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.
...snip.... why didn't God just instantly smite the heck out of everything bad with his supernatural power, rather than do things in such an obtuse way?
Because it wouldn't be such a fantastical story: the kind of story that would hold, and still does hold, primitive people spellbound.
After two days of digging (and even using dynamite) inside the "boat-shaped" formation the disappointed expedition members found only "dirt, rocks and more dirt." The official news release issued by George Vandeman, the team leader, concluded that "there were no visible archaeological remains" and that this formation "was a freak of nature and not man-made."4 Has Noah's Ark Been Found? Part I
That isn't plonking 'Yes it is/no it isn't'. It is what they found - dirt and rocks. That's all it is.
I remember seeing this exact TV show listed in the guides during the '60s:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
After two days of digging (and even using dynamite) inside the "boat-shaped" formation the disappointed expedition members found only "dirt, rocks and more dirt." The official news release issued by George Vandeman, the team leader, concluded that "there were no visible archaeological remains" and that this formation "was a freak of nature and not man-made."4 Has Noah's Ark Been Found? Part I
That isn't plonking 'Yes it is/no it isn't'. It is what they found - dirt and rocks. That's all it is.
That was until it was proven to be the actual Noah's ark.
Don't you wish. fact is i was busy elsewhere and I'd got tired of of refuting your less that erudite arguments.
The T rex stuff was a fossil and millions of years old just as much as other fossils. That dissolving the hard mineral with acid and recovering material that was more pliable in itself does not make it T Rex steak. Since it was hard fossil soft tissue in the beginning, that can be fiddled together with it to falsely imply that it is fresh meat that cannot be millions of years old.
The remark about frozen mammoths is even more ignorant or dishonest. They are relict of the last Ice age and not claimed to be millions of years old - as is the case with the oldest of the Ice cored, as dated by radiometric dating of the trapped gases.
But even if they were - there is no reason why a 60 million year old ice level (they are simply not that old (1) could not contain preserved dinosaurs. If the air and bacteria are excluded and they freezing is hard enough to prevent all bacterial activity, there in no reason why a T rex shouldn't survive in an organic state. Thus fossil material, containing substances that when the hard mineral is dissolved away can become pliable, is a surprise, but not the refutation of eep time that you would dearly love it to be.
And before you trot out Frozen mammoths prove the flood, kindly note that this is one of the arguments that AIG says Creationists should not use.
Crickets? I can hear them..."denial..denial..denial..."
(1) neither are the tar -pits. Though they are old enough to preserve (I believe organic) material of creatures tens of thousand of years old - I only wish that a tar pit or indeed Glacier tens of million of years old would be possible as it could well contained preserved dinosaurs with organic (if not edible) tissue, and it would still not be the slightest help for you Young Earth Genesis -literalism
I get it now, those wooly mammoths were feeding on lush green vegetation that was growing out of the ice. Yea, that's how nature works! LOL
Originally Posted by saxondale351 you guys really believe that a man and his eight sons built a boat that held all the different species of animals, insects and either all the salt water fish or fresh water fish and enough food to last a year? That my friend is bat crap crazy story to take literally.
Noah hada large fish tank in the ark and put in some blue whales and other whales as well. Uhuh, yeper, that's what he did! AFter all, God told him to take all the fish of the sea on the ark . . . or did He?
So, famous televangelist George Vandeman was a contemporary of such formidable figures as Jimmy Swaggart and Jerry Falwell and even he poo-poo'd this silly Noah's Ark wet dream. Wow.
The fact is my ignorant old mate, that the 'anchor stones' are al over the area and not associated with that particular outcrop of rock. Nor are the various tales of people visit Ark remains on Ararat. Both or either could be related to any part of the mountain, whether the lower part with rocks and dirt as in the wrongly -shaped Wyatt site or above the snowline as in the dodgy - looking NAMI ark claim.
The anchor stones are not all over the area. Anchor stones are being discovered in the Mediterranean sea. Now then, why would anyone use anchor stones in the mountains of Ararat? Did they sail the ship on wheels up the mountains?
"The Arzap Drogue Stones are a number of large standing stones found near the Durupınar site by amateur archaeologist Ron Wyatt with the aid of David Fasold and others. Fasold interpreted the artifacts as drogues, stone weights used to stabilize the Ark in rough seas, because they all have a chamfered hole cut at one end as if to fasten a rope to them,[21] and his reading of the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Babylonian mythical account of the flood, suggested to him that such stones were used.[22]"
The Gilgamesh Epic (650 BC) gives Mt. Nisir as the landing place of the Ark. The local name for the town where the Ark was found is Nasar. The annals of Ashurnasurpal II of Assyria (833-859 BC) places it south of the Zab river (correct). Theophilus of Antioch (115-185 AD) said the Ark could be seen in his day in the Arabian mountains. Later Church Fathers also mention the Ark as late as the mid 7th century.
In the 13th century, Willam, a traveler, stated for the first time that Mt. Masis was the Ark location (present-day Mt. Ararat). Ptolemy's Geographia (1548) mentions the mountains of Armenia as the place of landing. So does the traveler Nicolas de Nicolay (1558). Pilgrims to the site would gather bits and pieces of the petrified wood which would be used as charms to ward off evil. When they encountered the anchors, they had no doubt about their association with the Ark. They often carves one big cross to represent Noah and smaller crosses representing his family.
Quote:
P.s
It is very worthwhile and interesting to read about these 'Frozen mammoths'.
Claim CC361.2:
The bodies of mammoths that apparently froze suddenly have been found. Their flesh was well preserved, and they still had food in their mouths. This shows that they were quick-frozen in some sort of catastrophe. Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 203.
Response:
The reports of frozen mammoths with well-preserved flesh are greatly exaggerated. Parts of cadavers have been well preserved, but in all cases, the internal organs were rotted, or the body was partly eaten by scavengers, or both, before the animal became frozen. The Berezovka mammoth, perhaps the most famous example, showed evidence of very slow decay and was putrefied to the point that the excavators found its stench unbearable (Weber 1980). The best preserved mammoth, Dima, was an infant; its small size and starved condition permitted quicker freezing, and even it had a little decomposition (Guthrie 1990, 7).
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.
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.
fact is i was busy elsewhere and I'd got tired of of refuting your less that erudite arguments.
figures as Jimmy Swaggart and Jerry Falwell and even he poo-poo'd this silly Noah's Ark wet dream. Wow. 
that the 'anchor stones' are al over the area and not associated with that particular outcrop of rock. Nor are the various tales of people visit Ark remains on Ararat. Both or either could be related to any part of the mountain, whether the lower part with rocks and dirt as in the wrongly -shaped Wyatt site or above the snowline as in the dodgy - looking NAMI ark claim.
