ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags crypto-archaeology , Noah's Ark

Reply
Old 28th April 2010, 08:38 PM   #281
Complexity
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 9,242
Originally Posted by Radrook View Post
What I'm requesting are the results of a test identical to the ones which proved its seaworthiness but which proved the design unseaworthy. Can you provide that as a rebuttal against these other test results?

Why the hell should anyone spend their time investigating this garbage?

No one sane would do as much for any of the other fairy tales.
Complexity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 08:38 PM   #282
Radrook
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,834
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
My goodness! Someone not paying attention to details might just think you're making it up as you go along. Since you stated "both" in a subsequent post, would you please point out to me the exact text in BOTH of those links that specifically mentions:
1. That someone BUILT a model of the ark.
2. The praise he/she received for it.

Neither of those articles says anything of the kind.

And the two articles tend to contradict each other in a few points. The more devious of the two being the Korean Creationist study that takes such liberties and leaps of faith that it makes me want to heave! I paraphrase:
"We don't know what the profile of the ark looked like, but several (liars) parties have claimed to have found the ark so we'll go by their comments..."
Yeah? Now there's a legitimate scientific source. Several parties who all argue about having found the one true ark have made assumptions that are required in order for their findings to be even remotely possible, so we'll just base an engineering study on it.

They also have a really great line about the timber where they say, (and again I parphrase), "Mebbe conditions were different in the area at the time and it's possible that trees grew higher than 10 metres". There is no reason to even mention this in their study (considering that the damned vessel was going to require some sort of joints regardless of 9 m trees or 11 m trees). Ergo, they're just filling space with blah blah so that they sound like they did some research.

More important, though, is your direct fabrication. Neither of those two reports cites anyone having built an ark, to scale or to actual size, and neither of them praises him/her for(not having) done it. Further, if you find someone "praising" a model elsewhere, please make sure it's an independt marine surveyor or naval architecht(this side of Heiwa, of course, as I have reason to believe even his ship design claim is fraudulent), because "praise" from a publication whose primary mission is Praisin' The Big Sky Daddy is not considered peer review where I come from.

I go with my first option. You're just making it up as you go along, aren't you?
I was referring to the seaworthiness data results-not the speculatiions you focus on instead. As for different results, the point is that BOTH results although varying from each other still proved the seaworthiness of the design. That' s the only point I'm really interested in. Furthermore, you are fabricating that I said someone bult an ark when I didn't. Reread my post. As for suspicions of fraud, that proves nothing except bthat you are suspicious of fraud. The expoerimnent wasshown on the discovery channel once. No suspicions of fraud were even remotely considered or acknowledged. Furthermore. I'm more thean certasin that if indeed the results were considered suspect, then a counter experiment would have been done by atheists in order to disprove the results. The very fact that there are none proves to me that the data confirmed the results and therefore the silence. IMHO

BTW
Your conclusion that all experiment results which aren't anti biblical are suspect constitutes the fallacy of false premise.

Last edited by Radrook; 28th April 2010 at 08:46 PM.
Radrook is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 08:39 PM   #283
kerikiwi
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,175
Originally Posted by Radrook View Post
Here is an article that addresses many of your questions.

Caring for the animals in the Ark
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...or-the-animals
These people are insane.
Anyone who believes that crap is insane.
kerikiwi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 08:44 PM   #284
kerikiwi
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,175
Originally Posted by Radrook View Post
BTW
One of the article points out that a ship was built which closely matched the arks dimensions and the designer was praised for his superb design.
So Radrook, you didn't say an ark was built?

Please don't tell other posters to reread what you have posted.
It induces nausea.
kerikiwi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 08:47 PM   #285
Radrook
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,834
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
My goodness! Someone not paying attention to details might just think you're making it up as you go along. Since you stated "both" in a subsequent post, would you please point out to me the exact text in BOTH of those links that specifically mentions:
1. That someone BUILT a model of the ark.
2. The praise he/she received for it.

Neither of those articles says anything of the kind.

And the two articles tend to contradict each other in a few points. The more devious of the two being the Korean Creationist study that takes such liberties and leaps of faith that it makes me want to heave! I paraphrase:
"We don't know what the profile of the ark looked like, but several (liars) parties have claimed to have found the ark so we'll go by their comments..."
Yeah? Now there's a legitimate scientific source. Several parties who all argue about having found the one true ark have made assumptions that are required in order for their findings to be even remotely possible, so we'll just base an engineering study on it.

They also have a really great line about the timber where they say, (and again I parphrase), "Mebbe conditions were different in the area at the time and it's possible that trees grew higher than 10 metres". There is no reason to even mention this in their study (considering that the damned vessel was going to require some sort of joints regardless of 9 m trees or 11 m trees). Ergo, they're just filling space with blah blah so that they sound like they did some research.

More important, though, is your direct fabrication. Neither of those two reports cites anyone having built an ark, to scale or to actual size, and neither of them praises him/her for(not having) done it. Further, if you find someone "praising" a model elsewhere, please make sure it's an independt marine surveyor or naval architecht(this side of Heiwa, of course, as I have reason to believe even his ship design claim is fraudulent), because "praise" from a publication whose primary mission is Praisin' The Big Sky Daddy is not considered peer review where I come from.

I go with my first option. You're just making it up as you go along, aren't you?
I was referring to the seaworthiness data results-not the speculatiions you focus on instead.
As for different results, the point is that BOTH results although varying from each other still proved the seaworthiness of the design. That' s the only point I'm really interested in.
Radrook is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 08:52 PM   #286
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 39,353
Originally Posted by kerikiwi View Post
So Radrook, you didn't say an ark was built?

Please don't tell other posters to reread what you have posted.
It induces nausea.
Are we ready for this, yet?

__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 08:54 PM   #287
154
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,887
Originally Posted by Complexity View Post
That's the problem. You're not good.
Your beliefs are ridiculous, you lack integrity, and your moral system is so skewed that it has become evil.
I have nothing but my integrity and you would not find a single person who knows me that would say otherwise.
154 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 08:54 PM   #288
kerikiwi
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,175
Originally Posted by Radrook View Post
I was referring to the seaworthiness data results-not the speculatiions you focus on instead.
As for different results, the point is that BOTH results although varying from each other still proved the seaworthiness of the design. That' s the only point I'm really interested in.
So, you don't actually believe the whole ark, animals, dinosaurs bit?
You're just interested in whether a boat like that would float?
That's a relief. I was beginning to think you really believed the fairy tale.
kerikiwi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 08:55 PM   #289
Radrook
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,834
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
My goodness! Someone not paying attention to details might just think you're making it up as you go along. Since you stated "both" in a subsequent post, would you please point out to me the exact text in BOTH of those links that specifically mentions:
1. That someone BUILT a model of the ark.
2. The praise he/she received for it.

Neither of those articles says anything of the kind.

And the two articles tend to contradict each other in a few points. The more devious of the two being the Korean Creationist study that takes such liberties and leaps of faith that it makes me want to heave! I paraphrase:
"We don't know what the profile of the ark looked like, but several (liars) parties have claimed to have found the ark so we'll go by their comments..."
Yeah? Now there's a legitimate scientific source. Several parties who all argue about having found the one true ark have made assumptions that are required in order for their findings to be even remotely possible, so we'll just base an engineering study on it.

They also have a really great line about the timber where they say, (and again I parphrase), "Mebbe conditions were different in the area at the time and it's possible that trees grew higher than 10 metres". There is no reason to even mention this in their study (considering that the damned vessel was going to require some sort of joints regardless of 9 m trees or 11 m trees). Ergo, they're just filling space with blah blah so that they sound like they did some research.

More important, though, is your direct fabrication. Neither of those two reports cites anyone having built an ark, to scale or to actual size, and neither of them praises him/her for(not having) done it. Further, if you find someone "praising" a model elsewhere, please make sure it's an independt marine surveyor or naval architecht(this side of Heiwa, of course, as I have reason to believe even his ship design claim is fraudulent), because "praise" from a publication whose primary mission is Praisin' The Big Sky Daddy is not considered peer review where I come from.

I go with my first option. You're just making it up as you go along, aren't you?
I spent half hour answering your accusations and the computer erased. it. So my response will be brief this time

1, I never said that someone built an ark or that the article says someone built an ark.

2. Their speculations are irrelevant to seaworthiness test results.

3. Tests done independemntly will vary. However both results were well within seaworthiness parameters,

4. If a counter test was done and it confirmed the data-that explains the silence.

5 . Your premise that all test results done by believers in an ID are worhhless constitutes fallacious reasoning.


BTWE

Atheist reviewing atheist is consideed peer review. RIGHT?
The accusation that I'm fabricating is due probably to your difficulty in to comprehending clearly written English. Also, in your freneic attempt at disproving at all costs without providing any convincing counterargument your aremissing something. All I am requesting is results which are different from the ones given. Since you can't find any you go ballistic. That's what's causing the misperceptions.

Last edited by Radrook; 28th April 2010 at 09:11 PM.
Radrook is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 08:56 PM   #290
kerikiwi
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,175
Originally Posted by 154 View Post
I have nothing but my integrity and you would not find a single person who knows me that would say otherwise.
So, you don't know a lot of people?
kerikiwi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 08:56 PM   #291
Complexity
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 9,242
Originally Posted by 154 View Post
I have nothing but my integrity and you would not find a single person who knows me that would say otherwise.

Then you have nothing.
Complexity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 08:58 PM   #292
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 39,353
Originally Posted by Radrook View Post
I was referring to the seaworthiness data results-not the speculatiions you focus on instead.
As for different results, the point is that BOTH results although varying from each other still proved the seaworthiness of the design. That' s the only point I'm really interested in.
Ewwww! There ya go, using one of those skeptiwords, again. "Proved"... to whose satisfaction? Fundie websites? Where is the peer review, please? I see a lot of double talk and posting of numbers, but conclusions that make no sense.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 08:59 PM   #293
154
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,887
Originally Posted by Complexity View Post
Then you have nothing.
Such hatred... such bile... such venom...
154 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 08:59 PM   #294
kerikiwi
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,175
Originally Posted by Radrook View Post
I spent half hour answering your accusations and the computer erased. it. So my response will be brief this time

1, I never said that someone bult an ark

2. Their speculations are irrelevantto seaworthiness test results.

3. Tests done independemntly will vary. Howeever both were well withing seaworthinbess parameters,

4. The lack of a counter test by skeptics might strongly indicate it was done but but results were kepot sdilent for obvious reasons.

5 . Your premnise that all test results done by believers in anb ID are worhhless condstitutes fallacious reasoning.


BTWE

Atheist reviewing atheist is consideed peer review. RIGHT?
1. Yes you did. See post #284
2. Whose speculations?
3,4,5 What are you drinking and can I have some?
kerikiwi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 09:02 PM   #295
kerikiwi
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,175
Originally Posted by 154 View Post
Such hatred... such bile... such venom...
Speaking of hatred and bile and venom, you didn't manage to cite an example of the hostility you spoke of earlier.
kerikiwi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 09:04 PM   #296
Zep
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,699
Originally Posted by Radrook View Post
I spent half hour answering your accusations and the computer erased. it. So my response will be brief this time

1, I never said that someone bult an ark

2. Their speculations are irrelevantto seaworthiness test results.

3. Tests done independemntly will vary. Howeever both were well withing seaworthinbess parameters,

4. The lack of a counter test by skeptics might strongly indicate it was done but but results were kepot sdilent for obvious reasons.

5 . Your premise that all test results done by believers in anb ID are worhhless condstitutes fallacious reasoning.


BTWE

Atheist reviewing atheist is consideed peer review. RIGHT?
The accusation that I'm fabricating is due probably to your difficulty in to comprehending clearly written English.
You asked for it (and it was 0.2 seconds away from you all the time)...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4853890.stm
Zep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 09:04 PM   #297
Complexity
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 9,242
Originally Posted by 154 View Post
Such hatred... such bile... such venom...

Once again, you are wrong.

I have contempt for people who hold superstitious beliefs and anger at their willful ignorance and at the smug cruelty with which they ruin others' lives.

Last edited by Complexity; 28th April 2010 at 09:23 PM.
Complexity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 09:05 PM   #298
Accidental Martyr
Master Poster
 
Accidental Martyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,058
Originally Posted by Radrook View Post
Here is an article that addresses many of your questions.

Caring for the animals in the Ark
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...or-the-animals
Are you really serious, or is this just a big joke?
__________________
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile!"
Kurt Vonnegut
Accidental Martyr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 09:06 PM   #299
154
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,887
Originally Posted by kerikiwi View Post
Speaking of hatred and bile and venom, you didn't manage to cite an example of the hostility you spoke of earlier.
Are you serious? Are you blind? Look at almost every response to me.

None of the posts have been removed.
154 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 09:09 PM   #300
Accidental Martyr
Master Poster
 
Accidental Martyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,058
Originally Posted by Zep View Post
You asked for it (and it was 0.2 seconds away from you all the time)...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4853890.stm
Damn, what a waste of a million dollars.
__________________
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile!"
Kurt Vonnegut
Accidental Martyr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 09:10 PM   #301
154
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,887
Originally Posted by Complexity View Post
Once again, you are wrong.

I have contempt for people who hold superstitious beliefs and anger at their wilfull ignorance and at the smug cruelty with which they ruin others' lives.
Well, roomie, tonight, and yesterday, my terrible rotten horrible self has been trying to make the last moments of one of my rescued 20-year-old alley cat kitten sisters as comfortable as can be while I say goodbye to my dear little friend. Thanks for your always kind words...
154 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 09:13 PM   #302
Radrook
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,834
Originally Posted by kerikiwi View Post
So, you don't actually believe the whole ark, animals, dinosaurs bit?
You're just interested in whether a boat like that would float?
That's a relief. I was beginning to think you really believed the fairy tale.
What you believe or what I believe is irrelevant to the seaworthiness of the described vessdel. What is relevant are the test results. So you found no test results to counter the ones given? In that case then, such a vessel if constructed would be seaworthy.
Radrook is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 09:15 PM   #303
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42,625
Originally Posted by 154 View Post
Well, roomie, tonight, and yesterday, my terrible rotten horrible self has been trying to make the last moments of one of my rescued 20-year-old alley cat kitten sisters as comfortable as can be while I say goodbye to my dear little friend. Thanks for your always kind words...
You are kind to cats so we should accept your delusions?
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 09:17 PM   #304
Complexity
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 9,242
Originally Posted by 154 View Post
Well, roomie, tonight, and yesterday, my terrible rotten horrible self has been trying to make the last moments of one of my rescued 20-year-old alley cat kitten sisters as comfortable as can be while I say goodbye to my dear little friend. Thanks for your always kind words...

I'm sorry for your cat and I'm sorry for your loss.

I suggest that you take time off of the forums and spend some quality time with your friend.

My opposition to your beliefs will be here when you get back.
Complexity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 09:19 PM   #305
Zep
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,699
Originally Posted by radrook View Post
what you believe or what i believe is irrelevant to the seaworthiness of the described vessdel. What is relevant are the test results. So you found no test results to counter the ones given? In that case then, such a vessel if constructed would be seaworthy.
Excuse me! I gave you a reference!
Zep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 09:20 PM   #306
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 39,353
Originally Posted by Radrook View Post
I spent half hour answering your accusations and the computer erased. it. So my response will be brief this time

1, I never said that someone bult an ark
Nonsense. You did so. You said someone built a vessel to the specifications of the ark. That's like saying that the contractor built Falling Water to the specifications of Wright's blueprints and the Kaufmans' decorating ideas, but I didn't say it was a house. It was a "structure".
You claimed it and you can't state otherwise. You are free to retract it, however. Be a mensch!

Quote:
2. Their speculations are irrelevantto seaworthiness test results.
Points to their reliability and methodology, though.

Quote:
3. Tests done independemntly will vary. Howeever both were well withing seaworthinbess parameters,
Tests done independently need peer review to determine which is right, don't they. Fundies have all those bucks out there (I've seen those crystal cathedral thingies out there in Teh Carolinas and Oklahoma and California). Why not a peer review? What you show is approval by fundie birds of a feather.

Quote:
4. The lack of a counter test by skeptics might strongly indicate it was done but but results were kepot sdilent for obvious reasons.
We see a mythical book being offered up as based on sound science and math. I knew a guy who insisted that Icarus' plan was scientifically sound, also. Do you believe that. Careful. If you say "no", then by your logic you're going to have to build a set of wings and fly up to the sun (and fail) in order to disprove it.
In short. No. Skeptics don't have to prove it. I haven't mounted any unicorn hunting expeditions lately, nor gone mermaid fishing, either.

Quote:
5 . Your premise that all test results done by believers in anb ID are worhhless condstitutes fallacious reasoning.
I have no idea what you're saying and I don't have a picture of a bunny with a pancake on his head.

Quote:
BTWE
Ditto above.


Quote:
Atheist reviewing atheist is consideed peer review. RIGHT?
Only on matters not involving claims that one is PROVING atheism. To have Randi review Bertrand on the topic would be a bit superfluous. OTOH if Hawkings is an atheist (I know not) and he wants to review Bertrand(Russell) on math, that'd be acceptable. Their atheism has nothing to do with the study in question. It's two maths guys going at it.
You're offering up fundies as acceptable confirming/reviewing sources for fundie material couched in scientific terms. THAT is not acceptable.

Quote:
The accusation that I'm fabricating is due probably to your difficulty in to comprehending clearly written English.
That's not an accusation. That's a statement of fact. You said that in the two articles you linked to there was mention of someone who'd built a vessel to the ark's specifications and that he was praised for his excellent design. You have been called on this lie several times, yet you keep adding the lie that you never said it.
THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. MENTION. IN. EITHER. OF. THOSE. ARTICLES.
Show us otherwise.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 09:20 PM   #307
Radrook
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,834
Originally Posted by Accidental Martyr View Post
Are you really serious, or is this just a big joke?
sigh! I was really hoping for some kind of specific objection to the explanations they provide. Instead, for reasons I can well imagine, you prefer to take the easy way. Well, OK. But hey, each to his own modus operandi. The problem on this forum is that people imagine skepticism is merelly objecting to things considered impossible. However, the genuine skeptic will provide reasons why he or she rejects some explanation and not easily and conveniently shove it aside with time-wasting and irrelevant "Are you joking?" excuses.

Last edited by Radrook; 28th April 2010 at 09:22 PM.
Radrook is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 09:28 PM   #308
Complexity
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 9,242
Originally Posted by Radrook View Post
sigh! I was really hoping for some kind of specific objection to the explanations they provide. Instead, for reasons I can well imagine, you prefer to take the easy way. Well, OK. But hey, each to his own modus operandi. The problem on this forum is that people imagine skepticism is merelly objecting to things considered impossible. However, the genuine skeptic will provide reasons why he or she rejects some explanation and not easily and conveniently shove it aside with time-wasting and irrelevant "Are you joking?" excuses.

Nonsense.

An intelligent person will not waste their lives discussing idiocy and ravings.

A careful rebuttal is appropriate only to arguments that are worthy of attention and time.

Your scribblings are not worthy of attention or time, and barely merit the contempt that I so freely dish out.

The only reason that I pay attention to you is to mark you as 'ignorable - delusional and dangerous' for the innocents that may visit these forums.

Your statements, while not worthy of serious discussion or rebuttal, should not be allowed to stand unopposed.
Complexity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 09:30 PM   #309
Radrook
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,834
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Nonsense. You did so. You said someone built a vessel to the specifications of the ark. That's like saying that the contractor built Falling Water to the specifications of Wright's blueprints and the Kaufmans' decorating ideas, but I didn't say it was a house. It was a "structure".
You claimed it and you can't state otherwise. You are free to retract it, however. Be a mensch!
He designed a ship and it turned out to be close to the specifications of the ark. You assume that he had the ark in mind and purposefullly copied. Nowhere does it say that. That is YOUR interpretation. In any case, that also is irrelevant to the test results.


Quote:
Points to their reliability and methodology, though.

Tests done independently need peer review to determine which is right, don't they. Fundies have all those bucks out there (I've seen those crystal cathedral thingies out there in Teh Carolinas and Oklahoma and California). Why not a peer review? What you show is approval by fundie birds of a feather.
So when atheists review atheist its not bird of a feather thing? That's the fallacy of inconsidtency of policy or criteria. Or more simply said, convenient selective blindness.


snipped because irrelevant

snipped because obscure

snipped for redundant irrelevant verbosity


Quote:
That's not an accusation. That's a statement of fact. You said that in the two articles you linked to there was mention of someone who'd built a vessel to the ark's specifications and that he was praised for his excellent design. You have been called on this lie several times, yet you keep adding the lie that you never said it. THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. MENTION. IN. EITHER. OF. THOSE. ARTICLES.
Show us otherwise.
So instead of providing counter evidence you want me to read your increasingly hysterical diatribes? Nice try but no cigar.


BYE!

There is nothing so beautiful as the peacfulness of an uncluttered screen!

Last edited by Radrook; 28th April 2010 at 09:38 PM.
Radrook is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 09:36 PM   #310
Radrook
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,834
Originally Posted by Zep View Post
Excuse me! I gave you a reference!
What reference?
Radrook is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 10:06 PM   #311
JoeyDonuts
Frequencies Not Known To Normals
 
JoeyDonuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,536
Who provided evidence of the ark's design?

According to the KJV it is:

300 cb x 50 cb x 30 cb.
One window, "finished above" to a cubit.
One door set in the side, with lower/mid/upper decks.

THAT'S IT.

Any other speculation about pitch, keels, seaworthiness, design issues, is not Biblical.

Modern shipbuilders use this ratio? Hell it doesn't even say that it was rectangular, or had a keel, or had watertight bulkheads, or bilges, or a prow, or anything that you need to take a vessel out on the open ocean for the better part of a YEAR.

I seriously doubt any of you who believe in the validity of this tale are now, or have ever been, sailors.
__________________
EXIT STAGE LEFT! EXIT STAGE RIGHT! THERE IS NO PLACE TO RUN; ALL THE FUSES IN THE EXIT SIGNS HAVE BEEN BURNED OUT!
JoeyDonuts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 10:09 PM   #312
kerikiwi
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,175
Originally Posted by 154 View Post
Are you serious? Are you blind? Look at almost every response to me.

None of the posts have been removed.
Since none of the posts has been removed, it should be easy for you to give just one or two examples.
Oh and yes, I am serious, no I am not blind.
kerikiwi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 10:11 PM   #313
kerikiwi
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,175
Originally Posted by Radrook View Post
What you believe or what I believe is irrelevant to the seaworthiness of the described vessdel. What is relevant are the test results. So you found no test results to counter the ones given? In that case then, such a vessel if constructed would be seaworthy.
I didn't look so of course I found none.
The seaworthiness of such a vessel is irrelevant.
The animals, now, are another story..
kerikiwi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 10:23 PM   #314
roger
Penultimate Amazing
 
roger's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 11,465
8600m/40days/24 hrs/day = 9 m/hr.

1 cubic meter = 264 gallons = 2112lbs of water

so, 9*2112, or 19,000lbs of water per hour falling on your body.

sorry for mixing metric/english, I'm just going with constants that I know.

Quibblers will point out that the body's cross section is not 1m^2, and they would of course be right. The point is merely to give the scale of this supposed rain - 20K lbs of water per hour dumped in a very small box around you. I sincerely doubt you could breathe.

In comparison, a typical fire hose rate is 170 GPM, or 10200 GPH. Compare this to the 2376 GPH of the supposed rain. A garden hose can maybe do 5 GPM or so, so the rain would be equivalent to 8 garden hoses pointed at your nostrils at once (should you look up at the sky).

Ya, I believe this.
__________________
May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey

Climb the mountains and get their good tidings.
Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves. - John Muir

Last edited by roger; 28th April 2010 at 10:24 PM.
roger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 10:25 PM   #315
JoeyDonuts
Frequencies Not Known To Normals
 
JoeyDonuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,536
For the love of...something.

You cannot tell with any reasonable degree of certainty the seaworthiness of a vessel based ONLY on the information I posted above, which is the ONLY biblical reference for the ark's design. Was it flat-bottomed or keeled? Doesn't say. Did it have lateral/medial trusses to reduce stress? Doesn't say. How were the planks joined together? Doesn't say.

All we can do is make inferences about what it would take for a vessel of those dimensions to actually BE seaworthy, and the only reason we can do that is because we have the benefit of hundreds of years of ship design and sailing experience telling us what does and does not work. And none of these things were around during the time Noah is claimed to have built this thing.

Where the creationist and Biblical literalist FAIL are when they ASSUME that the craft had to have been constructed in such a manner as to make it scientifically viable, even though the assumption has no basis in fact - or even biblical fiction in this case. God's instructions for the design of the ark are exactly as I laid out, and assigning more information to them than was put out in the bible is ridiculous, and shows exactly how bad the confirmation bias is at work here.

The funny thing about confirmation bias, is that one usually has to find something.

This is exactly the same reasoning you see coming from the 9/11 Truth Movement, gasping and grasping at anything and everything, inventing technologies and physical properties to support their already-arrived at and ridiculous conclusion when the real world doesn't.
__________________
EXIT STAGE LEFT! EXIT STAGE RIGHT! THERE IS NO PLACE TO RUN; ALL THE FUSES IN THE EXIT SIGNS HAVE BEEN BURNED OUT!

Last edited by JoeyDonuts; 28th April 2010 at 10:29 PM.
JoeyDonuts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 10:27 PM   #316
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 39,353
(deleted) Never mind. I'd have better results explaining the origins of the Paris Commune to a zucchini.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.

Last edited by Foolmewunz; 28th April 2010 at 10:29 PM.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 10:31 PM   #317
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 39,353
Originally Posted by JoeyDonuts View Post
For the love of...something.

You cannot tell with any reasonable degree of certainty the seaworthiness of a vessel based ONLY on the information I posted above, which is the ONLY biblical reference for the ark's design. Was it flat-bottomed or keeled? Doesn't say. Did it have lateral/medial trusses to reduce stress? Doesn't say. How were the planks joined together? Doesn't say.

All we can do is make inferences about what it would take for a vessel of those dimensions to actually BE seaworthy, and the only reason we can do that is because we have the benefit of hundreds of years of ship design and sailing experience telling us what does and does not work. And none of these things were around during the time Noah is claimed to have built this thing.

Where the creationist and Biblical literalist FAIL are when they ASSUME that the craft had to have been constructed in such a manner as to make it scientifically viable, even though the assumption has no basis in fact - or even biblical fiction in this case. God's instructions for the design of the ark are exactly as I laid out, and assigning more information to them than was put out in the bible is ridiculous, and shows exactly how bad the confirmation bias is at work here.

The funny thing about confirmation bias, is that one usually has to find something.

This is exactly the same reasoning you see coming from the 9/11 Truth Movement, gasping and grasping at anything and everything, inventing technologies and physical properties to support their already-arrived at and ridiculous conclusion when the real world doesn't.
Now, now, Joey. They got excellent advice on the vessel design from the assumptions made by a bunch of liars who had previously claimed that they'd located the ark in Turkey. Yeah, that's what the article says. I'm repeating because it's just so flippin' absurd.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 10:38 PM   #318
JoeyDonuts
Frequencies Not Known To Normals
 
JoeyDonuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,536
This is getting as bad as Van Impe's repeated Second Coming predictions.
__________________
EXIT STAGE LEFT! EXIT STAGE RIGHT! THERE IS NO PLACE TO RUN; ALL THE FUSES IN THE EXIT SIGNS HAVE BEEN BURNED OUT!
JoeyDonuts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 10:48 PM   #319
Radrook
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,834
Interestingly, British civil and mechanical engineer Isambard Kingdom Brunel built a steamship (the Great Britain) in 1843 that had almost the same proportions as the Ark, although it was smaller. This was regarded as a remarkable feat of Victorian and maritime engineering. The Great Britain was the first large vessel to be propelled by a screw propeller.http://www.creationtips.com/arksize.html

[bolding mine]

The Great Britain
Length: 322 ft (98.15 m) Beam (width): 50 ft 6 in (15.39 m) Height (main deck to keel): 32 ft 6 in (9.91 m) Weight unladen: 1,930 long tons (2,161 short tons, 1,961 tonnes) Displacement: 3,018 long tons (3,380 short tons, 3,066 tonnes)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Great_Britain


Above is the statement I referred to. It's the size alone he is referring to as considered impressive for those times I suppose since the materials are different.
The comparison is in reference to the dimensional ratios of 30:5:3. Actually “the ugly duckling”—a barge-like boat built to carry tremendous amounts of cargo, and one that had the same ratio.

Last edited by Radrook; 28th April 2010 at 11:11 PM.
Radrook is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2010, 10:54 PM   #320
JoeyDonuts
Frequencies Not Known To Normals
 
JoeyDonuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,536
What does that have to do with the design specifics of the Ark?

You think that because somebody made a vessel thousands of years later taking advantage of metallurgy, shipbuilding tech, and the end result of a couple hundred years of seafaring and navigation advancements - that it makes the story of the Ark more plausible?

Distraction engagement failed.
__________________
EXIT STAGE LEFT! EXIT STAGE RIGHT! THERE IS NO PLACE TO RUN; ALL THE FUSES IN THE EXIT SIGNS HAVE BEEN BURNED OUT!

Last edited by JoeyDonuts; 28th April 2010 at 10:56 PM.
JoeyDonuts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:48 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.