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.
I think you are moving the goal posts on that one...About what I expected though.
From answers in genesis, one of your favorites... The Biblical data places the Flood at 2304 BC +/- 11 years.
Actually if the experts can't agree on this, please don't expect me to. That's why I say those dates are up for debate. And please don't ask me where the garden of eden is either.
If the entire world was covered with water that would mean that Noah would have to also include every species of insect in the world and there are countless millions of them and we're finding more all the time. Insects are pretty tough little critters but I'm not aware of any who are adapted to deep sea living. So first of all how did a couple of little beetles from a rain forest in South America make the trip across continents and oceans to the arc? And for that matter how did any animal like a kangaroo for example get from Australia which is surrounded by oceans to the arc?
Here's another really big problem. If all of the land was covered with water for months as described in the Bible then all of the plants would die. Have any of you ever seen a carrot or potato growing at the bottom of the ocean? I don't think so. Plants need light and carbon dioxide in order for photosynthesis to occur. That means they have to be exposed to the atmosphere. If the planet had really been covered with water for such a long period of time every spud, yam, tree and every last blade of grass would be as dead as a doornail.
Ok, let's hear what kinds of crazy ideas can explain all of that away.
Here is what the Torah says:
Genesis 7:
1. And the Lord said to Noah, "Come into the ark, you and all your household, for it is you that I have seen as a righteous man before Me in this generation.
2. Of all the clean animals you shall take for yourself seven pairs, a male and its mate, and of the animals that are not clean, two, a male and its mate.
3. Also, of the fowl of the heavens, seven pairs, male and female, to keep seed alive on the face of the earth.
4. For in another seven days, I will make it rain upon the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will blot out all beings that I have made, off the face of the earth."
5. And Noah did, according to all that the Lord had commanded him. 6. And Noah was six hundred years old, and the flood came about, water upon the earth.
7. And Noah went in and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him into the ark because of the flood waters. 8. Of the clean beasts and of the beasts that are not clean, and of the fowl, and all that creeps upon the earth.
9. Two by two they came to Noah to the ark, male and female, as God had commanded Noah. 10. And it came to pass after the seven days, that the flood waters were upon the earth
Here is what the Torah says:
Genesis 7:
1. And the Lord said to Noah, "Come into the ark, you and all your household, for it is you that I have seen as a righteous man before Me in this generation.
2. Of all the clean animals you shall take for yourself seven pairs, a male and its mate, and of the animals that are not clean, two, a male and its mate.
3. Also, of the fowl of the heavens, seven pairs, male and female, to keep seed alive on the face of the earth.
4. For in another seven days, I will make it rain upon the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will blot out all beings that I have made, off the face of the earth."
5. And Noah did, according to all that the Lord had commanded him. 6. And Noah was six hundred years old, and the flood came about, water upon the earth.
7. And Noah went in and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him into the ark because of the flood waters. 8. Of the clean beasts and of the beasts that are not clean, and of the fowl, and all that creeps upon the earth.
9. Two by two they came to Noah to the ark, male and female, as God had commanded Noah. 10. And it came to pass after the seven days, that the flood waters were upon the earth
It is not two ever kind of animial.
I don't think you answered his question at all with this. In fact, you may have strengthened it. If Noah didn't gather 2 of every kind of plant and animal, then why didn't all of the plants, insects, etc. die off. It's a nice story though...I wonder who wrote it.
The oldest Pyramid in Egypt is the Step Pyramid of Djoser at Saqqura. It was constructed around 2668-2687 BC. It is the first pyramid in Egyptian history. If the flood occured between 7,000 or 9,000 years ago. There would be plenty of time for the Egyptians to build the Pyramids and for their population to increase. Especially taking into account that the flood occured 2,000 years before the earliest pyramid was built. And it may be that there was a greater span of years than the 2,000. Yet that is up for debate.
Well if the flood occurred between 7,000 and 9,000 years ago how does that fit with the date of creation? I thought YEC folks put that date somewhere between 4,000 to 8,000 BC. People must have bred faster than rabbits and had litters.
Actually if the experts can't agree on this, please don't expect me to.
Campbell, If I apply this principle of yours to your defense of the limestone Ark, I get confused. There's obviously a lot of controversy over the Mt. Ararat Ark, yet you completely believe one side only. And again, I arrogantly remind you, I'm sort of an expert myself. A bald-faced, lying one I'll admit, but an expert nonetheless.
Where ARE your scientific principles, Campbell? I'm dissapointed in you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
Well if the flood occurred between 7,000 and 9,000 years ago how does that fit with the date of creation? I thought YEC folks put that date somewhere between 4,000 to 8,000 BC. People must have bred faster than rabbits and had litters.
Well, san, there was pretty much nothing else to do, right? Plus, that old "We, you and I, darlin', we gotta re-populate the earth, baby!" has always worked for me to get the girl just before the bar closes...
I also want to apply Campbell's stated approach to controversial subjects, noted in blue above, to his persistence in absolutely dating Creation. Given controversy even within the Christian community, how does he blithely accept just the one he likes? Is this a rhetorical question?
Please, can you give me one good reason why the Turkish governemt will allow people to explor Mt. Ararat except the North Slope?
1: If it's true and is an old boat (though not therefore, ergo, QED, The Ark, BTW...), it would put the kaibosh on The Koran, wouldn't it? Can't have one's favorite myth-set disabled, now can we? One for your side.
or...
2: If it's not true, and it's definitely NOT The Ark, then there's no more controversy, no more potential tourism interest. Plus, some Turks are Christians, surprise surprise! Again, we "Can't have one's favorite myth-set disabled, now can we?" One for our side.
And why is it, that there are numerous accounts of a man-made object on Ararat, yet you refuse to believe everyone of those accounts?
No, I just seek additional evidence or confirmation, and when others have looked into it, the controversy has increased rather than decreased. Agreed?
Scientists, as I have boringly outlined above, and you apparently missed, want betterproof up until things being investigated can be more or less put to bed. That's not yet happened here, now has it?
Here's my big Q to you, Campbell: Why don't Christians just absolutely INSIST INSIST INSIST on being allowed up there? Surely your side, with world-wide outrage and demand, could get the go-ahead to solve this issue? But, oh gawd no, what if you find it is limestone?
"And can you tell me what technical evidence refutes the accounts of all the eyewitiness, and all those who have viewed the arial photographs?"
I DID ALREADY provide the link where this outcropping was described, as a result of remote sensing and ground-truthing. to be limestone. Why do YOU refuse to accept that, hmmm? Who won't accept evidence here?
Even if you don't like THAT answer, Campbell, shouldn't you then want to counter with more new evidence for your side, rather than just re-hashing old stuff that's been proved questionable? Where ARE your inscrutable investigative principles, Campbell?
Also, some of the best photos are classified, so how would we get to see such pictures? (Or, alternately and logically one could counter: how, then, do you know what they show or mean. Classified is Classified, sir!) This has been stated by those who actually work for the CIA. And Ed Davis was never discredited, and Ed also was the one who took a lie detector test before he died and passed it. (As in "I truly believe that what I saw was such-and-such!" Does that prove that it wassuch-and-such? Ever take a course on the scientific method, Campbell?)
And I might also point out, that Ed Davis stated years before photo's from space were seen, that the Ark was broken in two. Arial photographs that were considered by those working for the American government show a man-made object, that is broken in two. (I've seen 'em. Pretty fuzzy. Wayyyy worse than those from the Cuban Missile Crisis.) They agreed with the Ed Davis account. (BTW, "THEY" also say that nothing ever landed at Area 51! Proof enough for you?) You can only believe what you do by ignoring everything that has been stated. It appears to me your worldview has blinded you of any objectivity. (No, again, you're insulting me, Campbell. What I do when things are still sorta hanging out there, is then seek further evidence on such highly controversial subjects. And when it comes along, and only furthers the questionability, the confusion, the possibilites that things are perhaps NOT as they've been represented, I politely ask for more, better proof. You do not. You like the older, more fuzzy, findings, and don't want to hear more. (Hands over ears, yelling "neener neener neener")
I believe what I do based (selectively) on (some of) the evidence presented. It appears you believe what you do, based on ignoring (or simply questioning?) that evidence. And it appears you offer no evidence that would suggest that all these people were discredited, you simply say their stories are false. (Oh, you missed my link about the remote-sensing findings? Better improve your reading skills, sir!) And you do this based on nothing but your own personal opinion. (Wrong Wrong Wrong. Again Again Again. Didn't you understand that I am one of those experts? I know, you don't think that I learned anything in my 16+ yrs @ school + 20 yrs in the field, plus my own reading and thinking and contemplating. Only you have The Truth at your disposal apparently...
But, as one of Those Experts, I did state recently and unequivocally, that "The Ark on Arafat is Not The Ark" There. A statement from an expert. Why don't you believe me? You don't like my answer is why.
If I came on here, stated my verifiable technical qualifications, but said I was a confirmed born-again Christian, having Seen The Light, and stated that "The Ark on Arafat is The Ark", you'd lap it up like a starving pooch, no questions asked. No false insults, no ad hominems. You'd even quote my findings, my statement to other dis-believers. Say that's not so!)
Expert accounts have pointed out that the shape of the object rules out natural surroundings. Did you miss that part? (No, other accounts say it's a typical upthrust geo-formation. Miss that part?) Also, there was a Russian expedition that took place just about the time of the Russian revolution. (Weren't they a bunch of Russian Church types, as I recall? Biased? Nahhh) At least one hundred from that expedition saw the Ark as well. However, at that same time the Communists came to power and took all the evidence from those who returned. Years later, two of those men from the expedition were found living in seperate places here in the states. Both men were interviewed, and both men told the exact same story of the existance of the Ark on Ararat.
You know, after a while you have to come to the conclusion that not every man that goes up on Ararat, comes back as a boldface liar**. (I know! just us scientists do that, and always! Never Christian fundies! Don't believe ANYTHING we ever say, Campbell!) Everyone that sees the Ark up there, comes back with the same story. (Link? Statistics? Not what I've seen. Prove this one!) Even when they interview them separately.
**Hmmm. You state: "not every man that goes up on Ararat, comes back as a boldface liar.".
So. Let's get this absolutely straight here, soz I'm not misunderstanding you, Campbell. Even if I and a team of pre-approved, highly qualified world-class scientists and theologists were to go up there, and if we find it is actually simply limestone, (let's just be hypothetical here for a moment), you'd just dismiss our findings, photos and all, as bald-faced lies? Admit it!
Well, it goes on and on. Entertaining though. And shows me how little we've suceeded in our goals of educating people with true findings about our world.
Last edited by rifleman; 01-05-2009 at 11:46 AM..
Reason: typos
Campbell, If I apply this principle of yours to your defense of the limestone Ark, I get confused. There's obviously a lot of controversy over the Mt. Ararat Ark, yet you completely believe one side only. And again, I arrogantly remind you, I'm sort of an expert myself. A bald-faced, lying one I'll admit, but an expert nonetheless.
Where ARE your scientific principles, Campbell? I'm dissapointed in you!
Well, san, there was pretty much nothing else to do, right? Plus, that old "We, you and I, darlin', we gotta re-populate the earth, baby!" has always worked for me to get the girl just before the bar closes...
I also want to apply Campbell's stated approach to controversial subjects, noted in blue above, to his persistence in absolutely dating Creation. Given controversy even within the Christian community, how does he blithely accept just the one he likes? Is this a rhetorical question?
Well first of all, could you show me the documentation that shows the object in question to be nothing but a limestone formation at the 15,000 foot altitude on Mt. Ararat? And secondly, could you explain how that limestone formation got there, especially taking into consideration this object is located at the top of a Volcano?
And the reason I believe it is the Ark, is because the Bible has proven itself to be accurate when speaking of past ancient history. And the Bible states that Noah's Ark is on the mountains of Ararat. And we have numerous eyewitiness accounts that clearly state they have seen the Ark there, and they speak of it in detail. And I do not ignore those accounts. Yet it appears you are ignoring all of them, and you must do this, because these accounts refute your worldview. So it appears to me you only believe the evidence that supports your belief. Where are your scientific principles?
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.
Huh? What?
and yet again...
