Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [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 10-31-2009, 07:19 AM
 
7,628 posts, read 10,956,983 times
Reputation: 498

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by deepcynic View Post
Campbell, How many animals would have had to be loaded into the Ark?

How were they fed?
I have no idea how many animals were loaded onto the Ark. The Bible does not give us a number. Nor does it say how the animals were fed. Yet, let me ask you a question. How high would one have to to go to reach the end of the universe? Of course, science cannot provide us with such an answer either. Yet, does this make our belief in science any less true.

 
Old 10-31-2009, 07:50 AM
 
7,628 posts, read 10,956,983 times
Reputation: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
Of course, the Bigfoot legend was sorta destroyed by the confessions of the two guys who provided the Upright Ape suit and possession of the original blurry video. Similarly, we have Ed Davis adding his bias-laden comment that "he really wanted it to be The Ark", or that George Stephens "hadn't actually visited the site." but was "sure it was made of wood" (from 100 miles up?) and was "likely the Ark". Yawn.

In addition, there's all the other implausible requirements for a successful Ark trip that the Arkists simply won't respond to. So they harp on controvertial and convenient "new" evidence of petrified wood bits from caves on the mountainside. New proof, yep!

But the impossibilities of the overall concept? Let's not answer or discuss them, OK?
Really rifleman, as a man of science, I though you would of understood that satellite technology has advanced so much, that we now can tell the difference between Red Pine or Red Oak from space. So for George Stephens to suggest the object on Ararat was made of wood. Why are you so surprised? Or is it, you just don't want to believe in a technology that helps confirm the Biblical account?

Spaceflight Now | Breaking News | Earth observing technology satellite proves a success
 
Old 10-31-2009, 08:06 AM
 
Location: The land where cats rule
10,908 posts, read 9,537,665 times
Reputation: 3602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
I have no idea how many animals were loaded onto the Ark. The Bible does not give us a number. Nor does it say how the animals were fed. Yet, let me ask you a question. How high would one have to to go to reach the end of the universe? Of course, science cannot provide us with such an answer either. Yet, does this make our belief in science any less true.
It would appear obvious, using your type of reasoning, that it is impossible to reach the end of the universe, thus impossible to load two of each animal onto the alleged ark. You have defeated your own silly argument.
 
Old 10-31-2009, 09:50 AM
 
5,463 posts, read 9,614,821 times
Reputation: 3555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Most accounts coming to us from the upper reaches of Ararat will tell you, that the Ark is covered by Ice most of the time. What inconsistencies are you speaking about? Of course the Russian account was different, because it occured during the time when much of the ice had melted away. The Bible clearly tells us, the Ark landed on the mountains of Ararat. And the Bible also clearly tells us, the Ark landed on the highest mountain, on the mountains of Ararat. There are different stories about the Ark. Such as the Ron Wyatt's side show. Yet, the real Ark is right were the Bible said it is. Near the very top of Mt. Ararat. Any other accounts of the Ark being anywhere else, has nothing to do with the Bible. It is not only local legends that support the Ark being on Mt. Ararat. There are also numerous eyewitness accounts. The fact is, so many of the details of these accounts agree. And if you really start doing the footwork, you would come to understand, that such details cannot occur by accident. And it matters little how many years seperate such accounts.

Call the Russian account far fetched, yet then, you must believe that many people all came together to fabricate a lie. And then they moved to distant places across the globe waiting for someone to ask them to repeat their lie. That, I find far fetched. Unlike Bigfoot, the Ark can only be in one place. And unlike Bigfoot, we have more than a few broken twigs. The 36 foot, by 8 foot petrified structure stored in a cave high up on Ararat, confirms the Ed Davis account. Just like a crime scene, the evidence is mounting. Now, do we pretend nothing was found up there?

I already gave you examples of inconsistencies. Numerous locations claimed to be where the ark is. Mt. Ararat, Mt. Judi, Iran, etc. You say, "...the Ark landed on the highest mountain, on the mountains of Ararat." Eh? That isn't right. You might want to be a bit more accurate in your choice of words. Ararat is NOT the highest mountain. You'd need to go to Nepal for that. If volcanoes are to be included, then technically Hawaii would qualify as the largest, volcanic or any other other kind on the planet. But since that's in the ocean, we can stick with those on dry land. Ararat is tall, but volcanoes along the west coast of North and South America would tower above Ararat.

Secondly, you're failing to take into account that names of varaious features can and do change over time. Do you have any historical evidence that Ararat in Turkey has always been known as Ararat? It's entirely possible it was named that in the past based on the biblical account. For all anyone knows, Ararat could have been referring to some other location that has also had a name change over time. I'm not saying that's the case, but it's something that should be taken into account.

Quote:
According to Genesis 8:4, Noah's Ark "rested ... on the mountains of Ararat." Over time the "mountains of Ararat" have become identified in Christian tradition with Mount Ararat itself, a volcanic massif on the border between Turkey and Armenia and known in Turkish as "Agri Dagh" (Agri Dagi), or "painful mountain." It seems probable that the writer of Genesis was referring to the region known in the 1st millennium BC as Urartu, equivalent to the later "Gordian mountains" of the Romans.
Mount Judi: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article

Quote:
Ararat- The Bible does not refer to any specific mountain or peak, but rather a mountain range, "the mountains of Ararat". Nonetheless, one particular tradition identifies the mountain as Mount Masis, the highest peak in the Armenian Highland, which is therefore called Mount Ararat. (As opposed to the Armenian and European tradition, Semitic tradition identifies the mountain as Judi Dagh located in Turkey near Cizre.) According to the medieval Armenian historian Moses of Khoren in his History of Armenia, the plain of Ayrarat (directly north of the mountain) got its name after King Ara the Handsome (the great grandson of Amasya). Here the Assyrian Queen Semiramis is said to have lingered for a few days after the death of Ara. According to Thomson, the mountain is now called Ararat (Armenian: Արարատ) by confusion with Ayrarat the name of the province. Influenced by Biblical tradition, Ararat is also used in many other languages. The association of the mountain with the story of Noah is however comparatively recent in Armenian culture, according to Murat (1900) not pre-dating the 11th century. The historical name of the peak in Armenian is Masis or (in the plural, referring to both peaks) Masik’.
Mount Ararat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thirdly, the Russian account seems to be describing an intact ark, claiming to have measured it, entered it and found grain and honey inside. You said: "Call the Russian account far fetched, yet then, you must believe that many people all came together to fabricate a lie."

Not so, it can take just one person to create an elaborate hoax. From there. it can take on a life of its own. The link you posted regarding the Russian account shows nothing but text written by someone on the website. What proof is there that there are any genuine docuiments, or that if there are, that they are genuine? It's absolutely possible the website writer fell for a hoax. The point is that if you provided the link as a piece of evidence to support your belief about the ark on Ararat, then you might want to reconsider things a bit. Just because there's something posted on the Internet, doesn't always mean it's proof of a claim.

Other accounts claim it's in two pieces buried in ice. You said it's in a lake. And still other accounts claim to have found it (or parts of it) in a cave. Here's the cave photographed by the Chinese. Look at photo 7 for the "extreme close up" presented as proof. The description states: "Li and Yeun claim you can see a wooden structure and a crossbeam??" Evidently, no one on this website seems to be able see them either.
Bibleland Studios

So, yes, there are indeed a lot of inconsistencies. No one seems certain about anything.
 
Old 10-31-2009, 10:04 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 12,892,755 times
Reputation: 3767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Really rifleman, as a man of science, I though you would of understood that satellite technology has advanced so much, that we now can tell the difference between Red Pine or Red Oak from space. So for George Stephens to suggest the object on Ararat was made of wood. Why are you so surprised? Or is it, you just don't want to believe in a technology that helps confirm the Biblical account?

Spaceflight Now | Breaking News | Earth observing technology satellite proves a success
Four quick questions: (1) when did George do his landmark study? (2) what's the date on your link? (3) does science advance over time? (4) did George's technology allow him to discern different types of wood, esp. a small piece sticking out of the snow, from 100 miles up?

(Remember, you're talking about scanning entire forests of trees in one case, and in the 21st century).

Regarding the number of organisms needed on board. I must say, you deflect so well. I'd almost say you've been taught how to do it!

It's quite simple, really. Even if you oddly and stupidly required had ONE of each animal and plant (don't forget the plants, which the authors of the fable did), and there's 40+ million different species counted so far on this planet, how many do you have to have on board, Tom?

You still can't guess the answer? Really? Secret decoder ring answer: 40M. Get it?

Times an implausible "two" for good old fashioned sexual reproduction, and that's a minimum of 80 M. The number's getting sorta unmanageable already. roll in some known reproductive and ecological necessities, mechanics, and, trust me, you'll need about 400 - 600M.

Don't deflect when you know the answer, Tom. I know; you can't tell us the obvious and correct answer because this, amongst all the other impossibilities for an Ark, instantly kills off the Ark fable.

Oh, and if you also can't comment because you weren't there, how then can you assert that there was an Ark that landed on Ararat? You basis for this statement? Not being there and all...

(This is all too easy. And repetitive. Tom's lost this one. I want a challenge. Anyone out there with a brain and an honest debating technique? Anyone? Anyone?)
 
Old 10-31-2009, 10:17 AM
 
5,463 posts, read 9,614,821 times
Reputation: 3555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
How high would one have to to go to reach the end of the universe?

What kind of a question is that? There is no high or low, up or down in space. How far West do you have to go before you reach East?
 
Old 10-31-2009, 10:21 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 12,892,755 times
Reputation: 3767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Really rifleman, as a man of science, I though you would of understood that satellite technology has advanced so much, that we now can tell the difference between Red Pine or Red Oak from space. So for George Stephens to suggest the object on Ararat was made of wood. Why are you so surprised? Or is it, you just don't want to believe in a technology that helps confirm the Biblical account?

Spaceflight Now | Breaking News | Earth observing technology satellite proves a success
Four quick questions: (1) when did George do his landmark study? (2) what's the date on your link? (3) does science advance over time? (4) did George's technology allow him to discern different types of wood, esp. a small piece sticking out of the snow?

George's now-ancient 1989 technology was able to separate out 64 different colors, Tom. Colors. Based solely on their IR signature, nothing else. Later remote sensing used X-Ray fluorescence, which determines actual composition. As in: basalt/limestone for this very structure.

You didn't like that 2003 finding, did you? So you ignore it.

But now you grab on to the fact that we can, and apparently always could, separate out different wood types. As always, I checked out your link. Interesting. Yep: they were able to differentiate between huge crop monocultures (all the same type of plant, next to another massive field of another distinct type of plant). I didn't catch though where they could pick one different tree or stub of an old piece of wood out of those pictures.

You musta had the unedited long version, right?

Bunk. And you know it.

NEXT: Regarding the number of organisms. I must say, you deflect so well. I'd almost say you've been taught how to do it!

It's quite simple, really. Even if you oddly and stupidly required only ONE of each animal and plant (don't forget the plants, which the authors of the fable did), and there's 40+ million different species counted so far on this planet, how many do you have to have on board, Tom?

You still can't guess the answer? Really? Secret decoder ring answer: 40M. Get it?

Times an implausible "two" for good old fashioned sexual reproduction, and that's a minimum of 80 M. The number's getting sorta unmanageable already. Roll in some known and simle reproductive and ecological necessities & mathematics, and, trust me, you'll need about 400 - 600M.

Don't deflect when you know the answer, Tom. I know; you can't tell us the obvious and correct answer because this, amongst all the other impossibilities for an Ark, instantly kills off the Ark fable.

Oh, and if you also can't comment because you weren't there, how then can you assert that there was an Ark that landed on Ararat? You basis for this statement? Not being there and all...

(This is all too easy. And repetitive. Tom's lost this one. I want a challenge. Anyone out there with a brain and an honest debating technique? Anyone? Anyone?)
 
Old 10-31-2009, 11:37 AM
 
7,628 posts, read 10,956,983 times
Reputation: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Predos View Post
It would appear obvious, using your type of reasoning, that it is impossible to reach the end of the universe, thus impossible to load two of each animal onto the alleged ark. You have defeated your own silly argument.
The point I was making, is the fact that unless we have advanced knowledge, there are some questions we will never be able to answer. I have not defeated my argument at all. I am only pointing out a factual statement. Now there are people here, who do not believe the Ed Davis account. Yet, Davis did say back in the 1940s, that he was taken to a cave on Mt. Ararat. And in that cave, he saw petrified wood from the Ark of Noah that had broken in two. Now, in February of 2007, we have Turkish authorities, archaeologist, and geologists who climb Mt. Ararat. And what do they find? That's right, they find a large petrified wood structure, that was placed in a cave, where no structure should be found. So to the unbias mind, that should let us know, that maybe Ed Davis was speaking the truth after all. And maybe the rest of the Ed Davis story is true as well. So why is it, when the evidence confirms his account of the cave, and the petrified wood. Why do some of you, still refuse to believe him?
 
Old 10-31-2009, 11:52 AM
 
16,294 posts, read 28,472,289 times
Reputation: 8383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
I have no idea how many animals were loaded onto the Ark. The Bible does not give us a number. Nor does it say how the animals were fed. Yet, let me ask you a question. How high would one have to to go to reach the end of the universe? Of course, science cannot provide us with such an answer either. Yet, does this make our belief in science any less true.

But we KNOW how many species of plants and animals inhabit the earth. Thus common sense tells us that these millions and millions of animals and millions and millions of plants (with the exception of aquatic plants, plants DROWN just like animals) that would also have to have been saved.

Now as a reasonable and thinking person would one not assume that ALL of these millions and millions plants AND aminmals had to be on the 'big boat'?

Or am I just wasting my time expecting common sense, reason and thought from the defender of an outrageous fairy tale.

But to answer your question, the current answer is 13 billion light years, but unlike fairy tale thinking, science is always striving to learn more, and increase man's collective knowledge, where fundies want to teach outrageous fairy tales such as the 'big boat' crap AS science.

And science uses knowledge, common sense and reason and freely admits that 13 billion light years is likely not the 'final answer' vs. fairy tale followers that use one convoluted book of fables and the 'final answer', thus there will be no discussion, or reasoning that just maybe there is no way in hell it happened as the fairy tales goes.
 
Old 10-31-2009, 11:54 AM
 
16,294 posts, read 28,472,289 times
Reputation: 8383
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar View Post
What kind of a question is that? There is no high or low, up or down in space. How far West do you have to go before you reach East?
It is a diversion, when standing on something that cannot be supported with fact, reason, or common sense, the fundi tactic is to change the subject.
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:19 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