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.
(Also please do note the automatic angelic choir that kicks in at just the right moment! But then, later on in the "vid", we even have a race between Noah [i.e.: GOD's team] and The Devil [note the shiny red Skidoo!]. The Debil wins! Talk about an evo-Proof!) (Hey; that's a good one too: shorthand for an unsupportable bit of logical fluff"!)
(Nitrous and other supplies provided exclusively by Heavenly Nitrous Supplies & Rentals LLC™)
"HevnlyNitroSup-R-Us!
"One Whiff and you're as good as in Heaven, but laughing all the way!"
"Power-Boosting our way into the minds of Christians for centuries!"
(I could just go on and on, but ...no... There's "mods" about)
Ahhhh, my dear riflemen, you've been watching too much Top Gear...
What I find so staggeringly incomprehensible is that Arkists are unable to take a few steps backwards and survey the entire idea, the combined concepts of..
1) the magical materialization of TEN TIMES the known Earthly aquatic resources, deposited at a rate of 18 inches per hour!
2) Its' subsequent handy quick recession. Back to where again? Because they claim it's initial removal caused much subsidence and collapse. And then some claim that science has actually found numerous underground cities, when in fact they have not. Such underground sources, suddenly depleted, would cause an equal-sized sink-hole to be formed, so it'd be a zero-sum game. Like pulling your finger out of a glass of water and wondering, stupidly, why the level did not then stay the same... or better yet, rise significantly.
3) The whole structural engineering question, given that it was hand-made by axe, not precisely saw-cut (+/- 1 - 5 mm for a tight waterproof fit..), and held together with pitch and wooden pegs. Not a single metallic structural aid in sight;
4) the whole issue of the necessary known true species count and subsequent reproductive ecology, well covered elsewhere;
5) the effects of completely, massively and destructively altering the entire global fresh- and salt-water aquatic ecology;
5) the issue of food and water storage, and species-specific accommodations, onboard an un-lit, unheated, non-steerable, unstabilized and unpowered barge;
... as if all this is completely plausible! (Snort!) Not to mention that the geology of the world does not actually provide any evidence for a singular global event. no uniform global sediment layer, complete with a single layer of dead organism and plant remnants. Nope. Rather it points unerringly, when examined with even a mildly a rational mind, to a very long history and multiple ice ages and ongoing many and varied sedimentary, volcanic and plate tectonics events.
But they prefer to argue about micro-points; as to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, ranting on into the night about how some hay in an old barn "proves The Ark's up on Ararat".
And summarily ignoring the overall impossibility, on so many levels, of the entire concept.
And, to boot, that it's all only 6037 years old, and T-Rexs and gigantic Brontosaurs (saddled....) were also onboard but have, mysteriously, disappeared, though we easily find all the other remnants of civilizations and animals much older than the Ark...
Rubbish thinking, to a rubbish conclusion.
But hey: that's just me and good old logic. so, let the games continue. They are in no mood to see clearly, and frankly, nothing will convince them, even when this current faker expedition fails.
You post so much great stuff Rifleman it is hard to decide when to Rep you. This is such an eloquent summary of so many problems with the flood story.
Ahhhh, my dear riflemen, you've been watching too much Top Gear...
Zzhatt possible? (BTW, take careful note of that nostalgic tuned Chevy V-8 engine sound "at full chat" as my British ancestors would say. Soon enough, such sounds, and such fun as this, will be banned by our liberal "we know best"ers.
We'll all just sit around in The Home, with unpleasant scowling nurses, male and female, shoveling the lukewarm gruel into our trembling mouths... and possibly, taking us down, we neatly trussed into our wheelchairs, to the mandatory Sunday Services so lovingly provided by the local "Church of The Intransigent Icon".
You know I've been following this thread and find it rather amusing, to say the least, but I do have one question that if it were possible for somebody here to give it a straight answer that would make some sense. The question I have is that if it rained for 40 days and 40 nights and all that rain covered the entire world as we know it and then 150 days later this water receded, just exactly where did all that water go when it received? I mean it surely would've taken a whole lot longer than 150 days for all that water to evaporate into thin air, so I wonder if anybody could give a sensible answer to that question?Where did all of that water go?
It was not the rain that really flooded the earth. It was the fountains of the deep. And that occured when the crust of the earth collapsed. Today it is believed that the earth holds as much as ten times the water then we would find in all earths oceans. Consider link below. The water from the flood found it's way deep below the earth. As Lou Bergeron reports in the link below. Story appeared in the New Scientist Aug. 30, 1997.
Consider link below. The water from the flood found it's way deep below the earth. As Lou Bergeron reports in the link below. Story appeared in the New Scientist Aug. 30, 1997.
What I find so staggeringly incomprehensible is that Arkists are unable to take a few steps backwards and survey the entire idea, the combined concepts of..
1) the magical materialization of TEN TIMES the known Earthly aquatic resources, deposited at a rate of 18 inches per hour!
2) Its' subsequent handy quick recession. Back to where again? Because they claim it's initial removal caused much subsidence and collapse. And then some claim that science has actually found numerous underground cities, when in fact they have not. Such underground sources, suddenly depleted, would cause an equal-sized sink-hole to be formed, so it'd be a zero-sum game. Like pulling your finger out of a glass of water and wondering, stupidly, why the level did not then stay the same... or better yet, rise significantly.
3) The whole structural engineering question, given that it was hand-made by axe, not precisely saw-cut (+/- 1 - 5 mm for a tight waterproof fit..), and held together with pitch and wooden pegs. Not a single metallic structural aid in sight;
4) the whole issue of the necessary known true species count and subsequent reproductive ecology, well covered elsewhere;
5) the effects of completely, massively and destructively altering the entire global fresh- and salt-water aquatic ecology;
5) the issue of food and water storage, and species-specific accommodations, onboard an un-lit, unheated, non-steerable, unstabilized and unpowered barge;
... as if all this is completely plausible! (Snort!) Not to mention that the geology of the world does not actually provide any evidence for a singular global event. no uniform global sediment layer, complete with a single layer of dead organism and plant remnants. Nope. Rather it points unerringly, when examined with even a mildly a rational mind, to a very long history and multiple ice ages and ongoing many and varied sedimentary, volcanic and plate tectonics events.
But they prefer to argue about micro-points; as to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, ranting on into the night about how some hay in an old barn "proves The Ark's up on Ararat".
And summarily ignoring the overall impossibility, on so many levels, of the entire concept.
And, to boot, that it's all only 6037 years old, and T-Rexs and gigantic Brontosaurs (saddled....) were also onboard but have, mysteriously, disappeared, though we easily find all the other remnants of civilizations and animals much older than the Ark...
Rubbish thinking, to a rubbish conclusion.
But hey: that's just me and good old logic. so, let the games continue. They are in no mood to see clearly, and frankly, nothing will convince them, even when this current faker expedition fails.
There is no magic of the missing waters rifleman. As reported in the New Scientist of Aug. 30, 1997. Deep below the earth it is believed there may be as much as ten times the amount of water then all the water found in all of earths seas. This is where all of the water from the flood ended up. As reported in the New Scientist 1997 by Lou Bergeron.
http://www.ldolphin.org/deep/deepwaters.html (broken link)
Some claim that science have located underwater cities when they have not?
There is no magic of the missing waters rifleman. As reported in the New Scientist of Aug. 30, 1997. Deep below the earth it is believed there may be as much as ten times the amount of water then all the water found in all of earths seas. This is where all of the water from the flood ended up. As reported in the New Scientist 1997 by Lou Bergeron.
http://www.ldolphin.org/deep/deepwaters.html (broken link)
Some claim that science have located underwater cities when they have not?
Same old crap you've posted a million, zillion times...It was garbage then, and it hasn't changed...You must be limited to the "woo woo" and creationist sites, and have found nothing new to attempt to support your unsupportable position....Why don't you try accepting the real truth for a change, or are you so deeply programmed that you just aren't able to?
Same old crap you've posted a million, zillion times...It was garbage then, and it hasn't changed...You must be limited to the "woo woo" and creationist sites, and have found nothing new to attempt to support your unsupportable position....Why don't you try accepting the real truth for a change, or are you so deeply programmed that you just aren't able to?
Oh please sanspeur. You can't dismiss this as only the product of creationist sites. These discoveries are common knowledge among many. The real truth is what u appear to be ignoring sanspeur. And you are trying to suggest this evidence is only presented by creationist sites, which is totally false. The city off India, the structure off of Japan, and numerous others sites are facts that you appear to want to ignore. If truth is crap to you sanspeur what can I say? I am programmed to accept the truth, not ignore it.
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.
