Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
December 15, 2017, 11:29:11 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creation Museum  (Read 5190 times)
The Ugly
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21272



« on: November 11, 2015, 11:42:00 AM »

http://creationmuseum.org

The science, Ken Ham, Kentucky ...

Thoughts?
Report to moderator   Logged
Man of Steel
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19257


Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 11, 2015, 11:43:04 AM »

I know of it, but have never been so I can't really provide a solid opinion.   

I have family that have been and they loved it. 
Report to moderator   Logged

The Ugly
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21272



« Reply #2 on: November 13, 2015, 12:00:31 AM »

Looks like they're crowdfunding an Ark Encounter exhibit. Bad ass.

https://arkencounter.com

Built to scale, all the amenities. Just like the one on Ararat.
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19402

Psalms 150


« Reply #3 on: November 13, 2015, 08:02:17 PM »

Looks like they're crowdfunding an Ark Encounter exhibit. Bad ass.

https://arkencounter.com

Built to scale, all the amenities. Just like the one on Ararat.
Yup. Pretty cool!

Should help people to understand what the Ark actually looked like.

People grew up with this image in mind:





When in reality is looked like this:





And the animals would not have to be full grown, they could be young and small.
Report to moderator   Logged
TuHolmes
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5552


Bitch... Go apply for a 'fatport'


« Reply #4 on: November 13, 2015, 08:12:38 PM »

You do realize that even the bottom image doesn't come close to 2 of every animal right? There is physically no possible way you could get two of every animal (even at a smallish size onto that boat.
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19402

Psalms 150


« Reply #5 on: November 13, 2015, 09:08:32 PM »

You do realize that even the bottom image doesn't come close to 2 of every animal right? There is physically no possible way you could get two of every animal (even at a smallish size onto that boat.
   it is important to remember we are talking about 2 of every kind, and not 2 of every species.

conservative estimates are that there would have been about 16,000 animals on the Ark, and without tiering of cages, only 47 percent of the ark floor would have been necessary.


https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/how-could-noah-fit-the-animals-on-the-ark-and-care-for-them/



Report to moderator   Logged
TuHolmes
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5552


Bitch... Go apply for a 'fatport'


« Reply #6 on: November 13, 2015, 09:11:05 PM »

   it is important to remember we are talking about 2 of every kind, and not 2 of every species.

conservative estimates are that there would have been about 16,000 animals on the Ark, and without tiering of cages, only 47 percent of the ark floor would have been necessary.


https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/how-could-noah-fit-the-animals-on-the-ark-and-care-for-them/





What are you talking about 2 of every "kind"?

A species is a kind.

You're saying that God saved 2 black widow spiders and you have tarantulas today?

Are you implying now that evolution exists?
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 5256


Here's looking at you kid!


« Reply #7 on: November 13, 2015, 11:11:34 PM »

it is important to remember we are talking about 2 of every kind, and not 2 of every species.

Can you elaborate? Let's talk in scientific terms to make life easier for all involved. Clearly you aren't using "kind" to refer to a "subgenus". So what are you using "kind" to mean? Is it "genus"? Is it "family"? Is it "order"? The link you provide suggests "family" but if that is really the case, then I wonder how can we possibly have both zebras and donkeys today?


conservative estimates are that there would have been about 16,000 animals on the Ark, and without tiering of cages, only 47 percent of the ark floor would have been necessary.

Handwave faster!




I was going through and answering some of the points made on this link that seem sensible. And then I came across the following bit "With Noah being over 500 years in age, it would make sense that he had the knowledge to be able to incorporate automatic feeding and watering systems where they only had to be refilled occasionally."

And I said fuck it... you go on believing that a 500-year old human of the era could design and build a barge that was half as long as the Titanic and just as wide, complete with automated systems for feeding and watering which survived a torrential downpour of such scale that it caused the the water level to rise so much that Mount Everest was submerged, and then magically receded, leaving no trace.

You go right on believing that.
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19402

Psalms 150


« Reply #8 on: November 14, 2015, 02:42:38 AM »

Yes, avxo, I think your quite right to take a step back and realize that I believe in supernatural phenomena.


This whole time you have been assuming that the Bible can be explained through natural processes?


Maybe thats why you have such a hard time understanding it.


What are you talking about 2 of every "kind"?

A species is a kind.

You're saying that God saved 2 black widow spiders and you have tarantulas today?

Are you implying now that evolution exists?

 No, the kind of spider that would have been on the Ark would have been a highly complex,  genetically superior kind of spider; from which all modern spiders devolved.
Report to moderator   Logged
TuHolmes
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5552


Bitch... Go apply for a 'fatport'


« Reply #9 on: November 14, 2015, 11:06:19 AM »

Yes, avxo, I think your quite right to take a step back and realize that I believe in supernatural phenomena.


This whole time you have been assuming that the Bible can be explained through natural processes?


Maybe thats why you have such a hard time understanding it.


 No, the kind of spider that would have been on the Ark would have been a highly complex,  genetically superior kind of spider; from which all modern spiders devolved.

HAHA!!!

I will let this go because it's completely ridiculous. You have now lost any credibility.

Report to moderator   Logged
polychronopolous
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16859

In Loving Memory of 240 aka Rob


« Reply #10 on: November 14, 2015, 12:28:48 PM »

Yes, avxo, I think your quite right to take a step back and realize that I believe in supernatural phenomena.


This whole time you have been assuming that the Bible can be explained through natural processes?


Maybe thats why you have such a hard time understanding it.


 No, the kind of spider that would have been on the Ark would have been a highly complex,  genetically superior kind of spider; from which all modern spiders devolved.

Haha, nice comeback Brother Taylor!  Grin Cheesy
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 5256


Here's looking at you kid!


« Reply #11 on: November 14, 2015, 06:11:14 PM »

Yes, avxo, I think your quite right to take a step back and realize that I believe in supernatural phenomena.

I don't need to take a step back to do so - it's obvious you believe in supernatural phenomena. But belief is not enough and it's meaningless to anyone other than you; after all you could believe that "My Little Pony" is real. The important question is whether your beliefs are rational and based on and supported by facts.


This whole time you have been assuming that the Bible can be explained through natural processes?

Based on the evidence, I think that it's the collective work of sheep-herders, conjurers of cheap tricks, snake-oil salesmen and, generally, people who wanted to wield power over others by claiming divine right and/or knowledge. And yes, I think that all that can be explained perfectly well through natural processes, yes.


No, the kind of spider that would have been on the Ark would have been a highly complex,  genetically superior kind of spider; from which all modern spiders devolved.

Oh... that's interesting. Can you offer any evidence that backs up this "theory of devolution" or is that something you just "believe"?
Report to moderator   Logged
The Ugly
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21272



« Reply #12 on: November 15, 2015, 06:39:52 PM »

it is important to remember we are talking about 2 of every kind, and not 2 of every species.

conservative estimates are that there would have been about 16,000 animals on the Ark, and without tiering of cages, only 47 percent of the ark floor would have been necessary.


https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/how-could-noah-fit-the-animals-on-the-ark-and-care-for-them/


Why is precise language so important here, yet elsewhere we're told not to get hung up on it? Like with rabbits chewing their cud (they don't) or bats identified as birds (mammals).

Too convenient.
Report to moderator   Logged
The Ugly
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21272



« Reply #13 on: November 15, 2015, 07:31:12 PM »

Yes, avxo, I think your quite right to take a step back and realize that I believe in supernatural phenomena.


This whole time you have been assuming that the Bible can be explained through natural processes?


Maybe thats why you have such a hard time understanding it.


 No, the kind of spider that would have been on the Ark would have been a highly complex,  genetically superior kind of spider; from which all modern spiders devolved.

Yet you still do, look at your above posts. Who cares about "kind" and animal/ark size, etc. if you're just gonna invoke magic?

And since we're already there, like I asked MoS, why the ark at all? Since man's the failed species here, animals could've all just been stored in heaven for the flood (or a magical island, whatever). Hell, recreate them altogether, doesn't matter. No souls, no need for salvation.

God could've just had Noah build a little skiff for the family.
Report to moderator   Logged
Man of Steel
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19257


Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15


WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 16, 2015, 06:31:31 AM »

Why is precise language so important here, yet elsewhere we're told not to get hung up on it? Like with rabbits chewing their cud (they don't) or bats identified as birds (mammals).

Too convenient.

http://www.gotquestions.org/rabbits-chew-cud.html

Modern classifications of animals are not found in the bible.  Typically animals were grouped or referred to according to their own "kind" in scripture.   That said, it would not be incorrect for the ancient hebraic culture to classify a winged animal (such as a bat) that has movements and hunting abilities similar to a bird within that type of animal kind.   It's not a biblical error, but it certainly is a difference in classification methods of the ancient hebraic culture and today's modern biological animal taxonomy.

In actuality the crux of the verse is about the "cleanliness" of the animals as it refers to the Israelites and their alignment with Jehovah.
Report to moderator   Logged

Man of Steel
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19257


Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15


WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 16, 2015, 06:36:14 AM »

What are you talking about 2 of every "kind"?

A species is a kind.

You're saying that God saved 2 black widow spiders and you have tarantulas today?

Are you implying now that evolution exists?

A species and a biblical "kind" are not the same.  

For example, a dog is a kind of animal, but there are many breeds of dogs within the varying species of dogs.  

God could bring forth many different species of dogs and breeds of dogs from a single kind of dog.

I suppose a kind would be more appropriately associated with a genus; although, the term "kind" isn't explicity defined in scripture nor is it directly associated with modern biological taxonomy.

If you step into the Christian worldview then you must allow God to be God and in doing so we trascend the bounds of naturalism.    God neither requires the vehicle of evolution to bring forth many types of spiders from a single pair of spiders nor is he bound by the rules of man-made taxonomy.
Report to moderator   Logged

avxo
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 5256


Here's looking at you kid!


« Reply #16 on: November 16, 2015, 08:55:26 AM »

A species and a biblical "kind" are not the same.  

For example, a dog is a kind of animal, but there are many breeds of dogs within the varying species of dogs.  

God could bring forth many different species of dogs and breeds of dogs from a single kind of dog.

I suppose a kind would be more appropriately associated with a genus; although, the term "kind" isn't explicity defined in scripture nor is it directly associated with modern biological taxonomy.

If you step into the Christian worldview then you must allow God to be God and in doing so we trascend the bounds of naturalism.    God neither requires the vehicle of evolution to bring forth many types of spiders from a single pair of spiders nor is he bound by the rules of man-made taxonomy.

Except we're not "stepping into" the Christian worldview. We are debating whether the story of the Ark is possible. And if we "allow God to be God and transcend the bounds of naturalism" we might as well just not have a discussion.
Report to moderator   Logged
Man of Steel
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19257


Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15


WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 16, 2015, 09:18:43 AM »

Except we're not "stepping into" the Christian worldview. We are debating whether the story of the Ark is possible. And if we "allow God to be God and transcend the bounds of naturalism" we might as well just not have a discussion.

I think then I can answer that question easily.  No.  Without God's providence and intervention over the flood narrative the circumstances are naturally impossible in many of the circumstances.

If the discussion is about justifying or negating the flood narrative from a perspective of naturalism (without God) that's fine, but that has nothing to do with the scriptures and is more of a thought experiment.
Report to moderator   Logged

loco
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 11009


loco like a fox


« Reply #18 on: November 16, 2015, 11:34:08 AM »

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2LfF9IB1Z4" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2LfF9IB1Z4</a>
Report to moderator   Logged
Man of Steel
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19257


Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15


WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 16, 2015, 11:46:35 AM »

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2LfF9IB1Z4" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2LfF9IB1Z4</a>

That's very cool!!
Report to moderator   Logged

The Ugly
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21272



« Reply #20 on: November 16, 2015, 11:56:31 AM »


Isn't all this context stuff irrelevant, though, when the author is omniscient? Meaning, He understood the ultimate logical sense of taxonomy all along.

Rhetorical, no need to reply.
Report to moderator   Logged
The Ugly
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21272



« Reply #21 on: November 16, 2015, 12:00:24 PM »

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2LfF9IB1Z4" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2LfF9IB1Z4</a>

Nice. Assumed it'd be longer, though.
Report to moderator   Logged
The Ugly
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21272



« Reply #22 on: November 16, 2015, 03:30:11 PM »

Don't need to, I mean. Not being wise, just expressing points.
Report to moderator   Logged
SF1900
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 38499


Team SF1900-Welcome to Hell


« Reply #23 on: November 18, 2015, 12:09:04 PM »

Note from mods:  post it one more time and receive a temporary board ban  
Report to moderator   Logged

X
Man of Steel
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19257


Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15


WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 18, 2015, 03:46:39 PM »

 Smiley
Report to moderator   Logged

Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!