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.
So are you saying BS is your personal opinion? And what do you base you BS comment on? Have you done the research to come to that conclusion? Oh, and by the way, not all glaciers move at 4,5 or 6 miles per year. Have you done any research on the glacier on Ararat, or do you just (ASSUME) it moves? And no, glacier movement is not inferred. Ararat has a volcanic orgin, and in 1840 there was a violent earthquake. On the mountain there now is a place called the Ahora Gorge, it is 2 miles deep and 1 mile across, and it was formed in the earthquake of 1840. It is also the area close to the Ark.
I am simply challenging your link based upon what YOUR author stated.
..they were "joined at one time because there is a spectral trail going down from one to the other."
What is a spectral trail? It reads pretty straight forward that there was movement inferred.
I posted a glacier link on Greenland by way of example. What you failed to see is that even if the glacier only moved 1/4 mile per year, it would already be 1000 miles away or at least thawed out. You could even reduce that to 1/10th of a mile per annum and it will still be 400 miles away or thawed out. Let us reduce that to 1/100th of a miles per annum, that is still 40 miles in 4000 years, even at 1/1000th - that is 4 miles in 4000 years and the Ark was how big?
Simple math/science blows your argument out of the water again.
I am simply challenging your link based upon what YOUR author stated.
..they were "joined at one time because there is a spectral trail going down from one to the other."
What is a spectral trail? It reads pretty straight forward that there was movement inferred.
I posted a glacier link on Greenland by way of example. What you failed to see is that even if the glacier only moved 1/4 mile per year, it would already be 1000 miles away or at least thawed out. You could even reduce that to 1/10th of a mile per annum and it will still be 400 miles away or thawed out. Let us reduce that to 1/100th of a miles per annum, that is still 40 miles in 4000 years, even at 1/1000th - that is 4 miles in 4000 years and the Ark was how big?
Simple math/science blows your argument out of the water again.
Science blows my arguement out of the water? What science have you applied here? Have you done studies on glacier movement on Ararat? There is such a thing as stagnant glaciers. Ararat is so high up, that it is rare that they even have an ice melt. And that is why it is rare that they even see the ark, because it is always covered in ice most of the time.
Also, the weight and size of the ark makes it something that would resist movement, unless there was a massive ice melt which has not occured.
The spectral trail exist, because the ark has broken in two. One half is below the other half, and that is why there is a trial of debrie between the two halves. Not because a glacier has been pushing it along. And that is what photo interpreters have stated. Your glacier theory is not supported by science, that is your personal opinion getting in the way of the facts.
Science blows my arguement out of the water? What science have you applied here? Have you done studies on glacier movement on Ararat? There is such a thing as stagnant glaciers. Ararat is so high up, that it is rare that they even have an ice melt. And that is why it is rare that they even see the ark, because it is always covered in ice most of the time.
Also, the weight and size of the ark makes it something that would resist movement, unless there was a massive ice melt which has not occured.
The spectral trail exist, because the ark has broken in two. One half is below the other half, and that is why there is a trial of debrie between the two halves. Not because a glacier has been pushing it along. And that is what photo interpreters have stated. Your glacier theory is not supported by science, that is your personal opinion getting in the way of the facts.
OK so by your supposition (which it is and nothing more) the two bits could not move apart from each other as they were mostly encapsulated in VERY thick ice that seldom melts, however for some undisclosed reason, there is is a spectral trail which somehow is there because of what exactly?
This means that there is movement in the ice or at one time the ice was melted to allow the "slip" and parting.
Yet you claim:
There is such a thing as stagnant glaciers. Ararat is so high up, that it is rare that they even have an ice melt. And that is why it is rare that they even see the ark, because it is always covered in ice most of the time.
I do not even have to look for counter claims, yours are refuted by their own admission.
BTW, they had an Ark article on National Geographic and it turns out, Mount Ararat was only given that name post flood myth, the Ararat was in fact a geographical region.
In the same documentary, they demonstrate the cubed rule IIRC where they clearly show that scaling up to the size of the Ark was totally implausible with the technology of the day - or IOW, they could not have built an ark/boat that size. These were modern wooden boat builders using modern techniques of steaming wood so that it bends.
Maybe you should read this Nat Geo article from 2004.
OK so by your supposition (which it is and nothing more) the two bits could not move apart from each other as they were mostly encapsulated in VERY thick ice that seldom melts, however for some undisclosed reason, there is is a spectral trail which somehow is there because of what exactly?
This means that there is movement in the ice or at one time the ice was melted to allow the "slip" and parting.
Yet you claim:
There is such a thing as stagnant glaciers. Ararat is so high up, that it is rare that they even have an ice melt. And that is why it is rare that they even see the ark, because it is always covered in ice most of the time.
I do not even have to look for counter claims, yours are refuted by their own admission.
BTW, they had an Ark article on National Geographic and it turns out, Mount Ararat was only given that name post flood myth, the Ararat was in fact a geographical region.
In the same documentary, they demonstrate the cubed rule IIRC where they clearly show that scaling up to the size of the Ark was totally implausible with the technology of the day - or IOW, they could not have built an ark/boat that size. These were modern wooden boat builders using modern techniques of steaming wood so that it bends.
Maybe you should read this Nat Geo article from 2004.
According to Ed Davis, he stated that the Kurds that guided him to the ark told him that about 100 years before a large earthquake struck the mountain and a 125 foot section of the ark broke off and slid down the mountain about 1,000 feet. The images from space show this seperation that agrees with the Ed Davis account. Keep in mind, Ed made that statement long before such pictures were possible.
And the Bible states that the ark setteled on the (MOUNTAINS) of Ararat. The mountain in question is the tallest in the area, so it would make sense that would be the first place the ark would make land fall.
And the earthquake explains why there was a speration that did not involve glacier movement. The earthquake was so powerful that a 1 mile by 2 mile section of the mountain disappeared. Ed mention of the Kurds and earthquake in link below.
According to Ed Davis, he stated that the Kurds that guided him to the ark told him that about 100 years before a large earthquake struck the mountain and a 125 foot section of the ark broke off and slid down the mountain about 1,000 feet. The images from space show this seperation that agrees with the Ed Davis account. Keep in mind, Ed made that statement long before such pictures were possible.
And the Bible states that the ark setteled on the (MOUNTAINS) of Ararat. The mountain in question is the tallest in the area, so it would make sense that would be the first place the ark would make land fall.
And the earthquake explains why there was a speration that did not involve glacier movement. The earthquake was so powerful that a 1 mile by 2 mile section of the mountain disappeared. Ed mention of the Kurds and earthquake in link below.
And Ed is dead and the stuff that happened over 100 years ago reported by the Kurds......and the artists enhanced images are proof of what?
You have already offered these pics from other sites.
Boy I feel sorry for any defendant should you ever have to do Jury duty.
Old evidence should not be discounted because someone past away. And the fact that Ed stated there were two objects up there before pictures from space could confirm that, only supports the truth of what Ed stated. Especially when he said there were two man-made objects up there. I have offered those pics, and you appear to of ignore them. Perhaps because that account does not agree with your personal opinion. And if Ed did not lie about those accounts, then I do not believe Ed lied about what the Kurds told him about the Ark breaking in two during the earthquake. And I am not talking about artistic enhanced images, I'm talking about what others in the field of arial photo interpretation have stated about there being two man-made objects on Ararat.
Yada yada......All unsubstantiated....I've seen the pictures, I've read the so called testimonies, and stories...It is all delusions for impressionable minds, nothing more....If it existed there would be hard independent evidence by now. You are being lied to Campbell.
Hmmmm...I bet you`re one of those guys who believes in bigfoot or aliens with all of the proof afforded those sightings.
Captian! The ship's creaking a b it under the strain! Shall we beach her? No? We can't? Oh oh....
Logic Verus Ancient Mythology & Fables, revisited.
Hey, C34; I thought I told you that your Turkish Delight objects were limestone / basalt. Why don't you believe NASA's imaging center, versus a flyover by a 1950's WWII arial photo plane, piloted or interpreted by a raving Christian?
And again, where did all those 600 M (that's million)* animals sleep. Or eat? Or just get along?
You musta missed my question post. It's OK; here's your chance again. I've got all day, all night, and again tomorrow. I wanna know where I'm wrong.
*Basis for a rough estimate of # of animals necessary on the Ark:
1. Scientists have now counted, notestimated, over 30M types of animals.
2. We'll reduce that 33% just to conveniently eliminate those that perhaps didn't need a free boatride or that reprooduce alone, in the dark: still leaves us with 15M types.
3. That's # of types. We still need two to tango, so to speak. So we'll need room and board for 30M again. But....
4. All ecologists know that having only two of anything is an absolute recipe for ecological disaster. You need at least 20 of each sex, more like 50 to 100, but let's set it an an improbably low 20 of each, shall we? That means a lot of them wouldn't make it, but who's being accurate here?
That means we now have 30 X 20 = 600 M animals.
5. Now I know some are very small (the fireants, for example. Where, BTW, should we keep THEM again? Out of the way I hope.) And what about the wood-eating termites or bark beetles or Dermestids who would be gnawing away at the ship's beams? Yikes!
But, by the same token, a lot of them were VERY LARGE. The 40 T-Rexs, the 40 Brontosaurs, the 40 carnivorous pterodactyls, the 40... oh you get the point. There's over 150 types of large dinos alone to content with. (and how much did these big guys weigh all together again? Double-yikes!)
6. Even vegan food (which is far less energy dense than meat, so a lot more is required; about 50M tons per day for those 600M animals.) would create a storage problem. And the necessary fresh water? And the poop?
Well, as you can see, this is a big problem for me. I'm really looking forward to your satisfactory and logical answer.
Till next time, ignorantly yours..... (but always willing to re-consider the logic).
Last edited by rifleman; 05-18-2009 at 01:22 PM..
Reason: typoz
Risestar must have meant to reply to Campbell's post.
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.
Captian! The ship's creaking a b it under the strain! Shall we beach her? No? We can't? Oh oh....
