Noah's ark found on mt. Ararat in eastern turkey (lukewarm, sunday, America)
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.
What I find so staggeringly incomprehensible is that Arkists are unable to take a few steps backwards and survey the entire idea, the combined concepts of..
1) the magical materialization of TEN TIMES the known Earthly aquatic resources, deposited at a rate of 18 inches per hour!
2) Its' subsequent handy quick recession. Back to where again? Because they claim it's initial removal caused much subsidence and collapse. And then some claim that science has actually found numerous underground cities, when in fact they have not. Such underground sources, suddenly depleted, would cause an equal-sized sink-hole to be formed, so it'd be a zero-sum game. Like pulling your finger out of a glass of water and wondering, stupidly, why the level did not then stay the same... or better yet, rise significantly.
3) The whole structural engineering question, given that it was hand-made by axe, not precisely saw-cut (+/- 1 - 5 mm for a tight waterproof fit..), and held together with pitch and wooden pegs. Not a single metallic structural aid in sight;
4) the whole issue of the necessary known true species count and subsequent reproductive ecology, well covered elsewhere;
5) the effects of completely, massively and destructively altering the entire global fresh- and salt-water aquatic ecology;
5) the issue of food and water storage, and species-specific accommodations, onboard an un-lit, unheated, non-steerable, unstabilized and unpowered barge;
... as if all this is completely plausible! (Snort!) Not to mention that the geology of the world does not actually provide any evidence for a singular global event. no uniform global sediment layer, complete with a single layer of dead organism and plant remnants. Nope. Rather it points unerringly, when examined with even a mildly a rational mind, to a very long history and multiple ice ages and ongoing many and varied sedimentary, volcanic and plate tectonics events.
But they prefer to argue about micro-points; as to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, ranting on into the night about how some hay in an old barn "proves The Ark's up on Ararat".
And summarily ignoring the overall impossibility, on so many levels, of the entire concept.
And, to boot, that it's all only 6037 years old, and T-Rexs and gigantic Brontosaurs (saddled....) were also onboard but have, mysteriously, disappeared, though we easily find all the other remnants of civilizations and animals much older than the Ark...
Rubbish thinking, to a rubbish conclusion.
But hey: that's just me and good old logic. so, let the games continue. They are in no mood to see clearly, and frankly, nothing will convince them, even when this current faker expedition fails.
Why are there kangaroo fossils only in Australia?If they were originally only in Australia and then they hopped to the ark,then theoretically they would have had to head straight back to Australia to reproduce the planet with 'roos,since we have no evidence of kangaroos anywhere else.But we have no fossils along the track back to Oz.Not to mention that the 'roos would have now had to navigate an ocean to get back to Oz,since we are told that all the oceans formed during the flood.
In short,kangaroos show the utter silliness of the whole flood idea.
rifle: u keep posting and quoting price coz he serves ur agenda. what abt the other scientist? why do u leave morris' observatiom and reasons? and they are in the same article u keep posting. morris said of price's accusation that he saw with his own eyes that they put the woods using donkeys(?). morris outright says it is impossible. for those donkeys to go back and forth that top of the mountain. he also said, as of now there is no verifiable evidence yet if indeed it is a hoax. u r the one that get in my nerves. i dont care abt ur educational degrees and or experience. there are many scientists that don't take God out of the equation like you do.
rifle: u keep posting and quoting price coz he serves ur agenda. what abt the other scientist?
I do? I keep posting? Huh? Where? Links? "Proof", as you so often demand...
But still, first he was touted as a credible scientist on their team, and then, only after he spilled the beans, did the rebukes begin. how convenient.
So here we go:
why do u leave morris' observatiom and reasons? and they are in the same article u keep posting. morris said of price's accusation that he saw with his own eyes that they put the woods using donkeys(?). morris outright says it is impossible. for those donkeys to go back and forth that top of the mountain.
(Someone else said they used a truck in fact...)
he also said, as of now there is no verifiable evidence yet if indeed it is a hoax. u r the one that get in my nerves. i dont care abt ur educational degrees and or experience. there are many scientists that don't take God out of the equation like you do.
Not so many, actually. I don't care about my degrees either, as you seem to. You even want to trumpet Cephus' education. ("His are better than your-orhs, nee-yahhh neeyaaa!") I could care less; his thinking is provably wrong.
Rather, it's how I think that caused me to then go and get a higher and very broad-based education at several universities, to gather up the facts and then, and only then, to conside the totality of it all.
Any fool can get a piece of paper with some fancy script on it; it's what you then do with it. Your professional career is the real test and proof. What do you do with the tools provided by an education? Did you, for instance, get published in peer-reviewed journals (yes, X 15. Or was it X 18?). Did and do you still successfully teach courses in your subject areas? (yes). Did you convince others with open minds to at least consider your perspectives? (yes).
It's plain you don't have either the fancy paper (i.e.: the tool set) or the mental capability to sort stuff out logically. Nor any professional accomplishments. Only your unsupported faith-based and blindered dogma. You only prove the point in my previous post about arguing the tiny irrelevant points. Why not look at the larger picture? Too scary, huh?
Re-read this, evo. Try to see the light for once!
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman
What I find so staggeringly incomprehensible is that Arkists are unable to take a few steps backwards and survey the entire idea, the combined concepts of..
(snipped myself.. hee heee..)
But they prefer to argue about micro-points; as to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, ranting on into the night about how some hay in an old barn "proves The Ark's up on Ararat".
(..or how they got the wood up there... Who cares? It's all irrelevant anyhow., Look at the bigger plausibility picture for ONCE!)
And summarily ignoring the overall impossibility, on so many levels, of the entire concept.
Rubbish thinking, to a rubbish conclusion.
But they are in no mood to see clearly, and frankly, nothing will convince them, even when this current faker expedition fails.
well clearly he has omitted morris the other scientist who has UNBIASED opinion on the ark. i am sure u read morris' opinion on the matter too?
The opinions of any scientist that goes looking for the ark is by definition biased,as the only reason to go looking for it is because you believe the Biblical story as literal.Not sure if this Morris is an ark hunter,but if he is then he is most definitely not unbiased.
Why are there kangaroo fossils only in Australia?If they were originally only in Australia and then they hopped to the ark,then theoretically they would have had to head straight back to Australia to reproduce the planet with 'roos,since we have no evidence of kangaroos anywhere else.But we have no fossils along the track back to Oz.Not to mention that the 'roos would have now had to navigate an ocean to get back to Oz,since we are told that all the oceans formed during the flood.
In short,kangaroos show the utter silliness of the whole flood idea.
Actually, I've heard trans-oceanic travelers often mention that "It's only a short HOP across the pond" So perhaps... maybe....
Perhaps evo can clarify the missing logic here. He's v. good at the nitty-gritty details, you know!
_________________________
Late add: perhaps this explains it! Noah's personal sport ute! for those difficult species returns!
(Also please do note the automatic angelic choir that kicks in at just the right moment! But then, later on in the "vid", we even have a race between Noah [i.e.: GOD's team] and The Devil [note the shiny red Skidoo!]. The Debil wins! Talk about an evo-Proof!) (Hey; that's a good one too: shorthand for an unsupportable bit of logical fluff"!)
(Nitrous and other supplies provided exclusively by Heavenly Nitrous Supplies & Rentals LLC™)
"HevnlyNitroSup-R-Us!
"One Whiff and you're as good as in Heaven, but laughing all the way!"
"Power-Boosting our way into the minds of Christians for centuries!"
(I could just go on and on, but ...no... There's "mods" about)
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.
Re-blurtage. (Is that even a word?)
