Jump to content


Photo

Hypothetically Speaking...(Ark And Falsification Of Evolution)


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 29 April 2016 - 03:40 PM

I've been in a private discussion with an atheist/agnostic and I have been "testing" with the hypothetical of IF you were to conclude based on scientific evidence that abiogenesis and evolution are very unlikely, would that mean that you should quit being agnostic and form a faith that you had to have been created and that you should attempt to seek out whether that Creator gave you any likely instruction for how to live your life, and if you figure what that is, to live according to that revelation?  Of course no one would KNOW ABSOLUTELY...none of us will until we die (and only then if our consciousness survives death).  But the question is what is the most reasonable conclusion to make IF you conclude that abiogenesis and evolution are MOST LIKELY not true? 

 

And the same person was asked to consider another hypothetical...which is what if any implications would there be if a gigantic wooden ship were discovered at a height of at least 15,000 feet on Ararat of the dimensions found in the Bible, and this was confirmed by clear photos, videos and perhaps even an exploration inside it...and possibly even with C14 dating consistent with a biblical "age."  What would that most likely mean regarding the existence of any deity, and also regarding the God of the Bible?  Should that weigh heavily for the truth of the Bible, or at least for the existence of some god/God?  Or can that be readily "fit" into the atheist paradigm?  I would suggest that this SHOULD be a means of causing MANY THOUSANDS if not MILLIONS of atheists to change to theists.  Is that a fair conclusion or is there some other explanation?

 

Perhaps we Bible believers should also be challenged with a hypothetical of there being a discovery on Mars of a large hidden alien ship which houses libraries showing how an ancient alien civilization had seeded our planet and engineered our species, down to such detail that it showed us how to replicate what they did, and we are successful doing that.  Does that imply we should give up our belief in the Biblical God...or maybe even ANY Creator? 

 

Also, is consideration of hypotheticals like this useful...to determine how honest and objective someone is, or how "falsifiable" their preferred theory is in someone's mind? 

 

 

 

 



#2 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 03 May 2016 - 01:39 PM

 

Perhaps we Bible believers should also be challenged with a hypothetical of there being a discovery on Mars of a large hidden alien ship which houses libraries showing how an ancient alien civilization had seeded our planet and engineered our species, down to such detail that it showed us how to replicate what they did, and we are successful doing that. 

 

 

My questions would still be the same....

 

Show Life from Non-Life "Naturally"...? 

 

Who Created Them...?

 

 

 Does that imply we should give up our belief in the Biblical God...or maybe even ANY Creator? 

 

 

The Only Way for me to abandon my Evidence Based-Faith (yes, redundant) would be for them to show me "Nature" creating something from nothing and Life from Non-Life.

 

GOD is not Terrestrial to Earth; so Technically...HE is an Alien.  And...

 

(Ephesians 6:12) "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

 

"This World":   Strong's #165 --- "aion":

 

1) for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity
2) the worlds, universe
3) period of time, age 

 

 

p.s. (2 Thessalonians 2:11) "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:"

 

 

I will tell you brother, Mark this in Permanent Ink---that the scenario you depicted above...is not such a Far-Fetched Scenario !!  

 

 

regards



#3 hooberus

hooberus

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Kansas

Posted 03 May 2016 - 06:56 PM

Atheists have little problem making something unfalsifiable that has been falsifiied. Won't loose any sleep. They will discard falsification as a criteria of science if they need to.
ReiMine documents this in his book.

#4 hooberus

hooberus

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 80 posts
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Kansas

Posted 03 May 2016 - 07:00 PM

As a last resort there is always random chance with the use of trillions of universes to get around probabilities.

#5 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 04 May 2016 - 02:02 PM

As a last resort there is always random chance with the use of trillions of universes to get around probabilities.


Right. They will use a most unlikely explanation to try to resolve a problem which is much less unlikely. Anything that allows them to avoid admitting to there being a Creator or a designer.

#6 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 04 May 2016 - 02:09 PM

>> The Only Way for me to abandon my Evidence Based-Faith (yes, redundant) would be for them to show me "Nature" creating something from nothing and Life from Non-Life.<<

That's a good point because if someday a human can create life from non-life that is still involving intelligence and design. The same would be true if it was from some alien civilization and we could read in a library on Mars how they did it on Earth. It still would raise the question of where the first life came from. It would however probably falsify the idea of the Bible having the correct answer for how life came to Earth.

My main point about Mars is to try to be fair and answer hypotheticals that might be presented to me just like I would like for atheists and agnostics to answer hypotheticals that I would present to them.

#7 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 04 May 2016 - 03:24 PM

Another point very similar to the multiverse idea is the idea of dark energy. When they recently discovered that there is some kind of mysterious force pushing matter outward at an accelerating rate, fully counteracting the force of gravity, they came up with the idea of dark energy. Of course the correct understanding would be God is expanding the universe outward and gravity has no power against His power. They will cling to the idea of dark energy to help them to never consider that there is something supernatural happening which they cannot explain. Their crazy scientific ideas are forced upon them by their philosophical a priori assumptions.

#8 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 05 May 2016 - 11:32 AM

....what if any implications would there be if a gigantic wooden ship were discovered at a height of at least 15,000 feet on Ararat of the dimensions found in the Bible, and this was confirmed by clear photos, videos and perhaps even an exploration inside it...and possibly even with C14 dating consistent with a biblical "age."  What would that most likely mean regarding the existence of any deity, and also regarding the God of the Bible?  Should that weigh heavily for the truth of the Bible, or at least for the existence of some god/God?  Or can that be readily "fit" into the atheist paradigm?  I would suggest that this SHOULD be a means of causing MANY THOUSANDS if not MILLIONS of atheists to change to theists.  Is that a fair conclusion or is there some other explanation?

Leaving aside whether or not Mt. Ararat is what is meant by the Biblical reference to the "mountains of Ararat" .....

 

Hypothetically speaking .....   A find such as you describe would be pretty strong evidence for Noah's flood.  I know that there have been a number of expeditions and their history has been somewhat mixed in terms of integrity.   Some have been conducted by people who even the major YEC ministries question and some (seem to) have been the victims of fraud by the locals.  This "checkered" past is cause for caution regarding new claims.... 



#9 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 05 May 2016 - 11:39 AM

 

>> The Only Way for me to abandon my Evidence Based-Faith (yes, redundant) would be for them to show me "Nature" creating something from nothing and Life from Non-Life.<<

That's a good point because if someday a human can create life from non-life that is still involving intelligence and design. 

It would be no more evidence that "intelligence and design" is necessary than any other scientific experiment shows "intelligence and design" is a requirement for various inputs to produce the observed output.

 

No experiment shows a necessity of "design."  What they demonstrate is that under certain conditions a specific result can be expected.... intelligence is not a requirement, nor is "design" beyond the design of the experiment itself.



#10 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 05 May 2016 - 09:16 PM

Pi>> Some have been conducted by people who even the major YEC ministries question and some (seem to) have been the victims of fraud by the locals. This "checkered" past is cause for caution regarding new claims.... <<

I definitely agree about the concern that the claims are confirmed. I was presenting it as if those confirmations had already taken place. The question I have is would that matter or should it matter as to whether God exists or the Bible is true. My belief is that the Bible does indeed present the global flood as historical. An atheist would agree with me and probably disagree with you about what the Bible asserts. Once again my hypothetical was not just a few boards found at a high elevation or a building found at a low elevation. It would be if there was a gigantic wooden ship that was found and confirmed under the ice at a high elevation. To your credit you said that such a find would be very good evidence of Noah's flood. I think you should go a little further however and say that also suggests strongly that the conventional scientific view about sedimentary strata has to also be wrong and that would call into question the entire theory of evolution. Once again I realize nothing has been ever shown to be even close to proving that but it could happen someday. In fact in the time of Josephus there were those that visited the ark and brought souvenirs back from it. At least that's what Josephus reported.

#11 caffeine

caffeine

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 33
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Prague. CZ

Posted 04 July 2016 - 01:03 PM

You will probably find my answers to your hypotheticals intellectually dishonest, but here we go, nonetheless. I'll start with the second, since it seems simpler.

 

which is what if any implications would there be if a gigantic wooden ship were discovered at a height of at least 15,000 feet on Ararat of the dimensions found in the Bible, and this was confirmed by clear photos, videos and perhaps even an exploration inside it...and possibly even with C14 dating consistent with a biblical "age."  What would that most likely mean regarding the existence of any deity, and also regarding the God of the Bible?

 

I wouldn't consider this particularly relevant to the existence of a deity. The ship would presumably have been built by people. It seems plausible that it would be connected with the flood myth in some way; perhaps built there as some kind of religious symbol. But there was no global flood in historical times. Decades of archaeological study have established this beyond doubt, and a boat built up a mountain would not change that.

 

 

IF you were to conclude based on scientific evidence that abiogenesis and evolution are very unlikely, would that mean that you should quit being agnostic and form a faith that you had to have been created and that you should attempt to seek out whether that Creator gave you any likely instruction for how to live your life, and if you figure what that is, to live according to that revelation?  Of course no one would KNOW ABSOLUTELY...none of us will until we die (and only then if our consciousness survives death).  But the question is what is the most reasonable conclusion to make IF you conclude that abiogenesis and evolution are MOST LIKELY not true?

 

Now the more dificult question! I would say this would make me more, rather than less, agnostic, in that I would have even less idea than I currenty do about where we came from. It's hard to give a more specific answer without knowing what was the evidence that convinced me of the falsity of evolution, but I don't think a falsifcation of evolution is relevant to the idea of a creator. The reason I don't believe in God is not that I believe evolution renders a god unnessecary, but that I don't see any positive evidence for a god.

 

If I became convinced of the falsity of evolution, then I assume it would be something like trying to explain the origins of the universe. I haven't the faintest idea of where the universe came from. I don't understand theoretical physics - I've tried, and still am trying - but the subject remains impenetrable to me. But nothing becomes clearer to me by positing a creator. I still don't understand anything about how the universe was created, but now I also have a creator about which I understand nothing and for which I had no evidence except my lack of understanding. Hence my initial point - in the absence of any clue what's going on, agnosticism seems the rational approach.



#12 Magnanimae

Magnanimae

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas
  • Interests:Video games, apologetics, school, music, philosophy and science, Jesus.
  • Age: 18
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Las Vegas

Posted 06 July 2016 - 09:13 AM

 
And the same person was asked to consider another hypothetical...which is what if any implications would there be if a gigantic wooden ship were discovered at a height of at least 15,000 feet on Ararat of the dimensions found in the Bible, and this was confirmed by clear photos, videos and perhaps even an exploration inside it...and possibly even with C14 dating consistent with a biblical "age."  What would that most likely mean regarding the existence of any deity, and also regarding the God of the Bible?  Should that weigh heavily for the truth of the Bible, or at least for the existence of some god/God?  Or can that be readily "fit" into the atheist paradigm?  I would suggest that this SHOULD be a means of causing MANY THOUSANDS if not MILLIONS of atheists to change to theists.  Is that a fair conclusion or is there some other explanation?


It is unlikely for an atheist to give up atheism just because of a possible evidence for Noah's Flood. Let us say we take it a step further. The design of the boat matches the Ark perfectly. Everything we have points to Noah's Ark. People can always resort to philiosophical copouts. The boat could be done by religious fanatics. It was from the time of Noah, but how do we know there was even a global flood. Surely someone was zealous enough to build a massive Ark and then somehow manage it on top of a mountain all for religious reasons, right?

Perhaps we Bible believers should also be challenged with a hypothetical of there being a discovery on Mars of a large hidden alien ship which houses libraries showing how an ancient alien civilization had seeded our planet and engineered our species, down to such detail that it showed us how to replicate what they did, and we are successful doing that.  Does that imply we should give up our belief in the Biblical God...or maybe even ANY Creator?


I would say we should give up belief in a biblical God, but not in a Creator. Aliens also had an origin. I would be dumbstruck as to who the real God is. I would propose the History channel series "Ancient Aliens" as a valid historical documentary. However, I would not consider the Bible as true. I would become an agnostic.

Also, is consideration of hypotheticals like this useful...to determine how honest and objective someone is, or how "falsifiable" their preferred theory is in someone's mind?


I think it depends on the hypothetical. These hypotheticals ask us what would we do if our worldview is challenged with irrefutable evidence. Our response, if it is honest, will show people what we are willing to accept if our beliefs merit a change, but keep in mind that there are useless hypotheticals which are more for fun than anything else. For example, I started a seriesbof what-ifs some months ago. All were one-sided and useless.

#13 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 06 July 2016 - 01:27 PM

 

You will probably find my answers to your hypotheticals intellectually dishonest, but here we go, nonetheless. I'll start with the second, since it seems simpler.

 

 

 

 

No I wouldn't, but I might still take issue with your conclusions.

 

>>Me:if a gigantic wooden ship were discovered at a height of at least 15,000 feet on Ararat of the dimensions found in the Bible, and this was confirmed by clear photos, videos and perhaps even an exploration inside it...and possibly even with C14 dating consistent with a biblical "age." >>

C>>I wouldn't consider this particularly relevant to the existence of a deity. The ship would presumably have been built by people. It seems plausible that it would be connected with the flood myth in some way; perhaps built there as some kind of religious symbol. But there was no global flood in historical times. Decades of archaeological study have established this beyond doubt, and a boat built up a mountain would not change that.>>

 

I would say you can perhaps cling to that REMOTE possibility, but that would not be the MOST REASONABLE view IF you were not philosophically determined to NOT entertain the possibility of a creator or the God of the Bible.  The reason is that having ancients to build SUCH an ark (or gigantic proportions, fit to hold thousands of creatures) would be difficult enough at sea level.  At 15,000 feet up a mountain which has NO FORESTS surrounding it, is close to impossible and is completely UNREASONABLE.  It would hardly make sense to build a religious relic where no one hardly can visit it or see it (when usually it is buried under ice).  The better conclusion is that it was indeed built near some forests at sea level (or so) and before a massive flood lifted it to that height.  That means GLOBAL inundation, not regional.  AND if that did happen, there would have to be some sort of supernatural foreknowledge of such a vast flood...which if it were that deep would have inundated the entire Earth.  That implies a Being who warned someone to build it decades in advance of whatever caused the flood.  That is a supernatural event...unless you have ruled out those altogether.  If you have, then this topic really is not aimed at you. 

 

 

>>ME:IF you were to conclude based on scientific evidence that abiogenesis and evolution are very unlikely...<<

>>C: Now the more difficult question! I would say this would make me more, rather than less, agnostic, in that I would have even less idea than I currenty do about where we came from. >>

 

I don't get this.  If all you mean is you would be more baffled by our existence, I suppose if you rule out ev, AND you have already ruled out God, then that could be true.  However if by "agnostic" you mean "lack of belief in a supernatural creator" then if you concluded ev was untrue, and IF you were not phil. determined to NOT include a supernatural creator in your consideration, then you would not be FURTHER from a belief in God, I would think.  You would be closer, since the best (or next best) idea (ev) was ruled out by convincing scientific evidence.  However, I do recognize that if ev is not true in your mind you still could try to posit the idea of ET's seeding life here.  Of course that then requires you to explain how ev (incl abiogenesis) would have worked to cause THEM to be alive.  And if you DO figure ET's did it, then you must explain away some major problems with that theory...such as the Fermi Paradox...and lack of signals.  There would have to not only be ONE ET civilization, there should be many thousands, just in our own galaxy. 

 

>>It's hard to give a more specific answer without knowing what was the evidence that convinced me of the falsity of evolution, but I don't think a falsifcation of evolution is relevant to the idea of a creator. The reason I don't believe in God is not that I believe evolution renders a god unnessecary, but that I don't see any positive evidence for a god.>>

 

You may still say there is lack of evidence for a god, however, you would be perhaps driven to look harder for it, with a more open mind, IF you figured ev was impossible.  Let's say you found evidence of a human or large mammal being buried beside (or INside) a dinosaur.  That is the sort of evidence I am suggesting.  Or maybe there were many C14 dates (implying they had to be 100,000 year old or less) for dinos which you were convinced could NOT be explained away by "modern bacterial contamination."  Many would say the soft dino tissue finds should have ALREADY given evolution a body blow but unfortunately there are large numbers who just won't let the evidence lead them away from the idea of evolution. 

 

>>If I became convinced of the falsity of evolution, then I assume it would be something like trying to explain the origins of the universe. I haven't the faintest idea of where the universe came from. I don't understand theoretical physics - I've tried, and still am trying - but the subject remains impenetrable to me. >>

 

Richard Dawkins (famous atheist) suggested that although he believed the biological design features of the Earth can be explained by evolution, he is less sure about the NONbiological features of the universe...such as all the 150 or so factors which are "just so" so as to allow for life.  In his book, his best solution to this problem is the multiverse (which is a concept that requires as much or more FAITH than a supernatural creator).  If you have just ONE universe then the odds are extremely low that all those features would come about by chance.  If you add billions of other universes, then that raises the odds.  The only problem is that it is absurd and has no supporting evidence.  I would suggest that for an open mind there is considerably more evidence that the God of the Bible is true. 

 

>>But nothing becomes clearer to me by positing a creator. I still don't understand anything about how the universe was created, but now I also have a creator about which I understand nothing and for which I had no evidence except my lack of understanding. Hence my initial point - in the absence of any clue what's going on, agnosticism seems the rational approach.>>

 

To say "how the universe WAS CREATED" sort of implies it came into existence in the past.  To say that means one of two things...either it popped into existence from nothing and without any cause, or it was caused and it came from SOMETHING.  The first idea is contradicted by all known science.  I suppose you could say the same for the second, if you define "science" as "naturalism."  If instead you define it as "what best explains our world" then if you haven't ruled OUT God, then He would best explain the existence of the universe.  This idea is what is know as the classical Cosmological Argument for the existence of God.



#14 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 06 July 2016 - 01:37 PM

I've been in a private discussion with an atheist/agnostic and I have been "testing" with the hypothetical of IF you were to conclude based on scientific evidence that abiogenesis and evolution are very unlikely, would that mean that you should quit being agnostic and form a faith that you had to have been created and that you should attempt to seek out whether that Creator gave you any likely instruction for how to live your life, and if you figure what that is, to live according to that revelation?  Of course no one would KNOW ABSOLUTELY...none of us will until we die (and only then if our consciousness survives death).  But the question is what is the most reasonable conclusion to make IF you conclude that abiogenesis and evolution are MOST LIKELY not true?

 

You mean not true like in Occam's razor untrue, which then leads to pick a more likely explanation?

I go so far that it can be scientifically (concluded logically from previous empirically proven data) proven that abiogenesis IS impossible.  

 

And the same person was asked to consider another hypothetical...which is what if any implications would there be if a gigantic wooden ship were discovered at a height of at least 15,000 feet on Ararat of the dimensions found in the Bible, and this was confirmed by clear photos, videos and perhaps even an exploration inside it...and possibly even with C14 dating consistent with a biblical "age."  What would that most likely mean regarding the existence of any deity, and also regarding the God of the Bible?  Should that weigh heavily for the truth of the Bible, or at least for the existence of some god/God?  Or can that be readily "fit" into the atheist paradigm?  I would suggest that this SHOULD be a means of causing MANY THOUSANDS if not MILLIONS of atheists to change to theists.  Is that a fair conclusion or is there some other explanation?

I'm sure that would bolster the belief of many fence-sitting Christians.  

 

It would also shake the faith of some atheists into their world view. But as the intelligent designers of arguments they are, I'm sure most will evolve some adapted world view. 

 

At least that's what I'd expect from my experience debating them. To them it depends a lot of what their authority figures (the substitute priesthood, if you want) say. These consist of philosophers and academics who are either atheists or at least agnostics themselves. Those guys make a living from thinking out plausible sounding arguments for atheism or rather against theism more specifically a biblical view all day. Bear in mind that we are probably even funding them via the state budget on education. Atheist cultural products only become demanded by the market once the author made a name for himself. So over a period of 10 to 20 years their work will have to be funded by other sources or other activities. 

 

You'll probably here that this is wood that came together that way by a random process. That this doesn't prove anything. And that this can be harmonized with their (often unstated) premises, which they believe based on face alone, in some way. 

 

Remember how they used to treat historical arguments or how they responded to the soft tissue in dinosaur bones. I mean they are even mostly ignoring or "reasoning away" the fact that the first segments of the genesis account is found refragmented in the mythology of a large number of historic of present nations. 

My preference is Indogermanic (Celt, Germanic, Roman, Greek) mythology, which has many examples of this, but I hear that the mythology of many other nations  does have similar evidence although often less clear. 

 

Perhaps we Bible believers should also be challenged with a hypothetical of there being a discovery on Mars of a large hidden alien ship which houses libraries showing how an ancient alien civilization had seeded our planet and engineered our species, down to such detail that it showed us how to replicate what they did, and we are successful doing that.  Does that imply we should give up our belief in the Biblical God...or maybe even ANY Creator? 
 
Also, is consideration of hypotheticals like this useful...to determine how honest and objective someone is, or how "falsifiable" their preferred theory is in someone's mind?

Not that I believe that something like that will be found, but it would truly be very amazing. It won't be a refutation of theism, but perhaps to some more specific theological tenets.

 

If you assume that some space aliens did create life on earth (that in itself would be intelligent design) using their science, that still would infer the question how they came into being. 



#15 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 07 July 2016 - 01:30 PM

Caffeine>>But there was no global flood in historical times. Decades of archaeological study have established this beyond doubt, and a boat built up a mountain would not change that.>>>>

 

If indeed archaeology (or did you mean geology?) has established beyond all doubt that no global flood took place in historical times (I would disagree) then you must find some other way to explain a gigantic ship on a tall mountain and I suppose having humans transport wood in vast quantities up to that elevation and building it in place is your only "plausible" explanation...which I would contend is NOT very plausible.  However, you cannot defend your claim that it is "beyond doubt" that no global flood has taken place, whether established by archaeology or geology.  That is the question which is in dispute!  There are many many facts which suggest the strata were laid down rapidly and not slowly.  Virtually every known fossil was deposited in water-lain sediments.  You are begging the question (assuming that which is in dispute).  So if indeed a gigantic ship WERE found at very high elevation (under ice) then you have more than one possible explanation (i.e. other than your idea of being built in place as a religious relic).  The other is that a global flood DID happen, and if it DID, and the ship was built decades ahead of that event, then that implies supernatural foreknowledge. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users