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.
By your own admission, there was no ice on Mt Ararat hence we can also assume the north and south poles melted too. I mean they are a lot lower that 15500ft are they not? Ice floats does it not?
So com'on tell us how this is all possible with your version of delusion err... I mean reality?
That's one of many problems that doesn't seem to have a realistic explanation. We're presented with a situation in which sea water mixes with fresh water and the ice caps are not even mentioned (probably because the writers of the Bible didn't know they even existed) and yet somehow the waters after the flood seem to travel to where they belong. The oceans are not filled with fresh water and the rivers and lakes are somehow not contaminated with salt water. One would think that a global flood would merge all of these bodies of water into a single body of water which would be a mixture of salt water and fresh water which would cause the extinction of both fresh water and salt water inhabitants. The obvious answer is that this event never happened but I'm sure that someone will come up with an explanation for it.
That's one of many problems that doesn't seem to have a realistic explanation. We're presented with a situation in which sea water mixes with fresh water and the ice caps are not even mentioned (probably because the writers of the Bible didn't know they even existed) and yet somehow the waters after the flood seem to travel to where they belong. The oceans are not filled with fresh water and the rivers and lakes are somehow not contaminated with salt water. One would think that a global flood would merge all of these bodies of water into a single body of water which would be a mixture of salt water and fresh water which would cause the extinction of both fresh water and salt water inhabitants. The obvious answer is that this event never happened but I'm sure that someone will come up with an explanation for it.
You never heard C34's fresh water stream theories in the sea?
The origin of salt in the sea originates from rivers that carry the dissolved sediments to the sea which then accumulates in concentration due to the water cycle namely, evaporation.
You have your dried salt lakes in in US (Bonneville flats?) as do we have here in Southern Africa in Botswana. Of course for these to occur with the level of concentration takes a long time. I have posed questions regarding the salt mines in the Med, which are as I recall below sea level. All these irritating factoids dispute a YEC and global fludd.
Tom, you have just fully discredited yourself. Remember them Antarctic Ice Cores? Err.. 750k of layers and still coring.
By your own admission, there was no ice on Mt Ararat hence we can also assume the north and south poles melted too. I mean they are a lot lower that 15500ft are they not? Ice floats does it not?
So com'on tell us how this is all possible with your version of delusion err... I mean reality?
And it appers rather than acknowledge how the Bible places the Ark on Ararat, now you want to talk about Ice cores. Give me a break. It's obvious, you don't want to acknowledge that Biblical reality. So when your shown something that supports the Biblical account, you change the subject. Why am I not surprised? I answered your question, and you ignored that answer. The reality is, I believe you have discredited yourself by your silence. And then your feeble attempt to change the subject.
And it appers rather than acknowledge how the Bible places the Ark on Ararat, now you want to talk about Ice cores.
No just waiting for a logical explanation from you as to how they exist today with your ark scenario and global fludd.
Quote:
Give me a break. It's obvious, you don't want to acknowledge that Biblical reality.
No because it is a myth.
Quote:
So when your shown something that supports the Biblical account, you change the subject.
Not changing the subject, just repeating the same question you have avoided about twenty times already, if you can rinse, recycle, repeat, deflect; so too can I.
Quote:
Why am I not surprised?
Because you do it too?
Quote:
I answered your question, and you ignored that answer.
No you did not, you talked of WWII planes in a glacier in Greenland, Ice that flows at extraordinary rates sometimes which BTW is what the ice on your beloved mount is too, you really do not think ice on a slope can defy gravity say oh for about 4495 years (giving you 5 years for the ice to reform)
Quote:
The reality is, I believe you have discredited yourself by your silence.
Silence about what. I continually challenge you and you continually ignore the questions because what I ask, all of them disproves your young earth ergo your fludd and your creation myth. My evidence does not prove evolution either but is allows time for it to be possible like 4.5Bn years versus your 6-10k years.
Quote:
And then your feeble attempt to change the subject.
Yeah coming from you that is rich.
Well for the new readers, care to explain exactly how we sit with your ark encased in ice which was obviously was not there when the crew and passengers disembarked from said ark AND ice cores from the ANTARCTIC, the "white" bits at the bottom of the globe assuming it is mounted with the north pole on top and you are NOT standing on your head - here is a pic just to make sure.
In this pic, the thin pink part at the bottom axis NOT the blue part on the other axis. Those Ice cores from the pink axis.
And no it is not off topic as you claim the ark landed and we all know that, that mountain is permanently ice capped just like Kilimanjaro in Africa and Everest in Asia.
Thus, by your claims, there was no ice when they landed, ergo using your logic therefore the ice at the poles (not Poland) too must have melted.
ScienceDaily (June 11, 2004) — Secrets of the Earth's past climate locked in a three-kilometre long Antarctic ice core are revealed this week in the journal Nature. The core from Dome C, high on East Antarctica's plateau, contains snowfall from the last 740,000 years and is by far the oldest continuous climate record obtained from ice cores so far.
I guarantee the "logical" explanation will bee (drum roll...)
The precipitation back then was not as low as it is today, just like my other proofs like the gorges of the Victoria Waterfalls being 100,000 years old, the Sudwala and Cango Caves - oldest in the word - show stalactite and stalagmite formations in excess of 2,500,000 years (all in southern Africa where AiG do not have "agents") both of which the same lame different speeds of erosion or growth has been offered. In fact the Vic Falls is also supported by varves which are sediment layers measured in downstream lakes and one also finds this same varve layers in deltas of rivers flowing into the sea. All of which date to times waaaay before the alleged fludd of C34's flexi-timeline of 4,500-10,000 years (depending on which creation site he happens to be quoting).
So Tom, until you can offer up some "biblical" alternatives to these challenges for which we have physical evidence aka hard facts, we will continue to deride your claims or the "voyage of the damned" aka the ark myth.
That was a great question. I was wondering how long it would take someone to ask it. The Ark came to rest on the Mountains of Ararat on the seventh month. That is correct. Yet check the next verse, most people just pass over it. The waters continue to go down until the tenth month. And it is on the tenth month, when the tops of the other mountains become visible. That means, the Ark had to rest on the tallest existing mountain. Which just happens to be Mt. Ararat...
In fact it isn't.
CAUCASUS MOUNTAINS
Located between the Black and Caspian Seas, these mountains dominate the landscape of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia (all part of southeastern Europe,) where the Middle East begins. Many of the volcanic peaks here exceed 15,000 ft., with the highest point being Mt. Elbrus at 18,481 ft. (5,633m).
TAURUS MOUNTAINS
This rugged chain extends across southern Turkey to its borders with Iraq and Iran. The highest point (Mt. Ararat) is located in the Eastern Taurus range. This extinct volcano is 16,583 ft. (5,137m) high. It is felt by biblical historians that Noah's Ark landed here.
Elbrus is higher by some 2,000 feet. Elbrus would have been the first mountain to appear (there may be others) not Ararat. But then you may say that it was the first to appear in the area that the Ark happened to be. True. But then the 'first to appear' argument is irrelevant since half the world's mountains could have appeared but the Ark wouldn't ground on them because it wasn't in that particular place. What this means, Campbell, is that your proof that Ararat has to be the place the Ark ended up because it is 'highest' is really meaningless. I might also say that that Biblical Ararat may not be the same as the present one. It is not unlikely that the name was applied to the volcano because it was thought high enough to be a candidate and didn't, like some of the others, already have a name (1).
This is speculative, of course. you may have proof that Ararat has been called Ararat from Biblical times but if not, then the claimed identification of the Ark - location from the Bible is on shaky ground indeed.
(1) P. s. "The Bible does not refer to any specific mountain or peak, but rather a mountain range, "the mountains of Ararat".[5] Nonetheless, one particular tradition identifies the mountain as Mount Masis, the highest peak in the Armenian Highland, which is therefore called Mount Ararat." (Wiki)
Well,there you are. The Location proof is little more than a circular argument.
No, I meant his explanation about the ark landing on Mount Ararat rather than anywhere else on the Ararat range. The rest of it is junk!!
Well, when you are bending known, verifiable current facts to match an unprovable, unsupported myth it is easy to distort things to make them appear to fit.
And it appers rather than acknowledge how the Bible places the Ark on Ararat, now you want to talk about Ice cores. Give me a break. It's obvious, you don't want to acknowledge that Biblical reality. So when your shown something that supports the Biblical account, you change the subject. Why am I not surprised? I answered your question, and you ignored that answer. The reality is, I believe you have discredited yourself by your silence. And then your feeble attempt to change the subject.
Avoiding fats that contradict your opinion again, Campbell?
And then complaining when someone else uses your tactics?
Teh ice at Mt. Ararat is the only ice that defies gravity and does not flow whatsoever. It does however melt from time to time allowing the ark to split in two and allow miraculously, one part of the ark to slide downhill due to the theory of gravity.
In my earlier moniker, I calculated based on ice flows at Mt Ararat, the ark would have with conservative figures moved something like 140 kilometers away. That of course is theory only, in fact, there would by now be an ark of rotting wood at the base of the mountain - or more likely it would have been harvested for firewood by the locals.
Yet after 4500 years, they trek to nigh on the summit where by all logic wrt to ice flows, there would be well just ice and rock formations
Maybe Noah dropped anchor after running aground?
With all these images and the "angle of dangle" (my university math professor's favorite phrase) that the ark supposedly is lurching at, I wonder how them critters got out of the ark?
GPS receivers existed in the 1970s, yet many smaller ones were made by companies in the mid-1980s. Yet as I have stated on another post, the GPS numbers only had to be transposed to existing maps.
And for your information, the first GPS satellite was (NOT) launched in (1993), but in the year (1978). It's getting hard for me to keep up correcting such obvious errors. Consider the link below, and I hope this link helps you with your education. Brief History of the GPS System
I don't know if you were ever in the military or not, but I was (20 years). I remember the first GPS receivers we got. These were not small, but had to be carried on the back just like the radiomen of WWII. Additionally, during Desert Storm the GPS system was not yet fully operational and we used it pretty much as a test case. There were all sorts of operational limitations in the desert at that time. Civilian applications did not exist. GPS receivers would not have been available to ANY civilian Ark hunters in the 1970s or even the 80s.
The first EXPERIMENTAL Block 1 GPS satellite was launched in 1978. All the Block 1 satellites launched between 1978 and 1985 were EXPERIMENTAL and used for proof-of-concept. Big difference between operational and experimental. Initial Operational Capability (IOC) wasn't reached until 1993. The GPS system did not reach full operational capability (FOC) until 1995. It wasn't until then that civilian use came into being. Again, GPS receivers would not have been available to ANY civilian Ark hunters in the 1970s or even the 80s.
Having worked in the space field during the latter part of my Air Force career, I do know something about this system.
"It's getting hard for me to keep up correcting such obvious errors."
No just waiting for a logical explanation from you as to how they exist today with your ark scenario and global fludd.
No because it is a myth.
Not changing the subject, just repeating the same question you have avoided about twenty times already, if you can rinse, recycle, repeat, deflect; so too can I.
Because you do it too?
No you did not, you talked of WWII planes in a glacier in Greenland, Ice that flows at extraordinary rates sometimes which BTW is what the ice on your beloved mount is too, you really do not think ice on a slope can defy gravity say oh for about 4495 years (giving you 5 years for the ice to reform)
Silence about what. I continually challenge you and you continually ignore the questions because what I ask, all of them disproves your young earth ergo your fludd and your creation myth. My evidence does not prove evolution either but is allows time for it to be possible like 4.5Bn years versus your 6-10k years.
Yeah coming from you that is rich.
Well for the new readers, care to explain exactly how we sit with your ark encased in ice which was obviously was not there when the crew and passengers disembarked from said ark AND ice cores from the ANTARCTIC, the "white" bits at the bottom of the globe assuming it is mounted with the north pole on top and you are NOT standing on your head - here is a pic just to make sure.
In this pic, the thin pink part at the bottom axis NOT the blue part on the other axis. Those Ice cores from the pink axis.
And no it is not off topic as you claim the ark landed and we all know that, that mountain is permanently ice capped just like Kilimanjaro in Africa and Everest in Asia.
Thus, by your claims, there was no ice when they landed, ergo using your logic therefore the ice at the poles (not Poland) too must have melted.
ScienceDaily (June 11, 2004) — Secrets of the Earth's past climate locked in a three-kilometre long Antarctic ice core are revealed this week in the journal Nature. The core from Dome C, high on East Antarctica's plateau, contains snowfall from the last 740,000 years and is by far the oldest continuous climate record obtained from ice cores so far.
I guarantee the "logical" explanation will bee (drum roll...)
The precipitation back then was not as low as it is today, just like my other proofs like the gorges of the Victoria Waterfalls being 100,000 years old, the Sudwala and Cango Caves - oldest in the word - show stalactite and stalagmite formations in excess of 2,500,000 years (all in southern Africa where AiG do not have "agents") both of which the same lame different speeds of erosion or growth has been offered. In fact the Vic Falls is also supported by varves which are sediment layers measured in downstream lakes and one also finds this same varve layers in deltas of rivers flowing into the sea. All of which date to times waaaay before the alleged fludd of C34's flexi-timeline of 4,500-10,000 years (depending on which creation site he happens to be quoting).
So Tom, until you can offer up some "biblical" alternatives to these challenges for which we have physical evidence aka hard facts, we will continue to deride your claims or the "voyage of the damned" aka the ark myth.
We shall be waiting..... tick.. tock
Start your drum roll.
I believe the very first mistake you make, is you date everything based on rates of flow, or the speeds of formations we only see today. You must (ASSUME) that nothing in the past occured, that change those rates. You talk about the Antarctic, and the annual precipitation of snow being less than 2 inches a year. Well that's Good, but what was the rate of snow fall 5,000 years ago. I no you hate to hear about those world war II planes that landed in Greenland back in 1942. Especially when those crew members went back to recover them 40 years later. Yet what they found is hard evidence. And they discovered those planes left there from 40 years past, were now 268 feet below the ice. Now given another 1700 years, that same ice would be about two miles thick. And if not for the existance of those places. I,m sure science would be claiming that ice was 100,000 years old or older. Mount St. Helens shows us, that major earth changes can occur in just hours. And if you can ignore those facts, then you can continue to measure everything based on only the flow rates you see today. You see, I believe everything you believe is based on assumptions. You don't know what the flow rates were in the past. You don't know the different dynamics that have occured in ancient times. You only assume you know. And based on those assumptions, you claim science has given their stamp of approval. Just like they did with all those supposed missing links.
The reason I usually do not adress such arguements, is because they can only be debated if all believe in those unfounded assumptions. I don't believe you assumptions are facts.
Now, when I speak of the Ark of Noah landing on Mt. Ararat. I can state that the Bible confirms this. I can give numerous eyewitiness accounts that have given details of seeing the Ark on Mt. Ararat. And I can give accounts from satellite photo interpreters, who can confirm those eyewitiness accounts, based on what their photographs show them.
My physical evidence is not based on assumption, but accounts that come from real people, and real photographs. And I have more reasons to believe these people are speaking the truth, then I have to believe in your assumptions.
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.
