some groups have raised lots of funding to locate Noahs ark
i saw a tv show on them. they use highly dubious sat photo interpretation (my opinion as a geo. I'd look for a radiatiating corprolite pattern on the ground) and are working under the assumption that it must exist.
in science, often the only success that matters is raising funding.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 11:51, Share, Reply)
i saw a tv show on them. they use highly dubious sat photo interpretation (my opinion as a geo. I'd look for a radiatiating corprolite pattern on the ground) and are working under the assumption that it must exist.
in science, often the only success that matters is raising funding.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 11:51, Share, Reply)
I think that flood stories exist in enough cultures to be relatively sure that there was a great flood.
I would suggest that Noah, in some form, did exist and did have an ark.
Of course, being made of wood, I see no point in looking for it, unless it was made of Yew, which it wasn't.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 11:59, Share, Reply)
I would suggest that Noah, in some form, did exist and did have an ark.
Of course, being made of wood, I see no point in looking for it, unless it was made of Yew, which it wasn't.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 11:59, Share, Reply)
"that Noah, in some form, did exist and did have an ark."
thats a bit of a cop out. Are you looking for a canoe and overflowing creek. if so, whats the point? Thats like saying, im not saying we will find the actual source crater of the Deccan volcanics, but we should find with study that somewhere, something has come out of the ground
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:05, Share, Reply)
thats a bit of a cop out. Are you looking for a canoe and overflowing creek. if so, whats the point? Thats like saying, im not saying we will find the actual source crater of the Deccan volcanics, but we should find with study that somewhere, something has come out of the ground
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:05, Share, Reply)
Yes.
I am not disagreeing with you, but I do think that the assumption that Noah's Ark existed is not an unreasonable one.
If they truly believe they can find it then that is worth pursuing.
I do not believe that they can find it and think that they are daftys, but I have not seen their data.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:11, Share, Reply)
I am not disagreeing with you, but I do think that the assumption that Noah's Ark existed is not an unreasonable one.
If they truly believe they can find it then that is worth pursuing.
I do not believe that they can find it and think that they are daftys, but I have not seen their data.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:11, Share, Reply)
Id say that "true belief" shouldn't be the basis of any endeavour
people are capable of believing a lot of dangerous nonsense, and the stonger they believe, the less likely they are of taking notice of any evidence that might suggest the contrary. not the best proponents of the scientific method
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:18, Share, Reply)
people are capable of believing a lot of dangerous nonsense, and the stonger they believe, the less likely they are of taking notice of any evidence that might suggest the contrary. not the best proponents of the scientific method
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:18, Share, Reply)
Hmm.
I think that you believe things that you think are true.
Because you and I see unquestioning religious fervour as daft, we think that this is not valid, but I imagine that to some it seems ridiculous that we believe what we read from Hawkins as much as we think that believing what is written by Luke is worthy of further study.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:32, Share, Reply)
I think that you believe things that you think are true.
Because you and I see unquestioning religious fervour as daft, we think that this is not valid, but I imagine that to some it seems ridiculous that we believe what we read from Hawkins as much as we think that believing what is written by Luke is worthy of further study.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:32, Share, Reply)
luke is a 2000 year old book written by some one we know nothing of other than his own accounts of himself
hawkins is a scentist, he supplies evidnece for what he beilves. sceicne is rigrous, claims made by people are challnged. exspremnets have to be reapeatble. relgious belif is completly impossible do disprove. some one simply states that somthing is true. if you ask why they just say that they have faith. which is essential saying well i beilve it. you can ever test wether what they are saying is true. you cant do that in science. you dont read in new secintist "hawkins belives that the unverse is like this becuase he thinks it would be nice". know scintfic theories are basesd on reasnable exspalntions with logical reasoning. relgion is based on 2000 year old unsported accounts. any senible historan would questions the truth of many accounts of ceasars account of counquering britain. they wouldnt accpt it as objective fact like christians do with luke. there is clear and obvious diffecne between making stuff up an creating reasnable exspalntion of events
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:10, Share, Reply)
hawkins is a scentist, he supplies evidnece for what he beilves. sceicne is rigrous, claims made by people are challnged. exspremnets have to be reapeatble. relgious belif is completly impossible do disprove. some one simply states that somthing is true. if you ask why they just say that they have faith. which is essential saying well i beilve it. you can ever test wether what they are saying is true. you cant do that in science. you dont read in new secintist "hawkins belives that the unverse is like this becuase he thinks it would be nice". know scintfic theories are basesd on reasnable exspalntions with logical reasoning. relgion is based on 2000 year old unsported accounts. any senible historan would questions the truth of many accounts of ceasars account of counquering britain. they wouldnt accpt it as objective fact like christians do with luke. there is clear and obvious diffecne between making stuff up an creating reasnable exspalntion of events
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:10, Share, Reply)
You forget the unarguable corroborative books also!
Matthew, Mark and John ;)
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:18, Share, Reply)
Matthew, Mark and John ;)
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:18, Share, Reply)
i don't believe anything
i carry around in my mind a set of hypothesis that seem to be the best current explanation for whatever phenomen that i witness or interests me.
belief and faith are just lazy buckets people piss their brains into
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:42, Share, Reply)
i carry around in my mind a set of hypothesis that seem to be the best current explanation for whatever phenomen that i witness or interests me.
belief and faith are just lazy buckets people piss their brains into
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:42, Share, Reply)
So by your logic
someone needs to completely understand every scientific theory they believe in, otherwise they're just putting their 'faith' in people they consider smarter than themselves?
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:49, Share, Reply)
someone needs to completely understand every scientific theory they believe in, otherwise they're just putting their 'faith' in people they consider smarter than themselves?
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:49, Share, Reply)
*claps*
This is the tersest and most accurate critique of faith ever posted on b3ta.
"belief and faith are just lazy buckets people piss their brains into"
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:58, Share, Reply)
This is the tersest and most accurate critique of faith ever posted on b3ta.
"belief and faith are just lazy buckets people piss their brains into"
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:58, Share, Reply)
So why are you pissing your lazy brain into these buckets then?
You have displayed more blind faith than anyone else posting in this thread. Even the religious types.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 14:14, Share, Reply)
You have displayed more blind faith than anyone else posting in this thread. Even the religious types.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 14:14, Share, Reply)
You can look at the formation of the aral and caspian seas
at one point, they were habitated valleys, then due to erosion the mediterranean filled the fuckers up.
That would be a flood of large enough proportions.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:43, Share, Reply)
at one point, they were habitated valleys, then due to erosion the mediterranean filled the fuckers up.
That would be a flood of large enough proportions.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:43, Share, Reply)
I agree that this is the most likely explanation.
I think it is reasonable to assume that there was a chap called Noah who had a boat and set off to start a new life after the flood.
Whether it is worth looking for his boat is another matter, since it isn't realistically going to be found.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:55, Share, Reply)
I think it is reasonable to assume that there was a chap called Noah who had a boat and set off to start a new life after the flood.
Whether it is worth looking for his boat is another matter, since it isn't realistically going to be found.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 12:55, Share, Reply)
Well, yes.
but if someone wants to spend their life looking for it, I'm not going to hold them back. If someone wants to fund that person, good for them.
It's not my money and it's not my time so I say let them eat cake.
People spent a lot of time trying to turn lead into gold. Using their piss. Without those crazies, we wouldn't have modern chemistry.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:05, Share, Reply)
but if someone wants to spend their life looking for it, I'm not going to hold them back. If someone wants to fund that person, good for them.
It's not my money and it's not my time so I say let them eat cake.
People spent a lot of time trying to turn lead into gold. Using their piss. Without those crazies, we wouldn't have modern chemistry.
( , Thu 18 Sep 2008, 13:05, Share, Reply)