Noah's ark found on mt. Ararat in eastern turkey (New Testament, theories, definition)
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 problem with Radiometric Dating is it requires you to make three assumptions that you have no knowledge off, yet you must believe you do. 1. You must believe the initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known. 2. You must believe the amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay. 3. You must believe the decay rate of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed.
Now, can you say with confidence that all these assumptions have remained constant?
In the case of the Ark of Noah, we know the flood occured around 5,000 years ago or so. I could be off even a thousands years. Yet when we are talking about billions of years, how many years might science be off? Especially, when they have no real time markers outside of their own personal assumptions.
I have not disprove anything. How did America move from the Declaration of independence in 1776, to landing a man on the moon in 1969. All of that in just 193 years.
We were talking about a growth in population, not technology...How could the population grow from the fictitious eight of Noah's family to enough manpower to build the pyramids in such a short time..(I won't mention the problem of incest....Oops. I guess I did)..The great pyramid of Giza was begun 4,550 years ago....The biblical date of the flood was 4,350 years ago, two hundred years after construction began.
Quote:
I can't give you an exact date for the flood of Noah, yet I believe Egypts first civilization must of occured within two or three hundred years of the flood. And Egypts oldest pyramid only took them 20 years to build.
Not possible....
Quote:
I believe if you consider the numbers, and not your bias, you would see the rational thought.
I see no rational thought here at all.
[/quote]And what rational thought can you give us for the Ark being found at the top of Mt. Ararat? And why would any group ask others to go back up to Ararat with them to see it? Especially, if it was just a fake. Where is the rational thought in that?[/quote]
The ark wasn't found, and will never be found, because it doesn't exist, but people like yourself will continue to spend time and money trekking up that mountain tying to make your fairy tale come true...You are right about one thing though...There are no rational thinkers among them, except perhaps the many scammers taking your money.
So in fact, the Bible can't be relied on for accuracy.
Spot on!!
No it doesn't Tom. It states approx 2304BCE... that's 4300 years...smack bang in the middle of Egypt's 'Old Kingdom. Now Tom old bean, please explain to your assembled audience why the recorded history of this period didn't suddenly end abruptly.
Can you give me a chapter and verse where the Bible states the flood occured 2304 B.C.? That is based on speculation, where as others will tell you the flood occured at other times. The timeline found in Scripture is often up for debate, and for a number of good reasons.
The stories of the Bible are accurate. The Bibles message is accurate. The Scriptures timeline, has often been, and will continue to be debated.
The problem with Radiometric Dating is it requires you to make three assumptions that you have no knowledge off, yet you must believe you do.
Oh Tom. I know you pulled this off AIG. I've already seen their crock-of-**** "why radiometric dating is wrong."
Won't stop you from trusting radiocarbon dating though for dating clay sculptures or some wood in a mountain.
Quote:
1. You must believe the initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known.
2. You must believe the amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.
Those two points are exactly the same.
I already know you aren't going to read the links I post because you, like all creationists, are not interested in reality--just your fairy tales.
Now, can you say with confidence that all these assumptions have remained constant?
And yes I can. Why? Because I actually know what the **** I am talking about. Your continued ignorance is insulting to Christians.
Quote:
In the case of the Ark of Noah, we know the flood occured around 5,000 years ago or so. I could be off even a thousands years. Yet when we are talking about billions of years, how many years might science be off?
Less than 1%.
Quote:
Especially, when they have no real time markers outside of their own personal assumptions.
Do you know how the sun works? Are you aware the Bible isn't an accurate recorded history nor does it provide objective claims?
A quick summary of the fraudulent Mt. St. Helen's dating
Our entertainer here has stated as absolute the findings that rock taken from Mt. St. Helen's found it to be "millions of years old", when, he nuttily concludes, is only as old as 1986. He does not realize that lava flowing from volcanoes pre-exists as magma. Typical shallow understanding. But anyhow, here's some additional facts from the various links.
"...the laboratory personnel that performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al., specifically, personnel at Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. This laboratory no longer performs K-Ar dating.
However, when they did, their website clearly stated in a footnote that their equipment could not accurately date rocks that are younger than about 2 million years old ("We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y.".
And yet, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) did quote the bogus results in their frantic, desperate attempt to selectively discredit radio-isotopic dating or to prop up the farce that the Earth is only 6000 years old.
These interesting quotes sum it up well:
"Because radiometric dating utterly refutes their biblical interpretations, young-Earth creationists (YECs) are desperate to undermine the reality of these methods. As part of their efforts, YEC Dr. Steve Austin and his associates at the Institute for Creation 'Research' (ICR) collected a dacite sample from Mt. St. Helen's, Washington State, USA, which probably erupted in 1986 AD.
Austin et al. then ineffectively separated the sample into several mineral and glass 'fractions', submitted the dacite and its 'fractions' to GeoChron Labs for potassium 40-argon 40 (K-Ar) dating, and subsequently used the bogus results to inappropriately attack the K-Ar method. Austin's conclusions on this project are summarized at the ICR website."
Should anyone with a clear conscience and interest in the truth be interested, this link, thoughtfully provided by Konraden, post # 448 above, makes for some interesting, and occasionally, technically intense, reading. The summary of it all, however, is inescapable:
Austin, et al are fraudulent pikers, easily dismissed as such by any and all intellectually honest readers.Of course, those who knowingly pass this tripe on are of no better moral "stuff".
Some interesting selections from the summary of this excellent link:
"In other words, YECs need more time to invent excuses to explain how abundant 40Ar could ever form on an Earth that is supposedly only 6,000 to 10,000 year old."
"Rather than appropriately dealing with the complexities in samples like the dacite shown in Austin's Figure 4, YECs often irrationally dismiss evidence of ancient rocks and minerals by using groundless and improbable miracles (see It'll Take a Miracle to Save Their Science)"
"Real scientists are expected to provide natural and reasonable hypotheses for their results, whether their results were anticipated or not. Certainly, there are times when scientists obtain anomalous results and they can only say 'we don't know why we got these results'. These mysteries then provide new avenues for further research."
"...when Austin submitted his samples to Geochron Laboratories, he failed to heed [or pass on] warnings from the laboratory about the limitations of their equipment."
"Obviously, it's Austin's improper use of the K-Ar method and not the method itself that is flawed. Rather than recognizing the flaws in Austin's essay, Swenson simply parrots Austin's erroneous [bogus and intentionally dishonest] claims without really understanding the chemistry and mineralogy..."
"Desperate men will do desperate things": rifleman, 2010.
I have not disprove anything. How did America move from the Declaration of independence in 1776, to landing a man on the moon in 1969. All of that in just 193 years. I can't give you an exact date for the flood of Noah, yet I believe Egypts first civilization must of occured within two or three hundred years of the flood. And Egypts oldest pyramid only took them 20 years to build. I believe if you consider the numbers, and not your bias, you would see the rational thought.
Well,while waiting for the battery on the 2nd one to charge,I'll answer.Your analogy,like so many others,is completely false.The US was settled by what,hundreds of thousands of immigrants up til 1776.To make them similar,go with this.Send 10 people over on the Mayflower,and ONLY 10,and then from those 10,with only the tools they make themselves in a pre-industrial America, form the current US and go to the moon in 193 years.This,of course,doesn't even begin to deal with the fact that the America was settled on the cusp of the Industrial Age,while Egypt was obviously not.But don't let rational facts get in your way.You haven't so far.Of all the silly @ss stuff you have claimed,this has to be the silliest.I really have trouble understanding how anyone,even you,could seriously accept that the pyramids were capable of being built by a non technical people who 240 years earlier just crawled off the Ark.In fact,I don't think you do.I don't think even you are capable of fooling yourself this bad.I think you inadvertently presented evidence of which you had no idea what the consequences would be,and although you probably wonder how it could really be that Noah's descendant's could do this,you still must "fight the good fight" and defend the flood story.
Sad,dude.Sad.
Quote:
And what rational thought can you give us for the Ark being found at the top of Mt. Ararat? And why would any group ask others to go back up to Ararat with them to see it? Especially, if it was just a fake. Where is the rational thought in that?
It hasn't.Simple as that.You keep asking this question as if it has been conclusively proven it has.It hasn't,and your repeated claims that it has do not make it so.Once again,even most ark explorers who believe in it deny this is the ark.You are grasping at wisps of smoke.So please,quit asking this stupid question as if it is a fact that it has been found.
We were talking about a growth in population, not technology...How could the population grow from the fictitious eight of Noah's family to enough manpower to build the pyramids in such a short time..(I won't mention the problem of incest....Oops. I guess I did)..The great pyramid of Giza was begun 4,550 years ago....The biblical date of the flood was 4,350 years ago, two hundred years after construction began.
Not possible....
I see no rational thought here at all.
And what rational thought can you give us for the Ark being found at the top of Mt. Ararat? And why would any group ask others to go back up to Ararat with them to see it? Especially, if it was just a fake. Where is the rational thought in that?[/quote]
The ark wasn't found, and will never be found, because it doesn't exist, but people like yourself will continue to spend time and money trekking up that mountain tying to make your fairy tale come true...You are right about one thing though...There are no rational thinkers among them, except perhaps the many scammers taking your money.[/quote]
Your Biblical date for the flood was based on speculation. I can give you numerous accounts of biblical dates that far exceed the date you posted. And that would be based on even more speculation.
So what did they find up there sanspeur? After all, you told me it was just pillar lave that I was looking at sometime ago. It appears to me they are walking around a great wooden structure deep below the ice. And the link below sure does not look like pillar lava to me. Is it denial time for you now? And if this is a fraud, why are they going back up there with others?
Can you give me a chapter and verse where the Bible states the flood occured 2304 B.C.?
No I can't and as you well know, I'm not talking about "chapter and verse" but Bible chronology. I can give you that if you want?
Quote:
The timeline found in Scripture is often up for debate, and for a number of good reasons.
Quote:
The stories of the Bible are accurate.
...but they can't be...otherwise the Bible time-line wouldn't be "up for debate" would it? Your cherry-picking comes to the fore here brother. "The Bible stories are accurate" you claim, then tell us that the time-line is debatable. Which is it Tom..the Bible is accurate and reliable or the time-line in the Bible is not accurate and up for debate.
Quote:
The Scriptures timeline, has often been, and will continue to be debated.
So we can't rely on the Bible for accurate information...that will do for me. Thanks for confirming that the Bible can't be trusted old fruit!!
Oh btw! As a matter of interest. On what basis do you claim that the Earth is young and how old do you think it is?
Your Biblical date for the flood was based on speculation. I can give you numerous accounts of biblical dates that far exceed the date you posted. And that would be based on even more speculation.
Then how do you come to the conclusion for YOUR date being accurate?
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.
A quick summary of the fraudulent Mt. St. Helen's dating
