Monday, December 27, 2010

FacePalm of the Day #41 -Debunking Christianity: Richard Dawkins Debunks Noah's Ark

John Loftus posted the following video from Richard Dawkins. Dr Dawkins attempts to refute the account of Noah. You can look at the video below





I don't really understand why Dawkins can't see his own presuppositions:
1. The Bible gives us rough information to pin down when the story of Noah happened. But it doesn't.
2. That the Flood story happened when the earth's continents look like they do today. How does he know that?

I'm not a young earth creationist and I don't believe the Bible was ever intended to give us the method of dating the flood or human creation. Dr. Dawkins thinks that the problem is that people literally read the Bible as True. What does the Bible actually say? Set side for a moment any question you might have about if it is true or not and think about what it says.

25 Two sons were born to Eber:
One was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided; his brother was named Joktan. - Genesis 10:25



What does this mean? Given that this passage is after the flood, how was the earth divided.  I think everyone agrees that there was one continent and it split. When did this happen? Science allows us to have a good idea. The Bible tells us that the split after the flood.  If there was only one continent prior to the flood and that there were fewer animal types on the earth then, why couldn't they all not only reach the ark, but also fit. For example only the ancestors of all domesticated dogs was on the ark. All the marsupial species in Australia did not have to be on the ark - just a few. I think that Dawkins definitely failed here.

Debunking Christianity: Richard Dawkins Debunks Noah's Ark
Enhanced by Zemanta

117 comments:

  1. Given that this passage is after the flood, how was the earth divided. I think everyone agrees that there was one continent and it split. When did this happen? Science allows us to have a good idea.

    So, you're not a young earth creationist, but you believe Noah lived 175 million years ago? Because that's the idea science would give us...

    ReplyDelete
  2. This would be another example of you cherry picking scientific conclusions to support your faith.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Actually, the evidence that points to the break up of Pangea is very tightly bound to our evidence of faunal succession in the fossil record and it seems to me you can't take one without the other.

    ReplyDelete
  4. who said I'm trying to deny any fossil evidence of faunal succession? It doesn't go against anything I've written or the Bible either if animals spread out from the Ark before pangea broke up like the Bible says it did.

    And what have I cherry picked, pray tell?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think you are cherry p3icking to backup your nonbelief

    ReplyDelete
  6. I just don't think faunal succession gives you enough evidence to say that people and potatoes have a common ancestor. But it does show that German shepherd and wolves have a common ancestor.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I just don't think faunal succession gives you enough evidence to say that people and potatoes have a common ancestor.

    Maybe not, but other evidences do. But the point is that faunal succession shows that 175 MYA humans were no where to be found and only the first glimmers of our mammalian ancestors were beginning to evolve.

    ReplyDelete
  8. absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Can't you do better than that?

    ReplyDelete
  9. No, but when the earliest human ancestors start appearing in the record not more than 3 million years ago, that is evidence of an absence of humans 175 million years ago.

    Here's the deal, sometimes the evidence doesn't support our position. Try to learn to deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Here's the deal, sometimes the evidence doesn't support our position. Try to learn to deal with it.

    Good advice. Why don't you follow it?

    I'm not denying that there is no fossil evidence for humanity being 165 million years. So? That doesn't mean there was no human beings then. It means we have no fossil evidence. You are making conclusions you can't substantiate on evidence you don't have.

    I'm saying that the Bible clearly says the earth broke apart after the flood. Which fits what we know from science. That is all.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Marcus, you can believe whatever you want. 185 million years ago, our Slug like Alien-Overlords ruled the earth and the final battle in our 10 million year long war to win our freedom caused the cataclysmic damage that caused the continents to crack apart. No evidence to the contrary....

    And the bible doesn't clearly say the earth broke apart after the flood, it says the earth was divided. That could mean a lot of different things. Not that it means anything, it's fiction.

    ReplyDelete
  12. And the bible doesn't clearly say the earth broke apart after the flood, it says the earth was divided. That could mean a lot of different things. Not that it means anything, it's fiction.

    whether or not you think that Genesis is true, can you explain why my understanding of passage is wrong? What does it say?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Sure, given how the word פלג is used in Chronicles, Job and Psalms, and the references to "language" in Genesis 10:5, 20 and 31 it's pretty clear that the authors were laying the ground work for the more detailed narrative of the fall of Babel in the very next chapter and not talking about plate tectonics at all.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Marcus, Ryan is right. You are trying to FORCE science to conform to your already-held beliefs. And your beliefs are based on a work of fiction, not fact. Science is just another word for using logic and experimentation in the real world to discover WHAT IS, not WHAT YOU WISH IT WERE. It tells us what exists, and what is happenning in this reality, this world. Your religion was formed by a roman POLITICIAN. Emperor Constantine. You think politicians always tell the truth? Then WHY did Constantine not convert to the very religion that he made the offical state religion of rome? He didn't convert till his death bed. And his buddy Eusebnius IS ON RECORD saying that it's *okay to lie to the people as long as it furthers their faith!!!*
    Research your own faith. Be BRAVE about it. Do not be afraid to ask the questions that your religion specifically tells you NOT to ask. Then maybe you'll get there...

    ReplyDelete
  15. @Saint Brian the Godless

    You and Ryan are wrong. You are even more wrong than he is.

    I have researched History and Science my whole life and I am more than confident that the Bible is up to snuff.

    I may be wrong in my understanding of Genesis 10:25, but if so, I'm wrong not the Bible. As for Ryan's attempt at showing my understanding of the Bible is wrong...he failed.

    As far as your understand of Historic Christianity you need to research more. My understanding of being a Christian and who Jesus is predates Constantine. I think you would benefit from a study in Textual Criticism to understand what the Bible truly is and how it was transmitted over time. I would suggest the work of James White and Dan Wallace as a start. May God bless you with Himself.

    ReplyDelete
  16. When I say that my faith has nothing to do with Constantine I mean that it's not base on him other than the fact that God used him to spread it just like a lot of others were used.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I have researched History and Science my whole life...

    This is not evidenced by your posts.

    ReplyDelete
  18. You say you have researched science and history for all of your life?

    Then you have been researching incorrect materials. You have been researching materials by christian authors, or perhaps you have paid too much attention to the christian apologetics for the science.

    Christian apologetics is one huge tapestry of lies. Oh, I know you'll never believe that, since you've been brainwashed already. However, the FACT remains that you are incorrect about your history, and INCREDIBLY incorrect about your science, and I mean incredibly, as in, it's hard for me to believe how wrong you are.

    Study the right things.

    Nah, you never will, will you. So blame me. Hate me. That's what you've been trained to do.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Blame you? Hate you? You are the one who making accusations you can't possibly substantiate. You say I've gotten the science wrong...where? You don't know how much education I have had or what I have studied. You don't know where I've gone to school. So I'll forgive your ignorance. While your assertions about Constantine and his effect on Christianity show just how ignorant you are. Hate you, Brian? No. I'm praying for you that God opens your eyes. I want you to truly know how much God loves you.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The ark story, for instance, is a really funny joke, if you know the least thing about science.

    I could give you a thousand *facts* that are *easily verifyable* which make it absolutely impossible, and even stupid.

    Here's only one. Fishes.

    Didn't you ever even WONDER, you being so well-versed in science, about all the fresh-water fishes living in lakes and streams all over the world? How do they survive being completely doused with salt water for forty days when an hour of it will kill them?

    Same in reverse with many salt water fishes. All that fresh water falling down, miles thick, diluting the oceans... many fish species would fail, even in salt water. Almost ALL the freshwater fishes would die.

    Here's an even better one: The insects.

    Noah didn't carry all the bugs in the world with him. Couldn't have if he'd wanted to. Not enough room. And they all need very specific foods, many dying if they're removed from their food supply for even a day...

    How about south american arrow poison frogs?

    This is silly. For me to have to speak to another person like this, so remedially, so simply, about the science of this... It's a shame that you believe that you're educated in it. Sad.

    Then again, those who don't know, usually believe that they do. That's why they're not trying to find out the truth. They BELIEVE they already know it.

    My condolences on the loss of your free spirit and the abdication of your mind.

    ReplyDelete
  21. You say I've gotten the science wrong...where?

    The earliest human ancestors live around 3 million years ago. Not 175 million.

    You are well within your rights to believe whatever hairbrained thing you want and to doubt any scientific finding you like, but don't make up stuff to fit your belief and then claim you don't have "the science wrong".

    Brian; he's an engineer with degrees from Berkley. He likes to claim he's a "scientist" though so he can pretend to be an expert in ALL fields of science.

    ReplyDelete
  22. You are the one who making accusations you can't possibly substantiate.
    ------------------
    No amount of substantiation is sufficient here. You are a believer, not a thinker. Read my last post. Think about the fishes. And the insects.

    Or don't, and continue pretending to yourself that you know this stuff, so as not to hurt your delicate and artifically (religiously) overinflated ego. Yes, the religion teaches people to have huge egos. It really does. Only a huge ego can believe that it's always right just because one really old book backs them up.

    A lack of ego means that one can accept being wrong, even be happy about it, and learn from it, correct themselves. Religion teaches the opposite, to just believe what they tell you, and it's always right, no need to ever change or evolve.

    Religion cannot abide the truth, so it must teach you to IGNORE IT SOMEHOW. That's what apologetics are for. And with two thousand years of practice, they've gotten really, really good at it, even fooling people like you. Even foolong smarter people than you, for that matter.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Yeah Ryan... It figures.

    A little learning is a dang'rous think...
    Drink deep, or taste not the pierian spring.

    He has never drunk deep... just a few tiny sips here and there.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Incidentally, the word processing program on this blog is really slllooooow...

    I'm typing, and then I have to wait like twenty seconds before my words appear. In spurts.

    Must be a christian server, eh? Lol...

    ReplyDelete
  25. Well Marcus, fun talking to you... Stop by my place if you ever want more conversations NOT with people that just believe what they are told.

    Happy New Year.

    ReplyDelete
  26. No. I'm praying for you that God opens your eyes.
    -------------
    It's the fact that he's closed yours that causes us to disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @Brian


    The ark story, for instance, is a really funny joke, if you know the least thing about science.

    Well degrees in Engineering, Physics, and Information Technology should count for something.

    I could give you a thousand *facts* that are *easily verifyable* which make it absolutely impossible, and even stupid.

    Let's see what you got

    Here's only one. Fishes.

    Didn't you ever even WONDER, you being so well-versed in science, about all the fresh-water fishes living in lakes and streams all over the world? How do they survive being completely doused with salt water for forty days when an hour of it will kill them?


    Um, who said that the rain water was salty? The Bible doesn't. Sounds like an ignorant assertion.

    Same in reverse with many salt water fishes. All that fresh water falling down, miles thick, diluting the oceans... many fish species would fail, even in salt water. Almost ALL the freshwater fishes would die.

    Just because we don't know how and what kind of fishes there were or even the geography of the earth was in Noah's time, you are asking a lot of questions that are making some assumptions that you have to prove first.

    Here's an even better one: The insects.

    Noah didn't carry all the bugs in the world with him. Couldn't have if he'd wanted to. Not enough room. And they all need very specific foods, many dying if they're removed from their food supply for even a day...


    How do you know Noah didn't have two of every ancestors of the insects that we know today? The Bible said two of all living things that creep on the earth were on the ark. That would not mean taking every single kind of ant or every single kind of roach. Just the one kind of ant,roach, and so on that gave rise to all the different kinds we have today.

    How about south american arrow poison frogs?

    Noah had the ancestor frogs of all the frogs that we have today including the samerican arrow poison frogs. Duh!!! You believe in evolution. The south american arrow poison frog evolved from those frogs! Micro Evolution.

    This is silly. For me to have to speak to another person like this, so remedially, so simply, about the science of this... It's a shame that you believe that you're educated in it. Sad.

    Actually it is sad that you really think you have thought through these issues. The ignorance is truly astonishing.

    Then again, those who don't know, usually believe that they do. That's why they're not trying to find out the truth. They BELIEVE they already know it.

    You haven't demonstrated that you know anything about these subjects that I don't know. Care to offer anymore "evidence"?

    My condolences on the loss of your free spirit and the abdication of your mind.

    My prayer is that God turns your mind on and open your eyes so you will know Him and be free of your sins and stupidity.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @Ryan


    The earliest human ancestors live around 3 million years ago. Not 175 million.


    This isn't true and you know it. You can say that we have no evidence of human ancestors before 3 million years but unless you can prove that there will never be evidence older than that, you are truly deluded. I'm the one keeping an open mind. Yours is closed.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @Brian

    No amount of substantiation is sufficient here. You are a believer, not a thinker. Read my last post. Think about the fishes. And the insects.

    Or don't, and continue pretending to yourself that you know this stuff, so as not to hurt your delicate and artifically (religiously) overinflated ego. Yes, the religion teaches people to have huge egos. It really does. Only a huge ego can believe that it's always right just because one really old book backs them up.


    How is egotistical to state that God is always right and anyone who contradicts God is always wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Marcus, seriously, why even bother with evidence?

    Well degrees in Engineering, Physics, and Information Technology should count for something [re: global flood]".

    No, they don't. You'd need a degree in geology to impress us here.

    ReplyDelete
  31. This isn't true and you know it. You can say that we have no evidence of human ancestors before 3 million years but unless you can prove that there will never be evidence older than that, you are truly deluded. I'm the one keeping an open mind. Yours is closed.

    No. You have fit a predetermined conclusion to an absence of evidence. This is the antithesis of an open mind and is one of the main reasons I find your claims of scientific credentials to be less than impressive. A degree or two doesn't mean much if you don't know how to think critically.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Um, who said that the rain water was salty? The Bible doesn't. Sounds like an ignorant assertion.
    ---------------------
    Um, can you possibly FOLLOW anything more complicated than remedial reading here?

    THINK.

    The fresh water rain falls on the world, which as we know is mostly ocean. The waters rise to cover the continents. This causes the ocean water to mix with the rainwater. Since to cover the earth to the tops of its mountains you'd need about 5 miles depth of water, and since the oceans are three miles deep or so on the average, you get very brackish water as a result, BOTH over the (formerly) dry land, AND in the very depths of the sea. It'd all turn brackish.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Let me repeat, because this is important. You have fit a predetermined conclusion to an absence of evidence. That's not science.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Marcus; was the water from the springs salt or fresh? Using the patented and renowned "Marcus McElhaney Scientific Method" of picking my own conclusion first, I will say it's clear the water from the springs was salty (you can't say it wasn't!!!!).

    Hence, all the fresh water fish should have died. According to Genesis, and "Science".

    Geeze...

    ReplyDelete
  35. I'm slowly becoming aware how very little you know about science. It is even less than I thought.

    Sorry, you're incapable of following me. You may as well stop trying. It's only making you look like a real fool here, and I'm sure that you don't want that.

    Your comment about the frogs and insects shows a naivete that is most often encountered in pre-schoolers. You're absolutely convinced that you're right, and you don't even know how to think yet. You've never learned. You were taught intentionally to not learn how to think. If you ever had, they'd have lost you, and they can't have that...

    Start at "the Scientific Method." You lack even that in your thought processes. You've been corrupted. It's like a computer virus for brains, your religion there. It gets into a mind and tells it that it's fine to ignore reality, and only pay attention to it. It's ghastly. I'd rather be dead, than be you.

    ReplyDelete
  36. @Brian

    Again you don't know how salty the oceans were, how many there were, or how much dry land there was during Noah's time. You are making assumptions you cannot even begin to make that I would bet my life on. You are betting yours if you think that is enough to throw out the book of Genesis and the rest of the Bible. You have nothing but the audacity to tell God He is wrong and based on an an incomplete picture of what happened. Stupid. Really stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  37. @Ryan..

    Good thing I'm not here to impress you. And for someone who claims to have evidence on your side, there is precious little...and to even get that you have to spin it. It's be quite funny if not so sad. Sad because here God has done everything to redeem you and you yet reject him.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Marcus; I hate to say it, and I know you'll rail against it, but Brian's comment at 5:31 is right on the money, you appear, from these post to not know how to think. I've never been dishonest with you (as much as you might disagree) and I'm not now. I'd rather see you grow than simply "win an argument". Why do you think I still post here?

    The best book for your money on "how to think" in my opinion is Sagan's Daemon Haunted World. Check it out.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Marcus; reread your 5:37 post and note that you don't actually say anything there.

    ReplyDelete
  40. @Ryan

    Let me repeat, because this is important. You have fit a predetermined conclusion to an absence of evidence. That's not science.

    That is exactly what you do!

    Marcus; was the water from the springs salt or fresh? Using the patented and renowned "Marcus McElhaney Scientific Method" of picking my own conclusion first, I will say it's clear the water from the springs was salty (you can't say it wasn't!!!!).

    Hence, all the fresh water fish should have died. According to Genesis, and "Science".

    Geeze...


    Funny! I never said that. I said we don't know how salty the water was or what kind of fish there were or anything in that detail.
    Try to follow me more carefully.

    ReplyDelete
  41. @Brian

    Start at "the Scientific Method." You lack even that in your thought processes. You've been corrupted. It's like a computer virus for brains, your religion there. It gets into a mind and tells it that it's fine to ignore reality, and only pay attention to it. It's ghastly. I'd rather be dead, than be you.

    We do agree on something I'd rather be dead than you too. You are dead in your sins. I also find it amazing that you think I can't think just because I don't agree with you. I've asked some good credible questions about your arguments that you don't have answers for. Just admit it and move on.

    ReplyDelete
  42. How is egotistical to state that God is always right and anyone who contradicts God is always wrong?
    ------------------
    You were a child once, that did not know to believe in God. Then your parents taught you about God. They learned it from their parents, and so on, back two thousand years. It was always a lie. Right from the start. Yo cannot (WILL NOT) consider that, not ever. You've been taught so much FEAR and RESPECT and even LOVE for God, that you can't even consider the possibility that, at least as regards the Christian version of God, there is no such thing at all. Oh sure, maybe tere's some sort of deity, who am I to say... but it's EASY to see that whatever it may be it it exists, one thing it most certainly is NOT, is your God. Sorry. Too many contradictions. One thing even your God cannot do, is to contradict logic. A loving God, for instance, would never have created hell. Period. No, shut up, it's really PERIOD. Nor would he have bet with the devil and tortured Job, nor would he have done a thousand other things that the bible says that HE DID. The mere existence of the book of Leviticus, totally INVALIDATES your whole faith.
    So, you're screwed here, believing in a total malicious, life-negating lie. Again, my condolences.

    ReplyDelete
  43. @Ryan

    Does being able to think equate agreeing with you? Now that truly is arrogant because it doesn't mean that.

    ReplyDelete
  44. That is exactly what you do!

    Or, "I'm rubber and your glue..." OK. Catch you later. But do check out the Sagan book.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Does being able to think equate agreeing with you?

    Absolutely not.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Heck, even if you look at the whole Santa Claus thing, it becomes obvious that he's Jesus Lite, to 'per-condition' little minds to believe in magical thinking and God...

    So frigging sad. Two millennia of mass mental slavery, and the slaves can't even see the chains...

    ReplyDelete
  47. @Brian

    You were a child once, that did not know to believe in God. Then your parents taught you about God. They learned it from their parents, and so on, back two thousand years. It was always a lie. Right from the start. Yo cannot (WILL NOT) consider that, not ever. You've been taught so much FEAR and RESPECT and even LOVE for God, that you can't even consider the possibility that, at least as regards the Christian version of God, there is no such thing at all. Oh sure, maybe tere's some sort of deity, who am I to say... but it's EASY to see that whatever it may be it it exists, one thing it most certainly is NOT, is your God. Sorry. Too many contradictions. One thing even your God cannot do, is to contradict logic. A loving God, for instance, would never have created hell. Period. No, shut up, it's really PERIOD. Nor would he have bet with the devil and tortured Job, nor would he have done a thousand other things that the bible says that HE DID. The mere existence of the book of Leviticus, totally INVALIDATES your whole faith.
    So, you're screwed here, believing in a total malicious, life-negating lie. Again, my condolences.


    Actually, you really don't know anything about God if that is how you think of him. It's really sad too. You don't know what hell is or why it exist. Do you know what God says about it? I guess not. I think you did a great job of summing your objections to Christianity. Thanks. I'll respond in a separate post because I think it'll be worth it and give myself time to answer kindly.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Oops, that was 'pre-condition...'

    Good credible questions? Credible to a fool, perhaps. Sorry to be blunt, but there you have it. You sir, need to broaden your education and stop being a religious DRONE.

    You misunderstand the most basic science, and expect us to accept your arguments as credible somehow?

    You're like a little kid trying to join the conversation at the adult's table here, and you aren't even aware of it. Astonishing. How does it feel to be so shut down mentally, I wonder...

    I can't wait for your next response...

    You know, when I first came to this page and started to read it, I face-palmed. So, good title, is what I'm saying.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Actually, you really don't know anything about God if that is how you think of him.
    ------------
    No, I used to be religious. I got better. I can only wish the same for you. It's because I know more about god than you, that I do not believe in him. If you knew what I knew, you wouldn't either. I already know what you know. And I also know that it's just an elaborate, carefully constructed tapestry of silliness and lies. In fact, if anything on earth is REAL EVIL, it's your religion. So evil that the believers think it's good. They've been fooled to think evil is good. Almost makes me believe in Satan.
    The only reason that religious people believe in their religion, is that their religion has stunted their logical faculties. As has happened here, with you. You've been pithed by God, my friend. Like a frog in Bio 101.

    ReplyDelete
  50. You know, what you know, isn't really what you know. What you know is what you think you know but it's not what you know. What you know is what you believe you know. And that's not knowing anything at all. You claim to know, but what you do not know and only believe that you know is that you do not truly know. And knowing that, I can also know that what you actually know is not anything worth knowing.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Opps, just realized, you never took bio, didja?

    You'd have either failed, or killed yourself, I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Marcus my friend, you underestimate your inability to not reason incorrectly.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Marcus said,

    "You are the one who making accusations you can't possibly substantiate. You say I've gotten the science wrong...where? You don't know how much education I have had or what I have studied. You don't know where I've gone to school."

    Yes we do. You told us several months ago when you were still a troll on Loftus' blog:

    You have a Bachelor of Science in Engineering Physics from UC Berkeley. That doesn't mean you are immune to filling your head with mush.

    ReplyDelete
  54. @GearHedEd

    Thanks for the comment, pig. You do remember admitting to being swine right? Therefore that is all I will say to you.

    @Ryan and @Bryan

    Do you really think you have brought up any reasonable objection or shown how anything I've said wrong or silly or ignorant? You haven't. Just a lot of name calling and insults. That's okay because that is all you truly have.

    ReplyDelete
  55. And now you're just a silly boy.

    Give me then, a rational question to answer, a scientific question relating to, oh, say, noah's ark... That's my favorite bible story anyhow, since it's the funniest. (To a biology major, at any rate...)

    I mean, this is really silly. My point about the fish completely beat you to a pulp. Your answers were meaningless mumbo-jumbo revealing gross misunderstangs of science and logic.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Do you really think you have brought up any reasonable objection or shown how anything I've said wrong or silly or ignorant? You haven't. Just a lot of name calling and insults.
    -----------
    Whoh there skippy. We didn't call anyone a pig, now did we? I think you're leading in the insult department due to severity. All of ours have to do with your complete lack of understanding and your insistence that you do understand, which you have to admit, is laughable... Nothing as personal as 'pig.' That is pretty nasty, but just what I expect from christians. No depth.... just shallow, one-dimensional people that can't think for themselves, and are ugly inside no matter what they look like outside.

    ReplyDelete
  57. The ugliness of your religion reveals itself in the ugliness of it's believers.
    Just look at the tea party, for instance... or the republicans in general, nowadays... all polluted with mind-toxic religion to the point where they don't give a rat's ass about anybody but themselves.
    Sickening.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Yes we do. You told us several months ago when you were still a troll on Loftus' blog:

    You have a Bachelor of Science in Engineering Physics from UC Berkeley.
    ---------
    Too bad you said it Ryan. I bet if you hadn't and had just asked him 'so where did you go to school then?' it'd have been a different school and a different degree.

    I think he's a fraud. NO-one that ignorant can graduate in a degree program unless it's in TEXAS.

    ReplyDelete
  59. @Brian

    I mean, this is really silly. My point about the fish completely beat you to a pulp. Your answers were meaningless mumbo-jumbo revealing gross misunderstangs of science and logic.

    You mean your pointless musing about the fish that totally ignores things that you would have to know to come to such conclusions? Yup, thought so.

    Whoh there skippy. We didn't call anyone a pig, now did we? I think you're leading in the insult department due to severity. All of ours have to do with your complete lack of understanding and your insistence that you do understand, which you have to admit, is laughable... Nothing as personal as 'pig.' That is pretty nasty, but just what I expect from christians. No depth.... just shallow, one-dimensional people that can't think for themselves, and are ugly inside no matter what they look like outside.

    I had said I would stop commenting on John Loftus "blog" if the people who didn't want to talk to me anymore would agree that they were pigs and I should not cast my pearls before swine. GearHeadEd said he was a pig and he hoped I keep my promise which I have.You sure are good at making comments you know nothing about.

    The ugliness of your religion reveals itself in the ugliness of it's believers.
    Just look at the tea party, for instance... or the republicans in general, nowadays... all polluted with mind-toxic religion to the point where they don't give a rat's ass about anybody but themselves.
    Sickening.


    And what does that have to do with me. I don't agree with them politically at all. You show yourself even more ignorant.

    Too bad you said it Ryan. I bet if you hadn't and had just asked him 'so where did you go to school then?' it'd have been a different school and a different degree.

    I think he's a fraud. NO-one that ignorant can graduate in a degree program unless it's in TEXAS.


    It sure is sad how completely ignorant you are. Of course your stupidity is proof there is a God. It's the only explanation for how someone can be so dumb and still remember how to breathe.

    Let's really talk about fraud and stupidity. You claim to be open-minded. You claim to be a thinker. You claim to know about science. Yet when I offer questions you can't answer that must be answered if your presuppositions are correct you claim the questions are too silly to even consider. No surprise. You are grasping at straws.

    Case in point...how do you know how much salt the fish needed in the oceans of Noah's time? How do you know what kinds of fish there were and the fish that we have now didn't evolve from those. Also regardless we aren't talking 5,000 or 6,000 years for Noah's ark. We don't know when it happened.

    If you disagree...tell me how you know. What evidence do you have? All your so-called proofs against the flood and the ark are based on the idea that the world is pretty much the same as it is now. How do you know that? Proof? Where is your skepticism? Where is your "logic"?

    ReplyDelete
  60. The fact that you draw the conclusion that humans definitely lived 175 million years ago based on the fact that we have no evidence that humans lived 175 million years ago really invalidates all your other arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Ryan, when did I say that? I suggested the possibility the pangea broke up after the flood! And asked you to prove that it didn't. Given that we don't know when the Ark was built or when the flood happened and that there are varying theories of when and how Pangea broke up - let alone the fact that plate techtonics is not completely understood. You sure are quick to jump to conclusions. Your argument has holes because you can't prove that there were no human being around when pangea broke up nor can you definitively prove when pangea broke up. Theory is fine but throwing out Genesis because it doesn't fit your theory is dishonest. I know that there are lots of theories and thoughts out there about the origin of the continents and it is totally possible we will never be able to prove one theory over another. I'm the one who is open-minded...you are definitely closed minded and going on just what other people have told you given that you can't possibly know for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  62. You said "I'm not a young earth creationist and I don't believe the Bible was ever intended to give us the method of dating the flood or human creation. ...[]... I think everyone agrees that there was one continent and it split. When did this happen? Science allows us to have a good idea."

    Science gives us the idea that it broke up 195-175 million years ago.

    Get a degree in Geology and then you can argue that science doesn't give us that idea.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Ryan, re-read my comment. I'm arguing that scientists have different ideas of when pangea broke up. Are you really willing to argue that every single expert agrees that the number is 175 million years?

    Where is your degree in geology?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Where is your degree in geology?

    Because I accept the consensus view, I don't need you to treat me as an authority in Geology. If you want to argue a fringe theory, you'll need some credentials.

    The bottom line is that cherry picking "experts" and inserting conclusions into an absence of evidence are all the foundational hallmarks of how one supports any kook conspiracy theory. We can use your exact method to deny the holocaust or the moon landing.

    Again, for clarity, and hopefully for your edification, you are shoehorning a predetermined conclusion into an absence of evidence. That's not science.

    Happy New Year. Please pick up the Sagan book I mentioned (I'll even read something of your choosing, assuming I haven't read it already).

    ReplyDelete
  65. @Ryan

    Because I accept the consensus view, I don't need you to treat me as an authority in Geology. If you want to argue a fringe theory, you'll need some credentials.

    Who said I claimed to be an authority? Yesterday's fringe theory often become today's consensus view. Remember DNA and a heliocentric solar system used to be the fringe theories and light traveling through the ether used to be the consensus. I only pointed out that there are multiple viewpoints...you are the one being dogmatic.

    The bottom line is that cherry picking "experts" and inserting conclusions into an absence of evidence are all the foundational hallmarks of how one supports any kook conspiracy theory. We can use your exact method to deny the holocaust or the moon landing.

    And how do you prove you haven't done the same thing? As I stated there is a whole lot we don't know. We don't know how long it took for pangea to break apart. There is no consensus in exactly when it happened - there is range. We do not know for sure when Noah lived. I'm not denying the holocaust or the moon landing. Nice straw man by the way.

    Again, for clarity, and hopefully for your edification, you are shoehorning a predetermined conclusion into an absence of evidence. That's not science.Happy New Year. Please pick up the Sagan book I mentioned (I'll even read something of your choosing, assuming I haven't read it already).

    I'm praying that God gives you His best in 2011 - Himself - so you will truly know him. I think it's a shame that you think my logic is impaired and you just assert it without explaining where it's wrong. I haven't done that. I've tried to be very clear about why I disagree with you. Too bad your mind is shut. It'll take God to open it.

    If you want to prove me wrong....just answer the questions I've asked or prove that they don't matter. The real problem is that you can't think and you can't reason without God. I thank God that you are not more off than you are.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Who said I claimed to be an authority? Yesterday's fringe theory often become today's consensus view.

    Yeah, you'd need to be an authority in Geology to know if a fringe theory had any real merit. In this case, these theories only have theological merit to you. But that's enough, right?

    As I stated there is a whole lot we don't know. We don't know how long it took for pangea to break apart. There is no consensus in exactly when it happened - there is range. We do not know for sure when Noah lived.

    Do you think Pangea broke up in the last 1.5 millions years (and why)? If not, do you think Noah was an Australopithecus?

    ...you think my logic is impaired and you just assert it without explaining where it's wrong.

    Oh sweet mother... how many times I have said this? OK, one more time, because it's important, and for clairity... you are shoehorning a predetermined conclusion into an absence of evidence. You've done that in the previous post, so I'm not merely just asserting anything...

    Read Sagan's Daemon Haunted World. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  67. We don't know how long it took for pangea to break apart. There is no consensus in exactly when it happened - there is range.

    For the record, this range doesn't even come close to including the time when humans or human ancestors lived and barely includes the first mammals. So, yes, there is a range.

    ReplyDelete
  68. @Ryan

    Oh sweet mother... how many times I have said this? OK, one more time, because it's important, and for clairity... you are shoehorning a predetermined conclusion into an absence of evidence. You've done that in the previous post, so I'm not merely just asserting anything...

    Clarity? You keep claiming I'm making predetermined conclusions and I'm not. My point is we don't know when the Pangea broke up or when Noah's flood happened. Bottom line. How is that predetermined conclusion? You are making a predetermined conclusion because you already have determined that Genesis must be wrong because the Bible is wrong and refuse to even think about whether that assessment is true or not. You are doing a lot of asserting and so blind you can't even see it.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Apparently he's innumerate, Ryan. "175 million years and 1.5 to 3 million years? Ahh, they're both really big numbers... Seems the same to me..."

    Noah on Pangea... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
    As Bugs used to say, "What a maroon!"

    ReplyDelete
  70. I've never met an innumerate engineer before?

    Must have been an easy school.

    I know arithmetic, so I guess I'm over-qualified to be a christian engineer. Who knew.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Marcus, are you really an adult? C'mon... Fess up.

    ReplyDelete
  72. @Brian

    Thanks for commenting. Ryan needs the help.


    Apparently he's innumerate, Ryan. "175 million years and 1.5 to 3 million years? Ahh, they're both really big numbers... Seems the same to me..."


    My never seen numbers that big before have you? What about significant figures? Scientific notation? Nope? No surprise.

    Noah on Pangea... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
    As Bugs used to say, "What a maroon!"


    You need a great deal more than arithmetic to be an engineer. Significant figures IS one of them. You aren't really worth my time to insult. I'll just pray for you and hope God opens your mind so you can finally think clearly. God does love you...even if you overestimate your own intelligence.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Incidentally, the average lifetime on this planet of a species, any given species, is four to five million years.

    This includes (presumably) homo sapiens.

    I collect amber with insect fossils. I've been to the dominican republicic to buy them from the same source that the scientists use for DNA extraction experiments.

    Marcus, the age of dominican amber is apx 12 to 15 million years. Pretty young. (Baltic amber is closer to 30 million years old.)

    But even in the younger dominican amber, with hundreds if not thousands of insect species catalogued that have been found embedded in it, we cannot find ONE SINGLE SPECIES of insect in that amber that is still alive today. They're all extinct.

    Just an fyi, I guess. If you had a mind, you'd realize something from all of this data.

    Shame.

    ReplyDelete
  74. God does love you...even if you overestimate your own intelligence.
    --------
    Dude, your god is a dick, so spare me his love please. Look at what it did to you...

    Sig figs? I learned all that in chemistry, dude. I know enough to know that you don't know squat.

    And BTW, this sentence here:

    "My never seen numbers that big before have you? What about significant figures? Scientific notation? Nope? No surprise."

    -has no semantic content. It is a nonsense sentence. Thus proving to all that you are a remedial-level reader, who *believes* that he is an engineer... Sad.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Nothing I have written goes against the data you have presented. If your point is that you are not a moron. Conceded. I didn't say that species of insects from millions of years today are still the same but maybe you might remember the roaches. I've seen data that shows they have been unchanged for millions of yours. In addition, you presumably believe that all living things on earth have a common ancestor - so why is it a problem if all the insect species who were on the ark died and evolved into what we have today?

    And let's not discuss grammar and spelling remember when you wrote this yesterday?

    You know, what you know, isn't really what you know. What you know is what you think you know but it's not what you know. What you know is what you believe you know. And that's not knowing anything at all. You claim to know, but what you do not know and only believe that you know is that you do not truly know. And knowing that, I can also know that what you actually know is not anything worth knowing.

    I mean really? Seriously? I let it go? Don't you really think you could have worded it better? I'll use smaller words and stay away from colloquialism from now on when I'm addressing you.

    I know my God is not your god, but know that He does love you and anything worthwhile about you comes from Him. I thank Him and praise Him for you because the more baseless assertions you make the more silly you look.

    I also thank you, your attempts at humor are really cute. Thanks for trying. Thanks for reading my blog and following it so closely, although I don't waste my time with your sad parody of enlightened thought.

    ReplyDelete
  76. I mean: I didn't say that species of insects from millions of years are all today still the same but maybe you might remember the roaches. I've seen data that shows they have been unchanged for millions of years.

    ReplyDelete
  77. You need a great deal more than arithmetic to be an engineer
    -------------
    Yes, that being the salient point here, since you lack the arithmetic therefore the very idea of you being an engineer is a joke. Get real. I bet you work at Wendy's.

    ReplyDelete
  78. You really seem to be in a delusional world, Brian. What have I said that makes you think I don't know arithmetic or calculus or any mathematics at all? You don't seem to be forming complete thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  79. we don't know when the Pangea broke

    Then don't pretend that it fits with your scriptures. Granted it could, but more likely, much more likely, it doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  80. I've seen data that shows they have been unchanged for millions of yours
    -------------
    Roaches have remained *basically* unchanged for millions of years. However, that only applies to the basic body plan, Marcus. As I stated previously, no species lasts for even twenty million years... they change into a new, similar species. Why is it a 'new species' then? Because it IS different, just different enough that the 'new species' of roaches can no longer breed with the original stock and produce viable offspring.
    So the roaches may look very similar to what they were over a hunderd million years ago, but they have, in the interim, gone through new species after new species of similar looking roaches.

    And even today we have about 3,500 different species of cockroach, mostly similar looking to each other, and none of them can have babies with any of the other 3500 kinds. They all have to stick to their own species.

    See?

    I love Biology!

    ReplyDelete
  81. BTW, if you try me on insects, you'll lose every time. I've been fascinated with them all my life.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Considering how you christians say that you believe that your God created all this reality, this world and all that is in it, you'd think that you'd take the time to learn something about it.

    For instance, back to your previous on how Noah could just take the 'ancestors' of all modern insects with him...
    If you knew any entomology, you'd realize how impossible that would be.

    Marcus, how many kinds of bettle, how many different species of just beetles, are there in this world today?

    The answer is approximately 45,000.

    Just the beetles.

    Wake up, dude. You're sniffing God Glue. The real world is a LOT MORE INTERESTING without your religious slant preventing you from seeing it all. It's beautiful... No god required. YOu can't imagine the complexity of the web of life, and you probably don't even want to, since it's been conditioned out of you. Your faith discourages learning about the world, you know. If you learn too much, you lose your faith, and it can't be having that, now can it?

    ReplyDelete
  83. @Ryan

    Then don't pretend that it fits with your scriptures. Granted it could, but more likely, much more likely, it doesn't.

    So which is it? You concede the possibility yet deny the probability? Fine. I haven't pretended anything especially since you admit the possibility.

    ReplyDelete
  84. @Brian

    And even today we have about 3,500 different species of cockroach, mostly similar looking to each other, and none of them can have babies with any of the other 3500 kinds. They all have to stick to their own species.

    See?

    I love Biology!


    Thanks for disproving macroevolution.

    BTW, if you try me on insects, you'll lose every time. I've been fascinated with them all my life.

    Figures. You have much in common with insect, especially roaches.

    And I still don't see how I've written anything that goes against any of the facts about insects you have presented.

    For instance, back to your previous on how Noah could just take the 'ancestors' of all modern insects with him...
    If you knew any entomology, you'd realize how impossible that would be.

    Marcus, how many kinds of bettle, how many different species of just beetles, are there in this world today?

    The answer is approximately 45,000.

    Just the beetles.


    I think Richard Dawkins would disagree with you considering he thinks every living thing that has ever lived on the earth have the same common ancestor. I'm sure you agree with him. Then why wouldn't all beetles have a common ancestor. I did not say that they all have the same ancestor. I'm suggesting that all roaches have a common ancestor and all beetles have a common ancestor and all ant...and so on. Are you willing to throw out evolution? Fine by me.

    Wake up, dude. You're sniffing God Glue. The real world is a LOT MORE INTERESTING without your religious slant preventing you from seeing it all. It's beautiful... No god required. YOu can't imagine the complexity of the web of life, and you probably don't even want to, since it's been conditioned out of you. Your faith discourages learning about the world, you know. If you learn too much, you lose your faith, and it can't be having that, now can it?

    Truth is the more I learn the more faith in my creator I have. Like Newton. Like Kepler. Like so many of the great men and women on whom shoulders we stand. Your broad and stupid generalizations are definitely wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  85. So which is it?

    This is why you fail... it's probably not the merely possible scenario, and is probably the very probable scenario.

    OK, so like all arguments with apologists, you wind up taking refuge behind mere possibility in the end. Since that's all you've got, that's fine. Enjoy.

    I am curious though why you brought up significant digits and scientific notation in what appeared to be an effort to show off to Brian... Given that these are concepts we all should haven learned freshman or sophomore year in high school, that is one of many reasons I have my doubts about your actual scientific literacy...

    ReplyDelete
  86. @Ryan. I want you to go back and really look at what you wrote.

    This is why you fail... it's probably not the merely possible scenario, and is probably the very probable scenario.

    Fail? I've conceded nothing. I've changed nothing I've written on this subject because I haven't had to. YOU went from telling me how wrong I am to conceding the possibility I might be right but you think I'm wrong. I disagree. So? Do you really think I care I what you think? You're reading my blog remember?(thank you by the way) I think you need to re-think your definition of "fail". And thanks for the concession. It's amazing that you think I am the one with the problem with logic. Truly funny.

    OK, so like all arguments with apologists, you wind up taking refuge behind mere possibility in the end. Since that's all you've got, that's fine. Enjoy.

    You mean like the many universes people bring up to get around fine-tuning? No proof...no reason to even think its possible or probable. Look at what my argument is. Let's recap: We know that the earth used to have one continent, Pangea. We know that it didn't happen all at once. The Bible says the earth was divided in Genesis 10:25. I think that it's referring to the break up of Pangea at what ever stage the break up was at the time, given we don't know when the the flood happened or what the earth geography was at the time. You disagree. Fine, but that doesn't make me wrong, although I could be. Recall you are the one being dogmatic. You seem to need the Bible to be wrong.

    I am curious though why you brought up significant digits and scientific notation in what appeared to be an effort to show off to Brian... Given that these are concepts we all should haven learned freshman or sophomore year in high school, that is one of many reasons I have my doubts about your actual scientific literacy...

    You don't remember Brian writing Apparently he's innumerate, Ryan. "175 million years and 1.5 to 3 million years? Ahh, they're both really big numbers... Seems the same to me..."? Anyone thinking at the level to write that when you and I were discussing a range for the date when Pangea broke doesn't need anything more heavy than significant figures and scientific notation. Can you truly say his comment was not sophomoric? I answered him at that level. No need for mere. Many times in science such ranges are acceptable but I don't think their acceptable when you are trying to discount other possibilities, and given that Pangea did not break into 6 or 7 pieces all at once on the same time. Genesis 10:25 does not suggest that to me either. I was trying to not loose him not show off. I have nothing to prove to anyone. My academic trials by fire have come and gone and God gave me victory. Now I have professional challenges that call upon all the stuff I learned in undergraduate and graduate school - and God still helps me.

    Don't forget you took the time to write this on my blog. Why would you do that if you think I'm dumb? I'm writing this because I don't think you are a waste of time or space. God loves you. Jesus died for you. He is your propitiation as much as He is mine. I'm praying that God truly shows you this and you believe it this year so you can live out the purposes God has for you in your generation.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Your failure is that you take an honest concession as a victory for your position.

    Why would you do that if you think I'm dumb?

    Because there is something obvious that makes you dumb even though you are not stupid. I think (I'm probably wrong) that I can help you through that. Call it a hunch, or maybe I recognize something of former Christian self in you.

    ReplyDelete
  88. @Ryan

    Your failure is that you take an honest concession as a victory for your position.

    Victory for my position? Nope. Victory over you saying I'm wrong. I could still be wrong, you just couldn't prove I'm wrong.

    Because there is something obvious that makes you dumb even though you are not stupid. I think (I'm probably wrong) that I can help you through that. Call it a hunch, or maybe I recognize something of former Christian self in you.

    1. You still haven't shown me dumb.
    2. The reason why you keep posting here is simple. God is calling you. You keep being challenged in the decisions you made in your life and not just by this blog but probably in many places and things in your life. You think by convincing me you are right you can keep telling yourself you are right. Definitely wrong. Even if I change my mind, God is still right. I praise God for the way He deals with both of us.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Victory over you saying I'm wrong.

    Given your epistemology and use of the patented and renowned "Marcus McElhaney Scientific Method", you literally cannot be wrong. But that doesn't mean you are right.

    ReplyDelete
  90. I don't claim infallibility. God is infallible.

    ReplyDelete
  91. I don't claim infallibility. God is infallible.

    Because you are fallible, you cannot possibly know if your second claim is true or not.

    ReplyDelete
  92. My fallibility has nothing to do with God's infallibility. Although you have failed to show me wrong, my fallibility is not in question. Lots of luck proving God wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  93. OK, but you are confusing us demonstrating that you are wrong with us getting you to see that you are wrong. Huge difference.

    ReplyDelete
  94. What confusion? I am saying that you failed on both counts. Don't feel bad. You conceded the possibility remenber?

    ReplyDelete
  95. Obviously you'd think we'd failed to demonstrate your position is wrong if we'd failed to get you to see that you are wrong. Duh...

    ReplyDelete
  96. My aren't you thick. I'm saying you failed to show me being wrong because you failed to demonstrate my position is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  97. My aren't you thick.

    No.

    I think we adequately showed your position is highly improbably, so improbable that it can be practically considered wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Actually "Thick" was giving you too much credit. Well, whatever helps you live with your world view.

    ReplyDelete
  99. We adequately showed your position is highly improbably, so improbable that it can be practically considered wrong.

    You not being able to recognize that doesn't change the reality of the situation.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Again, whatever help you in your apostasy. If you keep telling yourself that...nope...it still won't be true.

    ReplyDelete
  101. There are so many examples of things thought so improbable that it's impossible but were proven to be true. You can keep telling your self that you showed that the understanding I have of Genesis 10:25 is wrong and admit that it's possible - simultaneously if you like. It's better and more honest to say you think I'm wrong but you don't really know.

    You have a problem of context given a preceding comment.

    ReplyDelete
  102. There are so many examples of things thought so improbable that it's impossible but were proven to be true.

    I don't think you quite understand the history of science. But in any case, the fact that we slowly and methodically have corrected many misunderstandings we've held about the natural world does not warrent your belief that humanity predates Pangea. There is literally mountains of evidence AGAINST your belief.

    ReplyDelete
  103. That depends on how you interpret the evidence doesn't it. And it also doesn't mean that more evidence won't come to light doesn't it? Therefore be honest and humble: You don't know when the Noah's Story happened. You can't prove it didn't happen. I'd be careful about being so dogmatic. Where is your open mind?

    ReplyDelete
  104. And it also doesn't mean that more evidence won't come to light doesn't it?

    Your problem is that you are counting on, actually depending on, new evidence coming to light. Maybe some will. Maybe it won't. Maybe something will come to light that will prove the Hindu or Hopi creation myths correct beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    You can only work with the evidence you have.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Your problem is that you are counting on, actually depending on, new evidence coming to light. Maybe some will. Maybe it won't. Maybe something will come to light that will prove the Hindu or Hopi creation myths correct beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    Your problem is you forget that the evidence we have far more supports Genesis than it does Hinduism or the Hopi. The evidence is already on my side or nonexistent. You said the evidence was against me but you presented no contrary evidence. No evidence is not the same as contrary evidence.

    You can only work with the evidence you have.

    Your problem is you refuse to recognize the evidence that you do have.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Your problem is you forget that the evidence we have far more supports Genesis than it does Hinduism or the Hopi.

    I doubt this, but that's not the point. The evidence is piled up against your hairbrained notion that people lived on pangea.

    ReplyDelete
  107. What evidence is that? You have not given a shred of pevidence that people did not live on Pangea before it broke up. Your argument boils down to no fossil of homo sapiens dating back to the time you think Pangea broke up - 175 million years ago. Is that when it started breaking up or completed breaking up? How do do you know?

    You can doubt what everyone but you are going to have to do better than that.

    ReplyDelete
  108. You can doubt what everyone but you are going to have to do better than that.

    In English please?

    ReplyDelete
  109. You can doubt whatever you want, but you are going to have to do better than that.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Wow, I'm going to have to do better than the fact that there is zero evidence that even the earliest hominids lived within 150 million years of when Pangea.

    This is literally the dumbest conversation I've ever had. But you know what they say about arguing on the internet. Fascinating, but idiotic.

    How about you provide some positive evidence that Pangeao broke up later than supposed and that homo sapian sapiens existed at what ever time you can adequately show Pangea breaking up.

    Just asserting that it could have been later or homo sapian sapians could have been earlier isn't going to cut it.

    You are the one making the claim here. Time to put uup or shut up.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Ryan I never made a claim of knowing when Pangea broke up. I never suggested that the ranges you gave was wrong. All i said is we don't know if there were people living there or not, given that I don't accept the timeline you are evidently are using. You admitted that we can't prove there weren't people there or prove there were people there form the available evidence we have. Yet you claim that there was was n people there. I asked you for evidence that there was no people on Pangea given the evidence we have.

    Here is the thing: you are the one beating a dead horse. We agree that that you can't prove it one way or another. You are the one being dogmatic and saying it can't be true and can't prove that.

    The other thing is it doesn't matter with regards if the Bible is true or not. If you are right about Pangea that doesn't mean that the Bible is wrong...it'll mean that my understanding of Genesis 10:25. So? It doesn't mean the flood did not happen.

    What's bothering you is the fact you don't know enough to honestly say that Genesis 10:25 does not refer to Pangea. You are wasting your time and mine.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Are you aware of the term "reasonable doubt"? I understand that you might not have being you are not reasonable.

    ReplyDelete
  113. "Unreasonable" describes you really, really well. I started this post saying that Genesis 10:25 refers to the final break up of
    Pangea. You have tried to change it into arguing that humans were not on earth when Pangea divided. And trying to pass off evidence as conclusive that isn't although you conceded the possibility. Bring up your evidence and then I will produce mine. I'm waiting on you.

    ReplyDelete