What did Noah build the Ark with and what it says about OEC

Darth Omar said:
The same objection can be raised for a strictly materialistic origin of life. 'Matter interacting with natural law is capable of anything' differs from 'with God all things are possible' only with respect to which entity one chooses to put their faith in.
Click to expand...

I agree that I put my faith, insofar and debating is concerned, in empiricism. If you'd like to have me admit that I can't disprove unicorns I will gladly do so. In exchange I'd expect you to be honest and admit there is no scientific basis for miracles. Should be easy, nearly a tautology.
 
grapnel said:
Dugouts for one. Stone axe you can cut logs right? Rafts. You can cut saplings for a frame for a skin covered boat. You can do quite a bit with stone tools, fire, and time.
Click to expand...

Right, dugouts and rafts, if that 50000 years ago. I don't know about any skin covered boat. Where is there proof of those with stone age tools?

It would have been a struggle to build anything capable of carrying the people alone.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???......do we need proof?......did you call us all here to convince you?......because I for one do not give a fuck what you are convinced of.....
Click to expand...

Yet you are offended at the very debate. How about this, I will not debate God in a thread related to God if you don't debate any other issue. My beliefs are sacred. Your conservative beliefs are offense to my religion, so STFU.

LMFAO. It's not like skeptics go to your church and inject, god forbid, reason there. This is for argument. debate.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???......do we need proof?......did you call us all here to convince you?......because I for one do not give a fuck what you are convinced of.....
Click to expand...



Yeah, I am trying to figure out who has the dumbest position, you and the OEC or Ken Ham and the YEC. Good news, it looks like you're gonna win this thread!
 
Micawber said:
I agree that I put my faith, insofar and debating is concerned, in empiricism. If you'd like to have me admit that I can't disprove unicorns I will gladly do so. In exchange I'd expect you to be honest and admit there is no scientific basis for miracles. Should be easy, nearly a tautology.
Click to expand...

How can there be scientific evidence for miracles when miracles are, by definition, of supernatural origin?
 
Darth Omar said:
How can there be scientific evidence for miracles when miracles are, by definition, of supernatural origin?
Click to expand...

Thank you. That's what a tautology is. Science has no opinion of religion. When I decry it I'm not disproving it, it's simply a non starter, like a unicorn. It is not susceptible to a rational discussion. If its allegory, fine. My definition of reality is limited by empiricism. If there is some reality beyond my cognition, OK, just don't tell me there is any empirical support based upon absurd stories in a book written by ancient people, or for that matter, any science whatsoever written by present day people who want to con stupid people with ID theories. If someone wants to prove something, they need to bring the goods.
 
Micawber said:
Thank you. That's what a tautology is. Science has no opinion of religion. When I decry it I'm not disproving it, it's simply a non starter, like a unicorn. It is not susceptible to a rational discussion. If its allegory, fine. My definition of reality is limited by empiricism. If there is some reality beyond my cognition, OK, just don't tell me there is any empirical support based upon absurd stories in a book written by ancient people, or for that matter, any science whatsoever written by present day people who want to con stupid people with ID theories. If someone wants to prove something, they need to bring the goods.
Click to expand...

That's a two way street lol.

I see no rational basis for believing biological life can arise from chemicals or even biological precursors.
 
Darth Omar said:
That's a two way street lol.

I see no rational basis for believing biological life can arise from chemicals or even biological precursors.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. My only opposition to that is two fold, it most certainly did, as here is evidence of life is without evidence of a supernatural deity, and 2, it is an easy argument to make that every unturned stone has god hiding behind it, but history demonstrates that god is not yet behind the next inexorably turned stone. But I concede that particular quandrey has not been solved. and to be honest, I believe it will be and I do not think it will be a good thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top