|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
Junior Member (Idle past 267 days) Posts: 4 From: miramar beach Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
| Author | Topic: This is a challenge to young earth creationists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
savair Junior Member (Idle past 267 days) Posts: 4 From: miramar beach Joined:
|
Nathan's Ark
the nathans ark challenge the rules read the story all the way through if you believe the noah's ark story to be an historical event and belongs in either a science or a history class in a public school you must use science to argue that the following story did not happen or could not have happened and does not belong in a science or history class in a public school everything you argue must be an argument that applies to only the nathan,s ark story about how it does not belong in a public school and cant apply to the story of noah,s ark not belonging in a public school prove that there is a way to do all this without either taking both stories and saying they are allegorical and neither should be taught in a public school ,or dealing with the fact there are two flood stories if you do not believe the noah story to simply argue against nathan and noah both Nathan was a scientist who was highly knowledgeable and well-regarded in his scientific community. He had three sons: Sheldoh, Henry, and Jack. The earth was experiencing widespread social and environmental issues due to unsustainable human activities. Nathan observed the extensive impact these activities had on our planet. Using his scientific expertise, Nathan predicted an impending flood that posed a threat to life on earth. To withstand this catastrophe, he decided to construct a large vessel, or ark, of cypress wood; creating rooms coated with pitch inside and out. The ark needed to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide, and thirty cubits high. Nathan planned to build a roof with an opening one cubit high all around. He included a door on the side of the ark and designed lower, middle, and upper decks. Based on his scientific models, Nathan foresaw that floodwaters could lead to widespread devastation of terrestrial life. Thus, he decided to protect his family by constructing this vessel. Nathan gathered two of every kind of living creature, male and female, representing various species to ensure biodiversity conservation. Two of every kind of bird, animal, and ground creature were also to be taken. He also realized the need to store every kind of food that could sustain both his family and the animals. Following his scientific plan, Nathan made provisions for sustainable diversity by gathering seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, one pair of every kind of unclean animal, and seven pairs of every kind of bird. He predicted that after seven days, intense rain would last for forty days and nights, posing a major threat to life on the planet. Nathan and his family entered the ark to escape the impending disaster, along with pairs of clean and unclean animals, and birds, consistent with his careful planning. Seven days later, the floodwaters began to fall. On the seventeenth day of the second month of Nathan’s six hundredth year, natural geological activities unleashed massive flooding, accompanied by intense rainfall for forty days and nights. On that day, Nathan, his family, and all the necessary living creatures entered the ark. They included every wild animal, livestock, and bird, as planned. For forty days, the flooding escalated, lifting the ark above the earth as waters submerged even the highest mountains. Many species unfortunately faced extinction. However, Nathan and all those with him in the ark remained safe. The waters continued for 150 days. But as predicted by Nathan's calculations, natural processes began to reverse. A strong wind began to help the waters recede. Over time, on the seventeenth day of the seventh month, the ark rested on the mountains of Ararat, and the waters continued to diminish. After forty days, Nathan released a raven, observing its flight until the water receded. He then sent a dove to assess conditions, realizing gradual improvement when it returned with an olive leaf after a week. On the first day of Nathan's six hundred and first year, the ground appeared dry. Based on his predictions, Nathan decided to release all the creatures from the ark to restore ecological balance on earth. He and his family stepped out, followed by all the living creatures, one kind after another. Reflecting on the event, Nathan realized people must focus on sustainable growth and coexistence with nature. Encouraging harmony with the environment, Nathan declared the need for responsible stewardship of all life. Whenever Nathan observed a rainbow after the flood , he saw it as a natural phenomenon, confirming the predictive accuracy of his scientific endeavors and symbolizing hope for a renewed commitment to environmental awareness. Nathan and his sons reached a consensus that, based on informed environmental management, such a flood might not recur if humanity learned from past mistakes. The rainbow now reminded Nathan and others of the importance of utilizing scientific knowledge to protect and preserve our world for future generations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Admin Director Posts: 13247 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
Thread copied here from the This is a challenge to young earth creationists thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Taq Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10563 Joined: |
savair writes: if you believe the noah's ark story to be an historical event and belongs in either a science or a history class in a public school you must use science to argue that the following story did not happen or could not have happened and does not belong in a science or history class in a public school everything you argue must be an argument that applies to only the nathan,s ark story about how it does not belong in a public school and cant apply to the story of noah,s ark not belonging in a public school prove that there is a way to do all this without either taking both stories and saying they are allegorical and neither should be taught in a public school ,or dealing with the fact there are two flood stories If we are asking YECs to use a scientific argument I don't think your example works well here. Also, I don't think the logic of your argument works well. Ignoring the mountains of evidence from geology and biology for the moment, it is entirely possible for there to be a real flood that was both global and recent, and one of those accounts being false. To use a different argument, I could tell accounts of Napoleon taking his army all over Europe and toppling countries. I could also tell an account of George Washington taking his army all over Asia and toppling countries. I don't have to accept both as true or both as false. Just one of them could be true, and in fact just one of them is true. The real reason Noah's flood is not taught as real science or history is because of the scientific evidence, and the fact that creationism isn't falsifiable as presented by creationists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
savair Junior Member (Idle past 267 days) Posts: 4 From: miramar beach Joined: |
I understand but I have really thought about this and I would like to explain. I got the idea for this story when I watched a debate between Bill Nye and Ken Hamm, Ken Hamm claimed that scientists were biased against Theism. Well here is the thing if the traditional scientist is biased why do they treat my story the same as they do Noah. In other words they dont say "Scientist builds boat that makes sense" but the young earth creationists are different they do treat my story differently, they will do everything to avoid arguing against Nathan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Percy Member Posts: 23811 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.6 |
Science would look to the available evidence for the Noah and Nathan stories. Conservative Christianity would look to the Word of God, which is silent about Nathan but has quite a lot to say about Noah.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Taq Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10563 Joined: |
savair writes: In other words they dont say "Scientist builds boat that makes sense" but the young earth creationists are different they do treat my story differently, they will do everything to avoid arguing against Nathan The problem I see is that you aren't giving a reason as to why they favor one over the other. Like I said earlier, I wouldn't be skeptical of accounts that have Napoleon conquering armies across Europe, but I would be skeptical of accounts that have George Washington conquering armies across Europe. I'm not being biased. The reason scientists aren't biased against Theism is because they are following the evidence, not to mention that those scientists include many theists (about 30-40% in the US). It's kind of silly to accuse Christian geologists and biologists of being biased against theism. If you allow creationists to change the conversation away from evidence and towards who feels persecuted then you are ceding a lot of territory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
savair Junior Member (Idle past 267 days) Posts: 4 From: miramar beach Joined: |
If you mean why they should not avoid the challenge then let me explain. If a young earth creationist reads my story and says "I dont have to" when you ask them to explain why Nathan did not happen then they are biased not the scientist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PaulK Member Posts: 18455 Joined: |
They’ll likely say that they have an “eye-witness account” of Noah while you made Nathan up. The first bit is nonsense, but it’s nonsense a good many of them believe. Hardly a difficult answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Zucadragon Member Posts: 271 From: Netherlands Joined: |
I think you'll have a hard time trying to challenge YECs using a belief in something. When it's all based on actual evidence, like science, their go to strategy is often to label things like the Evolution Theory as a belief. Calling it Evolutionism and such.
But when you're comparing different beliefs to eachother, they won't hesitate to use the bible and history and other such things to make the case that their belief has more realness. They will refuse anything that doesn't fit their specific belief. So, let's say they don't avoid the challenge, they don't go "I don't have to" but they call out the bible, a history filled with Christianity, in fact, some might point to one of the many instances the Ark has been found, or the Grand Canyon as proof of the biblical flood. There's many erroneous samples of 'evidence' they can use, and seeing as you're comparing two beliefs to each other, how is your belief in any way as expansive? Without resorting to science of course.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Phat Member Posts: 19115 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: |
Faith & Belief were never intended to challenge nor displace Science. All that Science did was diminish the "god of the gaps". In my opinion, the distinction between a Creator and the Scientific Method is merely a distinction between evidence and data versus Subjective and Objective Faith.*
*Objective Faith is, in my opinion, the philosophy behind monotheism and the belief in a living source versus a mindless source.If you look carefully you will see that there is one thing and only one thing that causes unhappiness. The name of that thing is attachment. What is an attachment? An emotional state of clinging caused by the belief that without some particular thing or some person you cannot be happy.~Anthony de Mello God alone is God *but* God is not alone~Ellis Potter We see Monsters where Science shows us Windmills.~Phat, remixed For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who disbelieve, no amount of proof is sufficient. Ignatius of Loyola
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tangle Member Posts: 9893 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Faith writes: *Objective Faith is, in my opinion, the philosophy behind monotheism and the belief in a living source versus a mindless source. Well that's total cobblers isn't it? Faith is purely subjective. It's what you personally believe.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Taq Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10563 Joined: |
Phat writes: Faith & Belief were never intended to challenge nor displace Science. All that Science did was diminish the "god of the gaps". In my opinion, the distinction between a Creator and the Scientific Method is merely a distinction between evidence and data versus Subjective and Objective Faith.* *Objective Faith is, in my opinion, the philosophy behind monotheism and the belief in a living source versus a mindless source. In many ways, science was intended to replace faith and belief within the narrow topic of how physical reality works. Science demanded falsification and objective observations (i.e. empiricism) which replaced the earlier system of Rationalism and faith. I'm also not seeing how your Objective Faith is in any way objective.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Phat Member Posts: 19115 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined:
|
Taq writes: Two reasons. First, you went with the scientific method and mandatory falsification. Second, you never saw Jesus Christ as an objective.(The object of your faith.) Chuck Swindoll does a good job (within the expression of his belief) of separating objective and subjective addressed to people seeking an objective truth and not falsification.
I'm also not seeing how your Objective Faith is in any way objective. Objective versus Subjective FaithTo be fair, objective faith/truth is only possible if one believes that Jesus exists, is alive, and is the object of their faith. Falsification of this belief has successfully been introduced and "proven" within the realm of Scientific philosophy. Believers claim that its all about the heart as well as the mind. Scientific methodology, while useful, has never proven that the heart has any influence. Believers are commanded to love God with all of their heart and mind. Jesus alone is the object of the faith. If you look carefully you will see that there is one thing and only one thing that causes unhappiness. The name of that thing is attachment. What is an attachment? An emotional state of clinging caused by the belief that without some particular thing or some person you cannot be happy.~Anthony de Mello God alone is God *but* God is not alone~Ellis Potter We see Monsters where Science shows us Windmills.~Phat, remixed For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who disbelieve, no amount of proof is sufficient. Ignatius of Loyola
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tangle Member Posts: 9893 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
That is total bollox
Objective and subjective differ in one key way: Objective• Based on observable facts, measurement, or verifiable evidence. • Independent of personal feelings or opinions. • If two people check the same thing, they should get the same result. Example:“Water boils at 100°C at sea level.” This can be tested and confirmed. Subjective• Based on personal views, feelings, interpretations, or preferences. • Not independently verifiable in a factual sense. • Different people can reasonably disagree. Example:“Vanilla ice cream tastes better than chocolate.” This depends on the individual. Edited by Tangle, . Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Taq Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10563 Joined:
|
Phat writes: To be fair, objective faith/truth is only possible if one believes that Jesus exists, is alive, and is the object of their faith. The beliefs you hold in your head are subjective, by definition. If Jesus is objective then his existence could be demonstrated independent of anyone's beliefs, like the Sun or Moon.
Falsification of this belief has successfully been introduced and "proven" within the realm of Scientific philosophy. Believers claim that its all about the heart as well as the mind. Scientific methodology, while useful, has never proven that the heart has any influence. Believers are commanded to love God with all of their heart and mind. Jesus alone is the object of the faith. Nothing in the above speaks to objective anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2026
