Ken Hams Noah Ark encounter

[Trassk]

It's interesting to see the Ark built to measurements. And as for people complaining about space requirements, it's funny that some people accept the concept of Doctor Who's T.A.R.D.I.S. being bigger on the inside, but assume that an extradimensional entity able to alter the laws of physics couldn't accomplish the same thing.

Rather than rant at the stereotypical atheists, here's an article from Smithsonian magazine about soft tissue found in dinosaur bones.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...ker-115306469/

Really? Maybe it's the fact that doctor who fans don't run around claiming what happens on the show is real, while Ken ham claims the ark was real and that the earth is 6000 years old

[Serj Tankian]

Uh, they accept that it's a TV show?

Are you trying to tell me that Doctor Who isn't based on factual events?

When will the lies END!?!

[Nerdgasm]

Rather than rant at the stereotypical atheists, here's an article from Smithsonian magazine about soft tissue found in dinosaur bones.

This was already elucidated years ago. And it really did somewhat change our views about some things, to the point where we are somewhat using the findings in medicine.

But it's completely unrelated to religion/young earth.

[Adam Jensen]

Are you trying to tell me that Doctor Who isn't based on factual events?

When will the lies END!?!

But I saw the Doctor recently on the news! He had turned into an evil mind controlling man who terrorized Jessica Jones!

[Rennadrel]

I love the fact that people believe that 2 of every animal could fit onto that thing ...

Two T-Rex would take up most of that thing....

[Machismo]

I weep for the children who are forced to go there for their vacations.

[ItachiZaku]

Kill it with fire.

[Dr Assbandit]

Oh cool religion-bashing. Would the real moderator please stand up? I repeat, will the real moderator please stand up?

It's adorable how defensive you guys get. Also funny how you and your ilks faux outrage is nowhere to be seen when other religions are being bashed

[Azadina]

Oh cool religion-bashing. Would the real moderator please stand up? I repeat, will the real moderator please stand up?

Why does the almighty lord creator need mortals to lock the thread?

Isn't it a sign that he allows it, as he hasn't closed it?

[Mongo42]

My proof is better because it can be verified through experimentation and observation.

You can literally see cultures of bacteria evolve. Literally. With a microscope. You can see the genetic similarities between different species; humans and trees share the same exact genetic code for a specific metabolism of sugar. You can see the macroscopic similarities between similar species; why do humans and apes look so much a like? Hell, why do humans and mice look so much a like (four limbs, a spine, a head with a face?) You can see the vestigial organs from previous life forms, the toe bones in whales and dolphins that now have little to no function. The human tail, yes, some humans are born with a tail. We've seen one species evolve into another species, it HAS been observed. The fossil record gives us a very detailed illustration of how life diversified with fossils found in the expected layers of the earth, and found to have the expected ages that they should have according to evolutionary theory.

We can observe and test and make predictions based on evolution. Put some bacteria in a culture with a toxin. You can predict they either die, or they evolve to become resistant to that toxin. We've seen this.

There is a literal mountain of evidence you can view, test, verify if you so desire and scientists are doing this every day.

There is NOTHING to support an alternative theory or any supernatural origin.

Oh man, where do I start? "...or they evolve to become resistant to that toxin...". So wrong... From a page at the University of Berkeley:

http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/ev...1aRandom.shtml

Factors in the environment are thought to influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random—whether a particular mutation happens or not is generally unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.

So you're off to a bad start there. And I'll let a quote from the patron saint of atheists, Neil deGrasse Tyson, speak for itself.

Season 1 Episode 2 of Cosmos, "Some of the things that molecules do", Tyson says,

"Nobody knows how life got started. Most of the evidence from that time was destroyed by impact and erosion. Science works on the frontier between knowledge and ignorance. Not afraid to admit what we don't know. There's no shame in that. The only shame is to pretend that we have all the answers. Maybe someone watching this will be the first to solve the mystery of how life on Earth began."

So anyone claiming that science has it all figured doesn't actually understand the science.

But that's abiogenesis right? That's separated from evolution for... reasons... like a lack of evidence. But consider how many internet atheists will say that "random mutations" and "natural selection" explain everything. That episode of Cosmos even tried to push that explanation. Here's the problem.

When a species is "endangered", conservationists try to pull together and protect a sufficient population to keep them having offspring without having to inbreed due to a low population. We've had this problem with White Tigers. They have a specific mutation that isn't albinism. If they're bred with the general population that does not share that mutation, they produce hybrids. Those hybrids breeding with the general population that does not share that mutation tend towards the shared genes and results in the mutation being bred out of the line. That's why we've had to inbreed the poor things to keep getting White Tigers. Inbreeding them has been outlawed, thankfully. Black Rhinos have had a similar issue, with some researchers trying to inbreed a brother sister pair just to try to get enough of them to sustain the population. So the idea that a single random mutation could create a large population, with only "natural selection" used as justification, shows complete ignorance of how hereditary traits work. Research is ongoing to find how recessive genes could be expressed simultaneously in a large population to create a new species capable of sustaining their numbers without inbreeding. Cosmos and Tyson dropped the ball on that one.

I could keep going, but my point is that science doesn't have it all figured out. There's plenty of unanswered questions to keep people busy for a long time. But as Neil deGrasse Tyson himself said, we shouldn't try to define the existence of God by a lack of scientific evidence. I agree with that. What I don't agree with is people who make assumptions about science.

[Trassk]

Oh cool religion-bashing. Would the real moderator please stand up? I repeat, will the real moderator please stand up?

Apparently talking about one man's insanity, Ken ham, counts as religious bashing.

Why do I think if I opened a thread on Alice Coopers life decisions you wouldn't think it were anything more.

[Acidbaron]

When people mistake fiction for fact the entire meaning of the bible and it's stories is lost on them.

[Machismo]

Oh man, where do I start? "...or they evolve to become resistant to that toxin...". So wrong... From a page at the University of Berkeley:

http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/ev...1aRandom.shtml



So you're off to a bad start there. And I'll let a quote from the patron saint of atheists, Neil deGrasse Tyson, speak for itself.

Season 1 Episode 2 of Cosmos, "Some of the things that molecules do", Tyson says,



So anyone claiming that science has it all figured doesn't actually understand the science.

But that's abiogenesis right? That's separated from evolution for... reasons... like a lack of evidence. But consider how many internet atheists will say that "random mutations" and "natural selection" explain everything. That episode of Cosmos even tried to push that explanation. Here's the problem.

When a species is "endangered", conservationists try to pull together and protect a sufficient population to keep them having offspring without having to inbreed due to a low population. We've had this problem with White Tigers. They have a specific mutation that isn't albinism. If they're bred with the general population that does not share that mutation, they produce hybrids. Those hybrids breeding with the general population that does not share that mutation tend towards the shared genes and results in the mutation being bred out of the line. That's why we've had to inbreed the poor things to keep getting White Tigers. Inbreeding them has been outlawed, thankfully. Black Rhinos have had a similar issue, with some researchers trying to inbreed a brother sister pair just to try to get enough of them to sustain the population. So the idea that a single random mutation could create a large population, with only "natural selection" used as justification, shows complete ignorance of how hereditary traits work. Research is ongoing to find how recessive genes could be expressed simultaneously in a large population to create a new species capable of sustaining their numbers without inbreeding. Cosmos and Tyson dropped the ball on that one.

I could keep going, but my point is that science doesn't have it all figured out. There's plenty of unanswered questions to keep people busy for a long time. But as Neil deGrasse Tyson himself said, we shouldn't try to define the existence of God by a lack of scientific evidence. I agree with that. What I don't agree with is people who make assumptions about science.

NOBODY should claim science has it all figured out. However, it does have some figured out, and more evidence is found every day. That's how science works.

Religion is the one that claims to have everything figured out, regardless of whether there's evidence to support it.

[Thepersona]

Don't believe the pseudoscientific lies of evolutionists and darwinians.

you're trolling right?

[Redwyrm]

Creationists believe that rather than taking one of every modern species onboard the ark, Noah took ancestors of the animals we know today. According to this belief, the original ark would have held two early forms of canine, whose offspring developed into wolves, foxes, domestic dogs and other animals upon leaving the ark. As such, the model animals held on the Ark Encounter are approximations of what dogs’, cats’ and rhinos’ ancestors would have looked like.

Wait a minute..... that sounds extremely close to.... dun dun dun EVOLUTION

[Trassk]

NOBODY should claim science has it all figured out. However, it does have some figured out, and more evidence is found every day. That's how science works.

Religion is the one that claims to have everything figured out, regardless of whether there's evidence to support it.

That's the status of the two, science is an ever progressive structure the updates itself all the time, such as medical discoveries, truths about the universe, micro biology and technology. Religion is static in its ideas, never changing, and so it conflicts with science.

Ironically it took advance modern science and technology for Ham to build his ark, something tells me he wouldn't have the dedication to build it exactly as Noah did in the story.

[Aoyi]

I knew Ken ham was a bit of a nut and surprised the Arc project actually came to fruition. The one part that really suprised me in the article was the tax exemption bit. They are running a theme park. A crappy lets walk through the boat and look at dinosaurs theme park, but a theme park none the less. Sure it was built by a religious group, but are the profits being made by this attraction tax exempt as well? That seems a bit much unless I was misreading that portion.

[Adam Jensen]

Oh man, where do I start? "...or they evolve to become resistant to that toxin...". So wrong... From a page at the University of Berkeley:

http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/ev...1aRandom.shtml



So you're off to a bad start there. And I'll let a quote from the patron saint of atheists, Neil deGrasse Tyson, speak for itself.

Season 1 Episode 2 of Cosmos, "Some of the things that molecules do", Tyson says,



So anyone claiming that science has it all figured doesn't actually understand the science.

But that's abiogenesis right? That's separated from evolution for... reasons... like a lack of evidence. But consider how many internet atheists will say that "random mutations" and "natural selection" explain everything. That episode of Cosmos even tried to push that explanation. Here's the problem.

When a species is "endangered", conservationists try to pull together and protect a sufficient population to keep them having offspring without having to inbreed due to a low population. We've had this problem with White Tigers. They have a specific mutation that isn't albinism. If they're bred with the general population that does not share that mutation, they produce hybrids. Those hybrids breeding with the general population that does not share that mutation tend towards the shared genes and results in the mutation being bred out of the line. That's why we've had to inbreed the poor things to keep getting White Tigers. Inbreeding them has been outlawed, thankfully. Black Rhinos have had a similar issue, with some researchers trying to inbreed a brother sister pair just to try to get enough of them to sustain the population. So the idea that a single random mutation could create a large population, with only "natural selection" used as justification, shows complete ignorance of how hereditary traits work. Research is ongoing to find how recessive genes could be expressed simultaneously in a large population to create a new species capable of sustaining their numbers without inbreeding. Cosmos and Tyson dropped the ball on that one.

I could keep going, but my point is that science doesn't have it all figured out. There's plenty of unanswered questions to keep people busy for a long time. But as Neil deGrasse Tyson himself said, we shouldn't try to define the existence of God by a lack of scientific evidence. I agree with that. What I don't agree with is people who make assumptions about science.

I never said science has it all figured out. I said that science has so far shown that the universe has natural origins and each new mystery unveiled further confirms this idea. Why would I assume that the mysteries we haven't yet uncovered requires a supernatural event, when so far, no evidence for any supernatural event has ever been uncovered? When so far every mystery solved has revealed itself to be natural?

Abiogenesis is not evolution because abiogenesis concerns itself with the origin of life, from non-living matter to living matter. Whereas evolution is the origin of the diversification of life. Diversification has nothing to do with how life arose from non-life, that's why the two are separate.

[Igi]

Oh cool religion-bashing. Would the real moderator please stand up? I repeat, will the real moderator please stand up?

I'm sure god would've closed this thread if he thought it was inappropriate. He wouldn't need any help from mere mortals.

[Kathandira]

You mean Stargate show isn't real life?

Shhh. Star Gate is real. Don't let them tell you any different!