Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-17-2014, 01:01 PM
 
Location: Leeds, England
591 posts, read 926,785 times
Reputation: 319

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
In other words, Northern Matt,
the author you are having me read has absolutely not one bit of scientific evidence
to back up his claim that Noah could not possibly have built the ark and accomplished
what God intended it to be built for. And yet you think his blathering has more weight than
the actual discovery of Noahs ark by Ron Wyatt per the YouTube video?

I find that rather, how shall we say, increddible.
If you didn't read the first link I posted from page 4 either, (You can find it on one of the previous pages) then you need to before you keep spouting about that video.

We have all seen the link, we have all watched it, and we all do not accept it's credibility. It has none. The original link I posted on page 4 discredits the very site you are discussing.

Please see that for my further argument. As this is going in circles and you have produced no evidence other than baffling claims and a terrible YouTube video. The amount to go on about it, it looks like you have shares in the mans production company.

 
Old 02-17-2014, 01:21 PM
 
17,966 posts, read 15,980,170 times
Reputation: 1010
Six proofs for Noah's global flood:
Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood - Answers in Genesis
 
Old 02-17-2014, 01:25 PM
 
17,966 posts, read 15,980,170 times
Reputation: 1010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Matt View Post
Erm, no! I have a brain, and common sense!
That is not a guarantee of being able to see the truth of matters. Your "common sense" most likely has been so overwhelmed from your earliest childhood by people putting their pet ideas into that brain of yours that your "common sense" cannot possibly see what is really correct.

By the way, this thead is "Noah's Ark has been found?" Try to use your common sense and stick with the subject rather than pulling people away from it.
 
Old 02-17-2014, 01:27 PM
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
31,373 posts, read 20,199,290 times
Reputation: 14070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Kinda like "proving" the bible by quoting it.

 
Old 02-17-2014, 01:29 PM
 
17,966 posts, read 15,980,170 times
Reputation: 1010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Matt View Post
If you didn't read the first link I posted from page 4 either, (You can find it on one of the previous pages) then you need to before you keep spouting about that video.

We have all seen the link, we have all watched it, and we all do not accept it's credibility. It has none. The original link I posted on page 4 discredits the very site you are discussing.

Please see that for my further argument. As this is going in circles and you have produced no evidence other than baffling claims and a terrible YouTube video. The amount to go on about it, it looks like you have shares in the mans production company.
I read your link on page four and commented on it. It reveals the ignorance of the writer, that's all.
 
Old 02-17-2014, 01:37 PM
 
Location: Leeds, England
591 posts, read 926,785 times
Reputation: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
I read your link on page four and commented on it. It reveals the ignorance of the writer, that's all.
No you didn't! You failed to answer the questions I posed to you. Go back and do that.

If it doesn't agree with what you believe it is ignorant, false and not credible. That's not logic, that lunacy.
 
Old 02-17-2014, 01:38 PM
 
Location: Leeds, England
591 posts, read 926,785 times
Reputation: 319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
That is not a guarantee of being able to see the truth of matters. Your "common sense" most likely has been so overwhelmed from your earliest childhood by people putting their pet ideas into that brain of yours that your "common sense" cannot possibly see what is really correct.

By the way, this thead is "Noah's Ark has been found?" Try to use your common sense and stick with the subject rather than pulling people away from it.
You're the irony king. Both paragraphs highlight this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
The Bible is not a credible source. Try again!
 
Old 02-17-2014, 01:44 PM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,088 posts, read 20,744,698 times
Reputation: 5930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
The 'sea creatures at high levels' is because the strata has been raised up. In many cases the fossils are of the sea floor, still with shells in situ and worm burrows. It is evidence against the flood scenario.
The large amounts of sea creatures are evidence of millions of years that are needed to produce so many fossils. That there are only sea creatures is evidence of oceans, not a flood drowning everything from Pelycosaurs to polar bears.
Continental strata is what we would expect in million - year old sea and then land deposits. If there was a Flood one would expect one flood level - and that all over the world and pretty much nothing else.
Sediment transported long distances sounds more like ancient sea beds (today, they show ripples) which form strata. That some of these are raised up shows that we have million -year old strata -movement and does not indicate a flood.
I cannot understand the 'erosion' evidence, erosion proves a flood, no erosion proves a flood. The Rockies are a relatively new mountain range, but they are mixed in with a much earlier and highly eroded mountain range. This indicates deep time geological processes, not a Flood.
The folded strata ought not to be there at all if there was a flood. Both because there would be one layer with all creation mixed in it and because it would remain where it was. At best tilted when the mountains rose (or rose a bit higher, as in your theory) but this rolling over and inverting and in many cases breaking and sliding one over another shows that these are hard layers and the apparent plasticity comes from a slow process over millions of years - not something that happened in a month or two at the end of the flood.

I'd say these evidences are more proof of no Flood than a flood, just as with the grand canyon, varves, Ice cores, ancient trees of 'pre -flood' date, radiation - dating of rocks, stratification of species looking very much like evolution over time, not sound evidence of all creation jumbled in together - (just a similarity between Ammonites and Nautilus) and -oh yes. Polystrates. Really better explained by trees buries in successive layers of strata over a long time - not in one go.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-17-2014 at 01:53 PM..
 
Old 02-17-2014, 01:51 PM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,088 posts, read 20,744,698 times
Reputation: 5930
supplementary....Objections to a Total Noachian Flood.
A global flood would have produce evidence contrary to the evidence we see.

How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.

Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986]
Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition

Also - This person claims some expertise. Whether or no, they are arguments I have read before, so the science supports .

1. Angular unconformities – Angular unconformities are where sediments are laid down in layers, then tilted and eroded, then new sediments are deposited on top. How does a global flood simultaneously deposit, tilt, and erode in the same exact place?

2. Radiometric dating – All common forms of radiometric dating, including C14, K-Ar, Ar-Ar, Rb-Sr, Th-Pb, U-Pb, and fission track. The dates derived from these diverse methods, when properly interpreted rather than intentionally misapplied, show that all but the very most recent deposits in the geologic column is vastly older than any postulated flood.

3. Fossil Sorting – The sorting of fossils in the geologic record is consistent with evolution and geology across all formations worldwide. There are basically no fossils of dinosaurs found with modern mammals, even when such dinosaurs could fly. There are no flowering plants in the Cambrian, no grasses, no mammals, and no birds. The overall sorting does not show any evidence consistent with a flood or settling in water.

4. Varves – How does one create 20 million annual layers, each layer which would have taken at least a month to settle due to hydrodynamics as is observed in the Green River Formation? How does one explain seasonal of pollen grains found in the layers?

5. Sedimentation rates – Why would there be Precambrian rocks below ones feet in the Canadian Shield area, yet the entire geologic column in the Williston Basin in North Dakota? Why would a global flood scour down to the Precambrian in one place yet at the same time deposit tens of thousands of feet of sediment in another when it is exactly the same process? Giant post-pyramid ice ages are not an explanation as there is no written record or other evidence of increased historical glaciation to the extent needed to scour the Canadian Shield down in the last 4500 years, not to mention such Precambrian rocks elsewhere on Earth like South Africa.

6. Lava layers with ancient soils between flows – How could lava forms which only exist with a land surface interface create interbedded deposits with paleosoils?

7. Ice sheets – Ice caps can’t reform in the time allotted since any global flood of 4500 years ago.

8. Ice core data with correlated known volcanic events – Ice cores can be dated back by multiple methods nearly a million years, yet show no evidence of a global flood.

9. Ocean core data – Ocean cores would show unsorted piles of terrestrial life and different distributions in grain sizes than observed. They would also show little difference in thickness between the mid Atlantic ridge and near subduction zones, which is not what is observed.

10. Paleomagnetism – Because the Earth’s magnetic field has reversed polarity and has wandered over the globe in the past, certain igneous rocks show such preferred magnetic orientations when sufficiently cooled. By mapping these directions and reversals, which correlate with radioisotope dating and stratigraphy, it is easily shown that the vast majority of seafloor sediments, along with most volcanic rock, are way too old to have been deposited by any flood. In fact such measurements are one of the great evidences for plate tectonics, which alone invalidate a global flood.

11. Volcanism – According to ‘flood geology’ every igneous rock layer that overlays sedimentary rock would have to be less than 4500 years old. Yet, historical records indicate this tremendous amount of simultaneous volcanic activity could not have occurred in recent times because someone would have noticed, becoming extinct and all when the atmosphere becomes unbreathable. Such a position directly contradicts the existence of the Deccan Traps which are up to 2 km thick and 500,000 square km in extent, yet supposedly erupted in India despite any historic evidence, after such a flood.

12. Ore deposit formation rates – Most ore deposits require a longer period of time to separate their constituent elements and then cool to create an economically viable source of minerals.

13. Evaporites – The existence of evaporate deposits thousands of feet thick are incompatible with any global flood as they are formed through evaporation rather than through the addition of fresh water.

14. Carbonates – The huge amount of CO2 in the atmosphere prior to being locked into carbonate rock would have made the planet resemble Venus. There would have been no life to drown.

15. Microfossil deposits - Thick deposits of microfossils in limestone, diatomaceous chert, and chalk that could not settle to such a degree of thickness in the time allotted for any global flood.

16. Thick deposits of sand - Sand is the result of weathering and working of formally solid formations, requiring long long times to form and accumulate.

17. Aeolian sand deposits – Wind deposited sandstone is found above and below water deposited limestone. One example is the Cococino formation which is both overlain and overlies limestone.

18. Overthrust formations – the time and pressure required to cause overthrust formations is far greater than can occur in any post-flood historic time.

19. Formation of geologic features such as mountains and valleys – How did something like the Himalaya Mountains form without anyone noticing all those earthquakes? How were valleys cut between such mountains in less than 4500 years?

EvC Forum: 100 Categories of Evidence Against Noah?s Flood
 
Old 02-17-2014, 02:04 PM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,088 posts, read 20,744,698 times
Reputation: 5930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
He actually proved beyone any doubt that it really is Noah's ark. Your link just doesn't have the facts. Your link says it is just a natural rock formation. This has proven to be false.

Moderator cut: deleted

For instance, if you had watched the video you would have seen that all along the entire length of the ship, using metal detectors, they found the iron parts which bound the beams together. They found 13 rows the entire length of the ship at very specific intervals. A "natural" rock structure does not have those kinds of anomalies. Just please watch the video.

The ship formation is exact in measurement to that given in the Bible.

Your article wrote:
[/i]

I wonder if the author of your article ever thought it was possible for Noah to go to Ararat area to get his anchor stones? It is only around 300 miles from Mesopotamia to Ararat. And who said Noah lived in Mesopotamia? Does the Bible? No. So your author is making things up as he goes along. Noah could have lived in the Ararat region prior to the flood.

I am afraid it is you who is making things up - as you go along, proposing that Noah lived in the area where he just happened after a year floating on a global flood, to end up. Simply in order to get over a problem. But read below..these are not the only examples. I suppose you wil argue that the Eden civilization was in Armenia and drogue - stones prove that Arks were quite common. But still not found. Not this one, for sure.

In 1996 Fasold co-wrote a paper with geologist Lorence Collins titled "Bogus 'Noah's Ark' from Turkey Exposed as a Common Geologic Structure" which concluded that the boat-shaped formation was a natural stone formation that merely resembled a boat. The same paper pointed out that the "anchors" were local volcanic stone.[15] The abstract reads:

A natural rock structure near Dogubayazit, Turkey, has been misidentified as Noah's Ark. Microscopic studies of a supposed iron bracket show that it is derived from weathered volcanic minerals. Supposed metal-braced walls are natural concentrations of limonite and magnetite in steeply inclined sedimentary layers in the limbs of a doubly plunging syncline. Supposed fossilized gopherwood bark is crinkled metamorphosed peridotite. Fossiliferous limestone, interpreted as cross cutting the syncline, preclude the structure from being Noah's Ark because these supposed "Flood" deposits are younger than the "Ark." Anchor stones at Kazan (Arzap) are derived from local andesite and not from Mesopotamia.
....

A geological investigation of samples from the stones, published by geologist Lorence Collins in co-authorship with their original discoverer David Fasold, found that they are of local rock and thus could not have been brought from Mesopotamia, the Ark's supposed place of origin.[15] Similar stones found throughout ancient Armenia are recognised as pagan "holy stones" converted to Christian use by the addition of crosses and other Christian symbols. Many are found in Christian cemeteries...
Wiki, but we can track down the originals...if you want.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:37 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top