XPost: alt.religion.jehovahs-witn, alt.bible, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: talk.atheism   
   From: tiffirgREVERSE@ctc.net   
      
   Pastor Dave wrote:   
   > On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:51:45 GMT, Matt Silberstein   
   >  posted thusly:   
   >   
   >   
   >>On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:24:51 +0930, "Linda"   
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>IF  The Ark sits at 14,500ft above sea level...............   
   >>>   
   >>>Near the Top of Mt Ararat towards the Ahora Gorge.................A find   
   >>>would be...   
   >>>   
   >>>Implications Staggering.   
   >>>Would revolutionize virtually all disciplines.   
   >>>Geology (Physical & Historical)   
   >>>Anthropology   
   >>>Archeology   
   >>>Zoology   
   >>>Biology   
   >>>All Humanities, History, Sociology, Religion.   
   >>   
   >>How so? Let us assume we find the remains of a boat on the top of that   
   >>mountain (there isn't one, but let us pretend). How does that   
   >>overthrow all of the geological and biological evidence that says   
   >>there was no global flood 4,000 years ago? How does that   
   >>"revolutionize" anthropology and archaeology and such? We have   
   >>millions, if not billions, of data points supporting those   
   >>disciplines. One outlying point does not refute that. Please tell us   
   >>your logic.   
   >   
   >   
   > See what I mean, Linda?  The evidence doesn't matter to   
   > them.  They're going to believe what they believe,   
   > which is based on their faith that no catastrophe ever   
   > changed the decay rate for any period of time and then   
   > accuse you of believing only on faith, while you're   
   > standing next to Noah's Ark.   
      
   Well now, we don't have the boat yet, do we? And we haven't done   
   radiometric dating on the wood, either. Now if we find the ark and its   
   wood dates back several millions of years, perhaps we will have to ask a   
   few more questions. Depending, of course, on how well your team locating   
   it preserves it from contamination.   
      
   But the big problem is your position that the laws of physics were   
   somehow tremendously different before the flood than afterward. That is   
   rather difficult to understand.   
      
   Creationists are doing very little real research in the major sciences.   
   They seem content with trying to tear down science instead of helping   
   science solve the problems with analysis of physical objects they claim   
   exists. They have offered no alternatives to the methods of analysis   
   already present. They present no real data -- they simply try to dispute   
   the data science uses. And when they claim to gather data for their   
   position, they do not submit their analysis methods and results to   
   review of other scientists for review. So most scientists I have talked   
   to conclude that they are simply being whiny and dishonest.   
      
   Raymond E. Griffith   
      
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)