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.
Campbell, nobody here is denying they "found" something on Ararat. But the evidence and the testimony is against it being the Ark, not to mention the entire problem you have answering simple questions like--well, every scientific and rational problem with the story.
The evidence and the testimony of those who have actually been there, support it as being the Ark of Noah. Those who have stated it is not the Ark of Noah, have neither been there, nor can they speak with any authority. My problem in adressing the scientific problem only reflects my lack of knowledge on the topic. This does not mean the answers do not exist. Clearly, the object in question did not get there by anything close to normal. The Sears Tower is 1,451 feet tall. If you can imagine putting nine Sears Towers on top of one another, you would reach the height of where this structure was found. The structure is huge. And it is ancient. At it's present altitude, it would require oxygen to build such a structure in place, and we should see roads leading up to it. Yet we see nothing like this at all. There is no rational reason outside of being Noahs Ark for it being there. And there is no rational way it could of been built in place. And clearly, the Bible tells us this was the resting place of Noahs Ark, and historical accounts continue to confirm that the Ark is there. And the Hong Kong team confirm those accounts.
Last edited by Campbell34; 06-10-2010 at 04:09 AM..
LOL. Did you go to your local athiest site to find this nonsense?
You obviously didn't even click the links did you? Had you done so you would have seen that the one dealing with Bible being inerrant is actually a site run by religious people.
....Now that is the best laugh I've had this month....You have that basakwards there Tom.
Well,that depends on how you define truth.If you define truth as "whatever dogma I am taught I MUST believe to be a good Christian",then he obviously is programmed to believe that.Programmed being the key word.Or indoctrinated.Take your pick.
We could,for example,have a discussion about God making the Sun stand still in the sky so Israel can kill more of their enemies before dark,and just as here,all the scientific evidence in the world would not matter.You would even get sites linked purporting to show that the Sun is actually one day behind schedule with the rest of the cosmos.All because the Bible says it happened,so it happened.End of discussion for them.
The evidence and the testimony of those who have actually been there, support it as being the Ark of Noah. Those who have stated it is not the Ark of Noah, have neither been there, nor can they speak with any authority. My problem in adressing the scientific problem only reflects my lack of knowledge on the topic. This does not mean the answers do not exist. Clearly, the object in question did not get there by anything close to normal. The Sears Tower is 1,451 feet tall. If you can imagine putting nine Sears Towers on top of one another, you would reach the height of where this structure was found. The structure is huge. And it is ancient. At it's present altitude, it would require oxygen to build such a structure in place, and we should see roads leading up to it. Yet we see nothing like this at all. There is no rational reason outside of being Noahs Ark for it being there. And there is no rational way it could of been built in place. And clearly, the Bible tells us this was the resting place of Noahs Ark, and historical accounts continue to confirm that the Ark is there. And the Hong Kong team confirm those accounts.
Then how did Noah and his family and all of the animals survive the ark landing up there with no oxygen? I'm assuming that they weren't all teleported to the bottom of the mountain. It would have taken an extensive amount of time to unload all of those animals off of the boat. Not to mention the fact (which has been brought up several times in this thread) that there would be nothing for all of those animals to eat.
Then how did Noah and his family and all of the animals survive the ark landing up there with no oxygen? I'm assuming that they weren't all teleported to the bottom of the mountain. It would have taken an extensive amount of time to unload all of those animals off of the boat. Not to mention the fact (which has been brought up several times in this thread) that there would be nothing for all of those animals to eat.
You are going to get the "god did it" answer. They pretty much put all logic and reason to the side.
You obviously didn't even click the links did you? Had you done so you would have seen that the one dealing with Bible being inerrant is actually a site run by religious people.
You actually thought he would give them a look? LOL
It was not the rain that really flooded the earth. It was the fountains of the deep. And that occured when the crust of the earth collapsed. Today it is believed that the earth holds as much as ten times the water then we would find in all earths oceans. Consider link below. The water from the flood found it's way deep below the earth. As Lou Bergeron reports in the link below. Story appeared in the New Scientist Aug. 30, 1997.
Now Campbell here's something I don't quite understand, first you say you believe every word in your sacred book and that it does not lie and then you turn around and make a statement like I have just bolded above and nowhere in your sacred book does it say that the Earth's crust collapsed and caused the flood. Now in Genesis 7:4 it states, [For in seven days I will send rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground.] So if it wasn't the rain that flooded the earth, then I guess your Christian God lied to Noah. So Campbell which was it, the rain or the earth's crust collapsing that flooded the earth?
Tom, the bigger question I have, as I do understand that YOU believe this occured.
Now why do you feel that your god, that killed MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of good people, children, babies, unborn babies, along with a few bad people should be adored, honored, and worshiped?
Now you worship and defend this a sicko that would stoop to such extreme levels of hatred? Your sick little god went Columbine on the population of the world, in an extreme manner and you honor, worship and adore him. Dude, that is sick in the head. You have the delusion the event occurred, that is your problem. You and others like you worship the mass murder of all times*, that is a global problem.
* (yea, I know it's all a myth, and he really isn't, but you don't, thus you actually defend that he actually committed mass murder)
It seems that a honest caring believer would actually want this to be considered the myth it is, so not to have the stigma of being guilty of worshiping a mass murder.
The orginal question was. Where did all the water from the flood go? The Bible states the water receded. Where else could the water recede to if not into the earth? Popular belief was that most of the water will be found in the oceans. The link in question states, this is not the case.
Yes, I know your post was in response to Ptsum's question, "Where did all the water go?" However, your reply claims that an article by Lou Bergeron says "The water from the flood found it's [sic] way deep below the earth."
Let's take another look at exactly what you wrote again:
Quote:
Consider link below. The water from the flood found it's way deep below the earth. As Lou Bergeron reports in the link below. Story appeared in the New Scientist Aug. 30, 1997.
Lou Bergeron did not write anything in the article about a global flood covering all land surfaces and mountain peaks, and completely receded within a span of several months to where oceanic levels are today, claimed to have occurred several thousand years ago.
The article is talking about the early formation of the solar system (including the Earth) from gas an dust some 4-5 billion years ago. Further, the thought regarding distribution of water molecules deep in the Earth's mantle is because of a Mars-sized object which slammed into the Earth. The collision resulted in ejecting material, some of which resulted in the formation of the Moon, and redistributed material as it settled back to reform the Earth. BILLIONS of years ago. There was no indication that the Flood of Noah claimed to have occured several thousand years ago involved any planetary-sized objects colliding with the Earth.
While there may be plenty of water deep in the Earth's mantle, it's locked up within the rock itself. In other words, it can't simply burst out causing a global flood. Nor is there any indication of any massive collapses of the Earth's crust and mantle releasing massive amounts of water to suddenly burst out of the Earth. Even if what you claim to be the collapse of the Earth's crust were to have happened, water would be released in the form of vapor so hot it would completely destroy everything, including Noah, the Ark, and all the animals aboard the Ark. Not only would molecules of water vapor be released, but so would massive amounts of magma from below and dust from the surface. Temperatures would be so intense, that nothing on the planet would survive, except perhaps for some extreme forms of bacteria blasted high up in the atmosphere and eventually resettling on the surface. So were Noah and the animals actually extreme forms of bacteria?
The idea that the Earth's crust suddenly collapsed (in the way you suggest) is unrealistic. The alternative would be eruptions of super volcanoes all over the planet going off at the same time. But even so, it would still mean the end of any highly complex forms of life, including people, animals, plants (such as the olive branch), on the Earth. There have been several mass extinctions that have taken place in the Earth's history, but as far as is known, most were not total extinctions of all life. In extreme cases (like the Snowball Earth theory), a few microbes could have survived to kick start evolution. If there have been earlier instances of a total mass extinction of all life forms, including microbes, then the only kick start for life would have been from more organic molecules coming in from space and settling on the planet to start the process all over from scratch again.
Campbell, why do you so persistently hopscotch around and twist everything out of context? The link you included says absolutely nothing about a global mountain-covering flood as claimed in the book of Genesis. In fact, Genesis doesn't say the entire surface of the planet was submerged under water. Nor does it say the Ark landed on Greater Mt Ararat. It simply says the MOUNTAINS of Ararat. That could be anywhere, including low hills. If the flood account is rooted in the memory of an actual event, most likely it would've been a local flood, devastating to be sure, but not global. A more likely scenario could be in the area of the Black Sea. Anyone trapped in a large scale flood could well think it's the end of the entire world. Ask some of the people who were trapped by the flooding caused by Hurricane Katrina what they thought when the levies gave way with water pouring in what would seem endlessly into the city on New Orleans. Did it seem like the end of the world to them?
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.
