Noah Built a Boat?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Boris and co don't know anything about talking. All they can think about is pushing their opinion through other throats the uncivil way. It's all "we are right and you are so wrong".

Let's see, you start by making a bunch of unsubstantiated claims. I call you on it, your response is "I can't prove anything, and you're a [bad name] for disagreeing with me." And you say I don't know how to talk? Very rich.

And what are they fighting? Why are they fighting me while I have said that I'm not sure about it at all from the beginning on.

We disagreed with you. You escalated it with personal insults. If you can't handle people disagreeing with you, don't you think that's a problem of yours, not ours?

It's just evolutionistic fanatism.
If I read Boris' post I can't surpress the feeling that he's not posting for pleasure but he's posting because he's hating christianity. It blinds him.

As UR said, the typical "You must hate god" argument. No, Cybershy, but I do hate it when people who don't know jack **** about science sit there and try and make claims about it.

Guess what? A lot of Christians--maybe even most these days--don't believe in a literal worldwide flood. Debunking the Flood myth has nothing to do with hating Christianity. Or Judaism, for that matter. Curious you didn't bring that up. I wonder if you could possibly be so blindedly self-centered about your faith that you'd forget that the fable appears in the Jewish mythos...

I've not said one word about Christianity at all here. However, you were quick off the bat to insult atheists as a whole. Your disengenous attack over it, and hypocrisy, does say volumes about you.

Blackcat / Boris, you have arguments, those arguments may be the best we have right now. Still you can't be sure. We're talking about 6000 years ago. Only a fool could believe that he can tell for sure what happened in our past.

Through scientific investigation, our knowledge of physical laws and a whole host of other things, we can be sure beyond any reasonable doubt that the global Flood never happened. If it had, we would be able to tell pretty easily. So unless you're claiming God hid the evidence and is ergo lying to us, the evidence we have speaks for itself.

Retreating to this kind of solipsistic defense is the last gasp of someone who doesn't have a lick of factual support for his arguments.

[Robert]

UR:

That's exactly the way it is with regards to Creationism.

creationists who have this attitude don't get my approval.

Boris:

Let's see, you start by making a bunch of unsubstantiated claims.

I didn't make claims, I gave some arguments that are followed or given by creationists, as I stated. Of course you're welcome to counter those arguments. Though, while you did that, you also started a simplistic "everyone who says this must be an idiot and have no scientific knowledge" way of reasoning. And when I proved that the person who wrote it actually has a degree on 3 different scientific fields the reaction was that he was an idiot anyway.

"I can't prove anything, and you're a [bad name] for disagreeing with me."

quote me where I said such a thing.
I frowned upon your attitude, not on your arguments.

And you say I don't know how to talk? Very rich.

I still claim so.
Your attitude and self confidence is amazingly heigh. Do YOU have any degrees? Or do you just take the word of others for right? There's nothing wrong with that, I take the word of most scientists for true as well. Though I remain sceptic as well.

We disagreed with you. You escalated it with personal insults.

Nope, I responded on your insults towards the writer of the arguments.

If you can't handle people disagreeing with you, don't you think that's a problem of yours, not ours?

quote me where I couldn't handle your arguments?
I only became angry when your insults became personal.

As UR said, the typical "You must hate god" argument. No, Cybershy, but I do hate it when people who don't know jack **** about science sit there and try and make claims about it.

My arguments came not from people who don't know jack **** about science. They came from someone who has 3 degrees. One of them in biology.
How many people do you know who have 3 degrees?

Of course you can disagree with him.
Of course he still can be wrong. Though it's pathatic to claim the person is an idiot because you disagree with him. And in fact that's what you did. Of course you offered counter arguments as well. And again, I never said anything negative on your counter arguments. If you think so, quote me.

Guess what? A lot of Christians--maybe even most these days--don't believe in a literal worldwide flood. Debunking the Flood myth has nothing to do with hating Christianity.

If you would have read my posts you would have read that I said something like that.

Or Judaism, for that matter. Curious you didn't bring that up. I wonder if you could possibly be so blindedly self-centered about your faith that you'd forget that the fable appears in the Jewish mythos...

For some strange reason people fully attack christianity 99% of the time. Judaism and the muslims are hardly being 'fought' for their believe. (though they are for their culture)
But you are right that the flood is not a christian thing.
It's been found in stories all over the world. Much of them contain 8 people being resqued in a big boat. And some of them even mention this boat ending up on the top of a mountain.

It's too simplistic to just claim that these flood myths all originate from local river floods.
Like it's too easy to deny all evidence and arguments you came up with for me.

Retreating to this kind of solipsistic defense is the last gasp of someone who doesn't have a lick of factual support for his arguments.

You know there are scientists who believe in the flood.
They come with arguments as well.
If you want to blackmouth them and make them look like fools you are no different then the pope in the middle ages who burned everyone who disagreed with him alive as well.

[Robert]

here are quotes from UR and others that resulted me in getting angry about their attitude.

about Ouweneel, a prof who has 3 degrees:

UR: I'll wager his "possibilities" are so ludicrously contorted as to defy any dense, as the examples you've given show.

Vesayen: We need a constitutional ban on creationalists but that would be descriminatory so I suppose against willfull stupidity would do the trick....

Boris: (I wonder if the Dutchie plagiarized, because none of the claims he made appear original).

neither are yours
The book comes with a large list of sources, so you may be right that the authors of 'my book' got much info from the person you named.

Boris: At any rate, the review shows why it's a bunch of unscientific crap that wouldn't pass muster in undergraduate science courses.

Boris: 10-1 it's a degree from a diploma mill or theology school and he works for some creationist/religious organization.

Hueij: Actually, he was promoted in Biology at the University of Utrecht, promoted in Philosophy at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam and promoted in Theology at Bloemfontein (South Africa). It doesn't look like he is not extremely intelligent I'm afraid.

OTOH he is not very bright since he is teaching at the "Evangelische Hogeschool", some fundy semi-university. I doubt if that school is officially recognised as a university, therefor the use of the title "professor" is wrong.

From what I gathered from Google he is a fundy crackpot...

It was after these quotes that I said:

CyberShy:

Boris: you make your good arguments look weak by writing lines like "10-1 it's a degree from a diploma mill or theology school and he works for some creationist/religious organization." about somebody you don't know.

which is not a strange reaction to your unfounded insults towards the author of my book.

If you have some pride, why don't you just admit that your quotes and name calling in the above quotes were out of place?

waiting for CyberShy quotes to support your claims about me in your former post.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by CyberShy
I didn't make claims, I gave some arguments that are followed or given by creationists, as I stated.

A misrepresentation. You stated, explicitley:

"Of course that it's possible doesn't mean that it actually happened, but there are no problems for the flood story."

That is indeed a claim, and one that I refuted. There are problems galore with the Flood story, and you haven't answered any of the questions posited about it.

Though, while you did that, you also started a simplistic "everyone who says this must be an idiot and have no scientific knowledge" way of reasoning.

A lie. Cite where I said such a thing. Another misrepresentation.

And when I proved that the person who wrote it actually has a degree on 3 different scientific fields the reaction was that he was an idiot anyway.

I don't recall addressing the specific author's credentials after the fact, so this is another misrepresentation.

"I can't prove anything, and you're a [bad name] for disagreeing with me."

quote me where I said such a thing.
I frowned upon your attitude, not on your arguments.

Uh, let's see, you called me an "arrogant bastard." Name-calling in your very first response to me, when I had done no such thing to you. I even pointed this out before. So either you're not reading my posts or are willfully ignoring what's inconvenient for you.

Your attitude and self confidence is amazingly heigh. Do YOU have any degrees? Or do you just take the word of others for right? There's nothing wrong with that, I take the word of most scientists for true as well. Though I remain sceptic as well.

You seem enamored with an Argument from Authority. The number of degrees one possesses is irrelevant, it's what one says. Three degrees hasn't stopped this guy from making ridiculous claims that have already been demolished by by experts in their fields. Being a biologist doesn't make one an expert in all sciences, so his claims that relate to physics, meteorology, chemistry, etc. don't hold much weight, anyway.

By the way, I read things and evaluate them myself. That's why I know what your doctor claimed is completely discredited information that has no bearing on reality.

Nope, I responded on your insults towards the writer of the arguments.

No, as I said, you fired off a personal insult well before that point. At any rate, I never insulted the writer, I made a guess as to where his degrees came from. As the link about credentials I gave showed, it was a reasonable guess, if in error. That's not the same as an insult, you know.

quote me where I couldn't handle your arguments?
I only became angry when your insults became personal.

Nope, wrong again. You fired the first personal insult with your "arrogant bastard" name-calling.

My arguments came not from people who don't know jack **** about science. They came from someone who has 3 degrees. One of them in biology.
How many people do you know who have 3 degrees?

Again with this argument from authority!

How many degrees to the people who wrote those rebuttals to this nonsense have? Hey, since 99% of biologists say evolution is a fact, that's at least a 99:1 degree ratio. Shouldn't you be more impressed with that?

And how many of his claims were relevant to his actual degrees? What were his specializations of study? One can have a degree in biology in many different fields. Why are you so trusting of his credentials, yet don't know how they're applicable to his arguments?

Of course he still can be wrong. Though it's pathatic to claim the person is an idiot because you disagree with him. And in fact that's what you did.

A blatant lie. Cite where I called him an idiot.

Of course you offered counter arguments as well. And again, I never said anything negative on your counter arguments. If you think so, quote me.

"arrogant bastard"

If you would have read my posts you would have read that I said something like that.

I read your posts and saw you attacking me on a completely unrelated matter, making a cynical assumption as to my "true intentions."

I'll make my own assumption: unable to actually provide any support for the claims in the Flood argument, you resorted to personal attacks to deflect from the emptiness of the claims. How's that?

But you are right that the flood is not a christian thing.
It's been found in stories all over the world. Much of them contain 8 people being resqued in a big boat. And some of them even mention this boat ending up on the top of a mountain.

It's too simplistic to just claim that these flood myths all originate from local river floods.

Not many flood myths have the 8 people on a boat--where did you get that? Some do, but they are from the same region and clearly derivative of one another.

Nobody said there isn't a basis for the flood myth. What was the issue was, was there a global flood? There is not one shred of evidence to support it, and all the evidence we have categorically contradicts it. Until you've answered the contradictions (like those 6 questions posted above), just-so stories like the above have exactly zero weight in the argument.

Like it's too easy to deny all evidence and arguments you came up with for me.

The difference between you and me is that I actually made arguments and supported them.

You know there are scientists who believe in the flood.
They come with arguments as well.

I know that 99% of scientists do not believe in the global flood, and those that do all have theological biases behind their beliefs. And none of their arguments are compelling nor have they stood up to any serious scrutiny.

If you want to blackmouth them and make them look like fools you are no different then the pope in the middle ages who burned everyone who disagreed with him alive as well.

That's the most hysterical bit of hyperbole I've heard in a long time. So disagreeing with these chaps and pointing out why their arguments are bad = burning people alive? You have absolutely no shame, do you?

I'll let the claims such people make stand as a testament to their foolishness--I really need to say no more. But I've shown here, more than ably, how you've been not only personally insulting, but dishonest about your own behavior.

[Robert]

My "arrogant bastard" comment was not in reply to your arguments, it was in reply to your attitude.
But you're right when you say that I have no right to say that to you. I apologize for that.

Any change you want to reply to the quotes?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by CyberShy
here are quotes from UR and others that resulted me in getting angry about their attitude.

about Ouweneel, a prof who has 3 degrees:

Again with the authority obsession. Have you investigated the relevance of his degrees yet towards his arguments? I eagerly await your research.

It's funny that you accuse me of just blindly following what scientists say, but you seem to be the one entranced by someone's degrees. I'll again ask, if you're so impressed by degrees, how about the fact that most people with the relevant degress would find his arguments totally bogus?

UR: I'll wager his "possibilities" are so ludicrously contorted as to defy any dense, as the examples you've given show.

I said that, not UR. And it's not a personal insult, it's a comment on his arguments. All of the arguments given were ludicrously contorted and did defy sense. That's not attacking him personally.

Vesayen: We need a constitutional ban on creationalists but that would be descriminatory so I suppose against willfull stupidity would do the trick....

I can't be held responsible for what Vesayen said, but I will note this occured after you're initial name-calling.

Boris: (I wonder if the Dutchie plagiarized, because none of the claims he made appear original).

I've never heard of the guy, though I'm up on many prominent Creationists, and EVERY argument you posted has been recycled time and time again by various Creationists. They've been shot down all the time, too. So it's a legitimate question (and I didn't state he definitely had). Regardless, this is aimed at the scientist, not you. You, however, attacked me personally, both by calling me names and questioning my motives.

Boris: At any rate, the review shows why it's a bunch of unscientific crap that wouldn't pass muster in undergraduate science courses.

Again, this isn't an insult, it's a critique of the arguments. You really seem to have a hard time distinguishing the two. And it's a completely accurate summary, if you had bothered to read the review. And it's a review of something written by someone you never mentioned, so how could you even contrue this as a personal attack?

And I already addressed the diploma mill comment above.

And I don't need to deal with Hueij's post, as he ain't me.

It was after these quotes that I said:

CyberShy:

Boris: you make your good arguments look weak by writing lines like "10-1 it's a degree from a diploma mill or theology school and he works for some creationist/religious organization." about somebody you don't know.

And it was before that when you called me an "arrogant bastard."

which is not a strange reaction to your unfounded insults towards the author of my book.

More fantasized insults about the author!

If you have some pride, why don't you just admit that your quotes and name calling in the above quotes were out of place?

My, my, my, that's a mighty big plank in your eye there, sir...

waiting for CyberShy quotes to support your claims about me in your former post.

Already done in spades.

So far, you have:

1. Called me names
2. Attacked my motives by claiming (unfoundedly) I hate christianity
3. Stated that my stances wrt the arguments of the authoer you cited are akin to murdering people.

Need I say more?

[Robert]

Oh, and Hueij (who is in 'your' camp) already addressed the scientific background of the author of my book:

Hueij: Actually, he was promoted in Biology at the University of Utrecht, promoted in Philosophy at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam and promoted in Theology at Bloemfontein (South Africa). It doesn't look like he is not extremely intelligent I'm afraid.

Since he apparantly investigated this and concluded that the credentials were valid I didn't got any reasons to address it as well.

you're right that a biology degree doesn't mean someone has the authority to speak. Though on the other hand, who has all the degrees on all subjects that matter so that they actually do have the authority?
Is there any field that covers the entire broad range of something as the flood? Or evolution? There are many people who know a part of the entire theory.

There's nobody who fully understands everything. Geology, Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, etc. etc. Not to mention all fields that are involved.

[Robert]

It's funny that you accuse me of just blindly following what scientists say, but you seem to be the one entranced by someone's degrees. I'll again ask, if you're so impressed by degrees, how about the fact that most people with the relevant degress would find his arguments totally bogus?

You would be right *if* I actually was believing this scientist on his words. All I did was pasting his arguments, while I commented on it that I wasn't sure on it. I've read arguments from both sides, both sides arguments sound good to me, but again, I'm not a scientist. I can't decide who's right and who's wrong. I would be pretty arrogant if I would claim I could, while I've no scientific background at all.

All I know is that there are scientists on both sides of the story. They both have arguments. They both claim that the other party is wrong and that the arguments of the other party have been shot down easily.

Of course there are many more scientists on 'your' side. Though in the past there were more scientists on 'my' side, which didn't mean they were right as well.
New discoveries in the future may change or alter our entire scientific system again.

We don't know everything, and as long as we don't know everything it's silly to claim the 100% scientific truth.

[Robert]

I hope you found my apologize crosspoint between your long posts?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Oh, and Hueij (who is in 'your' camp) already addressed the scientific background of the author of my book:

And did I say anything more about it after that, other than to show why I might think that? Nope.

you're right that a biology degree doesn't mean someone has the authority to speak.

Again, this depends. I will take on authority the opinions of someone who has a degree relevant to the topic at hand (provided the arguments make sense to me). For instance, an evolutionary biologist when it comes to evolution. But a biochemist commenting on evolution? Not his field, so no.

Though on the other hand, who has all the degrees on all subjects that matter so that they actually do have the authority?
Is there any field that covers the entire broad range of something as the flood? Or evolution? There are many people who know a part of the entire theory.

I suppose it is then a good thing that my arguments haven't come from one source. All of the links I posted and refutations given are provided courtesy of the respective experts in their fields. The amount of available expertise on the side of science dwarfs anything the creationists can muster.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by CyberShy
UR:

That's exactly the way it is with regards to Creationism.

creationists who have this attitude don't get my approval.

Let me rephrase. Creationism is wrong. Creationism does not have a theory. Forget it, Creationism is not even science. The article Boris quoted shows this very clearly.

Originally posted by CyberShy
about Ouweneel, a prof who has 3 degrees

I have posted no such thing about the man

BTW, what field is he teaching/researching?

[Robert]

And did I say anything more about it after that

Now next time don't say 'anything about it' before as well, as long as you don't know much about the author or the person.

Again, this depends. I will take on authority the opinions of someone who has a degree relevant to the topic at hand (provided the arguments make sense to me).

Do you agree with me that everybody is biased?
I am biased, I'm a christian. It will be hard for me to accept any prove that goes against my faith. I can't do anything but admit that. I wish I would be unbiased, but I know I can't be. I can try, I can read as much as possible on both sides. But I will always fail to be unbiased.

Do you think you are unbiased?
Can scientists be truly biased?
I'm not a scientist, I'm a programmer. I can speak for programmers, and I know programmers are biased. The best programmers I know are biased. They may have all grades and diploma's possible. Still they are biased. Some prefer Lotus others prefer People Soft, all have their reasons and their arguments. Though much of them are biased arguments.

I don't believe that scientists are unbiased.
Do you?

I suppose it is then a good thing that my arguments haven't come from one source.

it is!

[Boris Godunov]

I hope you found my apologize crosspoint between your long posts?

I appreciate the apology.

Originally posted by CyberShy
You would be right *if* I actually was believing this scientist on his words. All I did was pasting his arguments, while I commented on it that I wasn't sure on it.

Yet again, you claimed outright that it had been proven there were "no problems" for the global flood. That right there is going well beyong what you're saying you said here. It was that claim that sparked my first response to you, and thorough critique of your source's claim was to show why this was not the case.

I've read arguments from both sides, both sides arguments sound good to me, but again, I'm not a scientist. I can't decide who's right and who's wrong. I would be pretty arrogant if I would claim I could, while I've no scientific background at all.

Having no scientific background doesn't preclude one from reasonably evaluating the evidence and coming to a conclusion. And that's certainly not arrogant. How could it be when I made a point-by-point refutation, backed up with sources, to this guy's claims? Knowing facts isn't being arrogant.

There are some people who still claim the earth is flat. Is it arrogant to believe they are wrong? Or to believe those who don't accept plate tectonics are wrong? Or those that don't accept heliocentricity?

I'll say this: the evidence in support of an old earth, there not having been a global flood, evolution, etc. is overwhelming. And not a shred of evidence exists in contradiction to these established facts that has withstood scientific critiques. That's why flood geology doesn't get peer-reviewed publishing.

All I know is that there are scientists on both sides of the story. They both have arguments. They both claim that the other party is wrong and that the arguments of the other party have been shot down easily.

Don't you think a 99:1 ratio is a little damning?

And again, how much of those backgrounds are relevant to their field of expertise? For instance, I can't find a single Creationist evolutionary biologist. Nor a Young Earth Geologist.

Of course there are many more scientists on 'your' side. Though in the past there were more scientists on 'my' side, which didn't mean they were right as well.

If you would read up on the history of the emergence of the scientific method, you might realize why this is a specious argument. People used to think a lot of things because there hadn't been in place the proper standards for evaluating evidence. That changed around the mid-19th century, which curiously enough coincides with the refutation of young earth creationism and with Darwin. In fact, Darwin's theory was so compelling that it changed the perspective of science on human origins virtually overnight. Few other scientific theories, if any, have been adopted so fast by the majority of experts.

We don't know everything, and as long as we don't know everything it's silly to claim the 100% scientific truth.

All scientific information is provisional, but it is certainly possible to state we know something beyond a reasonable doubt. The amount of established evidence that Flood geology would need to disprove to be true at this point is monumentally staggering. So it's safe to say that the global flood has been disproven beyond any reasonable doubt.

[Robert]

BTW, what field is he teaching/researching?

I have no clue

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by CyberShy
I don't believe that scientists are unbiased.
Do you?

Yes, scientists are biased - they demand facts.

See my sig for more.