"The real Noah's Ark" on Discovery

[Straylight]

I've debated the origins of life and creation on many websites before - in fact I used to be a YEC myself. However as I learned more about science and came to terms with more and more evidence I decided that the YEC theory was extremely flawed.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean it as an insult to Straylight

Don't worry about it mate. PM me if you want The stuff in my last post is a collection of ideas and is not something that I count as fact. It is merely theory but I think it's a fairly good one personally.

The logic of the theory:

God is supreme -- He knows everything and never makes mistakes. He knows the future because He planned it.
God does not decieve His children - Tech has explained this nicely in words that I can't put together.

Because God never makes mistakes, everything in the Universe is planned. In the Bible we see God's interaction with the world from a human perspective. Truth is, God knew all that stuff was gonna happen before the universe was even made because he'd planned it. Why on earth would God create a universe, only to discover a few things that He had overlooked, and then fix it on the fly? God is never taken by surprise.

Years ago mankind tried to create a machine that would predict long term weather patterns. The theory of chaos (entropy in chemistry) means that if a butterfly flaps its wings in Tokyo, the disturbance could eventually result in a storm over London.

This is particularly true if that butterfly's flapping had been planned by God.

Imagine throwing a stone into a still lake.

When I throw the stone, the water is disturbed. I cannot comprehend the complexity of the disturbance. I certainly didn't plan all the individual molecular interactions between the water molecules, or the wave pattern that results.

Now imagine that God throws the stone. He throws it in a precise, planned way to disturb the water in precisely the way that He has intended. He has accounted for every molecular interaction in the water and a thousand other things beside.

You know what? I think God could make anything happen if He threw that stone. Because the theories of entropy give rise to almost infinate combinations of molecular interactions, He could precisely disturb the entropy of the water using the stone in such a way that the ripples would spell your name. That would be a miracle - something mortally impossible for us because we cannot possibly comprehend or calculate the manner by which the stone must be thrown to produce the desired effect.

I really need to put this stuff on a webpage somewhere.
---------------

Anyway... just to reiterate what Ashley said -- keep the discussion civil folks. This is a fascinating topic but it's very easy to get carried away (myself included). At the end of the day it's your relationship with Jesus that matters. Me? I don't hold to any "belief" about the origins of life, I just analyse evidence and decide what is most feasible.

[uc pseudonym]

I have a number of somewhat unrelated things to say, as I am mainly an observer, not a participant, in this discussion.

djnoz, I generally consider myself to believe something similar to what you have. However, you have one error: God, being outside of time, cannot do anything "before" it happens. He does it when it happens, and when the events before it and after it happened... He is at every point in time. So there is no difference between Him preplanning something and doing something at the same time... does that make sense?

He didn't make it that way to fake it's age, but because if it wasn't that way, life wouldn't work.

I'm going to speak on this subject, referring to an objection that Technomancer has made in the past: God apparently loves details. He creates flowers that no one will ever see (an interesting assumption... but you all know what I mean). Likewise, why would He not create a world that looked exactly like it should, if just one part of the age were required to sustain life?

[The Grammarian]

Isn't that a bit of an assumption, that God is outside of time? I've yet to hear any solid biblical evidence for why God must be outside of time, at the least.

[uc pseudonym]

Just a general assumption, not really Biblically based. Allow me to explain the logic behind it.

If time and matter are related (I can only claim to understand parts of the Theory of Relativity) where is time if there is no matter (eg God)? Furthermore, if time can be varied based on position (and speed at that given position), how does that apply to a being that is omnipresent? Also, there can be no time if there is no matter (...that isn't too scientifically based) so before creation in whatever form, if there was no matter there was no time. If God began creation, then he also began time. As such, he would be outside of time.

In essence, my argument is this: With God having created the laws of physics as they are, I cannot think of a single reason why He would be inside time. Of course, I haven't significantly studied that, as it doesn't matter greatly to my faith.

[The Grammarian]

If time and matter are related (I can only claim to understand parts of the Theory of Relativity) where is time if there is no matter (eg God)? Furthermore, if time can be varied based on position (and speed at that given position), how does that apply to a being that is omniscient?

A better question would be, How does that apply to a Being that is omnipresent? If God is everywhere, then wouldn't that mean, assuming that time differences vary based on position and speed, that God's interaction with the world is at a constant space-time reference?

Also, there can be no time if there is no matter (...that isn't too scientifically based) so before creation in whatever form, if there was no matter there was no time. If God began creation, then he also began time. As such, he would be outside of time.

Are time and matter that related, though? To me, time is more a philosophical concept than a scientific one. Measurements of time are scientifically demonstrable, in the sense that we can know the 'time of day' by comparing the earth's position to the sun, etc., but does that mean that time would not exist without matter? Since we are not spirits (solely), how can we claim that God doesn't experience time? What if time is simply the logical sequence of events? Or the logical sequence of events as God sees them, at least?

Some food for thought. (And hopefully it made sense, because I've been rushing a bit--gotta leave for class now.)

[cbwing0]

Since we are not spirits (solely), how can we claim that God doesn't experience time? What if time is simply the logical sequence of events? Or the logical sequence of events as God sees them, at least?

God must in some way transcend time, since He created time. At any rate, He created the universe (again, meaning that he transcends it), so if God is affected by time, it would have to be in a way totally unlike that of finite beings.

[uc pseudonym]

If God did not create time, time is greater than God (by this I mean that it is a univeral constant that is outside of Him: He cannot control it. Or God and time are somehow the same thing... which puts us in the same place). I think it, at least, is a relatively safe assumption.

The best that I know (I'm hardly infaliable) time and matter are directly related. No matter, no time (but this second phrase is more or less unbased).

[cbwing0]

Who ever said God created time?

If we think of time as a function, dimension, or characteristic of the physical universe, then God created time, because God created the universe. This appears to be the case according to modern physics (that time is part of the universe).

Do you have other explanations for time?

[The Grammarian]

To answer both in one: God is not less than time, nor is it necessary that God "created" time. If time is the logical sequence of events from God's perspective, time is an integral part of Who God is, and is no more bound by it than he is "bound" by any other divine attribute (e.g., mercy or love).

As far as the theory of relativity goes, though, I believe that Quantum Mechanics says that time (defined as "a photon with energy h [Planck's constant] behaves as though it were oscillating once per second") is an absolute.

[madphilb]

Are time and matter that related, though? To me, time is more a philosophical concept than a scientific one. Measurements of time are scientifically demonstrable, in the sense that we can know the 'time of day' by comparing the earth's position to the sun, etc., but does that mean that time would not exist without matter? Since we are not spirits (solely), how can we claim that God doesn't experience time? What if time is simply the logical sequence of events? Or the logical sequence of events as God sees them, at least?

I think you're confusing the way which we measure time with time itself.

Without time everything would happen at once, obviously it doesn't... however we live within not only the 3 dimensions (represented by X, Y, and Z axis) but also in a 4th dimension of time.

We personally measure time by the revolution of our planet.... but that's not time itself (which is why the ending to the original Superman movie is really messed up).

I know I've seen verses that indicated God's timelessness as well as His being outside time (not directly though), but I can't think of them offhand. Time itself is a bit of an abstract concept, the kind of thing they just didn't worry about back then.

[Technomancer]

I'm pretty sure both Aquinas and Augustine had something to say about God being outside of time.

[The Grammarian]

I think you're confusing the way which we measure time with time itself. Without time everything would happen at once, obviously it doesn't... however we live within not only the 3 dimensions (represented by X, Y, and Z axis) but also in a 4th dimension of time. We personally measure time by the revolution of our planet.... but that's not time itself (which is why the ending to the original Superman movie is really messed up). I know I've seen verses that indicated God's timelessness as well as His being outside time (not directly though), but I can't think of them offhand. Time itself is a bit of an abstract concept, the kind of thing they just didn't worry about back then.

I fail to see how I am confusing the two. The concept of time itself is that there is a sequence to events, that not everything happens at once. Measurements of time have nothing to do with the concept of time, and as far as I know, physics discusses time in relation to measurements thereof (even quantum mechanics, where they define time as a photon h oscillating once per second--see previous post I made). What I am postulating is that "time," in the abstract, is the sequential order in which events occur from God's perspective. That would make time a part of God, and not something 'created' nor apart from him.

As for God's timelessness, there are verses like Hebrews 13:8 (Jesus Christ is the same yesterday tomorrow and for ever). Assuming that change was a vital characteristic of time (not measurements thereof), that would certainly prove that God was timeless. But is change a vital characteristic of time itself?

Technomancer: Yes, Augustine and Aquinas both made the argument that God was outside of time.

[cbwing0]

I'm pretty sure both Aquinas and Augustine had something to say about God being outside of time.

You are correct, and they are not alone (C.S. Lewis being the most famous Christian to hold the view in the 20th century).

To answer both in one: God is not less than time, nor is it necessary that God "created" time. If time is the logical sequence of events from God's perspective, time is an integral part of Who God is, and is no more bound by it than he is "bound" by any other divine attribute (e.g., mercy or love).

It is not that God is less than time, but that he transcends time. To put it another way, God is eternal and timeless. C.S. Lewis can say it much better than I, so here is his reasoning:

"Almost certainly God is not in time. His life does not consist of moments following one another. If a million people are praying to Him at ten-thirty tonight, He need not listen to them all in that one little snippet which we call ten-thirty. Ten-thirty--and every other moment from the beginning of the world--is always present for Him. If you like to put it that way, he has all eternity in which to listen to the split second of prayer put up by a pilot as his plane crashes in flames" (Mere Christianity, p.91).

Why is this important? Again quoting Lewis:

"The idea is worth trying because it removes some apparent difficulties in Christianity. Before I became a Christian one of my objections was as follows. The Christians said that the eternal God who is everywhere and keeps the whole universe going, once became a human being. When, then, said I, how did the whole universe keep going while he was a baby, or while he was asleep? How could he at the same time be God who knows everything and also a man asking his disciples 'Who touched me?' You will notice that the sting lay in the time words: While He was a baby--How could he at the same time? In other words I was assuming Christ's life as God was in time, and that his life as the man Jesus in Palestine was a shorter period taken out of that time..." (p.92).

Of course you can hold different beliefs about time, or creation, or science, and still be a good Christian. I do not believe that any of these issues can influence your salvation. It is possible that God could be in time (a view known as Open Theism), but you will have to deal with some difficulties that arise from such a position.

[Bobtheduck]

PUBLIC NOTE TO TECH: This is public because it is relevent to the discussion. I am not using this as a proof of my stance, as it is irrelevent to my stance and perhaps contradictory in some ways, but one of the sites you recommended vehemently contradict your points, Tech. http://www.answersingenesis.com has possible comebacks to a lot of your arguments. I am not trying to use this to laugh in your face, but merely wonder why you chose to link to it since it obviously contradicts your point in every other area except confirming that the footprints thing wasn't worthwile.

I would like to hear you go point for point on the remarks in the "Noah's Ark" section of their Q&A. I won't respond, but I want to see what you have to say about it.

[Technomancer]

PUBLIC NOTE TO TECH: This is public because it is relevent to the discussion...etc

I'd mentioned the site only in relation to the so-called "man-tracks" only to demonstrate that even a site with as poor a standard of scholarship as AIG would not give the claim any credence. Looking over the Q&A, I'm surprised that you would recommend something of such abysmal quality.

For now I'll deal with the issue of the animals on the ark (Sarfati). Noah's told to bring either on or seven pairs of animals on to the ark according to 'kind' Nowhere is kind defined in Sarfati's article, a big problem here. A term left undefined is useless. If we hold that kind is a species, then we greatly increase the cargo problem. If we describe 'kind' as genera, then extremely rapid speciation is required after the flood (faster than even evolutionists admit to!). And to account for the absence of these creatures prior to the flood; this is especially tricky given that many species both living and extinct can be conclusively dated to having existed well before the flood based on radiometric measurements (and other techniques). Unfortunately for Sarfati, insects would also have to have been on board the ark for two reasons- firstly because that is the literal reading of the text, and secondly, they could not have survived any other way. Floating on a raft detached from shore is a far cry from surviving a)violent pounding from rain b)massive flooding on top of one c)such a sudden change in the availability of food and fresh water. His objection that they don't breathe through their nostrils is plainly silly; insects still have to breath no matter where they are.

During the flood period the animals have to be cared for. Hibernation won't work as an argument since obviously most animals don't hibernate at all and so still need to be fed. The predators of course, need meat. And most of them only eat it fresh (so much for dry goods). Given the hot, humid conditions that would have prevailed on the ark (due to the animals), food would have spoiled extremely quickly unless properly sealed. to say nothing of course, of rats, weevils and pests getting into the stores and ruining them Molds and fungi would also have been a severe problem, and a serious health issue for humans and animals alike.
Environmental conditions also have to be maintained- this means heating/cooling, ventilation (CO2, CH4, and NH3 would tend to build up), and cleaning; all of this would have required constant attention from Noah and crew. The family would also have had to see to the animals health, given the conditions of their keeping (little to no exercise, stress, air quality, excrement, etc) the ark would have been rife for any number of diseases. Smaller tasks relating to animal tending would also have to have been done (e.g. trimming hooves, etc).

Waste control through sluices wouldn't have worked at all below the water line, and without high-pressure hoses it wouldn't have worked very well further up anyways, especially on a surface like wood. Vermicomposting still requires maintenence by the way; solid matter still remains and must be disposed of..

Even a moderate sized zoo requires that a large staff and regular attention given to the animals by those knowledgeable about their care and feeding. There is simply no way a group of eight people could have accomplished the necessary tasks.

However, this is all academic. The primary problems of the flood remain essentially geological, and that is an insurmountable barrier to the theory's credibility. Admittedly, I have ignored here the obvious problems of biogeography, stable breeding population size and food sources (predation being a big problem).

[Bobtheduck]

You talked about Carl Baugh and how he uses flawed arguments and such. However, there's somoething you may be interested to know... One of the guests, who may have been hovind (I forget... I dont' watch the show myself, but my Dad does) on his show made an offer of 100,000 dollars to someone who would debate him and win. Maybe time and distance won't allow for that, but I think you may consider taking him up. Even if you say he has no backing and whatever, you should be able to say it to his face, or rather proove it in the debate. I cannot debate with you because I cannot compare to the research you've done, but this man is more than willing to openly debate you, and I think you should consider it... I just need to find out who it was. He says that no one has taken him up on it.

If you do actually debate him, I'd like a transcript. I want to see the interchange between you.

[EireWolf]

I really shouldn't get into this... so I'm not reading the rest of the posts, so forgive me if I repeat someone.... But couldn't the "worldwide" flood be in reference to the "world" that was known and populated by the Biblical writers at the time? That certainly wouldn't be the entire globe.

[The Grammarian]

Bob: That was Hovind (Dr. Dino) who made that $100,000 challenge.

CB:

It is not that God is less than time, but that he transcends time. To put it another way, God is eternal and timeless. C.S. Lewis can say it much better than I, so here is his reasoning:

"Almost certainly God is not in time. His life does not consist of moments following one another. If a million people are praying to Him at ten-thirty tonight, He need not listen to them all in that one little snippet which we call ten-thirty. Ten-thirty--and every other moment from the beginning of the world--is always present for Him. If you like to put it that way, he has all eternity in which to listen to the split second of prayer put up by a pilot as his plane crashes in flames" (Mere Christianity, p.91.)

Why is this important? Again quoting Lewis:

"The idea is worth trying because it removes some apparent difficulties in Christianity. Before I became a Christian one of my objections was as follows. The Christians said that the eternal God who is everywhere and keeps the whole universe going, once became a human being. When, then, said I, how did the whole universe keep going while he was a baby, or while he was asleep? How could he at the same time be God who knows everything and also a man asking his disciples 'Who touched me?' You will notice that the sting lay in the time words: While He was a baby--How could he at the same time? In other words I was assuming Christ's life as God was in time, and that his life as the man Jesus in Palestine was a shorter period taken out of that time..." (p.92).

As much of a fan of C.S. Lewis as I am, I still think Lewis' reasoning here does not account for the Trinity. God the Son became a man, but God the Father was still in his heaven. Without getting into more complicated issues, I just don't buy that God must be outside of time in order for God to be able to simultaneously be a Man and God at a particular point in history.

Of course you can hold different beliefs about time, or creation, or science, and still be a good Christian. I do not believe that any of these issues can influence your salvation. It is possible that God could be in time (a view known as Open Theism), but you will have to deal with some difficulties that arise from such a position.

I think this is only the second time in my life that I've been accused of being an Open Theist. Open Theism's cardinal doctrine isn't God's timeliness. It is God's inability to "see" the future before it's happened because it's the "future"--a position made possible by the view that God is within time.

They are not one and the same. It was an orthodox position in the 18th and early 19th centuries to believe that God is not outside of time. The first Methodist systematic theologian, Richard Watson, is a good example of an orthodox Methodist who had a "classical theistic" view while simultaneously not believing in God's being outside of time.

[Bobtheduck]

I'm glad you're reading it, but 1. I did NOT have the chance to read every article, and 2. Sarfati is only one of many... They can't comb over every paper, verifiying every detail, and accounting for unknowns... They just take work from people who agree with their basic tennants and have some authority to back up what they right, whether their individual papers are using bad science or not... In any case, I sent a message to the webmasters offering up that someone in that field debate you personally on this forum, because they are honestly the only people who could defend their work... Well... More to the point, and more accurately, I CAN'T defend it or argue against it. I just think I would like to see a dialogue between you and someone who not only believes that but has made some of their hypothesis themselves. That is why I recommended that "one guy" who's information I will give to you as soon as I find it (and I will look) because I want to see what two people with knowledge in this field have to say to each other in open debate.

EDIT: So it was Hovind... Then, even though I don't expect much from his end, I would like to see you take him up on his challenge.

[Ammaranth]

I just looked at the Q&A, and read a substantial part of Sarfati's article, and before I say anything else, I cannot help but notice that things get very muddy when reading someone's criticism of another person's criticism of yet another person's work.

I really just don't see a big problem here. Frankly, I don't know the exact definition of the term "kinds", but the overall meaning being conveyed in the story of the ark is quite clear. It may be interesting to try to figure out this kind of thing, but if one has faith enough to believe that God told Noah to build the ark in the first place, then that same faith tends to preclude worrying about how many different kinds of animals there were, or what their exact care and feeding was, and so forth. I realize, Tech, that you may once again suggest that I am copping out, but please understand that to me, such details, however interesting they may be, simply are not that important.

Likewise, I am just not overly concerned with geological arguments against the flood. In fact, I doubt how seriously we can consider geology a science, in that so much of it is inherrently untestable. We can make observations about the rock formations present today, and we can observe current processes at work, and we can even try to come up with theories and testable predictions based on what we observe, but none of this changes the fact that we were not present when those rock layers formed, and so we cannot say with certainty exactly how those formations occured.

For my part, I'm just not inclined to lose any sleep over it.

Ammaranth

[Bobtheduck]

Well, much of geology CAN be tested, though not necissarily everything... And it's the testable stuff that people use as proof against the Flood... Of course, I believe there is research to back up the other side geologically, but I am not an expert in this...

Ammaranth, I agree on the point that since God works supernaturally, he works outside of the "laws" of physics... I have no problem believeing he could do it exactly as it says. The only difference being I DO lose sleep over it... I really want to know, and my desire to get some clear answers has cost me a lot of time. I just wish I could drop it, but I don't feel I can... I really need to repent of futile promises... I've made a lot online, including saying I wasn't going to talk about a subject again... That is off topic, though, so let me just say this subject interests me, I don't necissarily believe something just because a show that is opposed to my faith said it was so, and I see no reason that God couldn't do something that looks impossible to us... I don't see that as a cop-out because the Bible says "What is impossible for man is possible for God" and I don't find it a stretch to say that what is impossible for natural forces is possible for God. I don't find it deceptive to say that God made Adam and Eve adults (which the Bible doesn't say straight out) or that he created plants that looked to be really old (which the Bible DOES say straight out) so I don't believe that he would be deceptive to have made an earth that looked to be very old. He wouldn't have done it to plant false evidence, to plant doubt, he would have done it because it was how he wanted it... It's about beauty, and making it look old and with character was much better than making it look young, and he made the natural laws to surround that. I don't know one way or the other, but nothing in science could convince me one way or the other... Or rather, they couldn't convince me the other... I still am curious what people say, as I do have the fear that someone will talk me out of my convictions, and honestly that does show a lack of faith, because it's not just those areas but all areas of my faith that I'm scared of losing. Anyhow...

Tech, see if you can take up Hovind on his challenge, and if you do link the transcripts here in this thread... And, if you do get the money, can you loan me money for Full Sail? Just a thought! ^_^

[Technomancer]

I'm familiar with Hovind's offer and am aware that, like his Ph.D, it is entirely fraudulent.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA341.html
http://www.holysmoke.org/hovind5.htm
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kent ... llenge.htm

Given the experiences of others, I have little interest in wasting my time with the man.

Geology, by the way is quite testable. You well know that exploration companies put it to the test every day...and it works. Flood geology doesn't, which is why it's not used by anyone in industry.

...and we can even try to come up with theories and testable predictions based on what we observe

Which is the essence of the scientific method. If the processes were signifcantly different, then we wouldn't be able to make successful predictions.

[cbwing0]

It looks like this thread is going to two different directions at the moment. Oh well...

I think this is only the second time in my life that I've been accused of being an Open Theist. Open Theism's cardinal doctrine isn't God's timeliness. It is God's inability to "see" the future before it's happened because it's the "future"--a position made possible by the view that God is within time.

They are not one and the same. It was an orthodox position in the 18th and early 19th centuries to believe that God is not outside of time. The first Methodist systematic theologian, Richard Watson, is a good example of an orthodox Methodist who had a "classical theistic" view while simultaneously not believing in God's being outside of time.

Actually, open theism is simply the doctrine that God is in time, and thus that he can change. That would appear to describe your view pretty well. If you disagree with this definition, I can provide the documentation to support it.

As much of a fan of C.S. Lewis as I am, I still think Lewis' reasoning here does not account for the Trinity. God the Son became a man, but God the Father was still in his heaven. Without getting into more complicated issues, I just don't buy that God must be outside of time in order for God to be able to simultaneously be a Man and God at a particular point in history.

Although it is true that there are three persons in the Trinity, it is still important to realize that God is one. He would still have to be doing different things at the same time, so we are again confronted with the necessity of God's timelessness.

I also happen to believe that God does know what will happen in the future. Otherwise, he would not be onmiscient.

Jeremiah 1:5 would certainly seem to imply to God knows the future, even to the point of the occupation of a particular person: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

In order for God to know someone before they were even formed in the womb, he would have to have foreknowledge concerning that person.

[The Grammarian]

It looks like this thread is going to two different directions at the moment. Oh well...Actually, open theism is simply the doctrine that God is in time, and thus that he can change. That would appear to describe your view pretty well. If you disagree with this definition, I can provide the documentation to support it.

From what I've read of Open Theism (including articles by Clark Pinnock and a guy whose name is, I think, Jon Sanders--he teaches at Huntington College just about an hour north of me), and from what Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry (http://www.carm.org/open.htm) says about the matter, I defined open theism correctly.

Here is Richard Watson with regards to the timelessness of God.

"In thus representing the knowledge of God as "independent of the objects known]possible[/i], and the knowledge of things actual, both of which must be attributed to God, is strangely overlooked.

"In respect of possible beings, the Divine knowledge has no relation to time, and there is in it no past, no future; he knows his own wisdom and omnipotence, and that is knowing every thing respecting them. But to the possible existence of things, we must now add actual existence; that commenced with time, or time with that. Here then is another branch of the Divine knowledge, the knowledge of things actually existing, a distinction with which the operations of our own minds make us familiar; and from the actual existence of things arise order and succession, past, present, and future, not only in the things themselves, but in the Divine knowledge of them also; for as there could be no knowledge of things in the Divine mind as actually existing, which did not actually exist, for that would be falsehood, not truth, so if things have been brought into actual existence in succession, the knowledge of their actual existence must have been successive also: for as actual existences they could not be known as existing before they were." (Watson's Theological Institutes, I.ii.IV.)

Although it is true that there are three persons in the Trinity, it is still important to realize that God is one. He would still have to be doing different things at the same time, so we are again confronted with the necessity of God's timelessness.

Who is to say that God can't do different things at the same time? He is the Almighty, after all. That's my biggest fault with Lewis' explanation: he 'limits' God in about the most literal sense possible by applying human parameters about the ability to multitask to the all-powerful, all-knowing, ubiquitous (omnipresent) God.

I also happen to believe that God does know what will happen in the future. Otherwise, he would not be onmiscient.

I agree. Another way in which I am not an open theist.

[JosephShaydez]

Okay, I give up.... I am not some smart like everyone else on this post is. This is just making me stumble. So I am staying out of it..... Okay maybe not completely. I believe that everything that happened in the Bible is historical as well as Biblical. I don't think people in the Bible where made up, like some have earlier stated in this post as being a fable or play or something like that. Maybe I just missread something. Erg this theology or whatever it is, is racking my brain. Faith isn't about "what if's" Either you belive it, and accept it or you don't. Maybe I am wrong, what do I know? I am not a scientist, or a theological person. Heck I don't even think I can spell theological right. The point is, I believe we should study deep into the Bible itself, but disecting every little thing that is said or done in the Bible is just plain silly. That's just me. I don't claim to be smart and I barely know any big words in the dictionary to make me sound smart. This is just a simple conclusion from a simple man. I might be wrong and I am sure I will be rebutled to death (another thing that annoys me about smart people). Heck I don't even know what I am saying now. This whole thing has got my brain numb. Okay, bye bye now.

[uc pseudonym]

I doubt we'll all attack you, Joseph. You stated your opinion, and the debate is really going on between other members.

Speaking of which, notice the word I used. "Debate." This is a very volitle topic, gentlemen, and is really toeing the lines of CAA's rules about theological debate. Some mods, I'm relatively certain, would already want to lock it. So please keep it as civil as possible.

[The Grammarian]

Maybe I am wrong, what do I know? I am not a scientist, or a theological person. Heck I don't even think I can spell theological right.

Joseph, you spelled 'theological' correctly.

[Bobtheduck]

To be perfectly frank, Tech, if you know it's fraudulent, then take him up on it and seek exposure, so that you can prove it publically. I find that a cop out, saying you won't argue with him because you think he's wrong. Do you think he'll just deny the debate? If he does, I think that would openly proove he was a fake. I know he's way off on many areas, but that doesn't mean he's got nothing. If his offer is a fraud, then he should be taken off TV and people should know it to be a fraud. For you not to take that chance if you ever did have the time seems a little suspicious. You say he's wrong, but you won't take an opportunity to proove that with him there to defend himself, when it seems like that's what he's done. Even if the money is a farce, the debate offer may not be.

If you are so adamant that this man is some big fraud and snowing people under, then you should take measures to decloak him, otherwise your statements carry no weight with people who don't understand the technical nature of your arguments.

OK: I'm reading that "talk origins" thing on the offer. Going to go point by point, so don't respond quite yet.

1. These issues could be brought up during the debate... All the issues you have with his bad science could. I said I wanted transcripts, because I think this thing should get wide exposure.

2. The judges are picked by Hovind... Ok... So the money's not gonna happen. However, if you were to show the debate publically, getting it to a news station, it wouldn't be just Hovind's judges he'd have to worry about.

3. They tried to collect, but because they didn't meet his (impossible) requirements they didn't get it. Ok... How about you don't go expecting the money, but just the chance to show people outside of that debate environment that he is a fraud...

That last one, I must say, did throw me for a loop, but even if not Hovind, at least openly debate with people who do have scientific degrees that believe in the literal noah's ark, mesurements, and time.

As for the waste disposal and eating? Just because WE don't know a way to do it doesn't mean Noah didn't know a way. Just had to say that one. Also, jsut because "kind" wasn't defined doesn't mean the premise behind the statement was wrong. Like I said, it all comes down to unknown factors...

Oops, forgot to say I was done...

[Straylight]

If you are so adamant that this man is some big fraud and snowing people under, then you should take measures to decloak him, otherwise your statements carry no weight with people who don't understand the technical nature of your arguments.

You do realise that this requires a lot of effort on Technomancer's part? Tech's argument still carries very good weight because he has made a point and linked to some internet articles that back up his point.

Type "hovind fraud" into Google. It's all over the internet. To me this would suggest that Hovind's fraudulent nature is already widely accepted.

If his offer is a fraud, then he should be taken off TV and people should know it to be a fraud.

It looks like the dirty work has already been done over the Internet. People who think Hovind is a fraud can vote with their remote and simply not watch the program.

IMO.

(once again the "civil debate" warning is echoed on this new page, just in case anyone forgets. No personal attacks or outright flaming please.)

[Bobtheduck]

You do realise that this requires a lot of effort on Technomancer's part? Tech's argument still carries very good weight because he has made a point and linked to some internet articles that back up his point.

Which is why I retracted somewhat in my edit. Not entirely, but somewhat. I do understand it would take a lot of effort, but I purposely ignored that to take a chance. I did retract somewhat offering a different challenge, which was that of him debating someone else, and I invited people from that "answersingenesis" site to answer these rebuttals for themselves in this forum... I know the chances of any of it happening are next to none, but that doesn't mean I don't want to try.

The only reason I didn't delete what I had said was because I feel to do that would be deceptive on my part, and people who hadn't already read what I wrote would not understand someone elses perhaps delayed reaction.

I have to say Tech's arguments about the waste disposal and feeding didn't satisfy me, though.

I do believe Hovind is full of it on many counts, which I have allready mentioned, however I wouldn't trust that information to googling "Hovind Fraud" because "God is a lie" and "creationism is false" and other such phrases can turn of pages with LOADS of information about the subject, some of it occasionally convincing. I can also turn up hundreds of websites calling the Missions organization I was part of a cult, with very convincing things with the exception of the fact that most of them are flat out lies, and the others are misdirection. Lies and misdirection and maybe sincere misinformation (Ie, passing on said lies and misdirection or missing an element in the equation)