Real Science Radio: The Search for Noah's Ark

[Lighthouse]

On the other hand, claims based on legendary stories that are contraindicated by the preponderance of evidence are generally regarded as requiring positive evidence to validate them. Thus, while elements of The Iliad are regarded as supported by archaeological evidence, the active intervention of Greek deities is regarded as mythical.

The null hypothesis would be that mythical tales are false unless substantiated by positive evidence.

Completely irrelevant to my point.

 

[Lordkalvan]

Completely irrelevant to my point.

Only if I misunderstood your argument to be that unless contrary evidence indicates otherwise a mythical story may reasonably be considered true.

 

[Lighthouse]

Only if I misunderstood your argument to be that unless contrary evidence indicates otherwise a mythical story may reasonably be considered true.

My point was that either your logic or your grammar needs work, and it seems your grammar definitely needs work; regarding your logic that remains to be seen.

Logic dictates that regardless of the nature of the belief the lack of evidence to support it [never finding the evidence] does not destroy said belief in the mind of the believer. And it doesn't necessarily prove said belief to be false to anyone else. It may support the idea that it is false in the minds of those who believe it to be false, but it does not prove it false.

 

[Lordkalvan]

My point was that either your logic or your grammar needs work, and it seems your grammar definitely needs work; regarding your logic that remains to be seen.

Logic dictates that regardless of the nature of the belief the lack of evidence to support it [never finding the evidence] does not destroy said belief in the mind of the believer. And it doesn't necessarily prove said belief to be false to anyone else. It may support the idea that it is false in the minds of those who believe it to be false, but it does not prove it false.

So is your point that, unless contrary evidence be found sufficient to prove a mythical story false, then that mythical story may reasonably be considered to be true? Clearly many people believe many absurd things regardless of evidence (9/11 'truthers' spring to mind) - and if this is your point, then I have no argument with it - but is it reasonable to consider such absurd beliefs true unless unequivocally proven to be false?

 

[Jefferson]

Similarly, we have found Mt. Ararat, but nobody is using that fact to try convincing you that the bible is accurate.

Actually it doesn't even matter that we know where Mt. Ararat is because the Bible says Noah's ark came to rest on the mountains (Plural) of Ararat (ie. somewhere on the Ararat mountain range).

 

[Stripe]

Actually it doesn't even matter that we know where Mt. Ararat is because the Bible says Noah's ark came to rest on the mountains (Plural) of Ararat (ie. somewhere on the Ararat mountain range).

Fair enough.

 

[gcthomas]

Surely, when the Ark beached eventually on a bare mountain, it would have been dismantled and all that wood used to build houses or to burn in fires. Nothing would have been left to get buried.

 

[The Barbarian]

Noah's Ark has fascinated me from an engineering point of view. One of these days I'd like to create a 3D CAD model and perform a finite element analysis.

Sounds like a cool project. How do you build a wooden vessel that big that won't leak like a sieve?

 

[Stripe]

Surely, when the Ark beached eventually on a bare mountain, it would have been dismantled and all that wood used to build houses or to burn in fires. Nothing would have been left to get buried.

Possibly.

But:
1. There were only eight people.
2. It was up a mountain.
3. There'd have been plenty of debris with which to build and burn.

 

[Lordkalvan]

Possibly.

But:
1. There were only eight people.
2. It was up a mountain.
3. There'd have been plenty of debris with which to build.

What, even under all those thousands of feet of flood-deposited sedimentary rock?

 

[Lighthouse]

So is your point that, unless contrary evidence be found sufficient to prove a mythical story false, then that mythical story may reasonably be considered to be true? Clearly many people believe many absurd things regardless of evidence (9/11 'truthers' spring to mind) - and if this is your point, then I have no argument with it - but is it reasonable to consider such absurd beliefs true unless unequivocally proven to be false?

Oh, just stifle it you insipid blathering twit.

 

[Lordkalvan]

Oh, just stifle it you insipid blathering twit.

A strange idea, I know, but I had gleaned the impression that this was a discussion forum in which ideas could be exchanged, rather than a medium for spitting insults like benzedrined puff-adders. Ah well, just goes to show how mistaken one can be.

 

[Lighthouse]

A strange idea, I know, but I had gleaned the impression that this was a discussion forum in which ideas could be exchanged, rather than a medium for spitting insults like benzedrined puff-adders. Ah well, just goes to show how mistaken one can be.

I already answered the question and you're just being a blowhard.

 

[Lordkalvan]

I already answered the question and you're just being a blowhard.

Nope, just trying to engage in a discussion. Your original comments prompted a train of thought, but no one is forcing you to participate against your wishes.

 

[Stripe]

A strange idea, I know, but I had gleaned the impression that this was a discussion forum in which ideas could be exchanged, rather than a medium for spitting insults like benzedrined puff-adders. Ah well, just goes to show how mistaken one can be.

You tend to get back what you shoot off around here. :idunno:

Try a rational and respectful discussion. :up:

Instead of being a troll. :troll:

 

[Lordkalvan]

You tend to get back what you shoot off around here.

Very profound.

Try a rational and respectful discussion.

You could always try it yourself, Professor.

Instead of being a troll.

That's rich. Irony meters overloaded again.

 

[gcthomas]

Try a ... respectful discussion. Instead of being a troll.

:rotfl:

Were you ever a comedian? :think:

 

[Paulos]

You tend to get back what you shoot off around here.

You might have had a legitimate point were it not for the fact that I've yet to read LK post anything along the lines of "Oh, just stifle it you insipid blathering twit". Have you? :idunno:

 

[Stripe]

:rotfl:

Were you ever a comedian? :think:

Nope.

Were you ever interested in a discussion?

 

[Stripe]

I've yet to read LK post anything along the lines of "Oh, just stifle it you insipid blathering twit". Have you? :idunno:

Who? :idunno: