Noah's Ark Found?

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] They don't explain how we appeared though. We couldn't have formed from a Burning Rock with no living life forms on it. Snipes_2

Again, get informed.

And again, the Big Bang Theory is not about how life formed. Just the universe.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Answer the question, please.

GabuEx

No, my question is asking what it says: if I see a footprint in mud, do I need to be able to tell you who it was that walked through there in order to first tell you that someone did so?

Yes or no?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Your question is basically asking if I believe in the Big Bang Theory? You don't need to explain how something came to pass, just how it's here now?Snipes_2

No, my question is asking what it says: if I see a footprint in mud, do I need to be able to tell you who it was that walked through there in order to first tell you that someone did so?

Yes or no?

How?

Under what circumstances could I not make that initial conclusion?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Your question is basically asking if I believe in the Big Bang Theory? You don't need to explain how something came to pass, just how it's here now?Snipes_2

No, my question is asking what it says: if I see a footprint in mud, do I need to be able to tell you who it was that walked through there in order to first tell you that someone did so?

Yes or no?

Oh my.......

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] That doesn't explain how or where the Universe or Particles came from though. Snipes_2

Answer the question, please.

How is this thread still going?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Your question is basically asking if I believe in the Big Bang Theory? You don't need to explain how something came to pass, just how it's here now?Snipes_2

No, my question is asking what it says: if I see a footprint in mud, do I need to be able to tell you who it was that walked through there in order to first tell you that someone did so?

Yes or no?

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="789shadow"]

Again, get informed.

789shadow

And again, the Big Bang Theory is not about how life formed. Just the universe.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

No, my question is asking what it says: if I see a footprint in mud, do I need to be able to tell you who it was that walked through there in order to first tell you that someone did so?

Yes or no?

GabuEx

How?

Under what circumstances could I not make that initial conclusion?

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Answer the question, please.

urdead18

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Depends on the Situation. Snipes_2

How?

Under what circumstances could I not make that initial conclusion?

Now you are arguing semantics.

[QUOTE="urdead18"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Your question is basically asking if I believe in the Big Bang Theory? You don't need to explain how something came to pass, just how it's here now?Snipes_2

That's not what they're supposed to do anyway.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

No, my question is asking what it says: if I see a footprint in mud, do I need to be able to tell you who it was that walked through there in order to first tell you that someone did so?

Yes or no?

789shadow

Oh my.......

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Depends on the Situation. Snipes_2

Oh my.......

*bangs head on desk* Dodging the question like a pro. Go into politics.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="789shadow"]

Oh my.......

789shadow

*bangs head on desk* Dodging the question like a pro. Go into politics.

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] IF you see an imprint in the ground, no matter what shape it is, do you automatically assume it is a human footprint?Snipes_2

*bangs head on desk* Dodging the question like a pro. Go into politics.

I see this.

Can I reasonably conclude that a human walked through this area?

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="789shadow"]

*bangs head on desk* Dodging the question like a pro. Go into politics.

GabuEx

I see this.

Can I reasonably conclude that a human walked through this area?

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="789shadow"]

Oh my.......

*bangs head on desk* Dodging the question like a pro. Go into politics.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

No, my question is asking what it says: if I see a footprint in mud, do I need to be able to tell you who it was that walked through there in order to first tell you that someone did so?

Yes or no?

GabuEx

How?

Under what circumstances could I not make that initial conclusion?

I think Snipes is basically saying that he/she wants to know how life was created. There are theory's on how to create items but Snipes wants to know how the particles were created to start life. I think if Snipes were to answer your question, it would derail Snipes on what Snipes is asking which is a simple question.

Great discussion.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] How am I dodging the question? How could you instantly know it was a Human footprint? Snipes_2

I see this.

Can I reasonably conclude that a human walked through this area?

I am simply asking you the question: if I saw that, could I reasonably conclude that a human walked through the area, even if I did not know who this human was?

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I see this.

Can I reasonably conclude that a human walked through this area?

GabuEx

I am simply asking you the question: if I saw that, could I reasonably conclude that a human walked through the area, even if I did not know who this human was?

I will answer your question when I understand why you're asking it in the first place. Snipes_2

Why are you so hesitant to give a concrete "yes" or "no" answer to what is really a simple question? It's not a trick question, but it is a question whose answer would become tainted if I were to provide the reason why I am asking it.

Just give a "yes" or a "no", and we can proceed. If I saw that footprint in the picture, could I reasonably conclude that a human walked through the area without knowing who this human was?

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]I will answer your question when I understand why you're asking it in the first place. GabuEx

Why are you so hesitant to give a concrete "yes" or "no" answer to what is really a simple question? It's not a trick question, but it is a question whose answer would become tainted if I were to provide the reason why I am asking it.

Just give a "yes" or a "no", and we can proceed. If I saw that footprint in the picture, could I reasonably conclude that a human walked through the area without knowing who this human was?

This comes to mind when I read that Post (No Offense intended):

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]I will answer your question when I understand why you're asking it in the first place. Snipes_2

Why are you so hesitant to give a concrete "yes" or "no" answer to what is really a simple question? It's not a trick question, but it is a question whose answer would become tainted if I were to provide the reason why I am asking it.

Just give a "yes" or a "no", and we can proceed. If I saw that footprint in the picture, could I reasonably conclude that a human walked through the area without knowing who this human was?

This comes to mind when I read that Post (No Offense intended):

You are free not to answer the question, but this conversation cannot continue until you do.

The answer to the question should not depend on the reason I am asking it, should it? It seems to me to be a rather simple yes/no question.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Why are you so hesitant to give a concrete "yes" or "no" answer to what is really a simple question? It's not a trick question, but it is a question whose answer would become tainted if I were to provide the reason why I am asking it.

Just give a "yes" or a "no", and we can proceed. If I saw that footprint in the picture, could I reasonably conclude that a human walked through the area without knowing who this human was?

GabuEx

This comes to mind when I read that Post (No Offense intended):

You are free not to answer the question, but this conversation cannot continue until you do.

The answer to the question should not depend on the reason I am asking it, should it? It seems to me to be a rather simple yes/no question.

Alright, It's no then.

Snipes_2

So, then, it is not reasonable for someone to conclude, upon seeing that imprint in the ground, that a human walked through the area?

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

Alright, It's no then.

GabuEx

So, then, it is not reasonable for someone to conclude, upon seeing that imprint in the ground, that a human walked through the area?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

Alright, It's no then.

Snipes_2

So, then, it is not reasonable for someone to conclude, upon seeing that imprint in the ground, that a human walked through the area?

You know, generally speaking, when there is a piece of evidence against your position in a discussion, it is usually frowned upon to simply deny its existence. :P

You know very well that the answer to the question is "yes", and I am baffled why you will not simply say so. Are you interested in the truth, or merely in the defense of your position at all costs, even at the cost of the truth?

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

Do people actaully believe Noah's ark existed? is it the same ark that had 2 of every species?

xaos

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

So, then, it is not reasonable for someone to conclude, upon seeing that imprint in the ground, that a human walked through the area?

GabuEx

You know, generally speaking, when there is a piece of evidence against your position in a discussion, it is usually frowned upon to simply deny its existence. :P

You know very well that the answer to the question is "yes", and I am baffled why you will not simply say so. Are you interested in the truth, or merely in the defense of your position at all costs, even at the cost of the truth?

I'm wondering why you asked me a Question with an Obvious answer. My guess was it's to prove that we don't need to know where it came from, just that it's there. Snipes_2

Can I at least ask you to affirm that the answer to the question is "yes" before we proceed?

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]I'm wondering why you asked me a Question with an Obvious answer. My guess was it's to prove that we don't need to know where it came from, just that it's there. GabuEx

Can I at least ask you to affirm that the answer to the question is "yes" before we proceed?

Turn to 1:54 on this video to see what the footprint could be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFD31w5Asz0

Turn to 1:54 on this video to see what the footprint could be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFD31w5Asz0

ScreamDream

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]I'm wondering why you asked me a Question with an Obvious answer. My guess was it's to prove that we don't need to know where it came from, just that it's there. Snipes_2

Can I at least ask you to affirm that the answer to the question is "yes" before we proceed?

You have already affirmed it in a roundabout fashion that the answer is "yes" by affirming that the answer was obvious; I simply want to have it clearly for the record so we can all be on the same page.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Can I at least ask you to affirm that the answer to the question is "yes" before we proceed?

GabuEx

You have already affirmed it in a roundabout fashion that the answer is "yes" by affirming that the answer was obvious; I simply want to have it clearly for the record so we can all be on the same page.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Nope, You can proceed anyway though. Snipes_2

You have already affirmed it in a roundabout fashion that the answer is "yes" by affirming that the answer was obvious; I simply want to have it clearly for the record so we can all be on the same page.

Are you really and truly denying that it is reasonable to make the stated conclusion... simply because not doing so might compromise your position?

This is why I asked to what extent you are really interested in the truth, as opposed to simply the maintenance of your current position at all costs.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

You have already affirmed it in a roundabout fashion that the answer is "yes" by affirming that the answer was obvious; I simply want to have it clearly for the record so we can all be on the same page.

GabuEx

Are you really and truly denying that it is reasonable to make the stated conclusion... simply because not doing so might compromise your position?

This is why I asked to what extent you are really interested in the truth, as opposed to simply the maintenance of your current position at all costs.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Nope, You can proceed anyway though. Snipes_2

You have already affirmed it in a roundabout fashion that the answer is "yes" by affirming that the answer was obvious; I simply want to have it clearly for the record so we can all be on the same page.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] I said the obvious answer would be "Yes", that doesn't mean it's the definitive answer. Snipes_2

Are you really and truly denying that it is reasonable to make the stated conclusion... simply because not doing so might compromise your position?

This is why I asked to what extent you are really interested in the truth, as opposed to simply the maintenance of your current position at all costs.

If you are so convinced that your position is true that you are willing to issue this senseless denial of that which you know to be true, simply in the name of shielding that position from serious scrutiny - in other words, if you are so convinced that your position is true that you are willing to even reject the truth in order to provide it greater defense - then I really see little purpose in the continuation of this discussion, as I think you have made it quite clear what your priority is, and it is not one that is conducive to a productive discussion.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Are you really and truly denying that it is reasonable to make the stated conclusion... simply because not doing so might compromise your position?

This is why I asked to what extent you are really interested in the truth, as opposed to simply the maintenance of your current position at all costs.

GabuEx

If you are so convinced that your position is true that you are willing to issue this senseless denial of that which you know to be true, simply in the name of shielding that position from serious scrutiny - in other words, if you are so convinced that your position is true that you are willing to even reject the truth in order to provide it greater defense - then I really see little purpose in the continuation of this discussion, as I think you have made it quite clear what your priority is, and it is not one that is conducive to a productive discussion.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] IT says "Prior to that moment there was nothing" and "finite matter is actually squished into infinite density", they are saying they don't know, but our Universe just suddenly appeared out of nowhere? Snipes_2

The scientific naturalists don't like to talk about it for obvious reasons so they try to avoid it. After all, nothing becoming everything violates a first principle of knowledge. It is like the Darwinists. They don't like to talk about the origin of the first life so they try to avoid it. Life coming from non life violates a basic law of Biology so they try to avoid it and want to talk about life "evolving" after it began.

Various places. No one place in specific.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

The scientific naturalists don't like to talk about it for obvious reasons so they try to avoid it. After all, nothing becoming everything violates a first principle of knowledge. It is like the Darwinists. They don't like to talk about the origin of the first life so they try to avoid it. Life coming from non life violates a basic law of Biology so they try to avoid it and want to talk about life "evolving" after it began.

blackregiment

Various places. No one place in specific.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] I said the obvious answer would be "Yes", that doesn't mean it's the definitive answer. Snipes_2

Are you really and truly denying that it is reasonable to make the stated conclusion... simply because not doing so might compromise your position?

This is why I asked to what extent you are really interested in the truth, as opposed to simply the maintenance of your current position at all costs.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Are you really and truly denying that it is reasonable to make the stated conclusion... simply because not doing so might compromise your position?

This is why I asked to what extent you are really interested in the truth, as opposed to simply the maintenance of your current position at all costs.

jalexbrown

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] I know the Truth about the Big Bang Theory and everything posted as of now. We can keep debating this shoe thing if you want, I'm not going to say Yes. Snipes_2

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]It's the Big Bang Theories website. It states our universe came from nothing.Snipes_2

It is a website intended to explain the Big Bang Theory to non-scientists. It uses imprecise language for ease of explanation because most people reading it do not need to quibble on such details. It is not a piece of rigorous scientific literature.

The Big Bang Theory, rigorously defined as used in scientific literature, does not account for the origin of the singularity. It begins with its existence and works from there. Period.

It doesn't and and it is an issue that scientific naturalists try to avoid. It violates a first principle of knowledge. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. The universe began to exist therefore it must have a cause. From nothing comes nothing, not everything.

In addition, the big bang theory posits that all the components of matter and energy in the universe were once infinitely compressed into a singularity, smaller than an atom. Try to imagine crushing a SUV to a size smaller than an atom, much less everything in the universe.:lol:

That's why this quote is so appropriate.

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common senseis the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door." Scientific naturalist Richard Lewontin of Harvard University

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

It is a website intended to explain the Big Bang Theory to non-scientists. It uses imprecise language for ease of explanation because most people reading it do not need to quibble on such details. It is not a piece of rigorous scientific literature.

The Big Bang Theory, rigorously defined as used in scientific literature, does not account for the origin of the singularity. It begins with its existence and works from there. Period.

blackregiment

It doesn't and and it is an issue that scientific naturalists try to avoid. It violates a first principle of knowledge. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. The universe began to exist therefore it must have a cause. From nothing comes nothing, not everything.

In addition, the big bang theory posits that all the components of matter and energy in the universe were once infinitely compressed into a singularity, smaller than an atom. Try to imagine crushing a SUV to a size smaller than an atom, much less everything in the universe.:lol:

That's why this quote is so appropriate.

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common senseis the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door." Scientific naturalist Richard Lewontin of Harvard University