Ken Ham's Ark

[TheSkepticChristian]

8 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

SEE

what? 

[thesometimesaint]

2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

what? 

SEE.

 

[TheSkepticChristian]

25 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

SEE

You seriously now think I am a creationist? I simply pointed out that there is scholarship on the Book of Genesis that concludes day of 24 hours. 

[thesometimesaint]

32 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

You seriously now think I am a creationist? I simply pointed out that there is scholarship on the Book of Genesis that concludes day of 24 hours. 

If you make the same arguments what else am I supposed to think? If the premise is faulty then any "scholarship" is worthless, other than the claim that some ancient person believed it. Bring on the Cockatrice.

[bcuzbcuz]

14 hours ago, danielwoods said:

A year to the Hebrew was likely closer to 360 days. However, that doesn't help or change the issue that your faith has with the text itself plainly states.

IF you don't believe it, that's not really an issue that I can help with. As I asked previously, what evidence would you expect? What evidence would convince you? 

Why for example, if you actually believe in God who is the creator of all things, would you have trouble believing that he originally made us to live longer? And now after thousands of years of degradation (devo) we don't live that long anymore. Why is that difficult to believe, if you already accept that there is a Creator? 

The old testament of the Bible contains many collections of stories that are little more than fables. The Books of Moses were not written by Moses. The account of the creation, as related in Genesis, is neither a first hand account, nor is it even a second hand account. It was not written down as a text until many thousand years after the fact. It is nothing more than hearsay. The accounts that give a dozen or so people lives than extend almost to a thousand years is pure fiction. Creationists who use the calendars of extended generations to arrive at a creation some 6,000 years ago (or 10 or 15 thousand years ago), do so at the expense of throwing every single piece of evidence of an old earth, under the bus. 

But you're right. Nothing I can say will convince you to anything other than that you already believe and only evidence that can be proven and tested will convince me of anything than that which I currently accept. But I have done a 180˙ turnabout in my belief systems before. I just followed the evidence.

[danielwoods]

21 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

The old testament of the Bible contains many collections of stories that are little more than fables. The Books of Moses were not written by Moses. The account of the creation, as related in Genesis, is neither a first hand account, nor is it even a second hand account. It was not written down as a text until many thousand years after the fact. It is nothing more than hearsay. The accounts that give a dozen or so people lives than extend almost to a thousand years is pure fiction. Creationists who use the calendars of extended generations to arrive at a creation some 6,000 years ago (or 10 or 15 thousand years ago), do so at the expense of throwing every single piece of evidence of an old earth, under the bus. 

But you're right. Nothing I can say will convince you to anything other than that you already believe and only evidence that can be proven and tested will convince me of anything than that which I currently accept. But I have done a 180˙ turnabout in my belief systems before. I just followed the evidence.

Unfortunately there is no test that proves the age of the earth. Old or new. It's age isn't testable or observed or repeatable. 

The same with the claim that there is no evidence for the long ages of these individuals. I asked what evidence would you expect to see? But, that question exposes how baseless the claim of no evidence is. Really all you are saying is you don't believe it. And that its it. And that's fine. But the net result is deceptive because one thinks they are relying solely on evidence when they are not. 

[thesometimesaint]

3 hours ago, danielwoods said:

Unfortunately there is no test that proves the age of the earth. Old or new. It's age isn't testable or observed or repeatable. 

The same with the claim that there is no evidence for the long ages of these individuals. I asked what evidence would you expect to see? But, that question exposes how baseless the claim of no evidence is. Really all you are saying is you don't believe it. And that its it. And that's fine. But the net result is deceptive because one thinks they are relying solely on evidence when they are not. 

That is categorically false.

SEE http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/

[danielwoods]

6 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

That is categorically false.

SEE http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/

How so? Is it your claim that those who use fossils to date rocks (called index fossils) relying solely on the evidence to date the earth? Or might they be relying on their belief in Evolution to date the earth? 

Even the first paragraphs of your link admit this to be the case, "In the 1660s Nicolas Steno formulated our modern concepts of deposition of horizontal strata. He inferred that where the layers are not horizontal, they must have been tilted since their deposition and noted that different strata contain different kinds of fossil. Robert Hooke, not long after, suggested that the fossil record would form the basis for a chronology that would “far antedate ... even the very pyramids.”

So here we now understand from your own sources that accepted theory of depositions of the layers didn't come from direct observation (that is actually watching them form), but from one's belief that evolution was true and then used that belief to date the rocks. It's the old circular reasoning using rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. Or is it fossils to date rocks and then rocks to date fossils? Either way that is where it all started. It's based on faith. And no it certainly isn't solely relying on the evidence, thanks. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

18 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

If you make the same arguments what else am I supposed to think? If the premise is faulty then any "scholarship" is worthless, other than the claim that some ancient person believed it. Bring on the Cockatrice.

how do you know the scholarship is faulty? I am just saying what Hebrew scholars concluded about "day" in Genesis. 

Of course I don't believe Earth is thousands of years old! 

18 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

 then any "scholarship" is worthless

about the bible? probably 

[bcuzbcuz]

10 hours ago, danielwoods said:

Unfortunately there is no test that proves the age of the earth. Old or new. It's age isn't testable or observed or repeatable. 

The same with the claim that there is no evidence for the long ages of these individuals. I asked what evidence would you expect to see? But, that question exposes how baseless the claim of no evidence is. Really all you are saying is you don't believe it. And that its it. And that's fine. But the net result is deceptive because one thinks they are relying solely on evidence when they are not. 

Long before evolution was a concept, in fact, thousands of years before evolution,  Aristotle made observations that rocks formed in very slow processes, so slow that they could not be observed in a normal life span.That's Aristotle from the 4 century BC. He had, as many others had, observed that sea shells were in layers of earth, far from any seas or lakes, Not only were the sea shells in the  ground, they were deep within stones. 

During the Roman era, Pliny the elder, gave descriptions of many minerals and defined the characteristics that defined the differences between minerals. Pliny aslo observed that amber was a stone formed from tree sap and that it could contain insects trapped within.

Abu al-Rayhan al-Biruni (AD 973-1048) was one of the earliest Muslim geologists, whose works included the earliest writings on the geology of India, hypothesizing that the Indian subcontinent was once a sea:

At this time rocks were not given ages. Later people like Ussher tried to give rocks the age as defined by the chronology of old testament prophets. He settled at last that the earth was created on Saturday, 22 October 4004.

You don't seem to have studied Geology. In Geology 101 students are given opportunities to do field trips to observe how layers of modern plants are always found above layers of older,more primative plants. Observing sea shell formations in sandstone and limestone, you will never find modern sea shells below more primitive ocean life.

If you read about Neil Shubin's work in finding the Tiktaluk, you'f find he knew he had to search in rocks of one specific era. Rock studies, done long before Shubin came on the scene, showed that this transitional fossils could only be found in rocks of a certain age. He could skip over many thousand sqaure miles of rock surfaces and zero in on a rock foration in the artic. This isn't done by hokus-pokus, but by careful studies of rocks and formation zones. No Bible studies would have helped Shubin in his studies. He needed rock layers and formations.

[danielwoods]

3 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

You don't seem to have studied Geology. In Geology 101 students are given opportunities to do field trips to observe how layers of modern plants are always found above layers of older,more primative plants. Observing sea shell formations in sandstone and limestone, you will never find modern sea shells below more primitive ocean life.

If you read about Neil Shubin's work in finding the Tiktaluk, you'f find he knew he had to search in rocks of one specific era. Rock studies, done long before Shubin came on the scene, showed that this transitional fossils could only be found in rocks of a certain age. He could skip over many thousand sqaure miles of rock surfaces and zero in on a rock foration in the artic. This isn't done by hokus-pokus, but by careful studies of rocks and formation zones. No Bible studies would have helped Shubin in his studies. He needed rock layers and formations.

The claim that this or that layer is older than this or that layer is not demonstrable. Unfortunately. The data is what it is. We find that modern plants are near the top, and certain fossils are found in certain specific layers throughout the world. We don't disagree on the data. The data is what it is. Unfortunately there is no date attached to these layers or rocks. The common interpretation also happens to fit with the evolutionary view... and sure there's no connection there at all, right? This common interpretation isn't the only way to interpret the data. And my point is that no matter which interpretation one goes with, they believe it based on faith, not based on the evidence alone. 

What other interpretation could explain the data? Hmm... let me think. Well, it's entirely possible that the layers formed sideways (as has been observed) and that the animals/fossils that are at the lowest layers aren't older at all. Rather, the sediment buried them at that layer/location because that is where they lived, throughout the world. And the modern plants are near the top because... well, that's where they lived too... But, of course since science is based on politics now and a vote has been taken and my view is not acceptable, so it's therefore not scientific. So now all that's left is to simply declare it false and that I don't know geology because I have view that is unacceptable to the majority. 

[bcuzbcuz]

5 hours ago, danielwoods said:

The claim that this or that layer is older than this or that layer is not demonstrable. Unfortunately. The data is what it is. We find that modern plants are near the top, and certain fossils are found in certain specific layers throughout the world. We don't disagree on the data. The data is what it is. Unfortunately there is no date attached to these layers or rocks. The common interpretation also happens to fit with the evolutionary view... and sure there's no connection there at all, right? This common interpretation isn't the only way to interpret the data. And my point is that no matter which interpretation one goes with, they believe it based on faith, not based on the evidence alone. 

What other interpretation could explain the data? Hmm... let me think. Well, it's entirely possible that the layers formed sideways (as has been observed) and that the animals/fossils that are at the lowest layers aren't older at all. Rather, the sediment buried them at that layer/location because that is where they lived, throughout the world. And the modern plants are near the top because... well, that's where they lived too... But, of course since science is based on politics now and a vote has been taken and my view is not acceptable, so it's therefore not scientific. So now all that's left is to simply declare it false and that I don't know geology because I have view that is unacceptable to the majority. 

"It's entirely possible........that the layers formed sideways."

I'm assuming you are talking about sedimetary rocks and not volcanic, since volcanic rocks, molten and heated from deep within the earth, are not known to collect shells, fossils or bones. (There are a few exceptions, of course)

I'd enjoy reading your information about layers forming sideways. I tried it with a layer cake the other day. It didn't work. I ended with a pool of mixed colours, with nothing approaching "layers".

[danielwoods]

2 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

"It's entirely possible........that the layers formed sideways."

I'm assuming you are talking about sedimetary rocks and not volcanic, since volcanic rocks, molten and heated from deep within the earth, are not known to collect shells, fossils or bones. (There are a few exceptions, of course)

I'd enjoy reading your information about layers forming sideways. I tried it with a layer cake the other day. It didn't work. I ended with a pool of mixed colours, with nothing approaching "layers".

Right  sedimentary rocks are what I was talking about and what geologists are referring to that contain fossils. 

A layer cake? That funny actually. I've been mildly interested in duplicating Guy's experiments with moving water and sedimentation.  

[thesometimesaint]

16 hours ago, danielwoods said:

How so? Is it your claim that those who use fossils to date rocks (called index fossils) relying solely on the evidence to date the earth? Or might they be relying on their belief in Evolution to date the earth? 

Even the first paragraphs of your link admit this to be the case, "In the 1660s Nicolas Steno formulated our modern concepts of deposition of horizontal strata. He inferred that where the layers are not horizontal, they must have been tilted since their deposition and noted that different strata contain different kinds of fossil. Robert Hooke, not long after, suggested that the fossil record would form the basis for a chronology that would “far antedate ... even the very pyramids.”

So here we now understand from your own sources that accepted theory of depositions of the layers didn't come from direct observation (that is actually watching them form), but from one's belief that evolution was true and then used that belief to date the rocks. It's the old circular reasoning using rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. Or is it fossils to date rocks and then rocks to date fossils? Either way that is where it all started. It's based on faith. And no it certainly isn't solely relying on the evidence, thanks. 

There are many lines of evidence that are used to validate the Theory of Evolution. Fossil evidence is just one of them.

SEE

SEE

 

[danielwoods]

21 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

There are many lines of evidence that are used to validate the Theory of Evolution. Fossil evidence is just one of them.

SEE

SEE

 

If someone tells you they have validated something that happened millions of years ago, they are sharing their faith. 

[thesometimesaint]

Le Sigh. Science doesn't care what anyone's faith is. Only what can be demonstrated in the lab and/or nature.

SEE http://www.theonion.com/article/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int-1778

[Gray]

3 hours ago, danielwoods said:

If someone tells you they have validated something that happened millions of years ago, they are sharing their faith. 

Yes, but that doesn't mean much. All faith means is confidence or trust. Confidence or trust in what? For scientists, it's trust in evidence and the scientific method. For you it's something else.

So what?

[bcuzbcuz]

4 hours ago, danielwoods said:

If someone tells you they have validated something that happened millions of years ago, they are sharing their faith. 

Funny how you use the word "faith" to glibbly write off geological evidences. You mentioned recently doing a little example of using running water in a container to see sedimentation in action. I've suggested several times you need to get out and observe actual erosion and sedimentation, without defining things by the parameters of YouTube and Creation sites.

My acceptance of geological facts has nothing to do with "faith", the hope of things not seen.

You have also mentioned the effects of erosion on the loose volcanic ash of Mt. St. Helens. I haven't climbed Mt. St. Helens but I do have a bottle of ash from Mt. St. Helens. I have climbed and photographed volcaones in Italy, Chile and Bali. Volcanic lava, in its several forms, is compact and relatively slow to erode. Volcanic ash, freshly spewn from a volcano is powdery, loose and easily eroded. Volcanic ash needs to be buried under great pressure to compact into a thin layer like those found throughout the world, deep within the earth, such as those found in the Grand Canyon, among other places.

When you actually dig in the earth and examine what you find you'll see without having to use "faith".

[thesometimesaint]

Faith is the substance of things unseen. Science is the substance of things seen.

[Raingirl]

On August 2, 2016 at 2:07 PM, danielwoods said:

If you want to actually add to the conversation then post your evidence of where "yom" is used to mean "period of time" when surrounded by "Evening and morning" modifiers. 

 

You seem to have trouble with reading comprehension when it comes to the English language.  I'm not sure it's worth the time to try to explain Hebrew to you. Especially when you already display a lack of comprehension when it comes to understanding that words don't often translate precisely from one language to the next. Or even at all.  I sometimes resort to Hebrew or Yiddish or even Ladino when the English language simply doesn't have an equivalent.

[danielwoods]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

Yes, but that doesn't mean much. All faith means is confidence or trust. Confidence or trust in what? For scientists, it's trust in evidence and the scientific method. For you it's something else.

So what?

There is much that one has faith in when making statements of certainty. The problem or deception is when it's not called faith but something else like "science" or "I'm just following the evidence". If that were true then no other interpretation of the evidence could be made. 

I'm simply pointing out that it is a faith based statement not science or fact based. 

[danielwoods]

4 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Funny how you use the word "faith" to glibbly write off geological evidences. You mentioned recently doing a little example of using running water in a container to see sedimentation in action. I've suggested several times you need to get out and observe actual erosion and sedimentation, without defining things by the parameters of YouTube and Creation sites.

My acceptance of geological facts has nothing to do with "faith", the hope of things not seen.

You have also mentioned the effects of erosion on the loose volcanic ash of Mt. St. Helens. I haven't climbed Mt. St. Helens but I do have a bottle of ash from Mt. St. Helens. I have climbed and photographed volcaones in Italy, Chile and Bali. Volcanic lava, in its several forms, is compact and relatively slow to erode. Volcanic ash, freshly spewn from a volcano is powdery, loose and easily eroded. Volcanic ash needs to be buried under great pressure to compact into a thin layer like those found throughout the world, deep within the earth, such as those found in the Grand Canyon, among other places.

When you actually dig in the earth and examine what you find you'll see without having to use "faith".

What may appear glib to you is a rather difficult concept for many to grasp. As your claim that simply digging or observing erosion is enough to erase the faith demonstrates.

It is their faith that people use (without realizing it) to make statements about the past with full confidence even though they can't demonstrate or directly observe what they claim happened. And then at the same time they proclaim that science has nothing to do with faith. 

Why is it such a difficult concept to understand? 

[bcuzbcuz]

2 hours ago, danielwoods said:

What may appear glib to you is a rather difficult concept for many to grasp. As your claim that simply digging or observing erosion is enough to erase the faith demonstrates.

It is their faith that people use (without realizing it) to make statements about the past with full confidence even though they can't demonstrate or directly observe what they claim happened. And then at the same time they proclaim that science has nothing to do with faith. 

Why is it such a difficult concept to understand? 

I don't use faith when I translate documents from Swedish into English. My proof reader doesn't either. We're both skilled with many years of experience. He, however, has better skills in translating legal documents and I'm better with mechanical and technical texts. We don't use faith to establish a finished document. We get paid by the word and the companies that have used our services would be extremely disappointed, to the point of taking their business elsewhere, if we "thought" or "hoped" or "wished" that our translations were merely good enough. They expect skilled, knowledgable, fact full, precise work. Guesswork is considered junk.

The same is true in geology. When my best friend and lifetime buddy with a PhD (and a whole list of other titles to his name) makes a claim about potlash resources in the ground, he doesn't get paid if he only "thinks" he knows where the mineral can be found. He travels around the world and has made his sizeable fortune by not relying on faith that his tests will "maybe" find resources, but on knowledge. He is known to have an  "eye" for finding potash where others have missed the clues. He's not a believing man, but the Bible is rather short on advice about finding potash anyway.

Potash was formed som 230 million years ago by the drying out of shallow inland seas. Explain how potash could have settled out from Noah's flood. That is a specific mineral from specific conditions and is only found in specific places and in sufficient quantities to make mining worthwhile. Faith does not explain it's presence and does not make discovery of the mineral easier. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

7 hours ago, Raingirl said:

You seem to have trouble with reading comprehension when it comes to the English language.  I'm not sure it's worth the time to try to explain Hebrew to you. Especially when you already display a lack of comprehension when it comes to understanding that words don't often translate precisely from one language to the next. Or even at all.  I sometimes resort to Hebrew or Yiddish or even Ladino when the English language simply doesn't have an equivalent.

I think daniel woods is probably right on this one.  I cited an academic book by Koehler and Baumgartner, two great Hebrew scholars!  I also cited another academic book by Francis Brown. All of them agree about Gen 1 "day of twenty-four hours"  

That "day" in Gen 1 means a period of time in Hebrew is probably a myth I used to believe. 

3 hours ago, danielwoods said:

I'm simply pointing out that it is a faith based statement not science or fact based. 

 Science demonstrates that Earth is about 4 billion years old. 

Edited August 6, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[danielwoods]

3 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I don't use faith when I translate documents from Swedish into English. My proof reader doesn't either. We're both skilled with many years of experience. He, however, has better skills in translating legal documents and I'm better with mechanical and technical texts. We don't use faith to establish a finished document. We get paid by the word and the companies that have used our services would be extremely disappointed, to the point of taking their business elsewhere, if we "thought" or "hoped" or "wished" that our translations were merely good enough. They expect skilled, knowledgable, fact full, precise work. Guesswork is considered junk.

The same is true in geology. When my best friend and lifetime buddy with a PhD (and a whole list of other titles to his name) makes a claim about potlash resources in the ground, he doesn't get paid if he only "thinks" he knows where the mineral can be found. He travels around the world and has made his sizeable fortune by not relying on faith that his tests will "maybe" find resources, but on knowledge. He is known to have an  "eye" for finding potash where others have missed the clues. He's not a believing man, but the Bible is rather short on advice about finding potash anyway.

Potash was formed som 230 million years ago by the drying out of shallow inland seas. Explain how potash could have settled out from Noah's flood. That is a specific mineral from specific conditions and is only found in specific places and in sufficient quantities to make mining worthwhile. Faith does not explain it's presence and does not make discovery of the mineral easier. 

Finding a certain mineral and knowing where it's deposited is one thing. Knowing when it was deposited is a completely different thing requiring the exercise of faith. Unless you are claiming that someone directly observed these formations 230 million years ago and has a time machine that can duplicate that for everyone else to see?