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 05-28-2010, 09:21 PM
 
Location: Brooklyn
40,049 posts, read 34,512,412 times
Reputation: 10610

Advertisements

And a free copy of the Book of Enoch when you pay your admittance!

 
Old 05-29-2010, 05:22 AM
 
7,628 posts, read 10,951,760 times
Reputation: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifertexan View Post
You're getting the cart before the horse again.WHEN some independent researchers and scientists confirm there is an ark there,THEN is the time to ask where will your common sense be.As it stands,you are in the same boat as someone believing that the world is going to end in 2012 because the Mayan calendar says so,and asking non believers "where will your common sense be then?".Let the supposed event happen first,THEN gloat.As of now you have nothing,and even other Christian ark explorers admit that.So not only do you disagree with people here,you disagree with Christian "experts" on the ark who say this is not it.All because of a desperate need to believe whatever is claimed by any old person who claims to have found the ark.




The Bible has a much better track record historically then the Mayan calendar. And that is why one can have confidence in it's accuracy. Christian experts? LOL. I have not met to many of them. And if they call themselves experts, and disagree with Scripture, then they really are not experts at all. For Scripture tells us, the Ark of Noah landed on the very top of the Mountain where the discovery was made. And we are not talking about (ANY OLD PERSON). We are talking about a number of people over the years who all claim to of seen the Ark near the top of Mt. Ararat.
 
Old 05-29-2010, 06:11 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 12,885,070 times
Reputation: 3767
True: greed for monetary gain will never cease.
 
Old 05-29-2010, 06:12 AM
 
7,628 posts, read 10,951,760 times
Reputation: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
Oooohhh eeeeewwwww! Claims without any substantiation! Lemme try! LEMMEE TRY, DANGITT! ('course, mine will not be unsubstantiated... big difference!)

Let's see: Corrections to Tom's wild errors:

1. In fact, most all of the Earth's water IS found in the oceans, obviously. There's not only no evidence of subterranean waters of any real volume, aside from some unscientific wild fantasies posted last year by Tom, which turned out to be bogus, but as well, all those exploration drill holes, you know, the ones where we can "hear" hell (now THAT's a YUK!), do not ever tap into vast bodies of water. In fact, they don't even tap into a little water. Oh, there's some oil from old dinos, yes, but water? Nope.

2. Not to mention that bit of irrefutable math by a thoughtful poster recently that shows it would have taken, what was it, ten times the known volume of water to cover the globe to the claimed level. Not to mention the level by which it would have to have arrived, by whatever means: 11 inches per hour is a LOT of water, Tom. Rain or impossible upwellings notwithstanding, it's still too much water.

3. There are, by actual, physical count, 30+ million species on this planet. And more discovered each and every day, BTW. Now, since there's "No Evolvin' !!!" allowed, and Tom says there was no need for even 1.5 M of them, (at the mythical fairy-tale two-per-each, that'd be only 750k species...), just how, indeed, did we end up with 60 to 100+ M species on this planet today?

(In fact, simple math & logic irrefutably demands at least 500 million to one-billion organisms on board, all with proper habitat, food and water. Fact.)

4. And how do we explain that we have now, also fact, fully documented Evolution when it's strictly "Verboten!"? Huh?

5. Ah yes; you argue with "logic" until it fails, and then you deflect and default to "God brought them to Noah". How? By MAGIC? By instant psychokinetic transportation? Certainly not by any rational or explicable process, obviously, over tens of thousand of miles of hostile land and ocean. But... but still... where's this MAGIC now, Tom? He never demos it now. Ever.

6. How again did Noah keep the various habitat-specific animals and plants, and marine organisms, alive on board his barge, with no power, light, water or heat? Oh yeah; I forgot: MAGIC.

In fact, MAGIC is the only rationale you can fall back on, isn't it, Tom? Because by any logical evaluation, it all falls flat on it's face. Whenever YOU try to use science and logic, it FAILS, totally. Always.

________________________________________

PS: still waiting for a response from our Chinese friends. And here I thought there was some urgency.





1. In fact most of earths water is found in the oceans, obviously? And the belief that there may be ten times the amount of water found trapped inside the earth then all the volume of water found in the seas turned out to be bogus?

Based on what? Your personal opinion rifleman? Can you show us the link that would confirm your statement?


http://www.ldolphin.org/deepwaters.html

Last edited by Campbell34; 05-29-2010 at 06:56 AM..
 
Old 05-29-2010, 06:23 AM
 
Location: Toronto, ON
2,331 posts, read 2,832,629 times
Reputation: 259
I further claim that Global Warming (as a theory) would show that the amount of water under land is decreasing, and that the amount of water in the oceans is increasing. The total of the two is however also decreasing. Don't believe me; do you?

LOL

Last edited by tgnostic; 05-29-2010 at 06:36 AM.. Reason: add
 
Old 05-29-2010, 06:28 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 12,885,070 times
Reputation: 3767
Red face Quick Update.

NoahsArkSearch Intl. has advised that they will invite certain people who meet qualifications (which they also won't list...) to the upcoming Forum and PR effort in Turkey in a few weeks. At our expense. Unlikely, huh? To pay from one's own pocket over $2800 return, plus hotel, to hear for the first time the details of their expedition is unheard of. Unfortunately, they are unwilling to provide me with a preliminary prospectus which clearly outlines the project's goals, or even a basic financial structure. Not even a paragraph or two.

As well, it promises, during the June Forum, a one-day trip to the site. Really? It's that easy to get there? Frankly, that alone will probably kill any credibility or potential for a valid "find" on the spot, when the folks check out the site. I wonder if they will allow any videos to be taken and released from that "teaser" trip....

In fact, in their response to my inquiry and offer to participate, they didn't provide any real details yet because this project is still in development, and will constitute a long-term highly scientific and credible project.

This is therefore being run exactly opposite to known, established and accepted protocols for any project proposal and funding request, be it religious, secular, purely scientific or socio-economic. Examples of proper project management protocols are readily available from such austere organizations as The United Nations, the Peace Corps, National Geographic and on and on.
__________________________________________

I will, here and now, predict that this project will likely be still-born, or will lack credibility from any established organization with a reputation to preserve, nor will it receive the tacit blessing or funding of any scientific group. Why?

Because it is currently unable to provide...

1. even the most preliminary description of it's objectives and outcomes, including a possible "failure to produce";

2. it's methods & equipment, and scope of tests;

3. it's funding sources and their requirements;

4. it's professional team members and their qualifications;

5. it's time line, including benchmarks for interim report presentations;

6. the key elements of it's critical path.

Other than that, of course, it reeks of professionalism.

Last edited by rifleman; 05-29-2010 at 06:36 AM..
 
Old 05-29-2010, 06:35 AM
 
7,628 posts, read 10,951,760 times
Reputation: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stubblejumper View Post
There's been lots of reputable, peer reviewed research into flooding at the end of the last ice age, when glaciers and ice caps melted. Unfortunately for your story, by the standards of ice age people, we're still flooded.

And frankly, 2 out of 3 tribes local to me (Blood, Sioux) have flood stories (Plains Cree do not). The only detail they share with the biblical story is water.

The Blackfoot (Blood) account states that the water didn't cover the mountaintops, nor was there an ark. A duck recovered soil from the bottom of the ocean, and new land was created.

The Sioux account has water rising up through the earth (being on the plains it's not surprising, as most flooding would have been meltwater). There was no ark. Everything, animals and all, was drowned. Life was created again from scratch. No Noah, though God himself had to wait out the flood floating on a tobacco pipe and pipe bag.

So, you're 0 for 3 so far. Would you like to make a wager on how many cultures have flood stories that parallel the biblical one?

Rational people have already connected the dots. You're trying to connect them to dots that don't exist in a vain attempt to draw an ark. It's not working.




There are more tribes on earth than your locals. And many of them share the information given in the Biblical account. I would suggest you try expanding your horizons. You can always say your tribe, or their tribe does not meet the Biblical account. Yet there are way to many other out there that do. Consider the 35 in the link below that pretty much contains the basic information found in the Scriptures. And the dots do exist, you are just ignoring them.

Abiogenesis and the Origin of Life
 
Old 05-29-2010, 06:56 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 12,885,070 times
Reputation: 3767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
1. In fact most of earths water is found in the oceans, obviously? And the belief that there may be ten times the amount of water found trapped inside the earth then all the volume of water found in the seas turned out to be bogus?

Based on what? Your personal opinion rifleman? Can you show us the link that would confirm your statement?
As usual, you ask for links that have been previously provided. All of this has been worn near to death in the past threads on this subject, and yet, even when you've been proven entirely wrong in the past, you simply ignore, but then with clock-like predictability, re-quote it.

So nope. Sorry. Unlike you, I'm not claiming to be an expert on everything. But as an established and published research scientist, I am more than able to find things out real quick-like on the Net. As well, unlike you, I actually do have some serious geological education, and am more than aware of the lack of immeasurably vast hydrologic resources under the earth.

But please... tell us all, Tom; why is it that the hundreds of thousands of oil and geological exploration drill holes completed so far do not ever tap into some imaginary and necessarily massive supply of water? Only if your equally imaginary and MAGIC-prone God is hiding it about 50-100 miles down, is such a thing possible.

Oh... no, wait; that won't work either because we also KNOW the temp rise per 100 feet of depth, and at 50 - 100 miles down, water would be boiling under super-heated pressures, and frantically seeking a way out, seething out of any and all of the uncountable numbers of cracks and fault-lines that criss-cross the real, not imaginary, world.

We also have masses of documented proof of what happens when even small amounts of water contact the sub-crust magma: violent explosive eruptions like Mt. St. Helen's. That's what actually happens to subsurface water, Tom, not some quiet pooling at depth.

So, instead of lava-spewing volcanoes which we do see, (that lava coming from depths far closer than even 30 miles) we'd have steam geysers, like in Yellowstone, but with millions of times more volume, spewing all over the world. And all that water would condense and collect up on the surface, and we'd all be under 5 miles of water already. (Absent MAGIC, of course. PS: God's in Vegas all week...)

Unfortunately, such world-wide geysers are conspicuously absent.

Your hidden groundwater source is but an imaginary ruse, as usual. So you provide the link this time, Tom, by some credible geo-technical source, that shows any massive source of literally ten times the currently (estimated) known volume of water on this planet.

Until then, it's relegated to the growing scrap-heap of your numerous yet unsupportable claims.
______________________________

While you're at that task, also explain how the known count of 30+ M species, even halved (tho' I don't know why we should even grant you that break...) would not have had to be onboard. Times 50 each for any possibility of reproductive success, times two [male & female...]. Stun us with your logic and knowledge yet again!
 
Old 05-29-2010, 06:58 AM
 
7,628 posts, read 10,951,760 times
Reputation: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgnostic View Post
I further claim that Global Warming (as a theory) would show that the amount of water under land is decreasing, and that the amount of water in the oceans is increasing. The total of the two is however also decreasing. Don't believe me; do you?

LOL
New study to consider link below.

Deep waters
 
Old 05-29-2010, 07:10 AM
 
7,628 posts, read 10,951,760 times
Reputation: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
As usual, you ask for links that have been previously provided. All of this has been worn near to death in the past threads on this subject, and yet, even when you've been proven entirely wrong in the past, you simply ignore, but then with clock-like predictability, re-quote it.

So nope. Sorry. Unlike you, I'm not claiming to be an expert on everything. But as an established and published research scientist, I am more than able to find things out real quick-like on the Net. As well, unlike you, I actually do have some serious geological education, and am more than aware of the lack of immeasurably vast hydrologic resources under the earth.

But please... tell us all, Tom; why is it that the hundreds of thousands of oil and geological exploration drill holes completed so far do not ever tap into some imaginary and necessarily massive supply of water? Only if your equally imaginary and MAGIc-prone God is hiding it about 50-100 miles down, is such a thing possible.

Oh... no, wait; that won't work either because we also KNOW the temp rise per 100 feet of depth, and at 50 - 100 miles down, water would be boiling under super-heated pressures, and frantically seeking a way out, seething out of any and all of the uncountable numbers of cracks and fault-lines that criss-cross the real, not imaginary, world..

So, instead of lava-spewing glaciers (that lava coming from depths far closer than even 30 miles) we'd have steam geysers, like in Yellowstone, but with millions of times more volume, spewing all over the world. And all that water would condense up on the surface, and we'd all be under 5 miles of water already. (Absent MAGIC, of course. PS: God's in Vegas all week...)

Unfortunately, such world-wide geysers are conspicuously absent.

Your hidden groundwater source is but an imaginary ruse, as usual. So you provide the link this time, Tom, by some credible geo-technical source, that shows any massive source of literally ten times the currently (estimated) known volume of water on this planet.

Until then, it's relegated to the growing scrap-heap of your numerous yet unsupportable claims.
______________________________

While you're at that task, also explain how the known count of 30+ M species, even halved (tho' I don't know why we should even grant you that break...) would not have had to be onboard. Times 50 each, times two [male & female...]. Stun us with your logic and knowledge yet again!




The reason they do not sink there well heads into vast amounts of water rifleman, is if you had read the link provided, it tells you. This water is not found in a series of deep seas. Yet rather scattered droplets, and some as small as a single molecule. And most of it trapped inside crystal lattices of rare minerals that only form under intense pressure. Only the volume of this water is believed by some to be many times greater than all the seas found on the earths surface. Link below.

Deep waters
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 01:47 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