the carnivores might have gotten just a teeny bit peckish during the breeding cycles of their prey? They need only kill one of the breeding pair before they mate and that's another extinction. Kill too many of their prey and the carnivores start going out of existence too. Where did all the water go? Did the water go back to exactly the same levels? Now I started questioning stuff like this when I was a kid and the seeds of doubt get sown. It makes no sense as a narrative, certainly the answers to just my initial questions were not to be found in the book and I had more, way, way more. You either have to just accept it all happened without questioning it, ignoring the awkward bits with no answers to the many many questions which rise from the blatant incomprehension of the way the world works apparent throughout the bible, or you have to conclude it likely didn't happen. The more likely conclusion is that the camp fire tales of a flood/s have evolved into this global flood tale.
Then there is the more concerning question, why? Why is god's solution the death penalty for everyone and everything apart from Noah and his family? Why is god incapable at that point of dreaming up his later scheme for the salvation of mankind of impregnating a married woman with himself so that his human avatar can be tortured to death as a scapegoat for human sin, sacrificed to himself so that he can forgive those sins and be reincarnated in dubious circumstances instead?
Why do god's solutions to problematic behaviour always seem to involve death? Why not just forgive people?
I have watched debates on this matter and creationism. Scientists disagree on the "facts". Frequently what follows is a debate about what legitimate scientists are. Are they trustworthy? This is what common "scientifically incompetent" people must do.
My son had a deadly cancer at the age of 4. I am not an MD much less a cancer specialist. Not all the doctors agreed on his treatment, yet I had to choose a protocol. To this day I do not know if I chose the right path.

I'm only guessing here that your son didn't survive the cancer, my heartfelt condolences.
One of the key strengths of a scientific approach is the ability to build on knowledge, to constantly question existing knowledge, to adapt the way we understand things. Take flight for example. The Wrights achieved powered flight. Should we have stopped then? Was that it? The powered flight but cracked? No need for any more work on that one, we know all about it now? Of course not. And its the same in just about every field. Just because we understand the science of flight better now and modern aircraft barely resemble The Flyer, it does not mean a replica of the original would not fly, we can just do it better now.
Same goes for cancer treatment. It's getting better. Detection and early intervention is on the up and up. People are surviving longer. My ex is cancer free having had surgery 6 years ago. This is a field where science hasn't got all the answers yet but there is clear evidence that they are getting some of it right and are continuing to improve. Good job really that some people refused to stop at biblical advice for healing or we'd be stuck with the snake oil pedlars "speaking in tongues" and laying on hands as prescribed by gospel author Mark.

I have built my case on the Biblical record.

The problem with that, is that the authors were recording their understanding of the world from their own place in history, with their very clear lack of knowledge of the world outside of their limited geographical area being all too plain to see. if you consider the flood tale from their perspective, it makes more sense. A big flood covering somebody's "known" world would have been an event. Attempts to explain it in terms of god's actions are perfectly understandable for the time. The same happened within just about every culture as it developed. Natural events such as sunrises, the moon and its phases, rainfall, earthquakes etc were all believed to be the work of god/s.
Thing is, we actually understand things better now. Tsunamis aren't angry sea gods throwing tantrums. They're the result of geological events at sea. We understand the movement of celestial bodies, eclipses aren't scary events any more.
Our knowledge of the world around us is evolving. The biblical authors may well have honestly recorded their interpretation of events as they understood them at the time but they have been shown to be wrong. Doesn't mean they were liars, just ignorant of knowledge we have available now. I'm sure as time progresses, our descendants will smile as they read about our naïve use of fossil fuel for energy and our understanding of any number of things.
It is verified by the resurrection of Christ.

that one piece of circular reasoning does not strengthen your claim. The bible is correct because the bile says so? Sorry, that doesn't work here.
The resurrection of Christ is one of many claims made within the bible. Unfortunately, the reliability of at least one of the authors of the tale comes into question with his claim of the dead rising from their graves in Jerusalem and appearing to many people. You would think that the Romans might have recorded this event. I know that they didn't have twitter etc but they had a pretty good system of documentation and messaging and yet not one account of this zombie uprising appears anywhere else.
So far the attempts presented in this forum to explain His empty tomb have been, in my opinion, less than feeble at best. Clearly those attempts are by those who have studied more science than Bible. But they have strong opinions about the Bible. Much the same as Bible scholars who have limited backgrounds in science having strong viewpoints about science.

Oh, I'm sorry, are you suggesting that none of us can read? The reasons they used a great big rock to seal the tomb and set a watch? The existence of grave robbers or people capable of stealing his body perhaps? And yet let's have a look at the discovery of the open tomb.....
Matthew, author of the zombie uprising tells us an angel reveals an empty tomb, rolling the stone away in front of witnesses.
Mark, has those same witnesses arriving to find the empty tomb already open with some mystery guy claiming the resurrection has happened.
Luke has the same witnesses turning up to find an empty tomb with no mystery guy in it but two quickly turn up to announce the resurrection
And John, well he has just the one witness discovering the stone rolled away and later, the discover of some linen but no mystery dude affirming the resurrection, just Mary Magdelene seeing two angels later telling her about the resurrection.

4 accounts with different details. No mention of a Roman guard apart from a vague reference to one from Matthew. Matthew includes witnesses to the opening of the tomb but the other 3 have those same witnesses arriving after the event. The other 3 perhaps have the most consistency and all have witnesses arriving after the tomb is opened and no actual account of its opening. This leaves you in the sticky predicament of either dismissing the three most consistent accounts or accepting that the tomb was opened and there were no witnesses to the event and hence nobody could reliably account for the disappearance of the body.
That's from reading the gospels. That's what they say. Add anything to them and you're making up shit. Don't like what they say, tough. They don't prevent a very simple solution to the conundrum being that someone unknown to the plot (or perhaps a duplicitous person or persons from within the plot) removed the body.
Nobody directly witnessed the dead Jesus get up and walk out of his tomb.

Perhaps I am to much of an irritation to all of you. Pile on and tell me so. I'll stop participation in this forum.

Oh, get down off your cross already. It's always fun to watch mental gymnastics.

Thank you, and I appreciate being challenged. It is a good thing.

Chris

Likewise Chris. Now if you could bring one......
The Bible is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.
Mark Twain
User avatar
monkeyboy
 
Posts: 5475
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#83  Postby Scot Dutchy » Dec 10, 2014 12:00 pm

Zadocfish2 wrote:
Scot Dutchy wrote:
Zadocfish2 wrote:
No answer is given except "unless you have faith you cannot understand".


The answer is "The world is filled with bad things. This is because of choices man has made and the way other living things work. You want to place blame, place it on the disease that is causing the suffering, same as when a dog mauls somebody. You don't blame a higher power, you blame the dog (the disease) or the owner (humanity, stewards of the Earth). Why blame the landlord?"


Who is blaming anyone that is a xtian concept. There is no landlord. I don't have the concept of stewards of the Earth that again is another xtian concept that is used to describe something that is intangible. There is no such thing. No super power. Nothing but that concept is totally outside the logic of the xtian mind. There must be an answer. A why.

Religion of any sort is only about one thing and that is power. Power over the minds of people. That is why the pope is talking to muslim leaders because both are losing power.


I understand you don't believe, and I understand better than most why. You said you never got an answer to the question, and I answered it from the Christian perspective, whether you accept or agree with it or not.


Sorry but where is the answer. Cant quite see it. I don't see concepts as answers only facts.

Do you accept that religion is a power game? If not why not?
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 72
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#84  Postby Varangian » Dec 10, 2014 12:17 pm

Zadocfish2 wrote:
Also, regardless of the outcome, what do you think of a god that allows a child to develop cancer?


Just so you know, that's like a Creationist asking the question about there still being monkeys: a strawman at the very least. Diseases exist. People do bad things. The world isn't perfect, it's in a state of disrepair. Blaming God for the state of the world when it's the fault of the world we live in, and expecting to make an argument against Christianity of it, shows a total lack of knowledge as to the Faith's beliefs.

But it's the standard Christian copout. Something good happens? The Lord loves me! Something bad happens? The Lord is testing me/I did something that displeased the Lord/there is much wickedness in the world (despite claims that Gawd is all-knowing, all-powerful, always present). But that ground has been covered before.
Image

"Bunch together a group of people deliberately chosen for strong religious feelings,
and you have a practical guarantee of dark morbidities." - H.P. Lovecraft
User avatar
Varangian
RS Donator
 
Name: Björn
Posts: 7298
Age: 56
Male

Country: Sweden
Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#85  Postby Scot Dutchy » Dec 10, 2014 12:21 pm

Like the Philippines. Two bloody typhoons and what do they do?

Dive into a leaky church to give thanks for deliverance. :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 72
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#86  Postby Zadocfish2 » Dec 10, 2014 2:22 pm

Sorry but where is the answer. Cant quite see it. I don't see concepts as answers only facts.


That is the Christian answer to that question. If you do not like it, well, big surprise there. If you don't want an answer that talks about Christian beliefs about God, don't ask a question pertaining to our beliefs about God. Or do you want/expect an atheistic answer to a theistic question asked of a theist?

Do you accept that religion is a power game? If not why not?


Yes and no. Organized religion, absolutely. What I have? No, not really. You don't seem to acknowledge the existence of those to whom worship is a personal affair.

Alternate answer: No more than politics, regular relationships, and virtually every other human interaction.
User formerly known as Falconjudge.

I am a Christian.
User avatar
Zadocfish2
 
Name: Justin
Posts: 608
Age: 29
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#87  Postby tolman » Dec 10, 2014 3:41 pm

Chris Putnam wrote:Forgive me if I did not understand the comment about taxonomical sorting of species. By this do you mean that as one digs deeper into the strata the lower life forms are farther down and the higher life forms are closer to the surface? If that is how I am to understand your comments on the issue then the flood would be the best explanation for this. As the waters rose lower life forms did not seek higher ground. They stayed where they were and were buried. The higher life forms went to higher ground and were buried last. That would explain why there are few if any humans in the fossil record. If that is not what was meant then please clarify.

Nice attempt at joke-trolling there, 'Chris', but your portrayal of scientifically clueless belief is too unbalanced to be credible.

If you're really aiming for what we might call the 'velcro shoes and walking helmet' end of the belief spectrum, the basic literacy level is just too high.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#88  Postby Sendraks » Dec 10, 2014 3:51 pm

Zadocfish2 wrote: Why blame the landlord?"


That's some mighty passing of the buck there.
Your alleged Landlord is also, according to various texts on the subject, the creator of said location and all the fixtures and fittings. Everything on the world, and the world itself, exists because the "Landlord" allows it to. Despite numerous petitions to said Landlord, he takes no corrective action or intervenes in anyway on behalf of the tenants.

If I had a Landlord like that, I'd be taking them to court for their failings. Then I'd be considering moving to somewhere else.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#89  Postby Calilasseia » Dec 10, 2014 5:46 pm

Chris Putnam wrote:Hi Weaver. God does not need me to defend Him with regard to name calling. I'm sure He can take care of that Himself as He sees fit. I simply find it sad when supposed rational thinking people think "name calling" refutes an argument.


It seems you don't understand what is happening here. Allow me to educate you.

Quite simply, we are taking the assertions erected by your favourite mythology, and pointing out the less than delightful implications of those assertions being true. Since your favourite mythology is the source of the assertions in question, this should make you pause for a moment and think about those implications.

For example, your favourite mythology asserts that your magic man exterminated almost all life on the planet. Human beings with vastly inferior track records in this regard, are universally considered to be examples of criminality writ large. Simple consistency therefore leads those of us familiar with the concept, to conclude that any entity that actually existed, that was genuinely responsible for such mass slaughter, is an eminent candidate for the same charge of criminality. You might want to factor this into your deliberations, before resorting to feeble hand-waving away of the requisite implications, by deriding them as purportedly the product of nothing more than playground taunts.

Chris Putnam wrote:Also, what I observed earlier seems to hold up, and my evidence is a lifetime of observing this. Many people reject the God of the Bible because they despise Him. Not for lack of a reason to believe He is there.


Poppycock.

Your magic man, like every other magic entity dreamed up by the human imagination, has only ever been asserted to exist. There is zero evidence for any of them. All we have ever had, from adherents of the mythologies in question, is apologetic fabrications that at bottom, boil down to "my magic man is real because my mythology says so". On the basis of this fatuous foundation, it would be legitimate to claim that the Harry Potter novels are "evidence" for Hogwarts.

Once again, it's not your merely asserted magic man that is despised here. What is actually despised here, is the malign influence manifestly exerted by the treatment of unsupported mythological assertions as fact. What is actually despised here, is the manner in which mythological adherents routinely connive and scheme to skew both the arenas of discourse and policy formulation, so as to dispense wholly undeserved privileges upon those mythologies and their assertions, all too frequently to deleterious effect. What is actually despised here, is the hubristic manner in which mythological adherents routinely purport to be in a position to lecture the rest of us, on topics that said mythological adherents manifestly never bothered studying at even an elementary level. What is actually despised here, is the manner in which all too many mythological adherents posture as being in a position to dictate to the rest of us how we should behave, whilst manifestly demonstrating that they cannot even exert the basic effort required to follow the strictures of their own mythologies, strictures that they seek to be in a position to impose upon the rest of us. You might want to factor the requisite large body of observational data in this regard, into your future contributions here.

Chris Putnam wrote:I suppose that I must be incompetent with regard to the sciences and have not attempted to singularly build my case for a world wide flood on that. As I said before, scientists change their conclusions based on new studies and I see no need to abandon my position based on someones interpretation of the "facts".


The scare quotes around the word 'facts' in your above posting, speaks volumes not only with respect to your ignorance of how science actually works, but to your prejudices.

First of all, modifying our ideas to be in accord with the data, is how science works. It's the reason why science has been able to achieve everything from manned spaceflight to the eradication of smallpox. Namely, by determining which of our ideas matches the data, which of our ideas doesn't match the data, and discarding the ideas that don't match the data. Unlike what happens in the world of religion, where the data is discarded when it doesn't conform to doctrine.

Second, I see that the tiresome "interpretations" canard so beloved of creationists has been resurrected yet again, so it's time for this:

The "assumptions" canard (with "interpretation" side salad).

This is a frequent favourite with creationists, and usually erected for the purpose of attempting to hand-wave away valid science when it happens not to genuflect before their ideological presuppositions. As I have stated on multiple past occasions, science is in the business of testing assumptions and presuppositions to destruction. As an example of destroying creationist apologetics with respect to this canard, I point interested readers to this post, where I destroyed the lies of the laughably named "Answers in Genesis" with respect to their assertion that 14C dating was based upon "assumptions". I've also trashed this canard in detail with respect to radionuclide dating as a whole, so don't even try to go down that road. Likewise, if you try to erect this canard with respect to other valid scientific theories, you will be regarded as dishonest.

Another favourite piece of creationist mendacity is the "interpretation" assertion, which creationists erect for the purpose of suggesting that scientists force-fit data to presuppositions. Apart from the fact that this is manifestly false, it is also defamatory, and a direct slur on the integrity of thousands of honest, hard working scientists, who strive conscientiously and assiduously to ensure that conclusions drawn from real world observational data are robust conclusions to draw. This slur, of course, is yet another example of blatant projection on the part of creationists, who manifestly operate on the basis of presupposition themselves, and appear to be incapable of imagining the very existence of a means of determining substantive knowledge about the world that does not rely upon presupposition. Well, I have news for you. Science does NOT rely upon "presupposition". Indeed, scientists have expended considerable intellectual effort in the direction of ensuring that the conclusions they arrive at are rigorously supported by the data that they present in their published papers. There exists much discourse in the scientific literature on the subject of avoiding fallacious or weak arguments, including much sterling work by people such as Ronald Fisher, who sought during their careers to bring rigour to the use of statistical inference in the physical and life sciences. Indeed, Fisher was responsible for inventing the technique of analysis of variance, which is one of the prime tools used in empirical science with respect to experimental data, and Fisher expended much effort ensuring that inferences drawn using that technique were proper inferences to draw.

Basically, there is only one "interpretation" of the data that matters to scientists, and that is whatever interpretation is supported by reality. Learn this lesson quickly, unless you wish to be regarded as discoursively dishonest on a grand scale.

Moving on ...

Chris Putnam wrote:I spent today looking at websites and I own books by PH d scientists who believe in a world wide flood. There are plenty of them.


In which case, you can name some of them, can't you, so that we can check whether or not these people are real scientists or not?

Chris Putnam wrote:I have watched debates on this matter and creationism. Scientists disagree on the "facts".


Your agenda is transparent here.

The only areas in which there exists genuine disagreement amongst scientists, are in those areas where the currently gathered data is insufficient to distinguish between rival hypotheses. Where that data is sufficient, there is no disagreement. We've seen this duplicitous apologetics being peddled before by creationists, so please, if you think we're going to fall for this, you've very much mistaken.

Chris Putnam wrote: Frequently what follows is a debate about what legitimate scientists are. Are they trustworthy? This is what common "scientifically incompetent" people must do.


Oh wait, that's what scientific papers enable us to do. Because, wait for it, those papers frequently document the empirical tests that have been performed, to determine the success or failure of a hypothesis to account for relevant data.

Chris Putnam wrote:My son had a deadly cancer at the age of 4. I am not an MD much less a cancer specialist. Not all the doctors agreed on his treatment, yet I had to choose a protocol. To this day I do not know if I chose the right path.


You do realise that cancers are still subjects of active research? Scientists are still learning about them. So it's hardly surprising that doctors, faced with this situation, some of whom may be familiar with one sector of research, some of whom may be familiar with a different sector of research, end up espousing different ideas about the therapeutic management thereof. But wait, there is NO such difference when dealing with diseases about which we have a far more complete body of knowledge. Such as tuberculosis. Go to any doctor in the developed world, and that doctor will advocate the same treatment regime for tubeculosis, namely streptomycin, isoniazid and dapsone, unless there is evidence that one is dealing with a streptomycin resistant strain, in which case an alternative choice of antibiotics will be made. Likewise, if you turn up at a doctor with diabetes mellitus, the same advice will be given - start taking insulin injections.

Indeed, one of the contributors to this forum, is a specialist in the molecular biology of cervical cancers. I found his research paper on the subject compelling to read. That research will have clinical pay-offs in years to come. Once again, this will constitue another example of the success enjoyed by changing one's ideas to reflect the data.

Chris Putnam wrote:I have built my case on the Biblical record. It is verified by the resurrection of Christ.


No it isn't. Because said "resurrection" was merely asserted to take place. The only so-called "evidence" we have, consists of written accounts penned at least 40 years after the fact, by people who had a vested interest in wanting the story to be true.

Chris Putnam wrote: So far the attempts presented in this forum to explain His empty tomb have been, in my opinion, less than feeble at best.


Poppycock. What part of "your favourite story is nothing more than mythological assertion" do you not understand?

Chris Putnam wrote:Clearly those attempts are by those who have studied more science than Bible.


Well since this mythology asserts that scientifically impossible events happened for real, I know which I'm going to trust the most, given a choice between empirically verified science that demonstrably works, and mythological assertion.

Chris Putnam wrote:But they have strong opinions about the Bible. Much the same as Bible scholars who have limited backgrounds in science having strong viewpoints about science.


Except that, oh wait, we have a vast body of knowledge in the field of science, of a sort that is completely absent from the world of mythology. Namely empirical testing of hypotheses to see if they work.

Chris Putnam wrote:Perhaps I am to much of an irritation to all of you. Pile on and tell me so. I'll stop participation in this forum.


I've a better idea. Learn from what we're telling you.

Chris Putnam wrote:Thank you, and I appreciate being challenged. It is a good thing.


Care to step up to some of those earlier challenges in previous posts of mine?
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22091
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#90  Postby tolman » Dec 10, 2014 6:37 pm

Calilasseia wrote:
Chris Putnam wrote:Hi Weaver. God does not need me to defend Him with regard to name calling. I'm sure He can take care of that Himself as He sees fit. I simply find it sad when supposed rational thinking people think "name calling" refutes an argument.


It seems you don't understand what is happening here. Allow me to educate you.

Quite simply, we are taking the assertions erected by your favourite mythology, and pointing out the less than delightful implications of those assertions being true. Since your favourite mythology is the source of the assertions in question, this should make you pause for a moment and think about those implications.

For example, your favourite mythology asserts that your magic man exterminated almost all life on the planet.

And, despite being a magic man, this god needed a boat to save samples on for future recolonisation.
Samples which were all capable of walking (and often long-distance swimming) to the Middle East.
And then of walking back to their appropriate habitats afterwards; all monotremes and most marsupials (and no placental mammals) to Australia, etc.

Really, it beggars belief that anyone with a mental age in double figures, however badly educated, actually takes the story literally.
Such belief should be sufficient to disqualify someone from voting, other than for their favourite Disney character, or being allowed to be in charge of powered machinery more dangerous than an electric toothbrush.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#91  Postby Chris Putnam » Dec 10, 2014 9:25 pm

Hello Calilasseia,
In the guidelines to using this forum you warned people like me about quoting our "holy books". I promise I have no martyrs complex and don't bare a cross for the criticisms aimed at me.

Earlier in the forum you suggested the body of Jesus was stolen by His disciples. These hapless cowards did no such thing. And if they did they knew their message about the resurrection (the foundation of their teaching) was false. You suggested they did it for power. Their message thrived and spread through a religious environment utterly hostile to them. Yet they knew it was an absolute lie. I refuse to believe that the disciples would have been willing to die the deaths they did for this. They could never have made converts without such empirical evidence. Every cemetery in the world testifies to the permanence of death. People did not believe in such things anymore than you.

If some radical nut put a knife to your and said "Affirm Noahs' flood or I will kill you". You might recant and affirm it to save your life. But if you allow your throat to cut and die I would have to conclude that you fully believe it was a myth. But with regard to the disciples of Jesus, all they had to do is deny it and they would have lived. They died for what they believed.

And there were more than the disciples. . Who was the Apostle Paul? A well educated Jew who sought our Christians for execution. He converted to become one of them and became their most famous proponent, all the way to his death. He stated very clearly that He saw Christ alive and knew the resurrection was anything but myth.

The issue is simple. These early Christians fully believed that Jesus was raised and was alive. God had indeed intervened into history to do something no scientist could do. Either they saw Him alive and were telling the truth or they were lying. To say they made the whole thing up then died for it when they had nothing to gain, in my opinion, is not rationally looking at history. People might die for something that is false, but when they die they believed it is true. People don't die for something they know is falsehoods.

Weaver complained about differing details in the gospel accounts. I contend those details could be reconciled. But even if I didn't think they could be explained, I could not deny that all of them tell us the tomb was empty.

How did the Christian faith survive and spread through the known world when the remains of Jesus were close enough to shut the mouths of the disciples and render them, in the eyes of the public, bigger fools that most on this forum think I am. Calling the Bible fantasy and myth does not impress me or persuade me. If God did miracles and intervened in human history then your scientific objections are without meaning. The question is, did this happen or not?

Earlier I was accused of circular reasoning. "The Bible is true because it says so" would be an example of circular reasoning. If the resurrection of Christ is fact then the Bible is true because God says so. But another example of circular reason could go as follows; " The Bible records miracles. Since we know that miracles don't happen, the Bible cannot be accurate. Because we know that miracles don't happen. Therefore we know that the Bible is fantasy and mythology, because we know miracles don't happen". That is circular reasoning.

Somethings you can't prove scientifically. Did General Wellington really defeat Napolean at Waterloo? Did 300 Spartans carry out their legendary stand against all odds and 250, 000 Persians? Prove it scientifically. Do you believe Julius Cesar really lived? When dealing with the resurrection of Jesus Christ we are not necessarily dealing with something that can be proven scientifically. But I say the evidence leaves not other rational conclusion than that the early Christians really did believe He was raised from the dead.

I said I examined websites and you wanted to check them out. OK. The Institute for Creation Research has a website that is put together to answer some of you objections and to build their own case. "The Genesis Flood" by Henry Morris. Frank Morrison wrote a brilliant work called "Who Moved the Stone". Look for books by CS Lewis and Norm Geisler if you want authors.

I was not being a martyr when I suggested that I might be annoying all of you. But the lengthy responses to my comments tells me otherwise. Perhaps we should move this discussion to Thiesm.
Chris Putnam
 
Name: Chris Putnam
Posts: 65

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#92  Postby Varangian » Dec 10, 2014 9:47 pm

Chris Putnam wrote:Somethings you can't prove scientifically. Did General Wellington really defeat Napolean at Waterloo? Did 300 Spartans carry out their legendary stand against all odds and 250, 000 Persians? Prove it scientifically. Do you believe Julius Cesar really lived? When dealing with the resurrection of Jesus Christ we are not necessarily dealing with something that can be proven scientifically. But I say the evidence leaves not other rational conclusion than that the early Christians really did believe He was raised from the dead.

Excuse me, but that is a shit argument. The effects of Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo was readily observable, and amply documented. The 300 Spartans... Well, there you have something that happened in ancient times, and which has taken on mythical proportions - much like the tales in the bible. As for Julius Caesar, there are many contemporary records as well as physical evidence, like coins, statues, etc. Jesus? Some cultists spin a tale in order to push their new, radical religion? Of course they must present some miracle. "My brother's wife's cousin knows a bloke who knows an apostle, and he swears it's true!" Really. Religion must rot the brain of otherwise sane people, or at least severely impair the reasoning faculties.

Chris Putnam wrote:I said I examined websites and you wanted to check them out. OK. The Institute for Creation Research has a website that is put together to answer some of you objections and to build their own case. "The Genesis Flood" by Henry Morris. Frank Morrison wrote a brilliant work called "Who Moved the Stone". Look for books by CS Lewis and Norm Geisler if you want authors.

Image
Warning: Incoming Blue Butterfly nuclear strike!
Image

"Bunch together a group of people deliberately chosen for strong religious feelings,
and you have a practical guarantee of dark morbidities." - H.P. Lovecraft
User avatar
Varangian
RS Donator
 
Name: Björn
Posts: 7298
Age: 56
Male

Country: Sweden
Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#93  Postby tolman » Dec 10, 2014 10:08 pm

Chris Putnam wrote:If some radical nut put a knife to your and said "Affirm Noahs' flood or I will kill you". You might recant and affirm it to save your life. But if you allow your throat to cut and die I would have to conclude that you fully believe it was a myth.

What a thoroughly stupid comment.
Clearly, there is no moral shame in lying under duress and pretending that a myth is true in order to satisfy a nutter, whether the myth in question is the biblical flood, the existence of Father Christmas, or the personhood of Zaphod Beeblebrox.

Chris Putnam wrote:But with regard to the disciples of Jesus, all they had to do is deny it and they would have lived. They died for what they believed.

Well, they had effectively been miseducated to have the same retarded view of a martyr's death as a modern day suicide bomber. For them, dying was not the 'ultimate price', but a quick route to a First-Class afterlife.
That was the silly belief they really died for.
They were valuing afterlife above life, rather than valuing public fidelity above life.
The former, even if it does require belief, seems essentially a selfish position, rather than a noble one.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#94  Postby tolman » Dec 10, 2014 10:20 pm

Chris Putnam wrote:But another example of circular reason could go as follows; " The Bible records miracles. Since we know that miracles don't happen, the Bible cannot be accurate. Because we know that miracles don't happen. Therefore we know that the Bible is fantasy and mythology, because we know miracles don't happen". That is circular reasoning.

Nice to see that you're managing to sustain your earlier level of ignorant bollocks.

Chris Putnam wrote:Did General Wellington really defeat Napolean at Waterloo?

Who's Napolean?

Chris Putnam wrote:Do you believe Julius Cesar really lived?

It seems likely that there has been someone with that name, but I can't recall reading anything about such a person in history books.

Chris Putnam wrote:I was not being a martyr when I suggested that I might be annoying all of you.

You're actually reasonably amusing, as long as one takes what you're doing as a joke where the crashing ignorance in the posts is just pretended.

Chris Putnam wrote:Perhaps we should move this discussion to Thiesm.

We don't have a Thiesm forum.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#95  Postby Calilasseia » Dec 11, 2014 1:14 am

Oh this is going to be good ...

Chris Putnam wrote:Hello Calilasseia,

In the guidelines to using this forum you warned people like me about quoting our "holy books".


Actually, what I cautioned people against doing, was quoting the assertions contained therein, as if said assertions constituted established fact. Not least because in quite a few instances, those assertions have been demonstrated to be anything but. I've covered a good number of those in detail here in my time.

Chris Putnam wrote:I promise I have no martyrs complex and don't bare a cross for the criticisms aimed at me.


If the evidence does indeed point to this, it will make a welcome change.

Chris Putnam wrote:Earlier in the forum you suggested the body of Jesus was stolen by His disciples.


No I didn't. I merely accepted that this was a possibility, given the large body of evidence we have available, that human beings with sufficiently strong motivations are capable of various species of mischief. I cite as evidence, the fact that human societies have exhibited both the need and the will, all the way back to the Ancient Sumerians, to instantiate codes of conduct, and put in place the mechanisms facilitating the treatment of those codes of conduct as universallly applicable laws. In the case of the Ancient Sumerians, we have numerous instances of these cods of conduct, inscribed upon large pieces of rock. There's a particularly impressive example in the Louvre in Paris - the Code of Hammurabi, inscribed on a 7ft tall diorite stele, with a mass of close to 3,000 Kg.

Now, since we have a vast body of evidence, that humans are capable of mischief, to the extent that a vast number of said instances of mischief have been documented throughout history, and that societies have put in place codes of conduct addressing these, along with, in later, more developed societies, means of policing the requisite behaviour, it's not that fantastic a possibility for some sort of mischief to have occurred in this particular instance. On the other hand, the assertion that a dead person came back to life, on its own is such a fantastic assertion, that in order for said assertion to be taken seriously, we need something a little bit more robust by way of evidence, than "my mythology says it happened".

Chris Putnam wrote:These hapless cowards did no such thing.


Without hard evidence to support this assertion, how do you know?

Chris Putnam wrote:And if they did they knew their message about the resurrection (the foundation of their teaching) was false.


It wouldn't be the first time an ideology was based upon a lie.

Chris Putnam wrote:You suggested they did it for power. Their message thrived and spread through a religious environment utterly hostile to them.


I would have thought that by definition, that environment wasn't "hostile" to the message in question, if the message thrived in the manner you state. There may have been opposition from adherents of rival views, particularly if those adherents had a vested interest in the perpetuation of those rival views (again, a phenomenon that is hardly remarkable, and for which much documentation exists), but the mere fact that there did exist people receptive to the new ideas, and who in turn laboured to spread them, suggests that the environment wasn't as hostile as is frequently asserted.

Actually, one of the major impediments to the greater spread of those new ideas, if you check the requisite scholarly texts, was the so-called "circumcision question", and failure to decide rapidly with respect to this, resulted in much slower acceptance of those new ideas amongst the Greeks, who viewed circumcision with particular revulsion.

Furthermore, there were schisms right from the very start, and indeed, the very mythology you rely upon for information is, for once, reliable with respect to documenting this. Hence all those letters to and from various people, containing arcane discussions about various theological questions. That diversity of view present from the earliest times, was no doubt a motivating factor in the subsequent obsession with enforcing orthodoxy. Indeed, the mere fact that what were purportedly "canonical" contents of the mythology, had to be decided by committee, and that even today, there are differences over this (e.g., between Roman Catholicism and the various Eastern Orthodox churches), tells us that the history even of the early manifestations of the Christian religion, is a good deal more complex, than the simplistic picture you appear to be painting here, of a homogeneous group all deriving their inspiration from one magical source.

Chris Putnam wrote:Yet they knew it was an absolute lie. I refuse to believe that the disciples would have been willing to die the deaths they did for this.


History is replete with instances of people willing to die for falsehoods. Especially if they convince themselves that those falsehoods are true. Self-deception can be a powerful driver, particularly when cherished ideologies are concerned.

Chris Putnam wrote:They could never have made converts without such empirical evidence.


Except that, once again,we only have the assertions contained within the requisite mythology, that said "empirical evidence" ever existed.

Chris Putnam wrote:Every cemetery in the world testifies to the permanence of death. People did not believe in such things anymore than you.


Congratulations! You're starting to master the basics.

Chris Putnam wrote:If some radical nut put a knife to your and said "Affirm Noahs' flood or I will kill you". You might recant and affirm it to save your life. But if you allow your throat to cut and die I would have to conclude that you fully believe it was a myth.


My response would probably be somewhat more vigorous with respect to self-defence, but that's a separate issue. First of all, as I've already stated on numerous occasions, I don't consider this question to be a matter of "belief", but one of evidence, and that all the evidence says it never happened. Second, anyone fanatical enough to try and force me by threat of death to ignore that evidence, will merely convince me of the desperation of those who do treat this farcical tale as history, and my view of such persons is quite likely to be one of complete and utter derision.

Chris Putnam wrote:But with regard to the disciples of Jesus, all they had to do is deny it and they would have lived. They died for what they believed.


Which once again testifies more to the power exerted by cherished ideas, than to the veracity thereof.

Chris Putnam wrote:And there were more than the disciples. . Who was the Apostle Paul? A well educated Jew who sought our Christians for execution. He converted to become one of them and became their most famous proponent, all the way to his death. He stated very clearly that He saw Christ alive and knew the resurrection was anything but myth.


There exists scholarly debate about whether or not some of the writings attributed to this individual are authentic products of this individual's hand. Consequently, given that there exist doubts about actions not requiring any major leaps of imagination, namely, the writing of various stretches of text, there exist as a corollary many orders of magnitude more doubt about events claimed to have been driven by magical happenings.

Far more likely to have been the driving factor, is something known as "desert blindness". Otherwise known as photophthalmia, this is a condition in which the retina temporarily stops functioning, as a result of stress arising from sustained exposure to extremely bright light. For those unaware of this condition and its causes, the sudden loss of vision would be extremely frightening, particularly in an era where medical care or welfare facilities for the disabled were virtually nonexistent. This condition is particularly associated with the stress arising from exposure to UVA and UVB light in combination with bright visual-spectrum light, and lo and behold, lighting conditions in the Middle East are particularly conducive to the development of this condition. However, the condition is temporary, and if the eyes are rested, normal retinal function returns within, lo and behold, a period of approximately 72 hours. Other places where this condition can be triggered include ski resorts, where the consistent reflection of bright sunlight, combined with elevated UV exposure at altitude, can result in the variant known as "snow blindness".

Now of course, the sudden loss of vision is frightening enough for people to experience in the modern era, even with the benefits of modern medical science, and the tools it can bring to bear to deal with blindness - in my case, the possibility of being struck by glaucoma is a less than delightful genetic inheritance I have to live with, which is why I am scheduled for rather more frequent eye tests than the norm. It does not take much imagining, to work out how terrifying sudden loss of vision would be for an individual living 2,000 years ago, bereft of medical or welfare infrastructure to ease his plight, and bereft of the knowledge that his condition was indeed temporary, with a known mechanism of causation, a known aetiology and a known treatment basis. Not least because in that era, blindness almost invariably resulted in the sufferer being propelled into a particularly nasty and brutish brand of destitution, made all the worse in some cases by frankly inhuman ideas that said affliction constituted some sort of "divine punishment", and that those suffering from the various diseases destroying their eyesight purportedly "got what they deserved". Needless to say, I'm glad that such ideas have been tossed into the bin where they belong in properly developed societies, and that instead of treating blindness as some sort of mark of wrongdoing, today it's entirely the province of medicine and proper humanitarian welfare. But I digress.

Quite simply, it doesn't take much imagining, to work out that an individual suddenly struck by photophthalmia, in an era preceding the development of the requisite knowledge and care facilities, contemplating the terrifying prospect of the utter destruction of life as he knows it, reaches out in desperation for anything that might offer some relief from the horrors he knows await him in that condition. It would be wholly unsurprising for someone living in that era, to attribute magic or supernatural agency to the restoration of his sight.

Chris Putnam wrote:The issue is simple.


I think the above accounts deal with this assertion neatly.

Chris Putnam wrote:These early Christians fully believed that Jesus was raised and was alive.


Do you think anyone here is really surprised, that superstitious, pre-scientific humans would cling to ideas involving magic and supernatural agency? Especially people inhabiting a socio-political environment involving religious zealotry on a large scale?

Chris Putnam wrote:God had indeed intervened into history to do something no scientist could do.


Er, no. Once again, we only have mythological assertions purportedly "testifying" to this.

Chris Putnam wrote:Either they saw Him alive and were telling the truth or they were lying. To say they made the whole thing up then died for it when they had nothing to gain, in my opinion, is not rationally looking at history.


I refer you once more to the manner in which religions throughout history have been associated with power and wealth. Failure to acknowledge this elementary fact is far less rational, than suspicion of fantastic assertions involving magic.

Chris Putnam wrote:People might die for something that is false, but when they die they believed it is true. People don't die for something they know is falsehoods.


Are you really so sure of this? I'll provide some interesting examples shortly. Be patient.

Chris Putnam wrote:Weaver complained about differing details in the gospel accounts. I contend those details could be reconciled.


Then please reconcile the purported "account" of large numbers of people purportedly rising from their graves and walking about, as claimed in Matthew 27:51-53, with [1] the complete absence of any similar account in the other gospels, and [2] the complete absence of any mention of this in any Roman text, given the assiduous nature with which the Romans documented events around them. I really want to see the hilarious apologetics that will almost certainly result.

Chris Putnam wrote:But even if I didn't think they could be explained, I could not deny that all of them tell us the tomb was empty.


And once again, please explain to us all why we should treat any mere assertion seriously, regardless of its source? Because at bottom, that is all you have here, mere mythological assertion.

Chris Putnam wrote:How did the Christian faith survive and spread through the known world when the remains of Jesus were close enough to shut the mouths of the disciples and render them, in the eyes of the public, bigger fools that most on this forum think I am.


The same way that every other religion has persisted. Make an idea cherished enough in someone's mind, and that someone will cling to it.

Chris Putnam wrote:Calling the Bible fantasy and myth does not impress me or persuade me.


Even when this is manifestly the case? Looks like my previous statement about cherished ideas has just established itself.

Chris Putnam wrote:If God did miracles and intervened in human history then your scientific objections are without meaning.


Except that, oh wait, interventions of this sort in the physical world, would have left behind them sufficiently persistent physical traces, to be detectable. Unless of course you want your god to be a trickster and deceiver, which is what is required in order for said traces to be covered up or erased.

Chris Putnam wrote:The question is, did this happen or not?


See above.

Chris Putnam wrote:Earlier I was accused of circular reasoning. "The Bible is true because it says so" would be an example of circular reasoning. If the resurrection of Christ is fact then the Bible is true because God says so.


We have yet to establish a number of key assertions here, the existence of your magic entity being a central one, without which, all else is mere speculation and fantasy.

Chris Putnam wrote:But another example of circular reason could go as follows; " The Bible records miracles. Since we know that miracles don't happen, the Bible cannot be accurate. Because we know that miracles don't happen. Therefore we know that the Bible is fantasy and mythology, because we know miracles don't happen". That is circular reasoning.


Fatuously wrong. When we have evidence that a given class of events never occurs, taking note of that evidence isn't "circular reasoning". :roll:

Why do supernaturalists routinely perpetrate elementary errors such as this?

Chris Putnam wrote:Somethings you can't prove scientifically. Did General Wellington really defeat Napolean at Waterloo? Did 300 Spartans carry out their legendary stand against all odds and 250, 000 Persians? Prove it scientifically.


Just ask the requisite archaeologists. They have the evidence. Including relevant artefacts.

Chris Putnam wrote:Do you believe Julius Cesar really lived?


It's not a matter of "belief", it's a matter of evidence. Oh wait, Julius Caesar was the first emperor to decree the minting of coins bearing his image upon them. Here's an example thereof:

Image

Incidentally, one of the more interesting facts I've alighted upon, whilst searching for this coin (a silver Denarius), is this - the Roman silver mines that produced the metal used for these coins, produced so much pollution, that the increase in lead concentration in the atmosphere from the silver smelting operations is detectable today in Greenland ice core samples. You can read more about this here.

This new development continued with Augustus Caesar, who is featured on this coin:

Image

Indeed, the minting of coins commemorating famous personages has a long tradition, including the minting of coins dedicated to Sappho during her sojourn to Sicily.

Once again, that basic principle I keep educating people about is at work here ... physically real events leave physical traces of their occurrence. Sometimes, those physical traces are persistent.

Moving on ...

Chris Putnam wrote:When dealing with the resurrection of Jesus Christ we are not necessarily dealing with something that can be proven scientifically.


How convenient. Or not, from the standpoint of those like myself, who don't treat unsupported mythological assertions as fact.

Chris Putnam wrote:But I say the evidence leaves not other rational conclusion than that the early Christians really did believe He was raised from the dead.


Just because some people believe something, doesn't make it fact. That's what evidence is for.

Chris Putnam wrote:I said I examined websites and you wanted to check them out. OK. The Institute for Creation Research has a website that is put together to answer some of you objections and to build their own case.


HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

You HAVE to be joking here, surely?

This website is even less use from a scientific standpoint than Grimm's Fairy Tales! It's an apologetics website, and one known to disseminate demonstrable lies about the relevant science!

Chris Putnam wrote:"The Genesis Flood" by Henry Morris.


Once again, you HAVE to be joking here, surely?

Henry Morris is all too well known here, for being a professional liar for doctrine during his lifetime. You were asking if someone would die for something they knew was a lie earlier on, and lo and behold, answer the question for me by citing this individual, who almost certainly knew he was peddling lies when he wrote his numerous utterly tiresome screeds. How can I be sure of this? Let's take one of his more infamous quotes, shall we?

Arch-Charlatan Henry Morris wrote:...the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture.

(Taken from Biblical Cosmology & Modern Science, pp 32-33 (1970), emphasis added in above)


Note the bolded part in that above quote, which I have highlighted specially. Morris dispensed to all subsequent creationists their central tenet, that has since guided all creationist apologetics and ideological stormtrooping, via that bolded phrase above. That central tenet Morris provided can be succinctly rendered thus:

When reality and doctrine differ, reality is wrong and doctrine is right.

This is, of course, the premise upon which all advocates of doctrine centred world views operate, but Morris kindly made it explicit for us, he kindly rendered it in a form in which the central tenet could be readily deduced, and also exposed at a stroke what a sham creationism is. In short, Morris exhorted his followers to dismiss evidence that failed to conform to doctrine, and treat lies as fact. More to the point, Morris was also the author of the "how to" manual for creationist quote miners, which his followers eagerly lapped up, and whose seething dishonesty they put into practice at speed. Just about every word this man has written, in the process of founding modern American corporate creationism (and let's be honest here, creationism is a corporate business in America), has been a tissue of lies from start to finish. Morris, more than any other figure in American creationism, was steeped in lies, though many of his successors have since been striving to outdo him in this regard.

If you think Henry Morris has anything of worth to offer, you really are in desperate need of education.

Chris Putnam wrote:Frank Morrison


Who?

Chris Putnam wrote:wrote a brilliant work called "Who Moved the Stone".


Oh, more apologetics. Yawn.

Chris Putnam wrote:Look for books by CS Lewis and Norm Geisler if you want authors.


Ha ha ha ha ha. Please, do you have anyone who has produced substance to offer here? Preferably someone of the calibre of, say, Ernest Mayr, or Gregor Mendel, or Ronald Fisher, or Motoo Kimura, or Diane Dodd, or Richard Lenski?

Here's a clue for you. If you think apologetics is going to be treated here as anything other than comedy fodder, you're really, badly mistaken on this.

Chris Putnam wrote:I was not being a martyr when I suggested that I might be annoying all of you. But the lengthy responses to my comments tells me otherwise.


Look, we've seen it all before. Newcomer thinks he has startlingly original wisdom to present, that he thinks is going to "stick it to the stupid atheistsTM", only to discover that we've seen the same apologetics recycled dozens, if not hundreds, of times before. And quite frankly, if you think you've been receiving a science education from sources such as Henry Morris, then I have some timeshare holiday apartments in Syria to rent cheaply to you.

Chris Putnam wrote:Perhaps we should move this discussion to Thiesm.


I have a better idea. Address some of the points I and others here have presented to you, and this time, with substance.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22091
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#96  Postby Varangian » Dec 11, 2014 1:58 am

Aaand he strikes again!

Image

(And Chris, before you go off spouting that science is "just theories", above gif shows an example of nuclear theory in action.)
Image

"Bunch together a group of people deliberately chosen for strong religious feelings,
and you have a practical guarantee of dark morbidities." - H.P. Lovecraft
User avatar
Varangian
RS Donator
 
Name: Björn
Posts: 7298
Age: 56
Male

Country: Sweden
Sweden (se)
Print view this post

Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#97  Postby Calilasseia » Dec 11, 2014 3:01 am

Already ran that past him way back on page 2 of the thread. :)
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22091
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#98  Postby Zadocfish2 » Dec 11, 2014 5:49 am

ER, Chris, Brother... Please don't use creationist literature and authors to prove your points or to make them for you. Most, if not all, fall into the categories of "no real education in relevant fields" or "provably liars and hypocrites". I mean, many use warped and untrue versions of scientific arguments to make their cases on, and those who don't tend to just make things up or twist the words of honest people to their own benefit.

I was raised on Bob Jones University books, and I can verify that I was lied to directly more times than I can count.
User formerly known as Falconjudge.

I am a Christian.
User avatar
Zadocfish2
 
Name: Justin
Posts: 608
Age: 29
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#99  Postby Nebogipfel » Dec 11, 2014 10:54 am

Chris Putnam wrote:They died for what they believed.


So did the 9/11 hijackers.
Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion
-- Carl Sagan
User avatar
Nebogipfel
 
Posts: 2085

Country: Netherlands
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Robert Ballard Claims Flood Was Real

#100  Postby Sendraks » Dec 11, 2014 10:59 am

Nebogipfel wrote:
Chris Putnam wrote:They died for what they believed.


So did the 9/11 hijackers.


Ah, but they were wrong, see.
Because......reasons.
*hand waving*
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest