More Problems With Noah's Ark (Egyptian, genesis, America, myth)

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by rifleman

Well, Campbell, here's the ruse. You believe a couple of easily discredited guys, including good old Ed Davis, who desperately WANTED to believe it WAS the Ark that he'd personally found. Plus the statements of a ten-year old? Wowowowow!

And then you throw in some conspiratorial mumbo-jumbo that, conveniently, can't be proved or disproved because the author of it closed that loophole by saying the US Government, CIA or whomever, very VERY conveniently told everyone to shut up.

All of this pretty unbelievable stuff, (which, if it was our side's argument you'd rip apart like a cheap rag doll) is your entire basis for belief.

I say, based on the technical evidence, that it's not the Ark. You're therefore calling me a baldfaced liar. Nice! (Remember my personal peer-reviewed and established scientific and professional credentials? I'm sure you dismiss them and my 16 years of university training and 20 years of professional experience with a simple wave of your hands. And a plunging of your head into the Spaghetti Sauce [see below...])

Your "logic" is posited against the best technical evidence we can acquire at this time (since the Turks won't, for now, let us up there. How odd...), which is the established, proven remote sensing techniques that, you'd have to agree, work perfectly well in, say, Northern Canada to find a coal seam or oil field, and yet apparently, in your mind, fail completely when looking at this supposed Ark structure. It isn't even buried under the surface, where these technologies can by SUCCESSFULL, PROVEN and fully GROUND TRUTHED methods, find coal beds, diamond bearing geological structures, etc.

Among several other techniques, they apply something SO VERY CONVINCING (but that you don't even know about I'll bet) called X-Ray Fluorescence, which is ABSOLUTELY DEAD-NUTS RELIABLE when the material being investigated is fully exposed as your limestone barge is. It (let me repeat in case you missed it) WITH ABSOLUTE RELIABILITY, absolutely positively and properly IDs surface-exposed materials by bouncing X-Rays off them and checking the fluorescent back-reflectance against known "fingerprints". Very specific fluorescence patterns, peaks, spikes, graphics and all. No possibiities of error for, again, easily bombarded and "read" geo-structures. Easy to understand, right? Or are these unbiased geo-techs a bunch of bald-faced liars also? Another big conspiracy just to get your goat?

Your boat is limestone, buddy. Pure and absolutely and truthfully proven. You deny it in the face of such overhelming evidence collected by WAYYYY more than the 3 - 5 guys you've quoted, all desperate to make it the Ark. To deny their findings and conclusions is to stand there on a summer day, look up at the sky and yell "No! The sky's NOT blue, it's RED! It's RED I tell you!!!"

That's when folks start to wander away in a hurry, old pal.

If anyone's running a conspiracy, it's Xtians or the Turks to prevent, as others here have said, a potential loss of income or another discrediting of a screwy literal interpretation of a biblical fable.

There may be be an Ark somewhere, but this ain't it. To say it IS is to also fervently believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster.. Do you? If not, why not? All the evidence is clearly there for TFSM! Some folks just want to keep their heads in the Spaghetti Sauce...

To quote Mulder, "The Truth is Out There!"

PS: I have a new thread posted over in the general Religion & Philosophy forum that really might apply to you. I'd love to have your response to it. I really would.

Please, can you give me one good reason why the Turkish governemt will allow people to explor Mt. Ararat except the North Slope?
And why is it, that there are numerous accounts of a man-made object on Ararat, yet you refues to believe everyone of those accounts?
And can you tell me what technical evidence refutes the accounts of all the eyewitiness, and all those who have viewed the arial photographs?
Also, some of the best photos are classified, so how would we get to see such pictures? This has been stated by those who actually work for the CIA. And Ed Davis was never discredited, and Ed also was the one who took a lie detector test before he died and passed it. And I might also point out, that Ed Davis stated years before photo's from space were seen, that the Ark was broken in two. Arial photographs that were considered by those working for the American government show a man-made object, that is broken in two. They agreed with the Ed Davis account. You can only believe what you do by ignoring everything that has been stated. It appears to me your worldview has blinded you of any objectivity. I believe what I do based on the evidence presented. It appears you believe what you do, based on ignoring that evidence. And it appears you offer no evidence that would suggest that all these people were discredited, you simply say their stories are false. And you do this based on nothing but your own personal opinion. Expert accounts have pointed out that the shape of the object rules out natural surroundings. Did you miss that part? Also, there was a Russian expedition that took place just about the time of the Russian revolution. At least one hundred from that expedition saw the Ark as well. However, at that same time the Communist came to power and took all the evidence from those who returned. Years latter, two of those men from the expedition were found living in seperate places here in the states. Both men were interviewed, and both men told the exact same story of the existance of the Ark on Ararat. You know, after a while you have to come to the conclusion that not every man that goes up on Ararat, comes back as a boldface liar. Everyone that sees the Ark up there, comes back with the same story. Even when they interview them separtely.

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

Please, can you give me one good reason why the Turkish governemt will allow people to explor Mt. Ararat except the North Slope?
And why is it, that there are numerous accounts of a man-made object on Ararat, yet you refues to believe everyone of those accounts?
And can you tell me what technical evidence refutes the accounts of all the eyewitiness, and all those who have viewed the arial photographs?
Also, some of the best photos are classified, so how would we get to see such pictures? This has been stated by those who actually work for the CIA. And Ed Davis was never discredited, and Ed also was the one who took a lie detector test before he died and passed it. And I might also point out, that Ed Davis stated years before photo's from space were seen, that the Ark was broken in two. Arial photographs that were considered by those working for the American government show a man-made object, that is broken in two. They agreed with the Ed Davis account. You can only believe what you do by ignoring everything that has been stated. It appears to me your worldview has blinded you of any objectivity. I believe what I do based on the evidence presented. It appears you believe what you do, based on ignoring that evidence. And it appears you offer no evidence that would suggest that all these people were discredited, you simply say their stories are false. And you do this based on nothing but your own personal opinion. Expert accounts have pointed out that the shape of the object rules out natural surroundings. Did you miss that part? Also, there was a Russian expedition that took place just about the time of the Russian revolution. At least one hundred from that expedition saw the Ark as well. However, at that same time the Communist came to power and took all the evidence from those who returned. Years latter, two of those men from the expedition were found living in seperate places here in the states. Both men were interviewed, and both men told the exact same story of the existance of the Ark on Ararat. You know, after a while you have to come to the conclusion that not every man that goes up on Ararat, comes back as a boldface liar. Everyone that sees the Ark up there, comes back with the same story. Even when they interview them separtely.

Good grief!...It is you who ignores evidence if favor of fantasy.

[rifleman]

Here's how it works, Campbell.

When someone, anyone, (you, me, anyone, of any belief) comes along and states a hypothesis (i.e.: an as-yet not fully proven idea, as Xtians say hourly about, say, evolution..), the "system" then moves on to the requisite next steps, which are:

improved or revised research methods;

further observation;

validation, and;

possible refutation or confirmation of that hypothesis.

(We can accept it going either way, BTW)

As an example, there's the case of evolution (I know evo's NOT the subject of this thread, but I'm trying to make a point here...). It's been validated to the complete satisfaction of any and all objective researchers. The details continue to be further refined to the complete satisfaction of objective observers everywhere. The latest results fit perfectly into the evolving set of discoveries about how it has worked. It's only rejected by those who can't or won't accept it. Outside of threads such as this, which are purely for entertainment purposes, the real scientific world knows evolution is a law, a fact, and the truth. Argue it here all you want; it's a done deal as far as science goes. Heck, even The Catholic Church now agrees on it!

Unfortunately, many fundy Xtians DON'T EVER WANT their ideas, their hypotheses, or their pet ideas questioned. EVER. Scientists happily do. I mean it: happily! It's exactly how science advances to better and better understandings. It's how we went from tube-type black and white TVs to the latest flat-screen plasma HD TVs. From bi-planes to The Shuttle. Are those obvious technologies bald-faced lies as well? Is your sky still Red, not Blue???

Xtians simply want their statements blindly taken as FACT. No further questions allowed!!! "Burn those science books!" (not to mention, those pesky scientists!). Some guy says he saw and believes something on a mountainside that generally or specifically supports a Christian fable/story, and any and all further questioning or further "resolution" stops dead-cold. Anyone who questions it is a bald-faced liar, according to you. If someone does use an alternate or newer technology that offers better resolution or more accurate interpretations, you get quite huffy about it all, calling questioners or proposers of those old ALTERNATE IDEAS bald-faced liars. Unless, of course, their results support your idea. Ask an embarrassing question and, voila, an ad hominem attack is launched. Always. Predictably & reliably. And sadly.

I'm sure Ed Davis fully believed what he thought he saw. Should he not have expected others to want to confirm his statements? In the case of a possible Ark finding, there are a lot of us who, based on the "Consistency of Fallacy" from so many past Christian statements, will spend the time to thoroughly investigate your claims. Why not? We still have an open mind about it. And when we find, such as we have with remote-sensing X-Ray fluorescence as a simple example, that something's "signature" is reliably indicative of limestone, well, what can I say? Do I toss that out as, what? "Unlikely"? "Dis-liked? "Unpopular"? A "bald-faced lie"?

Why, indeed, should I discount out of hand the science that I personally happen to know so well, and have actually used, and that I also know to be absolutely reliable? Just to please you?

Have you done any X-Ray fluorescence research? Have you ever done ANY scientific research? If not, how can you refute it all as a bald-faced lie? Just because you don't want to hear the results? Do you really believe that all scientists are idiots and liars?

Expect science to march ever onward, Campbell. I'm sorry that you have so much trouble accepting we will ALWAYS investigate questionable or controversial things. Scientists often have the honesty to disagree amongst ourselves. I know that when we do, the Xtian community then quotes it so as to use the disagreement as PROOF of scientific fallability, ego-tripping, etc. That sort of response and behavior should be personally humiliating to your side, because it's so childlike, so "neener neener".

Meanwhile, we ever-curious objective, honest and un-afraid observers of the wonders of the world around us will continue, with or without your approval, to further the totality of our understandings, including situations where we absolutely verify that something's limestone. Even if a conclusion flies in the face of one of OUR pet hypotheses. That's no problem for our side. We just continue to ask more questions. Even if it took 50 years of ever-advancing technology to get there, and even if your side insists on hanging on to very old results and observations. Not all old beliefs and observations are valid, Campbell (see "Flat Earth Theory").

I'm done.

[shibainu]

Originally Posted by MontanaGuy

If the entire world was covered with water that would mean that Noah would have to also include every species of insect in the world and there are countless millions of them and we're finding more all the time. Insects are pretty tough little critters but I'm not aware of any who are adapted to deep sea living. So first of all how did a couple of little beetles from a rain forest in South America make the trip across continents and oceans to the arc? And for that matter how did any animal like a kangaroo for example get from Australia which is surrounded by oceans to the arc?
Here's another really big problem. If all of the land was covered with water for months as described in the Bible then all of the plants would die. Have any of you ever seen a carrot or potato growing at the bottom of the ocean? I don't think so. Plants need light and carbon dioxide in order for photosynthesis to occur. That means they have to be exposed to the atmosphere. If the planet had really been covered with water for such a long period of time every spud, yam, tree and every last blade of grass would be as dead as a doornail.
Ok, let's hear what kinds of crazy ideas can explain all of that away.

Their may have been a great flood but not the whole world. Many religions talk of a great flood that occurred on the earth.

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by rifleman

Here's how it works, Campbell.

When someone, anyone, (you, me, anyone, of any belief) comes along and states a hypothesis (i.e.: an as-yet not fully proven idea, as Xtians say hourly about, say, evolution..), the "system" then moves on to the requisite next steps, which are:

improved or revised research methods;

further observation;

validation, and;

possible refutation or confirmation of that hypothesis.

(We can accept it going either way, BTW)

As an example, there's the case of evolution (I know evo's NOT the subject of this thread, but I'm trying to make a point here...). It's been validated to the complete satisfaction of any and all objective researchers. The details continue to be further refined to the complete satisfaction of objective observers everywhere. The latest results fit perfectly into the evolving set of discoveries about how it has worked. It's only rejected by those who can't or won't accept it. Outside of threads such as this, which are purely for entertainment purposes, the real scientific world knows evolution is a law, a fact, and the truth. Argue it here all you want; it's a done deal as far as science goes. Heck, even The Catholic Church now agrees on it!

Unfortunately, many fundy Xtians DON'T EVER WANT their ideas, their hypotheses, or their pet ideas questioned. EVER. Scientists happily do. I mean it: happily! It's exactly how science advances to better and better understandings. It's how we went from tube-type black and white TVs to the latest flat-screen plasma HD TVs. From bi-planes to The Shuttle. Are those obvious technologies bald-faced lies as well? Is your sky still Red, not Blue???

Xtians simply want their statements blindly taken as FACT. No further questions allowed!!! "Burn those science books!" (not to mention, those pesky scientists!). Some guy says he saw and believes something on a mountainside that generally or specifically supports a Christian fable/story, and any and all further questioning or further "resolution" stops dead-cold. Anyone who questions it is a bald-faced liar, according to you. If someone does use an alternate or newer technology that offers better resolution or more accurate interpretations, you get quite huffy about it all, calling questioners or proposers of those old ALTERNATE IDEAS bald-faced liars. Unless, of course, their results support your idea. Ask an embarrassing question and, voila, an ad hominem attack is launched. Always. Predictably & reliably. And sadly.

I'm sure Ed Davis fully believed what he thought he saw. Should he not have expected others to want to confirm his statements? In the case of a possible Ark finding, there are a lot of us who, based on the "Consistency of Fallacy" from so many past Christian statements, will spend the time to thoroughly investigate your claims. Why not? We still have an open mind about it. And when we find, such as we have with remote-sensing X-Ray fluorescence as a simple example, that something's "signature" is reliably indicative of limestone, well, what can I say? Do I toss that out as, what? "Unlikely"? "Dis-liked? "Unpopular"? A "bald-faced lie"?

Why, indeed, should I discount out of hand the science that I personally happen to know so well, and have actually used, and that I also know to be absolutely reliable? Just to please you?

Have you done any X-Ray fluorescence research? Have you ever done ANY scientific research? If not, how can you refute it all as a bald-faced lie? Just because you don't want to hear the results? Do you really believe that all scientists are idiots and liars?

Expect science to march ever onward, Campbell. I'm sorry that you have so much trouble accepting we will ALWAYS investigate questionable or controversial things. Scientists often have the honesty to disagree amongst ourselves. I know that when we do, the Xtian community then quotes it so as to use the disagreement as PROOF of scientific fallability, ego-tripping, etc. That sort of response and behavior should be personally humiliating to your side, because it's so childlike, so "neener neener".

Meanwhile, we ever-curious objective, honest and un-afraid observers of the wonders of the world around us will continue, with or without your approval, to further the totality of our understandings, including situations where we absolutely verify that something's limestone. Even if a conclusion flies in the face of one of OUR pet hypotheses. That's no problem for our side. We just continue to ask more questions. Even if it took 50 years of ever-advancing technology to get there, and even if your side insists on hanging on to very old results and observations. Not all old beliefs and observations are valid, Campbell (see "Flat Earth Theory").

I'm done.

For you to suggest that I am the one calling anyone that does not agree with me a bald-face liar is laughable. And Ed Davis has additional support from numerous accounts. It was not just (some guy) who saw something on the side of Ararat. In the summer of 1916 Lieutenant Roskovitsky of the Russian Imperial Air Force flying near the side of Mount Ararat stated that he saw a half submerged hull of some sort of ship on the mountain. He stated how surprised they were when they got close to it. He said it was the size of a modern battleship. He also said, it was grounded on the shore of the lake, with one-fourth underwater. It had been partly dismanteled on one side near the front, and on the other side there was a great doorway nearly twenty feet square, but the other door was gone.
In 1989 Dr. Ahmet Arslan climbed to coordinates given to him, and saw from a distance of 1,200 feet the end of a huge, geometric structure sticking out of the snow. It was then he took pictures of it, because of the danger he could get no closer. Those pictures were show to Dr. James Ebert who is a highly-regarded forensic archaeologist. He look at Ahmet's photos under a high resolution process and said: The picture in question does not show a natural part of the landscape, but looks strikingly man-made. Stating that the object displayed a peaked roof and rectangular sides or walls. George Stephen is military-trained, and a 30 year veteran of remote sensing, high resolution, infra-red and other satellite type photo interpretation. He to look at the photo's taken of the object in questin and stated. "I am one hundred percent sure there's two man-made objects up there on the north side of the mountain above the 13,000 foot evevation." (REMEMBER, HE STATED THIS LONG AFTER ED DAVIS SAID HE SAW THE ARK UP THERE BROKEN IN TWO). Dino Brugioni, who is a retired founder of the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center, reviewed one still-classified 1956 U-2 photo of the anomaly, he stated that what he saw looked like the bow of a ship. Roman Gomez, and imaging specialist then at DNA, analyzed the photos. He stated there is nothing else like that anywhere on the mountain. Retired senior physicist and satellite imagery analyst for the U.S. Navy's Naval Surface Warefare Center Clifford Paiva also stated that the assessment of the anomaly's parallel and orthogonal lines of symmetry, as well as curved and circular lines of symmetry, indicate cultural 'man-made' etiology. The former CIA deputy director for the national intelligence George Carver, who is the only person in the history of the agency to be awarded the distinguished Intelligence Medal stated that there are clear indications that there is something rather strange on Mount Ararat, and that the first five books of the Bible-might not be all that bad as history also.

As I have stated, this is not just about one man's account, it is about many men over a very long period of time who are in positions of responsibility, and they are all telling us that this object on Ararat is man-made.

And could you tell me what remote sensing X-ray fluorsscence showed the object in question to be lime stone? Especially taking into consideration that the object is at a 15,000 foot elevation near the top of a volcano. I was unaware that volcanos spewed limestone? And I was also unaware that limestone displayed large doors, and peaked roofs. I'm sure science will always invistigate, yet we sure don't see science rushing to prove the existance of the Ark on Ararat. Do we?

[sanspeur]

Campbell, how do you explain this if the great flood actually happened? The flood supposedly happened sometime between 2500 and 2300 BC. The Pyramids were built using huge amounts of man power. The list below is only partial from the first built to the last....Keep in mind that there were more than 100 pyramids built.....It seems that the flood had no effect on the construction of the pyramids...

Pharaoh Est. date built Location

Djozer c. 2630 - 2612 BC Saqqara
Sneferu c. 2612 - 2589 BC Dashur
Sneferu c. 2612 - 2589 BC Dashur
Sneferu c. 2612 - 2589 BC Meidum
Khufu c. 2589 - 2566 BC Giza
Djedefre c. 2566 - 2558 BC Abu Rawash
Khafre c. 2558 - 2532 BC Giza
Menkaure c. 2532 - 2504 BC Giza
Sahure c. 2487 - 2477 BC Abu Sir
Neferirkare Kakai c. 2477 - 2467 BC Abu Sir
Nyuserre Ini c. 2416 - 2392 BC Abu Sir
Amenemhat I c. 1991 - 1962 BC Lisht
Senusret I c. 1971 - 1926 BC Lisht
Senusret II c. 1897 - 1878 BC el-Lahun
Amenemhat III c. 1860 - 1814 BC Hawara

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

Campbell, how do you explain this if the great flood actually happened? The flood supposedly happened sometime between 2500 and 2300 BC. The Pyramids were built using huge amounts of man power. The list below is only partial from the first built to the last....Keep in mind that there were more than 100 pyramids built.....It seems that the flood had no effect on the construction of the pyramids...

Pharaoh Est. date built Location

Djozer c. 2630 - 2612 BC Saqqara
Sneferu c. 2612 - 2589 BC Dashur
Sneferu c. 2612 - 2589 BC Dashur
Sneferu c. 2612 - 2589 BC Meidum
Khufu c. 2589 - 2566 BC Giza
Djedefre c. 2566 - 2558 BC Abu Rawash
Khafre c. 2558 - 2532 BC Giza
Menkaure c. 2532 - 2504 BC Giza
Sahure c. 2487 - 2477 BC Abu Sir
Neferirkare Kakai c. 2477 - 2467 BC Abu Sir
Nyuserre Ini c. 2416 - 2392 BC Abu Sir
Amenemhat I c. 1991 - 1962 BC Lisht
Senusret I c. 1971 - 1926 BC Lisht
Senusret II c. 1897 - 1878 BC el-Lahun
Amenemhat III c. 1860 - 1814 BC Hawara

Scholars fight over that all the time, some say 7,000 years ago, others say it happend 9,000 years ago. I don't really know when it happened, I just believe it did. Jesus Christ speaks of the flood, and it appears He believed it happened as well.

[sanspeur]

I'll ask again....Well if it did happen how do you explain the continuous construction of the pyramids? How was Egypt repopulated so quickly?

[MrsMtnsOnTheMind]

Maybe it wasn't. They could very well have been descendants of Ham that picked up where the others left off. Who is to say that the flood destroyed the pyramids?

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

I'll ask again....Well if it did happen how do you explain the continuous construction of the pyramids? How was Egypt repopulated so quickly?

The oldest Pyramid in Egypt is the Step Pyramid of Djoser at Saqqura. It was constructed around 2668-2687 BC. It is the first pyramid in Egyptian history. If the flood occured between 7,000 or 9,000 years ago. There would be plenty of time for the Egyptians to build the Pyramids and for their population to increase. Especially taking into account that the flood occured 2,000 years before the earliest pyramid was built. And it may be that there was a greater span of years than the 2,000. Yet that is up for debate.