Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's plenty for you in the links*(That should be 'link', you only provided one) I provided. So, keep waiting. I've got plenty of patience.
No it doesn't. It fails to even answer a single point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Your link is incorrect on so many points, I don't know where to begin.
I'm happy to wait, but you can continue this charade of you believing it to be wrong. I'm waiting for you to submit your evidence. Which journal would that go in?
There's plenty for you in the links I provided. So, keep waiting. I've got plenty of patience.
Of course you have. All you need to do is sit back, make claims, invent tall stories or just fantasy to support them or just drop the point and go on to the next if you can't get away with that. Refuse to do the research yourself and insist we do it. Impasse means that you scrape a draw by default. Remarkable how quickly we get off explaining why your arguments are wrong to having to explain how your tactical point - scoring is wrong.
Quote:
You'd have to go back to when Noah stepped off the ark, and planted his vineyard to prove it took 5 years to produce grapes. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. All I know is he planted a vineyard, made wine and got plastered. That doesn't mean it took that long for crops of grain to grow or other plants.
You have a year for grass -crops or more and more for trees or bushes. There in not a shred of evidence to suggest that it was different back then. If there is, produce it. (The Bible says so is not evidence). Arguing that Noah and his zooful of creatures, arriving on the global mud plain could produce all they needed to live on within less that a year for grass and years for bushes and trees, is simply not only far - fetched but fantastical. You are inventing explanations out of thin air to prop up an utterly absurd story.
Quote:
No, you give it up mate.
Why should I when you are making the ark - case look so bad? You are doing a great job
Quote:
Of course metal working is mentioned in the Genesis account prior to the flood.
Gen 4:21 And the name of his brother is Jubal. He becomes the forefather of all who handle the harp and the shepherd's pipe.
Gen 4:22 And Zillah, moreover, she bears Tubalcain, a forger of every tool of copper and iron. And the sister of Tubalcain is Naamah.
The only one in denial is you.
Well, there we have another problem as iron was not about until later (we have had this discussion before, too0 - that is why the bronze age is the bronze age and the iron age is the iron age.
While the Genesis writers casually threw in copper and iron, there is no mention of even bronze in the Ark structure -just wood and pitch, which is of course what the Babylonian original tale said.
While I can see why you argue that Noah was an expert Iron- worker, shipbuilder, biologist, vet, farmer, and viniculturalist, on the basis of metal working tossed in the first chapter, the evidence (we really have done this before) is that metalworking, let alone Iron, was not known widely before the 10th c BCforget the steel frame that we really need to make this Ark (which isn't big enough for all the animals, birds, insects and many sea -creatures too, plus all the fodder to keep them for a year plus enough to keep them going before the earth is replenished). So of course I can't make any impression on you. But that's not the point. The point is that there is no way I can take the story seriously and you give me the chance to explain why nobody with any regard to evidence could take it seriously to. especially since NAMI, which you swore was absolutely true, is looking anything but.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-22-2014 at 11:49 AM..
I see you love to move the goal posts as the debate goes on.
AIRQUIPA wrote:
Quote:
P.s as I recall the way you deal with this where even inventing far -fetched stuff like pre -dilivian metal work (no metal mentioned in the Genesis account) The name for such argument is 'denial'.
Notice, you said NO METAL mentioned in the Genesis account.
Then I replied:
Of course metal working is mentioned in the Genesis account prior to the flood.
Gen 4:21 And the name of his brother is Jubal. He becomes the forefather of all who handle the harp and the shepherd's pipe.
Gen 4:22 And Zillah, moreover, she bears Tubalcain, a forger of every tool of copper and iron. And the sister of Tubalcain is Naamah.
The only one in denial is you.
To which you move the goal post and state:
Quote:
Well, there we have another problem as iron was not about until later (we have had this discussion before, too0 - that is why the bronze age is the bronze age and the iron age is the iron age.
While the Genesis writers casually threw in copper and iron, there is no mention of even bronze in the Ark structure -just wood and pitch, which is of course what the Babylonian original tale said.
While I can see why you argue that Noah was an expert Iron- worker, shipbuilder, biologist, vet, farmer, and viniculturalist, on the basis of metal working tossed in the first chapter,
I never stated he was expert in those fields. NEVER. So why misrepresent my position?
Also, it was the 4th chapter, not the first.
Quote:
the evidence (we really have done this before) is that metalworking, let alone Iron, was not known widely before the 10th c BC forget the steel frame that we really need to make this Ark (which isn't big enough for all the animals, birds, insects and many sea -creatures too, plus all the fodder to keep them for a year plus enough to keep them going before the earth is replenished). So of course I can't make any impression on you. But that's not the point. The point is that there is no way I can take the story seriously and you give me the chance to explain why nobody with any regard to evidence could take it seriously to. especially since NAMI, which you swore was absolutely true, is looking anything but.
Since when were you a ship builder since you know what was possible or impossible for Noah to do? Did you go to ship engineering school? Got a PHd in ship building? No.
You see, the point is you said there was no metal working in the Genesis account.
I proved you wrong.
Then, rather than admit you were wrong go off on a rabbit trail with all sorts of unprovable nonsense.
Look bud, if the Hebrew writers said they worked in copper and iron prior to the flood then that's exactly what they did. Just because the technology was put off for a while after the flood does not mean it did not exist prior to the flood.
I see you love to move the goal posts as the debate goes on.
AIRQUIPA wrote:
Notice, you said NO METAL mentioned in the Genesis account.
Then I replied:
Of course metal working is mentioned in the Genesis account prior to the flood.
Gen 4:21 And the name of his brother is Jubal. He becomes the forefather of all who handle the harp and the shepherd's pipe.
Gen 4:22 And Zillah, moreover, she bears Tubalcain, a forger of every tool of copper and iron. And the sister of Tubalcain is Naamah.
The only one in denial is you.
To which you move the goal post and state:
I never stated he was expert in those fields. NEVER. So why misrepresent my position?
Also, it was the 4th chapter, not the first.
Since when were you a ship builder since you know what was possible or impossible for Noah to do? Did you go to ship engineering school? Got a PHd in ship building? No.
You see, the point is you said there was no metal working in the Genesis account.
I proved you wrong.
Then, rather than admit you were wrong go off on a rabbit trail with all sorts of unprovable nonsense.
Look bud, if the Hebrew writers said they worked in copper and iron prior to the flood then that's exactly what they did. Just because the technology was put off for a while after the flood does not mean it did not exist prior to the flood.
What is NAMI?
You can always be relied upon for a stout defence. So I said no metal mentioned. I was wrong as you showed with the Tubal reference. well done. So ok, I counter that by showing that the evidence indicates that metal working was not known before the 3rd millennium and that only copper, which is no help is metal - framing ships. Before then, we get tools of flint attached to wood by bitumen.
Thus I argue that the Tubal reference is anachronistic.
The Noah ship construction (which was of course what I was talking about), being based on the Babylonian tale refers to the techniques known in their day - wood sealed with pitch. You can call it 'moving the goal -post' if you like, but not to do so is ignoring relevant evidence, which plays into your hands very nicely. I do not care if it pleases you to brush this away as a rabbit - trail. What you are doing is arguing for the Bible being as true and refusing all argument. This is typical Bible -literalist dishonesty.
Your point that you never mentioned Noah's expertise is obtuse (and you use the 'goal -post' accusation liberally and indeed inaccurately. I sometimes think that there is not a Creationist who really understands what a 'Strawman argument' actually is) The fact is that in order to construct a ship that big. which would need metal -framing to survive wave -swells (there was a global sea and wind, remember) looking after a strictly limited gene pool of animals with no losses in terrible conditions over a year, plus all the plants needed to start again, plus the ability to make them grow - well, to deny that a staggering range of expertise is going to be needed is obtuse, as I say. And in fact nit -picking denialist.
What more...yes, yes, having scored a cheap point in that metal - working IS mentioned in Genesis (anachronistically, if the archaeological evidence counts for anything) you milk it for all it is worth.
NAMI is the Chinese -based bunch behind that last Ark claim.
And of course, you finish with a fallacy - argument from negative evidence. Basing yourself on an uncritically accepting literal belief in the factuality of the Bible, you insist that no evidence in actuality of metal working before the 3rd mill for copper, 2nd for bronze and 1st mill for iron does not mean that they were not making complicated iron work when archeology suggests that they were scraping out logs with flints to make boats.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-23-2014 at 04:25 AM..
Ok the current view based on the measurements in Genesis.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok the current view based on the measurements in Genesis.