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.
VI was asked how only rain could flood all the earth. I answered his question. Now your suggesting I'm diverting? LOL
I do believe, you are the one diverting here, because there is evidence that supports my belief.
No there isn't. At this point in our history we can present evidence about how much water actually exists on this planet. It can be measured and observed. We now understand how much water the melted glaciers might have produced and how much sea levels might have raised due to those changing conditions.
It's now a few hundred thousand feet.
I don't know how many times I will have to explain this to you guys, but I will try this once again. I don't know how a radio, or a T.V. set actually works.
C34, when you claim ignorance, it is very believable, that you are stating fact regarding your ignorance, in fact the only believable fact you posted in this thread.
Agreed, you have no idea how a radio works, but with very little effort you could find and link to a very accurate and factual site about a radio works.
Now if it were possible for a man and his sons to build a boat (by hand, with crude hand tools) that could carry in excess of 10 million creatures, and all the food, water, etc., they needed for a long cruise, then you could find a factual site that provided hard science how it might be feasable.
But you can't as the logistics to do so are even beyond the largest ship builder on the planet today, much less a guy in his back yard and some crude hand tools.
The denial you exhibit is complete and the utter lack of common sense about the impossibility such an event is really staggering. Your claim to ignorance is valid on one hand, yet in the light of reason shows a complete lack of reason, common sense, or even the possibility the fairy tale you have been sold is just a nonsensical fairy tale.
You sound like Bill Clinton in his "what is the meaning of is is" dodge as it tried to explain away something that could not be explained away.
Quote:
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."
No one believed him, no one believes you, and I suspect that even includes you.
And it was Ed Davis (who first) made the claim that up on Mt. Ararat, was a cave that had stored petrified wood, that came from the Ark of Noah.
Now, this might require a little common sense on your part. Yet it was Ed Davis who first said there was wood from the Ark of Noah in a cave back in 1943. And now, another team comes along some 40 years later, and they also tell us, they found a large wooden petrified structure stored in a cave high up on Mt. Ararat. And they also believe this wood came from the Ark of Noah. Only Ed Davis knew it was from the Ark, because he presonally saw the Ark up there, and he knew the people who put the wood in the cave. The latest findings made in 2007, only confirm the truth of what Ed Davis stated from 40 some years before. This is not rocket science here.
What were the dimensions of the "large wooden petrified structure stored in a cave"?
quote=ocpaul20;11556976]Maybe what we need to do is to divorce the story of the Ark from the Bible and take it as a archeological find (or not, as the case may be). If it was separate from a religious belief and not a religious artifact(like a finger bone of a saint) at all, we would all be able to discuss this in a reasonable and scientific way.
[/quote]
Hello and Greeting
The Ark In Gen 6:14 (KJV) Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. The
The word Kippur is a Hebrew word, which means atonement is found 80 times and in the Old Testament, Meaning atonement 74 times in the Old and New Testament. So the Ark was covered with Atonement with pitch within and without.
The Pitch or Tar which is Atonement within and without.
The purpose of the Ark is the Atonements for sins.
Scholars assume that The Ark, the three levels, the bottom level for animals the second center of the ark was for food and the top was for Noah's family, but actually the bottom is all things, is the foundation of God the Father, the second level which is the door is the Son of God, the truth, the way, and light, and in the top level there is a window which a light a illuminated came in the Ark were the Holy Spirit, the dove came in.
So God the Father the foundation. Jesus Christ the Atonements, the door, and the Holy Spirit the light or illumination.
A Shadow: An outline which is cast by the object itself. A Shadow: Things to come.
Last edited by TheWordIsOne; 11-10-2009 at 06:41 PM..
Reason: selling
I don't know how many times I will have to explain this to you guys, but I will try this once again. I don't know how a radio, or a T.V. set actually works. And because of this, would you now accuse me of dodging your questions, if such a question was asked of me? I deal in known facts, and it appears to me. Those here who do not want to believe in the Ark of Noah, avoid those facts, or suggest, that anyone who would present such facts must be liars. I can make all kinds of assumptions about the Ark of Noah, or a radio. Yet such assumptions have little to do with reality, or facts. So why waste time asking me questions I have no answers for? Is it just the fact, that you are getting tired of suggesting all those personal accounts made by others about the Ark, are all lies?
OK then, but here's the problem. I understand you weren't there, and that you don't perhaps fully understand all the technical stuff, and I'm not trying to lord my personal technical knowledge over you.
So instead, I'll explain it again, nice and polite. In exchange, can I expect a civil acknowledgement from you that at least our concerns make sense to you, and these concerns are reasonable?
Also, you need to acknowledge that while you have made mention of perhaps five or even ten different personal accounts and studies done that loosely support a literal Ark, there have been near-countless actual, accredited scientific studies done by the military, various credible University groups, scientists and others that completely drop the bomb on those poorly done studies. By comparison, your studies suffer from a lack of follow-up, obviously no good clear photography (which would be the hallmark of any credible expedition to the supposed site...) and either poor or no suporting documentation. Such as the requested report from the Baptist University of Hong Kong. And then there's guys like Ron Wyatt muddying the waters, don't you agree?
Certain logical things would be required, would be absolutely necessary in fact, for this grand Ark-barge scheme to have worked, and it just doesn't pencil out. Those required critical elements are almost universally missing, and obviously so.
Let's takem, again but politely, a few cases in point: The fundamentalist Christian perspective is, of course, that Evolution did not happen, and that, as you've said many times, it's a total fairy tale and myth, all based on scientific assumption and bias.
OK then. Therefore Noah had to have placed all the now-known unique species onto his Ark, right? I mean, that part's a logical consequence don't you agree with evolutinoary diversity after the Ark ran grouded up there. Else, where did all the current and counted species come from?
You can take it from me and others, as graduate biologists nd ecologists, that you can't just drastically alter the salinity of the oceanic environment with absolutely no effect on the physiology of it's occupants. It takes a salmon about a month loitering around the mouth of the Columbia or Fraser Rivers in Orgeon and British Columbia for them to barely acclimatize to the dramatic change from salt to fresh water, and they have evolved (or God designed them with the unique ability...) to adapt to this situation. Even so, they die off soon after, only living long enough to spawn upstream, after having lived a healthy life out at sea for over 7 years.
However, this specialized and unique ability is simply not the case for all the other marine or fresh water fish. Only five species of fish are "anadromous"; able to migrate up into fresh water to spawn. This is likely because, in ancient evolutionary history, they originated in fresh water streams, but adapted to travel out into the much more productive and food-rich oceanic environment. No mean feat, physiologically.
BUT... All the tuna, the herring, swordfish, perch, cod, tropical fish, etc. etc? What of them? All would die off rather immediately if the osmotic pressure gradient (directly affected by salinity) were to be altered. And therefore all the marine mammals who feed on them, the dolphins, killer whales, belugas, etc., who also feed on the now-dead marine crustaceans (shrimp, krill, copepods, etc.) would also expire right NOW.
further to this problem, when the world's salt water then mixed up with all the fresh water in lakes, streams and rivers, that water would no longer be fresh, would it? All the catfish, trout, whitefish, lakefish, sturgeon... well, you get the picture. All of them would be killed off likewise. Understand why?
This doesn't take a deep technical understanding, just common sense. Of course, the original authors of the Ark fable had no idea of such environmental complexities, else they'd at least have tried to incorporate some sort of hair-brained story to account for it. But nope: they didn't, and frankly, it shows. Their story simply doesn't work.
Instead they assume that a fish was a fish ws a fish, fresh or salt water; it simply doesn't matter to the fish. Now, though ,we know much better, and we therefore know a global catastrophic flood with gross salinity mixing would have devasted all aquatic life on earth, and no boatload of 35,000 animals could have saved the necessary and massive amount of species we now have here on Earth. There's over 35,000 different kinds of beetles alone, for heavens' sake, not to then mention you'd have to have had at least a few pairs of each for them to survive.
See how it all falls apart without too much scientific detail required?
(BTW, this is also the exact same reason those biblical authors didn't incorporate unambiguous commentary about the tyrant dinosaurs that once roamed the Earth in large quanties and types/species. All unaccounted for on the Ark, or after it landed.
Why?
Because they had no idea such beasts ever existed, obviously. Neither did the Chinese, whose writings precede the biblical timeframe and story by centuries, and they also don't mention any catastrophic global flood. Which also happened right when the Egyptians were building the pyramids. They don't seem to mention it wither. Doesn't any of this bother you, Tom?)
but go ahead; prove it to yourself in a real simple scientific experiment. Go down to your local pet store and pour some sea salt into the fresh water fish tank. Watch it for, oh, 5 minutes. Then pay for all the fish you just killed.
That's just one aspect.
The other number relating to all of this is, of course, that we have actually counted(not imagined, with your accusations of our scientific bias and assumptions...) 35 - 40+ million dramatically different species of animal and plant on this planet so far, with a conservatively estimated additional 60+ M to go. Nope, not YSM's "types", not "breeds", not "races" but distinct and radically different species, like a fox, a coyote, a hyena, a timber wolf. If you now want to state that these are now considered by you to be all the same species, please be my guest. I'll depart the room to the sounds of intense laughter and derision aimed at you.
But... but... if there was no evolving allowed, and they couldn't have survived a catastrophic global flood complete with massive salinity changes or complete submergence of all plants for over 18 months in salty water, Noah had to have stored and saved them all. Right, Tom? You don't need to be a biologist or mathematician or philosopher to see or agree with it.
So you really can't use that "I don't claim to understand such stuff" argument here. It really looks more and more like a "run and hide" response, coupled with "God works in unknown ways!" evasion, deflection and really weak excuse. I mean, you started the argument, and now you want to claim it's beyond your level of understanding, so please excuse you? The alternative is to admit that you're probably wrong about this, and yep, it really doesn't make any logical sense, and the evolutionary argument is far more likely.
This doesn't even address the other issues I and others have so neatly and nicely cataloged in this enduring threrad. About the problems with remote sensing, or the actual age of the Earth, or geological concerns, etc. Etc. Etc.
The only possible alternate Christian answer would be MAGIC, which is soooo much less believable than our more rational, logical, and, oh by the way, well supported concept of an ancient earth, evolution and no flood. No Noah.
So something's gotta give here, right? You can finally see that, can you not, Tom?
Well where is the report from the University? nothing on that website. if it is a published report with the findings of their testing, it would be available to review. Where is it? I see people saying it is, but no proof is ever produced. I have read the davis account, I has also read evidence (actually tons of it) where he had changed his story several times. Yes I am using common sense, that is why I want actual proof, not hearsay.
Davis was very old before he died, and for such people up in age, it is common to get the orginal details confused. And don't forget, Davis took at least two lie detector test to confirm his story. And passed both of them. Also, if Davis had lied about seeing petrified wood from the Ark in a cave high up on Mt. Ararat, which he spoke of in 1943. Then don't you think it would be odd, that 40 years later a large petrified wooden structure would be found stored in a cave high up on Mt. Ararat. Davis also stated the Ark was broken in two and seperated back in 1943. Yet George Stephen, who was the photo interpreter back in 1989 pretty much gave matching details as to what Ed Davis described. And in the same year, Dr. Ahmet Arslan climbed to the coordinates given to him by Mr. Stephen's, yet could get no closer than 1200 feet. Dr. Ahmet Arslan stated from that distance, he could see a huge geometric structure protruding out of the snow. And Dr. Ahmet was able to get a picture of that structure. And Ahmet stated he could see it was a man-made structure. Dr. Ahmet's photo on link below, page 6. Noah's Ark Photos and Information
If you do not believe such a report exist, I would suggest you contact the university yourself. If such a report did not exist, I believe we would of already heard a protest from that university.
Davis was very old before he died, and for such people up in age, it is common to get the orginal details confused. And don't forget, Davis took at least two lie detector test to confirm his story. And passed both of them. Also, if Davis had lied about seeing petrified wood from the Ark in a cave high up on Mt. Ararat, which he spoke of in 1943. Then don't you think it would be odd, that 40 years later a large petrified wooden structure would be found stored in a cave high up on Mt. Ararat. Davis also stated the Ark was broken in two and seperated back in 1943. Yet George Stephen, who was the photo interpreter back in 1989 pretty much gave matching details as to what Ed Davis described. And in the same year, Dr. Ahmet Arslan climbed to the coordinates given to him by Mr. Stephen's, yet could get no closer than 1200 feet. Dr. Ahmet Arslan stated from that distance, he could see a huge geometric structure protruding out of the snow. And Dr. Ahmet was able to get a picture of that structure. And Ahmet stated he could see it was a man-made structure. Dr. Ahmet's photo on link below, page 6. Noah's Ark Photos and Information
If you do not believe such a report exist, I would suggest you contact the university yourself. If such a report did not exist, I believe we would of already heard a protest from that university.
If such a report DID exist it would be available at the university...It's not
OK then, but here's the problem. I understand you weren't there, and that you don't perhaps fully understand all the technical stuff, and I'm not trying to lord my personal technical knowledge over you.
So instead, I'll explain it again, nice and polite. In exchange, can I expect a civil acknowledgement from you that at least our concerns make sense to you, and these concerns are reasonable?
Also, you need to acknowledge that while you have made mention of perhaps five or even ten different personal accounts and studies done that loosely support a literal Ark, there have been near-countless actual, accredited scientific studies done by the military, various credible University groups, scientists and others that completely drop the bomb on those poorly done studies. By comparison, your studies suffer from a lack of follow-up, obviously no good clear photography (which would be the hallmark of any credible expedition to the supposed site...) and either poor or no suporting documentation. Such as the requested report from the Baptist University of Hong Kong. And then there's guys like Ron Wyatt muddying the waters, don't you agree?
Certain logical things would be required, would be absolutely necessary in fact, for this grand Ark-barge scheme to have worked, and it just doesn't pencil out. Those required critical elements are almost universally missing, and obviously so.
Let's takem, again but politely, a few cases in point: The fundamentalist Christian perspective is, of course, that Evolution did not happen, and that, as you've said many times, it's a total fairy tale and myth, all based on scientific assumption and bias.
OK then. Therefore Noah had to have placed all the now-known unique species onto his Ark, right? I mean, that part's a logical consequence don't you agree with evolutinoary diversity after the Ark ran grouded up there. Else, where did all the current and counted species come from?
You can take it from me and others, as graduate biologists nd ecologists, that you can't just drastically alter the salinity of the oceanic environment with absolutely no effect on the physiology of it's occupants. It takes a salmon about a month loitering around the mouth of the Columbia or Fraser Rivers in Orgeon and British Columbia for them to barely acclimatize to the dramatic change from salt to fresh water, and they have evolved (or God designed them with the unique ability...) to adapt to this situation. Even so, they die off soon after, only living long enough to spawn upstream, after having lived a healthy life out at sea for over 7 years.
However, this specialized and unique ability is simply not the case for all the other marine or fresh water fish. Only five species of fish are "anadromous"; able to migrate up into fresh water to spawn. This is likely because, in ancient evolutionary history, they originated in fresh water streams, but adapted to travel out into the much more productive and food-rich oceanic environment. No mean feat, physiologically.
BUT... All the tuna, the herring, swordfish, perch, cod, tropical fish, etc. etc? What of them? All would die off rather immediately if the osmotic pressure gradient (directly affected by salinity) were to be altered. And therefore all the marine mammals who feed on them, the dolphins, killer whales, belugas, etc., who also feed on the now-dead marine crustaceans (shrimp, krill, copepods, etc.) would also expire right NOW.
further to this problem, when the world's salt water then mixed up with all the fresh water in lakes, streams and rivers, that water would no longer be fresh, would it? All the catfish, trout, whitefish, lakefish, sturgeon... well, you get the picture. All of them would be killed off likewise. Understand why?
This doesn't take a deep technical understanding, just common sense. Of course, the original authors of the Ark fable had no idea of such environmental complexities, else they'd at least have tried to incorporate some sort of hair-brained story to account for it. But nope: they didn't, and frankly, it shows. Their story simply doesn't work.
Instead they assume that a fish was a fish ws a fish, fresh or salt water; it simply doesn't matter to the fish. Now, though ,we know much better, and we therefore know a global catastrophic flood with gross salinity mixing would have devasted all aquatic life on earth, and no boatload of 35,000 animals could have saved the necessary and massive amount of species we now have here on Earth. There's over 35,000 different kinds of beetles alone, for heavens' sake, not to then mention you'd have to have had at least a few pairs of each for them to survive.
See how it all falls apart without too much scientific detail required?
(BTW, this is also the exact same reason those biblical authors didn't incorporate unambiguous commentary about the tyrant dinosaurs that once roamed the Earth in large quanties and types/species. All unaccounted for on the Ark, or after it landed.
Why?
Because they had no idea such beasts ever existed, obviously. Neither did the Chinese, whose writings precede the biblical timeframe and story by centuries, and they also don't mention any catastrophic global flood. Which also happened right when the Egyptians were building the pyramids. They don't seem to mention it wither. Doesn't any of this bother you, Tom?)
but go ahead; prove it to yourself in a real simple scientific experiment. Go down to your local pet store and pour some sea salt into the fresh water fish tank. Watch it for, oh, 5 minutes. Then pay for all the fish you just killed.
That's just one aspect.
The other number relating to all of this is, of course, that we have actually counted(not imagined, with your accusations of our scientific bias and assumptions...) 35 - 40+ million dramatically different species of animal and plant on this planet so far, with a conservatively estimated additional 60+ M to go. Nope, not YSM's "types", not "breeds", not "races" but distinct and radically different species, like a fox, a coyote, a hyena, a timber wolf. If you now want to state that these are now considered by you to be all the same species, please be my guest. I'll depart the room to the sounds of intense laughter and derision aimed at you.
But... but... if there was no evolving allowed, and they couldn't have survived a catastrophic global flood complete with massive salinity changes or complete submergence of all plants for over 18 months in salty water, Noah had to have stored and saved them all. Right, Tom? You don't need to be a biologist or mathematician or philosopher to see or agree with it.
So you really can't use that "I don't claim to understand such stuff" argument here. It really looks more and more like a "run and hide" response, coupled with "God works in unknown ways!" evasion, deflection and really weak excuse. I mean, you started the argument, and now you want to claim it's beyond your level of understanding, so please excuse you? The alternative is to admit that you're probably wrong about this, and yep, it really doesn't make any logical sense, and the evolutionary argument is far more likely.
This doesn't even address the other issues I and others have so neatly and nicely cataloged in this enduring threrad. About the problems with remote sensing, or the actual age of the Earth, or geological concerns, etc. Etc. Etc.
The only possible alternate Christian answer would be MAGIC, which is soooo much less believable than our more rational, logical, and, oh by the way, well supported concept of an ancient earth, evolution and no flood. No Noah.
So something's gotta give here, right? You can finally see that, can you not, Tom?
...he said politely.
Well, MAGIC is more related to the Devil than God. Yet call it what you will. God does have abilities that are beyond are understanding. Yet sometimes, I believe what you think is impossible, only appears to apply to the Ark of Noah. Now in 1962 the American government was able to identify the boxes, which were the containers for Russian missiles. Now you believe that was possible. Yet, a man-made object that was hundreds of feet longer than those boxes, that some believe is Noahs Ark. That, you do not believe we could identify, and almost 30 years later? I believe you understate or nations capabilities, only when we are speaking about seeing the Ark of Noah.
Now you say to me, are there not things about the Ark that I would find troubling? Really rifleman, I am not your standard Christian kind of guy. No.1 I don't even go to church because of my job. And No. 2, I personally know God. I don't base my belief on assumptions, or what I think I know. God speaks to me on very rare occasions. So when your asking me if I find something troubling. How could I find anything troubling, especially when I have already had numerous personal encounters with the God you do not believe in. Why don't you try to convince me, that I never had a mother?
If such a report DID exist it would be available at the university...It's not
Well, did you contact Hong Kong university and ask for it?
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.
The Ark, Bible Study
A nice quiet non-combative response.
