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.
Say Campbell34... old Ed wouldn't be a dedicated believer would he? Perhaps a bit biased? Well, given the other illogical aspects of an actual ark initially floating at such a high elevation that there simply isn't enough H2O on the planet and in the atmosphere as water, ice, vapor or rat pee to provide such a spectacular water level and volume, plus all the other logical reasons, it seems a bit "fetchy" to just say "There it is! Proof! Why? Because reliable old Ed said so!"
Did those lucky disembarking cruise-ship ark clietel then have to hike off this mountain peak? A few penquins looking for the beach? Given that everyone on board were all supposedly vegans by command or design, what exactly did they eat after the 40 day supply of toasted oat bran on board ran out? Wouldn't the still flooded, though now receding water covered lands, have lost most if not all of their usual lush vegetative cover? Where, again, did all this receding water then go to? It had just rained down out of the heavens. If it went back up there through some pretty heavy-duty evaporation, it would, reasonably, start raining ferociously, again. "Oh crackers..." says poor exhausted Noah.. "Pass out the umbrellas again!"
And what shape and nutritional condition would that remnant land-based vegetation be in after 40 days under salt water? Heck... if I even pee on my grass once it goes a bit "off".
When Turkey or whomever actually lets scientists and Christians up there, cameras and all, I'm willing to bet it all that we'll find a rather nifty rock formation. Have you, Cambell, ever spent any time up in the high mountains where wind, temperature fluctuations, ice storms, debris flows, earthquakes etc. pretty much demolish anything in short order? Do you actually believe that a wooden boat carcass would have survived thousands of years? Exposed on a ridgeline like this one? Well of course I will grant you that your God may well be protecting it as a sort of "Take this for whatever you want" kind of evidentiary tid-bit. It would also be the only bit of such evidence in the world.
I'm betting on a rock pile. Been up in that kind of country; seen some very oddball stuff. Too bad Turkey's playing this for all it's worth.
But to your credit, Campbell34, you're quite the persistant fighter. No challenge left unanswered, sorta. You are typical of the breed. Very predictable.
Meantime, as I previously noted, I'm hot on the trail of (and finding, BTW...) some very interesting early Chinese history complete with accurate chronologies. Somewhat at odds with biblical notations though. See, they weren't trying to fit a nice warm mythology into a very cold, hard reality simply to support a "belief of convenience" or one of "psychological necessity".
I'm thinking Christianity will have to call the entire Chinese culture, society and race, including their ancient and current highly educated, meticulous and objective observers and authors, all of them...well... liars. To their faces.
That ought go down well. Of course, in reality they'll just laugh at our Western pig-headedness. May I please be excused, though, from that moniker?
Back to my studies. May your god strike me down if I'm wrong.
Well old Ed is not the only one who has seen the ark, the link below shows a number of historical figures who also claim to of seen the Ark.
Well, no, not exactly. They didn't actually see a rotting boat carcass, just the sort of possible pic from space or a U-2 plane. Which, in the spirit of scientific honesty, some other folks then looked into and either asked to be able to go there and check it out ("denied!") or found rock formations.
Just because someone claims to have found or seen the Ark doesn't mean it exists, old pal. Otherwise the actual and growing body of real evidence of, say, evolution, would have put the boot to that needless controversy a long long time ago.
Scientists are happy to submit things to rational tests. It's what they do for both fun and profit, plus to advance our overall knowledge base. Mythologists deride and openly loathe science for what it does to their only-too-apparent "For Profit and/or Power" motivation. (see: Pat Robertson [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175247,00.html] for a stunning example: "I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city," Robertson said on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club.").
Re: some of the supposedly impartial Ark evaluators:
"Bob's team consisted of a Who's Who of business, law, and ministry leaders including Barry Rand (former CEO of Avis), the multiple best-selling author and Christian apologist Josh McDowell, Frank Turek (co-author with Norm Giesler of I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist), Boone Powell (former CEO of Baylor Medical Systems), and Arch Bonnema (president of Joshua Financial)."
Where were the geologists, archeologists, palaeontologists? Well, heck, they'd be those pesky scientists, right? No room for them 'cause you never know what they might blurt out!
Or this well thought out bit of simple mathematics from a poster called Darth Credence, same forum site:
"The funniest thing about this to me is the numbers. If we accept that the Ark existed and came to rest there, 13000+ feet above sea level, it makes for an interesting amount of rainfall required. Even if there wasn't floating around time waiting for the water to recede, we have to say that in 40 days, sea level rose 13000 feet. Ignoring that the surface would keep getting larger as the radius got bigger, I just calculated the rate of rain needed to fill a 1 square foot column to 13000 feet in 40 days. It's about 13.5 feet per hour! Now, to get the ark up, you need 13.5 feet per hour of rain everywhere in the world, at the same time, for 40 days. And then all of that water, 2*10^21 gallons or 8*10^18 cubic meters, had to go somewhere. That's about 1/3 the volume of the moon, all in water dumped on the surface of the Earth.
Then, on top of that, we're talking serious mass. 8*10^21 kg of water is contained in that mass. That's significant, since the Earth mass is about 6*10^24 kg. I'm not sure what adding that kind of mass would do to the Earth, but it can't be good. And it would have to be new water that god introduced, since that's more water than is actually present on Earth."
(I wish I could add that little "nose-wrinkle" sound which Samantha used on the old TV series "Bewitched". That must be how this was done!)
Oh well. Let's not let simple logic get in the way here. Boy, though, I'd have a lot of respect for someone who would at least admit that this is a bit of a stretch. Alternately, it is soooo easy to put these persistent Ark arguments away, isn't it?
I"m getting worried for you - there was an almighty clap of thunder just now over London - ARE YOU STILL OK?
Please let us know ASAP.
A very concerned Brian.
Odd you should mention that.... just shortly after I posted that comment, I visited the "lou" and then heard that same loud thunderclap. When I came back to my study my computer was gone, just a smoking hole in the desk, and my expensive leather recliner chair was on fire!
Hmmm...
From now on I'm going to wear the tinfoil hat given to me by that door-to-door evangelist a few years back! Then I'll be safe, non? Faith. Faith. Faith. So reassuring in these troubled times!
How did they see the arc? It's year 2008, and no one has proven anything yet, but funny enough, back in year 1856 they had witnesses.
Where the ark rest, is a very hard spot to get to. It is almost 3 miles on top of a mountain. In the past, men have ventured to that spot and with their own eyes saw the object in question. Recent sightings indicate that the Ark was broken in two after an earthquake. Pictures from space show a large man made object on top of the mountain, and these pictures reveal that it is broken in two. The pictures confirm what others in the past have stated. Those who actually saw the object, have stated it is a large ship with triple decks, and cages inside.
In the summer of 1916 Lieutenant Roskovitsky who was flying for the Russian Imperial Air Force noticed a half-frozen lake on the shelf or gully on the side of Mount Ararat while flying high-altitude test to observe Turkish troop movements. There he spotted a half submerged hull of a ship. He saw two masts and a flat catwalk along the top.
There are numerous stories that have been presented by those who have encountered the Ark. Consider the link below.
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.
Well, no, not exactly. They didn't actually see a rotting boat carcass, just the sort of possible pic from space or a U-2 plane. Which, in the spirit of scientific honesty, some other folks then looked into and either asked to be able to go there and check it out ("denied!") or found rock formations.
Just because someone claims to have found or seen the Ark doesn't mean it exists, old pal. Otherwise the actual and growing body of real evidence of, say, evolution, would have put the boot to that needless controversy a long long time ago.
Scientists are happy to submit things to rational tests. It's what they do for both fun and profit, plus to advance our overall knowledge base. Mythologists deride and openly loathe science for what it does to their only-too-apparent "For Profit and/or Power" motivation. (see: Pat Robertson [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175247,00.html] (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175247,00.html%5D - broken link) for a stunning example: "I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city," Robertson said on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club.").
Re: some of the supposedly impartial Ark evaluators:
"Bob's team consisted of a Who's Who of business, law, and ministry leaders including Barry Rand (former CEO of Avis), the multiple best-selling author and Christian apologist Josh McDowell, Frank Turek (co-author with Norm Giesler of I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist), Boone Powell (former CEO of Baylor Medical Systems), and Arch Bonnema (president of Joshua Financial)."
Where were the geologists, archeologists, palaeontologists? Well, heck, they'd be those pesky scientists, right? No room for them 'cause you never know what they might blurt out!
Or this well thought out bit of simple mathematics from a poster called Darth Credence, same forum site:
"The funniest thing about this to me is the numbers. If we accept that the Ark existed and came to rest there, 13000+ feet above sea level, it makes for an interesting amount of rainfall required. Even if there wasn't floating around time waiting for the water to recede, we have to say that in 40 days, sea level rose 13000 feet. Ignoring that the surface would keep getting larger as the radius got bigger, I just calculated the rate of rain needed to fill a 1 square foot column to 13000 feet in 40 days. It's about 13.5 feet per hour! Now, to get the ark up, you need 13.5 feet per hour of rain everywhere in the world, at the same time, for 40 days. And then all of that water, 2*10^21 gallons or 8*10^18 cubic meters, had to go somewhere. That's about 1/3 the volume of the moon, all in water dumped on the surface of the Earth.
Then, on top of that, we're talking serious mass. 8*10^21 kg of water is contained in that mass. That's significant, since the Earth mass is about 6*10^24 kg. I'm not sure what adding that kind of mass would do to the Earth, but it can't be good. And it would have to be new water that god introduced, since that's more water than is actually present on Earth."
(I wish I could add that little "nose-wrinkle" sound which Samantha used on the old TV series "Bewitched". That must be how this was done!)
Oh well. Let's not let simple logic get in the way here. Boy, though, I'd have a lot of respect for someone who would at least admit that this is a bit of a stretch. Alternately, it is soooo easy to put these persistent Ark arguments away, isn't it?
Well if you know anything about the story of Noahs Ark, it was not just the rain that flood the earth, the Bible states that the fountains of the deep were opened. It appears that the crust of the earth collapsed, and that would account for the depth of the water.
Also again, we are not talking about just one man seeing the ark, but (many men) over many years, and all pretty much saying the same thing. You guys do your best I know at ignoring facts, and filtering out personal encounters. Yet historical accounts cannot be ignored. And there are a great number of them.
Also, there are independent support from those who have seen some of the pictures from space. One such person stated that he did not believe the object was Noahs Ark, yet he could clearly see that there was a very large man made object near the top of the mountain. And he could not understand how such a thing could of ever got there.
And your logic is flawed on the rain fall, because you are only trying to rationalize a problem with half of the facts at your disposal. As I have stated, the Bible clearly states that the fountains of the deep were opened. I don't see you considering that into your calculations. And this is the reason people often error when trying to logically consider the Bible, they often gloss over the facts.
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.
I know God, I don't believe you do. And the accounts are part of the historical record. And I do not believe all those people are lieing. You will imbrace assumptions and guesses when it come to Evolution, yet when we have personal accounts that come to us from times past, that you call lies. It's sad when you believe assumption that are not supported by evidence, yet people whos stories have been confirmed by others, that you will not believe.
Look at the facts...There is not enough water to flood the planet. There are no substantial "fountains" of the deep...A 450 foot wooden boat won't float...There is no chance that even half of the creatures of earth could fit, let alone the supplies to feed them...You have been lied to.
Look at the facts...There is not enough water to flood the planet. There are no substantial "fountains" of the deep...A 450 foot wooden boat won't float...There is no chance that even half of the creatures of earth could fit, let alone the supplies to feed them...You have been lied to.
The Dia. of the earth is about 7,900 miles. The water during the flood was about 6 miles deep. The earth has sufficent space in it's interior to absorb 6 miles of water.
A 450 foot wooden boat won't float?
Here again you have ignored history, In 1844 a man named Isambard K. Brunnel built his giant ship, the Great Britain, and he used almost the exact ratio of the ark. As it turns out, these dimensions are the perfect ratio for a huge boat built for seaworthiness and not speed.
In 1909 a six masted New England Gaff Schooner Wyoming was built.
It was a 450 foot long wooden ship. (And it floated very well). If your going to make statements, please be sure your statements are based on facts, and not just your bias opinion.
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.
"Actual Observations Prove Ark's Existance!"
