::sigh:: Just another ruse designed to make people think andros and Gaudere aren’t the same person.
Get over yourselve(s), woudya?
Change Your Password, Please and don’t use HTML, as it has been disabled, but you can learn about superscripts here
Patrick:
. . . er, you’re kidding, right? Because it’s in a book it’s correct?
Cool! Guess I’ll go out and read Helter Skelter, the Bagavhad Gita, Dianetics, and the Book of Mormon and wait for my head to explode.
(Sorry, fella-me-lad, but “it’s in a book” is not in any way valid evidence.)
Have a loverly weekend. Feel free to resurrect this oh-so-entertaining thread upon your return.
-andros-
Trust the CGI!!!
[sockpuppet hat: ON]
Dammit, manny, you’ll blow our cover!
[sockpuppet hat: OFF]
This thread reminds me of the one started by Bricker in http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001518.html
(“I’ve been talking to Mr. A. Square”). I have to say I think the believers are weakening their case by focusing so much on hypothetical situations; the rationale seems to be something like “If we did have solid material evidence of miraculous events, and if you would still have some questions or skepticism about that evidence if we did have it, then obviously no evidence would be sufficient for you, so your unbelief is really independent of the actual lack of such solid material evidence.” I don’t think that’s an entirely fair inference. We’re back at the old “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” principle: if we’re going to postulate a divinity who can suspend at will the laws of material causation as currently understood, then by definition we can’t include that being in any scientific system, which is all about (and only about) predictable material causation. If we’re going to acknowledge the existence of an actual, factual, undisputed violation of the workings of material causation (an unprecedented event in science), then by golly yes, we’re going to need a LOT more evidence than a large wooden boat on the side of a hill. We’re going to need verifiable (preferably repeatable) data for which there’s absolutely no other explanation than the conclusion that such a violation must have occurred. The principle of universally-valid predictable material causation is just too valuable to science for us to toss it aside every time we come across something that might support some miraculous claim in somebody’s scripture. Persistent skepticism on this count, I feel, does not reflect hatred for religion or for God: it’s part of what’s required if we’re going to take the universe and our understanding of it seriously—and especially if God gave us the universe and our understanding of it, then it seems to me we damn well ought to take them seriously.
And as a first exercise in persistent skepticism, let me note again that in fact, a big wooden boat corresponding to pashley’s description has not been found, and Mr. A. Square and his Flatland do not in fact exist. Why are we arguing hypothetically about sufficiency of material evidence when there’s no actual material evidence?
Sigh. I wish we could someday all come to agree that God is like Euclid’s fifth postulate: you can build a perfectly self-consistent conceptual system either with it or without it, and there’s nothing within that self-consistent system that tells you which is “real.” You make your choices based on your own faith, and everyone’s honest choice is as good as anyone else’s; material evidence isn’t what this is really about.
Kimstu
Pashley:
My comments are not malicious. If they were, I would have addressed you in the PIT. They are a frank assessment of your level of knowledge and rhetorical skill as demonstrated on this (and other) threads. In particular, they hinge upon your tendency to make confident references to things you think are correct but in fact are incorrect. This not only weakens your present positions it by extension erodes any benefit of the doubt you might otherwise gain from posters who become familiar with you.
Conviction is a fine thing, but it is a poor substitute for good information.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Pashley, let’s put it all on the line, o.k.? You are upset that we won’t follow the party line and convert if your boat is found on Mt. Ararat, right?
One small question: If Mt. Ararat is thoroughly searched, and not one sign of an ark is found, how would YOU react? Would you change your religion?
[Moderator Hat: ON]
C3 said:
Fine. Then next time we have to go through and delete out extra messages, don’t be surprised if all the copies of yours are deleted – not just the dupes. Further, if you insist on posting what you know to be dupes, don’t be surprised if your access to this message board is suspended.
I trust I’ve made myself perfectly clear.
David B, Pissed Off SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
And while I’ve got the Moderator Hat still handy…
[Moderator Hat: ON]
Pashley – there is no reason to quote somebody’s entire message just to say a few lines. Please quote only that which is necessary.
Thank you.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
Grammatical nitpick alert:
It’s “What if Noah’s Ark WERE found?” not “WAS found”.
If I didn’t have such a headache from reading this thread I’d remember exactly what the grammar term was.
Grammatical nitpick done.
“The analyst went barking up the wrong tree, of course. I never should have mentioned unicorns to a Freudian.” – Dottie (“Jumpers” by Tom Stoppard)
Patrick:
You mentioned the major reason I cannot accept Noah’s Flood as anything other than a primitive myth. The God I recognize is a God of love and compassion. It is the sign of a sadist to cull a population in a way that causes unneeded pain, such as by drowning. To go further, any deity who says “Love me or I’ll kill you, look, I’ve done it before” is beneath contempt.
Although we have all done things when we were younger that we are not proud of, to continue to give tacit approval to the actions of that deity when he has acted in an immoral manner is unacceptable. He seems to have been embarrassed enough by the Flood to remove all physical evidence, leaving only hearsay testimony. I think it would help him become a more compassionate entity is you all would stop reminding him of it, and giving your concent to the actions.
A loving father would not kill most of his children to teach the survivors a lesson. A supportive father would not fear his children becoming his equals or to otherwise try to reach their fullest potential.
Maybe the Hindus are right. They see the Creator, the Preserver and the Destroyer as seperate individuals.
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
“You cannot reason a man out of a position he did not reach through reason.”
Hey Hey Paula
You are correct it should be “What if Noah’s Arc WERE found?”. It is called the subjunctive mood.
From merriam-Webster:
Virtually yours,
DrMatrix
These words are mine and they are true - Chief Meninock
Uhhh… perhaps because until very recently about 90% of creationist “research” involved Flood geology?
Let me put it another way. I think the people on that thread would consider evidence for the Flood to be very appropriate, and might even be relieved to see you present it, even if you personally would not categorize Flood Geology as a “creationist” belief.
-Ben
Being an occasional picker of grammatical nits myself, I am quite abashed at missing the error in the OP.
Hey Hey Paula:
I wanna marry you.
(I’ve been aching for days for an excuse to say that.)
-andros-
Wouldn’t a better OP have been,
What if the heavens suddenly opened up and Jesus, surrounded by clouds of angels, descended to earth on a golden ray of light?
Wouldn’t you believe then?
Sure I would. So would most atheists. Not to mention that Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastians, Scientologists, etc., would all convert.
If this happens I won’t begrudge the fundamentalists a few I told you so’s
BTW, anybody read “our dumb century.” The last headline, for January 1, 2000, was “Christ returns, christian right ascends to heaven.”
Having an open mind means you put out a welcome mat and answer the door politely. It does not mean leaving the door open with a sign saying nobody’s home
Y’all thought Noah’s vessel rocked with the waves? Watch the following!
pashley, Member, posted 03-16-2000 10:04 AM, the stuff between the quote lines (Monty posts now the commentary between the quotations):
I am quite aware of what the meaning of the statment, as written is, Pash. You decided inability to apply Logic to this discussion lends credence to my assertion.
Maybe you’re making it simple for yourself. I have already demonstrated both my ability to understand and apply Logic to the concepts involved and also my ability to separate my opinions about matters of faith from demonstrated scientific facts. All you’ve demonstrated, as far as I can tell, is your refusal to accept evidence which tends to disprove your assertions. That’s decidedly not the Scientfic Method. Let’s start calling it The Creationist’s Method, or in your honour, Pash’s Method.
I have come to believe that this statement is naught but a falsehood. If it were true, then you creationists & Anti-Evolutionists wouldn’t be so hell-bent on force feeding your myths on the rest of the populace in the public schools.
Criminy, I guess it is time for a short lesson in Logic. Look at it this way:
If B Follows A, then it does not necessarily mean that Given A, B follows. Now, if the statment were to be: If B, and only B, follows A, in each instance of A, then Given A, B is.
Your quaint little sig line, and your mistaken “proof” of its veracity, look at the world in a Black/White world, no gray. Sorry, that’s not the way it works. And if you were willing to apply the Scientific Method correctly, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
As proven by the creationists’ attempts to force their religious beliefs on the rest of the population, that belief is not worth believing on faith alone!
I’m quite confident that I’ve shown:
(a) I’m not ignorant,
(b) I value Logic and the Scientific Method,
© (in many places on this board), I’m a believing person of faith,
&
(d) Your sig line is incorrect as it does not describe reality. Hmmm…kind of like your view of Creation.
Please be so kind as to mentally edit:
So it reads:
Thanks.
Hey, Pash—since when is wood any less common in the 3rd world than it is here? Why do you think wood would be scarece where they found the ark/barn? And what 3rd world? There was no “3rd world” thousands of years ago, when this flood thing allegedly took place.
Peole haul wood vast distances to build things; things like, say, buildings–your notion doesn’t hold water. :rolleyes: 
Also, there are several million different species of living things on earth. Given 2 each, how could all these damn beasties fit in the 500 cubit long box anyway? 
Salt water kills trees. Several Giant Sequoias ; and many other trees, are older than 6000 years. Check out Cecil’s column on “Age Of Trees” (can’t remember how to post a link–too tired). If there was a global flood , why didn’t the rising seas kill off these very real trees?
You should tell the truth, expose the lies and live in the moment."-Bill Hicks
“You should tell the lies, live the truth and expose yourself.” - Bill Clinton
God works in mysterious ways…
What if WWII didn’t happen?
What if Al Gore didn’t invent the Internet?
What if Noah’s boat is never found?
What if I didn’t respond to this post?