In one of my recent "debates" with my fundie xtian coworkers, they had mentioned the "remnants" of something on the top of Mt. Arrarat and said thats where the arc landed.

How does one refute the flood arguments and arc found arguments that they will be able to understand it?

Tags: Arc, arguments, debate, flood, thiest

Views: 94

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Yeah, but . . . it isn't in the Bible. The ark landed in the "mountains of Ararat. No mention is made that the mountain was then christened, "Ararat." And though the Armenians might revere the mountain, there is no reason to believe that it was the one that some ark landed on. Considering that the Bible didn't even begin to be written until around the sixth century BCE, one wonders how they managed to keep track of it.
I see a great need for the "Big Book of Comparative Mythology'. With pretty pictures.
Any geneticist will also tell you its essentially impossible to start a stable population with only two individuals. Even an eight human being bottleneck should have wiped us off the face of the planet. At one point we supposedly only had about 10,000 human ancestors alive on the planet, and that almost did us in... so eight, wtf?

For many species the minimum viable population size is in the thousands, without human intervention. A recent study in 2007 showed that the median MVP for all terrestrial species was 4169. Granted, this will go down with human intervention (now that we understand population genetics).

In the end though, what can modern science possibly say when god gets to change all the rules of existence whenever he damn well pleases?

Traill LW, Bradshaw JA, Brook BW (2007). "Minimum viable population size: A meta-analysis of 30 years of published estimates". Biological Conservation 139: 159-166.
That still doesn't explain the population size problem, the genetic variation just isn't there. Without that variation inbreeding would kill off the species well before evolution could have any effect (even assuming the "theory" of instananeous speciation to be true the variation would not arise quickly enough). In many cases the species would die in a generation or two simply due to lack of a sufficient number of male/female offspring. Oh, crap.. all our kids were male, guess we're boned. The number of problems with this scenario is nearly infinite, and it is beyond me how anyone can possibly believe it to be true.
It's simple. 'God did it'. Clearly, in his Infinite Knowledge and Wisdom (funny how he didn't see the snake coming), genetics didn't exist until after the pairs had bred enough offspring so that genetic diversity wouldn't be a problem. Obvious, isn't it?

(And now I need to go wash my brain out after thinking of that)
And I suppose God simply created all the diversity that we see around us, cuz it certianly didn't evolve or nothin.
I've heard that one, too. That changes in species (sorry, kinds) is due to already existing genetic information being brought forth.
So basically all the different kinds must have had 100 chromosomal pairs, and each time they gave birth they reproduced in such a way that they lost a pair of chromosomes each generation? And then magically started reproducing like they do today?
The argument is that the so-called 'junk DNA' is stored information waiting to be brought forth.

Of course, now that scientists are beginning to find what some of the previously thought inactive DNA is for, their argument becomes even weaker.
"Show me evidence that 1. there's an ark on Mt. Ararat, 2. that it is from the bronze age, 3. that there was ever a global flood and 4. that every kind of animal lived within walking distance of Noah's house."

Never accept the burden of disproving a fanciful claim. If they think that they found Noah's ark, let them prove it. Never accept a self-serving claim from a religious Barnum.
How did Noah know when he had all the animals? I mean, he must have had to wait a long time for the penguins and the koalas? How did he know when he had every kind of beetle? There's like a bizzillion of those and I doubt he had an Audobon book or anything with a checklist.
If we can put a man on the moon, can plumb the depths of the deepest ocean trenches, pump oil up from 32,000 feet under the ocean... how is it we cant recover these alleged ark remnants? This foolishness hass been going of for years, these "sightings" , hoaxes, and stories.

You don't "refute" their statements, you ask for the evidence..hard evidence. Not photos of woulda-coulda-shoulda- boats, not shadows, not rock outcroppings that look like a boat. Ive already seen those, plus pictures of the True Bigfoot and movies of the alien autopsy. Please. They have no "evidence."

Itslike trying to refute the "screams from hell eminating from a drill hole in Siberia" story that appeared in tabloid rags 20 yrs ago, admitted as a made up story.. yet the extreme fundies still refer to it as though it is fact. They want it to be so...thus it is.
There is no refuting stupidity based on faith. Its "Gimme the evidence, lets submit it to scientific testing, or go fuck yer self." is my refutation.

Regards,
Hump

RSS

Forum

The Elephant in the Room...

Started by Belle Rose in Small Talk. Last reply by Kairan Nierde 44 minutes ago. 22 Replies

Calling All Vaginas!

Started by Pope Beanie in Small Talk 1 hour ago. 0 Replies

A relapse.....

Started by Belle Rose in Small Talk. Last reply by Belle Rose 2 hours ago. 4 Replies

How do you cure Insanity???

Started by Belle Rose in Advice. Last reply by Pope Beanie 11 hours ago. 60 Replies

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service