• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Noah's Ark found?

Radrook said:
I agree. If you think I'm a troll then the right thing to do is terminate the disscussion. No problem.
Click to expand...


Yes, but what if we accidentally glance at one of your posts while browsing through each other's amusing replies.

Think of the children!

You could stop posting nonsense, that would help.
 
edge said:
In bold I think you have that part wrong, they had the Genesis account before they were captured and if compared they kind of say the same thing but not quit so who borrowed from who?
Or did they both know some of what happened?
Click to expand...
Even if you were right (and you aren't) about the biblical account coming first, it still bears all the hallmarks of a legend handed down for many ages, similar in the basics but varying widely on details. It doesn't matter a lot who came first. The story is so full of holes and physical impossibilities that not even biblical scholars believe it is true.

And that's a notable point. The more a person knows about the bible, whether they be Cristian or not, the less they believe in its in errancy. Ask any fourth-year seminary student.

edge said:
2nd part in bold, sure they didn't know all of what we do today but they weren’t as dumb as you want to portray.
They weren’t all shepherds.
Click to expand...
I said they were ignorant, not dumb. They simply had no way to know many of the reasons a global flood is impossible. Modern people have no such excuse. If they believe the flood story as literally true, it is because of intentional ignorance.
 
154 said:
Science is good. Scientists are subject to all the foibles of men.
Click to expand...


So when diverse scientific fields all agree that the world over 4 billion years old, is that that misfeasance or malfeasance on the part of these foible-filled scientists?
 
Ladewig said:
So when diverse scientific fields all agree that the world over 4 billion years old, is that that misfeasance or malfeasance on the part of these foible-filled scientists?
Click to expand...

Not all creationists believe that earth was created in six literal twenty-four-hour days. You are referring to young earth creationists.
 
Tricky said:
It's not exactly a "record" of the event though, is it? It is a story of a flood, borrowing heavily from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Sure, both Christians and Muslims believe it because they use many of the same texts, both being Abrahamic religions. Whether it has any basis in actual events is not easy to ascertain, but it is pretty much clear from writings in other places that the idea of a worldwide flood is not at all universal. I do not doubt that there were large floods in history. Certainly none covered the whole earth. That much is easy to prove. But to an uninformed scribe who probably never travelled more than a few hundred miles from home in their whole life, "all the earth" is a very relative term.

I give them a pass for being ignorant. It wasn't their fault. I don't give a pass to people who believe, without skepticism, the writings of ignorant people many centuries ago. Modern people have no excuse for such ignorance.

To call it the early book of Abrahamic religions "historical" is a great and unjustifiable leap of faith. "Legendary" is a much better fit.
Click to expand...

The folks at this site present some very compelling evidence to the contrary:

http://www.s8int.com/water2.html

http://www.s8int.com/water1.html

http://www.s8int.com/water4.html

http://www.s8int.com/water7.html

http://www.s8int.com/water8.html
 
Last edited:
Well, I'm back from my brief trip and I still don't see any response from either Radrook or 154 to my suggestion of a genetic drift experiment. Here' the suggestion once more:

If all human beings existing today are descendants of Noah and his family, patterns of genetic drift evident in the human genome should lead us back to the vicinity of Mt. Ararat. So, Radrook and 154, would you be willing to accept the findings of such an experiment / inquiry, regardless of where they lead?
 
And with those links the thread has officially jumped the shark.

If one finds that site a credible source then that's about all that need to be known...
 
Radrook Radrook Radrook, you have got to be kidding.
These theories have been discredited so many times that it’s not funny.
Even the main stream YEC groups tell their minions not to site this crap as part of any argument of proof, please stop embarrassing your self.

The local Kurdish guides have already admitted that this was a scam.

You have been present with countless questions as to the possibility/impossibility of the world wide flood and the only fall back you have that thousands of years later it’s not impossible to build a big boat.

But no answers for the moral points that I keep asking.
How does God deciding generations before they are born and then killing untold numbers without offering any from of salvation fit with modern Christian belief.

Or the physical impossibility of two Koala bears, two duckbill platypuses, two Echidnas and so on and so on, making the trip from their part of the world and then back.
 
Radrook, I can agree with you when you're offering reasoned assessments of biblical passages, but now you've descended to spamming the thread with links to unsupported horse-hockey of the most credulous and despicable variety.

Every one of those links offers belief-based conclusions that have been rebutted and debunked time and again, on the JREF and elsewhere -- as five minutes of research will attest.

Take the heading "20th century Dinosaurs!" for example. Those "pleisiosaurs" that washed up on the beach/were caught in fishing lines are decomposing baleen whales.

As to the underwater city off Cuba, that is a megalithic town built some 6000 years ago, thought to have sunk as a result of seismic activity; fault lines and an ancient volcano in the area support this hypothesis. It cannot be used as evidence for the Flood except by believers with no critical thinking skills.

Etc., etc., etc.
 
Ladewig said:
So when diverse scientific fields all agree that the world over 4 billion years old, is that that misfeasance or malfeasance on the part of these foible-filled scientists?
Click to expand...
Ok, again.
Time is a relative physical property.
Observers in different locations can report different numbers or times and both be correct, as I've said here many times.
 
154 said:
Ok, again.
Time is a relative physical property.
Observers in different locations can report different numbers or times and both be correct, as I've said here many times.
Click to expand...

Ok so how do you explain the fact that in the dating of the earth all the scientific observers come back with the same date. Nothing to do with special relativity is it, but if youre going to pretend to do science to bolster your lack of faith thats fine. Just remember that the rest of us can see it for what it is. Bs

Like I am tempted to post this as a response to your ridiculous "time is relative" attempt
Speed is the ratio of space to time. If space and time are absolute, then the speed of light must be relative, depending upon the speed of the observer. The speed of light is absolute and does not depend upon the speed of the observer, therefore, either space or time must be relative. They are in fact both relative. As the measurement of geological time does not have any bearing in special relativity, geological time has passed and so is absolute and can be measured accordingly

But as you wouldnt understand it I don't think I'd bother,
:p
 
Last edited:
154 said:
Ok, again.
Time is a relative physical property.
Observers in different locations can report different numbers or times and both be correct, as I've said here many times.
Click to expand...

Of course you do understand that repetition of an error does not make it correct.
 
Ladewig said:
So when diverse scientific fields all agree that the world over 4 billion years old, is that that misfeasance or malfeasance on the part of these foible-filled scientists?
Click to expand...

Both?:D
 
There's something I don't get, and I hope someone who believes the flood story as a real, historical, event, can address.

Obviously, the flood didn't happen by natural causes. It was an example of divine intervention. God twisted the laws of physics, created a bunch of water, got rid of it again. No problem. For God, it's no more effort than sending fire and brimstone down onto a pair of sinful cities or raising himself from the dead.

Equally obviously, there is no way to keep every species, or even every "kind" of species of animal alive without divine intervention. Likewise, most ocean dwelling species would die due to salinity changes, and many plant species would die off if you covered all of their members with water for fourty days plus the dryout period. Furthermore, you couldn't gather in all the animals to the ark, or disperse them after the flood, with only two of each species available for the task. It can't happen, even using the most sophisticated modern technology, without a miracle.

So, why all this claptrap about baby animals and "kinds" and postdeluvian microvelotion acceleration? Why not, "I don't know how he did it. It was a miracle."
 
One reason would be the consequence of that would be a deceitful god that deliberately hides evidence and manufactures false evidence to mislead future humans for some reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom