• 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?

bigfoot and flood? :)

egads. that's so messed up I don't even know where to start.

Are you also a birther, 911 truther or "moon landings were faked" supporter 154?
 
I'm trying to imagine two bigfoot/s in a cage on Noah's ark. Or were they civilized enough they didn't need one? Maybe they helped out with the chores, which might help to explain how 8 people managed to care for hundreds of thousands of animals and maintain a ship for over a year: they had bigfoot to help them.
 
154 said:
Hey Vort, how are ya?
Yep, as crazy as it sounds I admit, while I haven't really given this much thought previously, perhaps because it is an uncomfortable position to hold, I would have to consider that a real possibility, as unlikely as that even seems to me. Other possibilities are limited.
Click to expand...

As unlikely as it seems? You seriously think the ark was real, but that bigfoot being aboard is unlikely?
As crazy as it sounds? The ark? Bigfoot? The combination?
I call troll.
 
I don't think 154 is a troll; he believes what he believes and defends it ardently. Unfortunately, it appears that no amount of scientific evidence either for or against a given proposition will sway him from his entrenched beliefs.

He saw bigfoot in the dark once; therefore bigfoot is a real animal. (Never mind that he could be mistaken, or intentionally hoaxed by a third party.) He read the Bible and someone told him it's the inerrant word of God; therefore it's the inerrant word of God. No scrutiny of these conclusions appears to be necessary.

I do see a pattern with regard to credulity of unsubstantiated assertions here, which I find interesting. What is even more fascinating is the cognitive dissonance 154 seems to have experienced when I led him to consider the two propositions together: bigfoot and the Bible, specifically the story of the ark. As ridiculous as it seems -- to all of us and to 154 -- that bigfoot might have been on the ark, 154 must now find some way to reconcile the two wildly disparate beliefs. He must now find some way to make the statement "Bigfoot was on Noah's Ark!" not sound like the fruit-nut assortment that he probably knows, in his mind of minds, that it is.

154, I don't mean to be rude by discussing you in the third person. I know you're right here! And to answer your courteous query, I'm doing well. How are you?
 
154 said:
Yeah, I suppose...
A small group would likely be insignificant, so it had to be more dominant and influential.
Otherwise, the rest was just what is common to all men.
No contention required here.
Click to expand...

Well, considering that the U.S have about 1.3 million scientist, out of a roughly 300 millions citizens, that's about 0.4% of the population.
I think it qualifies as 'small'.
 
154 said:
Nonsense. Typical deliberate distortion.
I question the value of scientists. I question men. I question people. No exceptions for the self-exalted orthodox priesthood of Science, Inc.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the distortion. It wasn't deliberate. I honestly thought I was summing up your position.

In any case, I really don't see the distinction you are making. Are you saying science is a useful way of describing the world but scientists are bad at describing the world?
 
Last edited:
devnull said:
bigfoot and flood? :)

egads. that's so messed up I don't even know where to start.

Are you also a birther, 911 truther or "moon landings were faked" supporter 154?
Click to expand...

The Bigfoot did all the scut work like feeding the animals and cleaning the bilges.
 
Nonsense, Noah WAS a Bigfoot.

And Ham was cursed and went to live in Africa, where the human lineage come from.
We are the cursed offspring of Ham. That's why we don't have BigFoot nice flowy hair and have to work menial jobs rather than frolicking in the Canadian rockies all day long.

It all make sense finally!
 
Simon39759 said:
Nonsense, Noah WAS a Bigfoot.

And Ham was cursed and went to live in Africa, where the human lineage come from.We are the cursed offspring of Ham. That's why we don't have BigFoot nice flowy hair and have to work menial jobs rather than frolicking in the Canadian rockies all day long.

It all make sense finally!
Click to expand...


Ham had the big hand
He had the easy touch
 
Accidental Martyr said:
Bigfoot was given the job of taking care of the dinosaurs. ;)
Click to expand...
.
Prolly din't have one of those brass monkeys to keep the dino eggs from rolling around the deck, and the eggs got all scrambled... and Mrs. Bigfoot missed the boat... getting her hair styled, and the drier quit.
 
154 said:
"But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith."

Hebrews 11:6,7


"Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth."
And God said: "This is the sign of the covenant which I make between Me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth.
It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud;
and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.
The rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth."
And God said to Noah, "This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth."

Genesis 9:11-17
Click to expand...

Okay, 154, here's the problem. If you assert that Noah's flood actually took place, what you're speaking of is a physical event. Thus, it should leave physical effects. As it stands, geologists have found evidence of localized floods and have excellent data on the characteristics of flood geology. There is no geological evidence of a universal flood a few thousand years ago. There's also no fossil evidence of such a flood. In fact, in every test of whether or not such a flood occurred Noah's flood flunks out. So quoting scripture at us really isn't proof.

Tell me, should we be able to do the experiment I suggested to see if patterns of genetic drift lead back to Mt. Ararat, would you accept the results? We don't even have to do such a test on any species but our own. If the flood story is true, then patterns of genetic drift in the human genome should all lead back to eastern Turkey / Armenia. If they do, that would greatly support the Flood. If they don't, the Flood would be disproven. Would yo be willing to abide by the results of such a test and give up your belief in Noah's flood should patterns of genetic drift not lead back to Ararat?
 
TimCallahan said:
Okay, 154, here's the problem. If you assert that Noah's flood actually took place, what you're speaking of is a physical event. Thus, it should leave physical effects. As it stands, geologists have found evidence of localized floods and have excellent data on the characteristics of flood geology. There is no geological evidence of a universal flood a few thousand years ago. There's also no fossil evidence of such a flood. In fact, in every test of whether or not such a flood occurred Noah's flood flunks out. So quoting scripture at us really isn't proof.

Tell me, should we be able to do the experiment I suggested to see if patterns of genetic drift lead back to Mt. Ararat, would you accept the results? We don't even have to do such a test on any species but our own. If the flood story is true, then patterns of genetic drift in the human genome should all lead back to eastern Turkey / Armenia. If they do, that would greatly support the Flood. If they don't, the Flood would be disproven. Would yo be willing to abide by the results of such a test and give up your belief in Noah's flood should patterns of genetic drift not lead back to Ararat?
Click to expand...


Surely you now that 154's skydaddy cleans up pretty well after his many genocides.
 
The initial topic that started this thread has been all but utterly discredited as being a scam by local Kurdish mountain guides to separate moronic evangelicals from their cash.
There is very little to even debate, it is a myth dreamed and or copied from multi sources, nothing more.
If you cling to such an inane belief you should be pitied, not given a forum.
Have you noticed the number of children’s toys/books based on the flood myth?
None of them include bodies of drowned babies.
 
kedo1981 said:
The initial topic that started this thread has been all but utterly discredited as being a scam by local Kurdish mountain guides to separate moronic evangelicals from their cash.
There is very little to even debate, it is a myth dreamed and or copied from multi sources, nothing more.
Click to expand...

And the 'very little to debate' consists of whether it is a deliberate scam by somebody, or whether it is a genuine artefact of something.
What is not to debate is whether it is the ark. It isn't.

I am still curious to hear why 154 and Radrook even entertain the idea that the ark story could be literally true.
 
kerikiwi said:
And the 'very little to debate' consists of whether it is a deliberate scam by somebody, or whether it is a genuine artefact of something.
What is not to debate is whether it is the ark. It isn't.

I am still curious to hear why 154 and Radrook even entertain the idea that the ark story could be literally true.
Click to expand...

How could anyone believe that it was true?
 
kerikiwi said:
I am still curious to hear why 154 and Radrook even entertain the idea that the ark story could be literally true.
Click to expand...

Thats an easy question
154 because hes been indocrinated since birth in skydaddy belief
Radrook because hes been indocrinated since birth in skydaddy belief and because he has anyone who might prove to him otherwise on ignore
:D
 
Ignoring all of the other logical reasons why an ark would take a 'miracle' to work the way bible literalists want it to, there are two arguments which really confuse me.

1) Noah had the help of people other than his immediate family in building the ark.
So god lets these people work on the boat for a few months or a year knowing that they are all going to die by drowning with no place on the ark they built.

2) The animals taken on board were juveniles. So they don't need as much space or food as adults.
You take a bunch of juveniles animals(quite a few of which are very social animals), kill their parents and the rest of the herd/band and stuff them into tiny boxes on board a rolling ship in a flood for a year.

But still god is kind and merciful?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom