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 water will never expand sanspeur. So you need not worry about it. The fact is, the water found in the depths of the earth have a greater volume, then all the earths seas. And it is science that is drawing this conclusion. And I know you don't like such conclusions, only because they support the Biblical account. So maybe you should take up your arguement with those scientist. LOL
Who said that the water would expand?........In order to cover ALL the mountains on earth the water would have to be more than five miles deeper than it is now, thus the earth's average diameter would have to increase by ten miles...It's just simple math, or are you that poor at math?
sanspeur, to state there are no historical accounts of the Ark is simply not true. The link below gives the names of at least 40 people, and many of then are from the American army, Air corp, U-2 pilots, Navy photographers, ect. who saw the Ark on the mountain. So to suggest these are shaky, or non credibile people is a statement based on nonsense.
Those are not historical accounts any more than my "sighting" of a sasquatch is...Historical accounts require a lot more than "sightings".... I suppose that you also think there are historical accounts of alien abductions, visitors from space and other such nonsense. You need to come down to earth and experience reality, at least occasionally.
In the one and only link you've provided, it's author noted that those speculated (not proven) volumes, as a source of global flood water, were impossible. I, sanspeur and Nea1 each pointed the author's commentary out to you, and yet you still claim this link proves it's the source of Noah's impossible global flood. Nope: He said it could not be the source of Noah's flood.
Plus, as opposed to your trademark Grossly Over-Reaching Exaggerations, (GORE™), there's only the one article, and that one's by a science writer, not a hydrologist. So where's the "science is now confirming?" coming from? Answer: your head.
This shows you're a repetitive irksome troll, nothing more.
So let's review again, the now proven points:
Hydrologically, you're an uninformed idiot. ("idiot" because you repeat disproven "facts" in order to deceive and annoy...)
In Entomology & Arachnology, you're an uninformed idiot.
You refuse to answer logical questions (as in NightBazaar's excellent post. Why? Because the truth terrifies you.)
So logically and ethically, you're a purposeful troll and prevaricator."Lying for Jesus!" seems to come more easily to you with each passing day.
This time, I'll repeat: Niiiiice! A well-deserved reputation!
And still to date, and to ice the cake, there's been noresponse from your NAMI heros!
Have nice sleep, Tom. (Q: can the depraved sleep well?)
_________________________
Oh and just BTW folks: check out the newest issue of National Geographic, which outlines the now-proven links, dates (6M+ yrs) and heritage of Ardis and Lucy (your near-simian ancestors), as well as the sources of the archeologists' information and finds.
All quite well developed and believable, with supporting biology, morphology, geology and ethnology; far more believable than some irksome and fabricated rote-chanted and easily debunked posts from some of the intentional fundy Christian liars and inciters here.
You want evidence? Here it is, in spades! NAMI [Post #199, BTW] should be so lucky to have this level of credibility, quality of evidence and scientific support!
But don't take my biased word for it! You read it and you make your own minds up; the silly Creationist and Ark stories and fairy tales, or what these hard working and honest folks are finding as we speak, in the birthplace of all hominids.
(Tom here will be terrified to read and consider it of course; it's too much of a threat.)
Well heres another link riflemen. Now you can deny the science you say you believe in. I believe evidence to you is just one more thing you can ignore. These are not disproven facts, and they come to us from Arizona State University.
"Scientists who study the mantle (NOW REALIZE) that the mantle can hold a lot of water. Under high pressure, rocks can take on more water-the solubility of water increases with pressure,"
And this means the mantle could be holding enought water to fill all the world's oceans several times over! Consider the link below.
Those are not historical accounts any more than my "sighting" of a sasquatch is...Historical accounts require a lot more than "sightings".... I suppose that you also think there are historical accounts of alien abductions, visitors from space and other such nonsense. You need to come down to earth and experience reality, at least occasionally.
Actually they are famous historical accounts sanspeur, and you appear to be in denial. Thats the problem with non believers, they base their beliefs on their personal whims. Give them historical evidence, and they deny it, and do so even thought they themselves could not even state the detailed stories that came from any of these people. I believe blind faith, is your best friend sanspeur.
Who said that the water would expand?........In order to cover ALL the mountains on earth the water would have to be more than five miles deeper than it is now, thus the earth's average diameter would have to increase by ten miles...It's just simple math, or are you that poor at math?
The crust of the earth collapsed sanspeur, and the water was obsorbed by the earth. And according to the scientist found in the link below, there is enought water in the earth to replace the volume of all the seas at least three times over. So yes, according to science, there is more then enought water. Consider the link below. This link comes to us from Arizona State University. It's not that I am poor at math sanspeur, I believe you are poor at comprehension. And I don't believe you want to imbrace science. Espically when science supports the Biblical account.
I'm not saying rapid petrification can't happen. I'm saying that for rapid petrification to occur, it requires certain conditions and kinds of minerals to happen. Here's a quote from the link you provided:
Earlham College - Geology 211 - petwood (http://www.earlham.edu/~tinkeem/web/petwood.htm - broken link)
It says petrification has to do with the conditions. Factors determining time for something to petrify include pH level and temperature. Petrification can occur in a shorter amount of time if the water contains calcite. It occurs slower if the water contains less soluable (dissolve) minerals like silica. Finally, it states petrification is possible in a few hundred years under IDEAL CHEMICAL CONDITIONS.
'Ideal chemical conditions' suggests conditions that are not necessarily typical or common. So again, you have to ask yourself, what are the ph levels on Ararat? Does Ararat show any indication that water containing calcite is or has been present? Or is it water soluable silica? One or the other can help determine how fast or slow wood can petrify. What about the termperature factor? If it's too hot, it'd be most likely that wood would be reduced to ash.
Finally, you have to ask whether such conditions for petrification can take place at 13,000 or so feet near the top of a volcano. Or would such conditions be more likely to take place at much lower elevations from a thick covering of volcanic ash, perhaps far from the volcano?
Do you see the point I'm making? Such conditions MIGHT be present on Ararat, but you can't yet say such conditions ARE present on Ararat. You're drawing conclusions based on unknowns, and before having any answers of what the factors and chemical conditions there are. I honestly don't know what the answers are. Do you?
It's an interesting and worthwhile link, but it doesn't identify what spiders (if any) are present on Mt. Ararat. Again, yes you are basing things on your personal opinion. You're assuming that because there may be certain spiders in the Caucasian mountain range that can be found at elevations above 4000 meters, that it means there are spiders on all the mountains including Ararat. The link only gives a general description, not specific to any particular mountain (or volcano). It's not a matter of could spiders be found at Ararat's high elevations. It's a matter of are there spiders found high up on Ararat? Again, I don't know. Do you?
While it might be possible for spiders to be up there on Ararat, in my opinion, based purely on what has been presented by NAMI, there are some problems with NAMI's claims and your claims. There is nothing in the spider links that indicate ice caves that certain spiders might temporarily inhabit are deep caves. They might be crevasses or just a few feet deep. As deep at the NAMI videos, videos and drawing seem to suggest, I seriously doubt any spider (as referred to), much less small spiders like Jumping spiders, is going to go in that deep.
The Causasus mountain range is home to Mt. Ararat. So what? The
Himalaya mountain range is home to Mt. Everest. That doesn't mean all mountains in the Caucasian range have the same flora and fauna. There can be some plants and creatures that are unique to a specific mountain and live no where else. Because Mt. Ararat happens to be within the Caucasus range, does not mean Ararat has the exact same flora and fauna as other mountains in the range.
They way you're putting it is like saying:
- Penguins live in Antarctica.
- Therefore, penguins can live deep in the interior of Antarctica.
Not so. Penguins live only along the coastal regions of the continent because it's closer to their food source. Why? Because that's how they've adapted and evolved for their survival. If they moved further inland, they'd starve or freeze to death.
Once again, you're talking about facts, but are only presenting general information about other places and attempting to tie them in with Ararat. That makes what you're calling "facts", in specific relation to Ararat, nothing more than your own personal opinion. Personal opinions are not FACTS about Ararat.
Just because other people may disagree with your opinions, does not mean they are not interested in facts. They are indeed interested in specific facts, but you haven't provided any. You keep wandering off with links, etc., that are unrelated to Ararat and the claim of finding Noah's Ark. And NAMI has yet to reveal any real scientific evidence proving their claim. Time will tell whether they have anything to say that's truly significant or not. Their claims have yet to be authenticated. And until it's been verified as authentic, not because of their say-so, then no one has any idea if their claim is correct, a misunderstanding, or simply a hoax.
My conclusions are based on a number of eyewitiness accounts that have been to the ark long before the NAMI arrived there. And a common statement by those who came close to it, stated that the outside of the Ark was petrified. If that is the case, then such conditions for petrified wood, would be ture.
The Causasus mountains are home to Mt. Ararat. So what?
Well if you were interested in the spider web found in the structure, then you might be interested in what kinds of spiders are found in the Causasus montains. To ignore that kind of information, would make one believe you were not intrested in how a web might of gotten into the ark. And the link does not limit were these spiders will be found in the Causasus range. However, it appears you would like to.
Everyone keeps thinking the Ark was always in an ice cave. Historical accounts clearly tell us the Ark in the past was fully exposed. People could actually walk up to the side of it. And bacasue of this, spiders would not have to be going down anywhere.
The crust of the earth collapsed sanspeur, and the water was obsorbed by the earth. And according to the scientist found in the link below, there is enought water in the earth to replace the volume of all the seas at least three times over. So yes, according to science, there is more then enought water. Consider the link below. This link comes to us from Arizona State University. It's not that I am poor at math sanspeur, I believe you are poor at comprehension. And I don't believe you want to imbrace science. Espically when science supports the Biblical account.
So the crust collapsed, and the water rose above the crust, then magically went below the crust when the time was right huh? Please tell me what caused this water to suddenly gush up from the crust?....Magic? I must say that perhaps you should have had a career writing children's fairy tales...Very entertaining, but silly as hell....You are definetly a riot of entertainment.
My conclusions are based on a number of eyewitiness accounts that have been to the ark long before the NAMI arrived there. And a common statement by those who came close to it, stated that the outside of the Ark was petrified. If that is the case, then such conditions for petrified wood, would be ture.
That's right. Your conclusions are based on what a number of people have said. And that's exactly the point that's been made numerous times. However, there's no verification to back up what those people said are in fact true or not, apart from more claims. I think it should be taken into account that claims of Ark sightings on Ararat are not unexpected. After all, Ararat has become rather legendary, much in the same sense that Loch Ness has become legendary with claims of sighting Nessie. I wonder if any of the villages near Ararat sell Ark trinkets and souvenirs, like t-shirts that say: "I SAW NOAH'S ARK ON ARARAT AND ALL I GOT WAS THIS CRUMMY T-SHIRT"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
The Causasus mountains are home to Mt. Ararat. So what?
Well if you were interested in the spider web found in the structure, then you might be interested in what kinds of spiders are found in the Causasus montains. To ignore that kind of information, would make one believe you were not intrested in how a web might of gotten into the ark. And the link does not limit were these spiders will be found in the Causasus range. However, it appears you would like to.
Who's talking about limiting where these spiders will be found in the entire Caucasus range? I'm simply saying that a general description of the entire range does not indicate such spiders reside near the top of Ararat. They might. But on the other hand, based on the links you've presented, they might not. With regard to Ararat, specifically, it could be either way. In effect, it's inconclusive as to whether or not Ararat is a habitat for such spiders. I don't know, and neither do you. However, it's fair to say if such spiders do not live at the altitude specifically where the Ark is claimed to be, then it would suggest there's something very wrong about the NAMI photo that clearly shows a spider web inside the Ark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
Everyone keeps thinking the Ark was always in an ice cave. Historical accounts clearly tell us the Ark in the past was fully exposed. People could actually walk up to the side of it. And bacasue of this, spiders would not have to be going down anywhere.
The only reason I said anything about ice caves is because you brought the thought about spiders and ice caves at high mountainous altitudes. What was your point, if not to lend some form of relationship and credibility to the idea that if spiders can live in high altitude ice caves, then they can also live inside the Ark? Wasn't that the point you were trying to make?
Now you're saying spiders would not have to be going down anywhere (in the Ark)? Where exactly is the room in the NAMI photo showing the spider webs? Please feel free to use the artist's illustration of the seven rooms to help better identify where the spiderweb room is located.
I believe some people have made wrong assumptions when it comes to the age of the earth, or the flood of Noah. Yet other scientist correctly point out that there is great quantities of water to be found trapped within the earths depths. In fact, the Bible itself tells us that is where much of the flood waters went to. As with many beliefs found in science, we often find errors mixed with truth. And science is now confirming, that in fact, there is great quantities of water to be found deep in the depts of the earth. And that reality, does confirm the Biblical account.
You didnt read your own article did you? or are you once again, picking and choosing what to believe based on your faith? I think the latter. In no way does the article say that, in fact the opposite. Nor does it say that it is enough water to cover the earth deeply, but does state that it would kill everything on earth ( which would include Noah and his family as well as everything on the boat) due to greenhouse gases. Your bible forgets to mention all the proven scientific facts as in the greenhouse gases in it's little myth. Probably because it is just a fairy tale and the writers had no clue about how things work.
Well heres another link riflemen. Now you can deny the science you say you believe in. I believe evidence to you is just one more thing you can ignore. These are not disproven facts, and they come to us from Arizona State University.
"Scientists who study the mantle (NOW REALIZE) that the mantle can hold a lot of water. Under high pressure, rocks can take on more water-the solubility of water increases with pressure,"
And this means the mantle could be holding enought water to fill all the world's oceans several times over! Consider the link below.
National geographic? Was it not National Geographic that pushed the fake fossil from China to try and convince people that Evolution was true?
More of the same GORE™ and Mis-information.
(Sidenote: It was after all NatGeo [and their excellent reputation] who found out that the Chinese find was a likely mis-interpretation (not a hoax, BTW...), and they uncovered it and set it straight. It's always science who uncovers hoaxes; it's built in to the system, and is therefore trustable. A far cry from the Christian ethic of deny-lie, deny-lie, deny-lie, even if it's one of your own. Mr. Ron Wyatt, or soon enough, NAMI, come to mind as opportunistic, unethical peddlers of absolute sin and untruths to an unsuspecting and ill-educated congregation.
You therefore will, as I predicted, not bother to even read the very interesting and enlightening July 2010 NatGeo issue on the origins and evolution of humanity I particularly liked their dismissal of The Missing Link fable and it's tiresome, relentless and incorrect use by anti-Evolutionists. More purposeful rote-chanting and error-filled Bull.
You won't likely even skim NatGeo for free at the supermarket checkstand. It's too terrifying for your mindset, and you've already concluded, being willfully ignorant of science, that everything they say is tainted.
Accordingly, you'd have us throw out everything that NatGeo discusses because of one in a million events which they uncovered? Of course you would: you'd rather we all believe in mindless, pointless impossible miracles, magic and illogical fairy tales, with absolutely no credibility nor follow-up science. How typical of your sodden mindset.)
Briefly, because I have better things to do than argue with a scientifically illiterate toady-troll all day long...,
1) Your new link rather clearly indicates that such water, if released and measured, "might be" of a large volume.
[Of course here you happily believe the most vague and preliminary hypotheses of science, but where and when a lonely, sole scientist is even vaguely against the Creation myth, you stomp all over all science in general, with one of your trademark GORE™ claims {"all the world's scientists now agree that...blah blah blah}. This is another telling behavior of the terminally stubborn, but that's another literalist's malady to be discussed in an upcoming thread]
2) Your link, if carefullyread for all content and meaning, rather clearly indicates that, under the massive subterranean pressures speculated in this hypothesis, rock takes on water just like a sponge takes it on, into it's various, in this case, microscopic, molecular structures. But only under intense geological pressures, and only at those depths. And as such it's not so easily liberated.
3) It also says it's bound up in those mineral structures at or below a depth of ≈410 km down (about 260 miles, FYI...), not anywhere near the surface. If it were to migrate up there, in that rock source, all over the globe, it would no longer be constrained. Matter of fact, when they analyze rock materials thrust up by volcanic action, the rock has lost that water. Just as their hypothesis predicts.
4) An instant (40 day) liberation of all that necessary water to supplant the ferocious precipitation event necessary to accumulate 11+ inches/hour would require a total overturning of all the global mantle, which would require, essentially, a global volcanic outburst, a volcano about every ten miles or so, spread over the entire surface of the globe.
5) As san and I and others have duly noted, such a quick removal of the supporting function of that water would create a global subsidence event; that water is doing much much more than just waiting for a Godly command to "migrate up". By it's presence, it not only fills up space, but also allows cooling of the heat that emanates from the (likely) iron core. It also recycles now-waterless magma, picking up surface water that constantly returns into the earth through a very gradual process.
It's called the magmatic component of the famous Hydrological Cycle, Tom, and all us geologists study it [in first year Geology 101...] in a way and thoroughness you can only imagine down in your basement surrounded by, well... your one and only black book. Other geology and archeology grad students go into it in far more detail, but none of them has ever stated (or even thought for that matter) that this is The Source of Noah's biblical flood waters.
6) A now-collapsed mantle could not just easily then resorb, at depths of +410 km, a huge mass of liberated but now returning water absent MAGIC. As for the bible as a geology (or any scientific subject) text, BTW, it's proven to be far too illiterately written for that discipline. It shows this with every turn of every page. It's a spiritual guideline, not a proven-out text on Earth science.
7) All the other combined hydrological and geological evidence, supported by vast volumes of study and confirmation, shows absolutely no evidence for a global inundation that lasted only 180 days from impossible start to catastrophic finish. No singular layer of fossils and remnants, no uniform carbon14 or other radiometric dating of such an obviously monumental event, no logical explanation of how it could have even possibly occurred.
Well, absent, of course, MAGIC.
But so why, tell me, would a God do it your way, temporarily suspending or revising all the known principles of molecular interaction, of physics and geology, of materials science and hydrology, and of global structure, just to finish off a few sinners? Oh yeah, as well as all the rest of all the world's remnant and now homeless and foodless and waterless but innocent living animal and plant population. Every mole, mouse, shrew, crocodile, penguin, polar bear, and so on? Every pine tree and sage bush and pineapple tree and mushroom? Why? Such an uncaring and ill-mannered and over-reacting idiot He was!
Absent the necessary MAGIC pronouncement here as the source of all of this imaginary nonsense, every time you try your inept hand at dabbling superficially in quote-mining popular science articles, you lose it all. You lose the thrust of all your arguments, all the facts and of course, all your credibility and reputation. You're a confirmed.... well you know all the adjectives now of course. None of them pleasant or revered any more. By anyone.
Example: Your link makes no such pronouncements that you suggest it "confirms". There's also no larger "scientific agreement" on any of your conclusions. The easy availability of the water so described is, in fact, non-existent, with a last paragraph clarifying that it's all hypothetical and subject to ongoing research, as is all science and discovery.
Well, apparently that's good enough for you. You skimmed it, found a line you happily took completely out of context and ran with it, making wild Grossly Over-Reaching Exaggerations. How unusual, huh? GORE™ rears it's predictable head now in literally EVERY one of your posts!
And, just as typically ,you got caught red-handed with quote-mining juice all over your face. And just as well established, you have never once allowed that any of your ill-comprehended conclusions might possibly be wrong. You're alwaysspot-on correct in areas of knowledge (science, geology, biology, genetics) you've also claimed you have no education or interest in. How compelling! Such riveting arguments!
__________________________
Here's a bit of advice from your old friend and (obviously..) science mentor rifleman: The paragraphs you need to search for would look sorta like this:
"Several independent teams of geo-scientists, from at least two or three non-Christian universities, and backed by 15+ years of constant experimentation through several different disciplinary approaches, have now absolutely confirmed a vast fluid and free-flowing storehouse of available water, at about ten times the known oceanic water resources, laying just a few thousand meters under the earth's surface.
"It appears to be just sitting there for no good reason, and with good re-entry channels located all over it's surface!" said Dr. Willy Imaginarium, shaking his head in total disbelief, but nonetheless dutifully reporting what he and his able colleagues reported this month in the prestigious journals of "Nature" and "Geology".
As well, tests have concluded, impossibly, that it's near-instant [40 day] removal would have literally no effect on the vast, near-global surrounding geo-structural integrity, which has clear signs of the necessary structural enhancements [beams, columns, MAGIC support structures, etc.] to retain this massive but strangely previously hidden vault while the water was temporarily "borrowed" by a supernatural being's plans to kill off all the world's life in a spectacularly stupid display of arrogance and narcissism. And which He later opnely regretted, oddly, having "acted in haste", He being all-knowing and all...
This is therefore confirmed to be the source of the fabled and now proven Noah's Ark global inundation."
Just keep lookin', Tom. But otherwise, no more stuff like you've provided. It falls on it's face when exposed to even a kid's review.
______________________________
Next: you ignored the facts about high altitude, deep ice-cave glacial arachnid biology and ice-bound web-spinning spiders I see. Of course you did, because you won't find a link supporting that one anywhere.
______________________________
I see this is too long, so I'll redo this post now in terms you can understand.
Then it's off to spread the evils of science to some kiddies in summer camp. At least they have some semblance of logical and critical thinking, and I'll "do my worst" to set them straight, even though some of them attend local Churches. Perhaps when Miss Jones tries, with an innocent smirk on her uneducated face, to sell Noah's Ark, a few of them will confidently, with knowledge to back it up, quickly refute that one to her shocked face. Stutter, stammer... Running from the room with abject terror in her eyes....
But me? I make larnin' fun, Tom. You should come along some time! Get to know me! Larn a thing or two! Yeah.
And now, the kiddies version...
Last edited by rifleman; 07-14-2010 at 11:16 AM..
Reason: Cleaning it up and slimming it down! Obviously!
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.
"Come learn with me..."
