NationStates Jolt Archive

A group of explorers from Hong Kong obtained permission from the Turkish government to explore Mount Ararat, and with the help of the local Kurds, they claim to have found the remnants of Noah's Ark. Since then they have made a documentary.

More information here: http://www.thedaysofnoah.com/en_index.asp

What do you think?

I think that with all the splinters from Jesus' cross they could build an entire house......... so bullshit probably

I think that with all the splinters from Jesus' cross they could build an entire house......... so bullshit probably
Just like that?

Not even going to see for yourself before you jump to a conclusion that fits your belief?

Just like that?

Not even going to see for yourself before you jump to a conclusion that fits your belief?

Hah! You find remnants of a boat (like they only made one of those before) and assume its Noah's Ark! I can smell the irony.

Just like that?

Not even going to see for yourself before you jump to a conclusion that fits your belief?
lol. They don't even KNOW how old it is supposed to be

As with many other stories found in the bible that of the ark is a simple parable.

God will smite thee etc. That said it could have been based on some truths, there may have been a Noah, and indeed a big boat.

The best lies are always based on truth. Looking forward to watching the documentary, thanks.

and you do know that the 'explorers find Noah's ark - authorities hush it up' story has been a popular part of the modern christian mythos for the past century and a half, right? It springs up anywhere from once every 5 years to once a decade.

Oi! You non-Christians were the ones who quickly pointed to "scientific evidence" about evolution, and how you believe that evidence is strong and credible. So when objecitivity seems to agree with religion, it's all a no-no...

P.S. Religion threads are the fastest growing threads on the General Forum! ;)

I googled it and all I found was an article about a satellite search for Noah's Ark.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/ark_hunt_020830.html

I am a Catholic but I think it might of just been a story in the Bible.... One of those storys to teach people lessons and they actually didnt happen.

The trouble with the Noah's Ark story is it was probably based on an Assyrian or Babylonian story involving floods.

Oi! You non-Christians were the ones who quickly pointed to "scientific evidence" about evolution, and how you believe that evidence is strong and credible. So when objecitivity seems to agree with religion, it's all a no-no...

P.S. Religion threads are the fastest growing threads on the General Forum! ;)

When it does agree and it's solid evidence, we'll listen (and that's "we" as in the skeptical, scientifically-minded community. I'm very much a Christian, thank you). As long as it only seems to agree at a cursory glance, no-no. And for emphasis, no-no again.

... So when objecitivity seems to agree with religion, it's all a no-no...

P.S. Religion threads are the fastest growing threads on the General Forum! ;)

Religion and objectivity have never exactly gone hand in hand. Anyone remember Galileo?

P.S. Suicide Bombers are the fastest growing threat in the middle east. Whats your point?

I would like to know how "objectivity" applies here, and indeed how it agrees with religion.

But then I haven't seen the doc yet.

Okay okay. I surrender. It's not the lack of proof/evidence that is stopping you. It's your core attitudes and your general, subjective bias towards anything religious/spiritual.

Okay okay. I surrender. It's not the lack of proof/evidence that is stopping you. It's your core attitudes and your general, subjective bias towards anything religious/spiritual.

I think you assume quite a lot here.

Religion and objectivity have never exactly gone hand in hand. Anyone remember Galileo?

P.S. Suicide Bombers are the fastest growing threat in the middle east. Whats your point?

Yaaah! But when they do, the relationship gets discredited like the Nazi-Soviet Pact...

I just made a point. Stop bullying me! :(

I hate you constantly search for scientific proof for proof in Christianity, and when you finally get some you run and hide and make it like it doesn't exist. There is so much historical evidence that proves things in the Bible, but you still can't bring yourself to believe it.

"Oh, there was a boat on a mountain, so what? They find old stuff everywhere."

Did you know that Mt. Ararat was supposed to be where the Ark landed? Come on now, I doubt there'd just happen to be a boat there if there was seriously supposed to be one according to the Bible.

I don't think the story of Noah is just a parable. Parable's usually have morals. What kind of moral did we learn from Noah? Nothing. Well, maybe that God will flood you, put some good guy on a boat, and restart earth if you not good. I doubt that is why it was made. Noah's Ark actually existed.

I could go on and on. Sheesh.

No bullying from my part, send smiles and happines now. :)

I think you assume quite a lot here.
I think it's a reasonable assumption.

Okay okay. I surrender. It's not the lack of proof/evidence that is stopping you. It's your core attitudes and your general, subjective bias towards anything religious/spiritual.
Exactly thats how they are.

Hah! You find remnants of a boat (like they only made one of those before) and assume its Noah's Ark! I can smell the irony.
I am not going to go one way or the other, but if you were to find a huge boat on the top of a mountain, it is a lot easier to think it is Noah's ark. I don't hear of too many some-thousand year old boats sitting on the tops of moutains.

No bullying from my part, send smiles and happines now. :)

My heart is all warm now. :D *smooches*

Oi! You non-Christians were the ones who quickly pointed to "scientific evidence" about evolution, and how you believe that evidence is strong and credible. So when objecitivity seems to agree with religion, it's all a no-no...

What credible evidence is there? A few vague satellite photos which show a strange blemish on the summit. A few explorers claim to have seen it, but none have come up with any actual proof (except for one, who found 5000 year old wood in a crevasse).

On the website you provided, there were a lot of claims about a ' large wooden structure' on the peak of Mount Ararat, but no claims that it was obviously a boat.
Anyway...we'll see when this documentary comes out.

"Oh, there was a boat on a mountain, so what? They find old stuff everywhere."


I didn't hear anyone say that

I don't think the story of Noah is just a parable.

I'm somewhat intrigued that you beleive and entire ecosystem was maintained on a boat in ancient times. And that such a small selection of animals were able to repopulate the earth.

A group of explorers from Hong Kong obtained permission from the Turkish government to explore Mount Ararat, and with the help of the local Kurds, they claim to have found the remnants of Noah's Ark. Since then they have made a documentary.

More information here: http://www.thedaysofnoah.com/en_index.asp

What do you think?
I think I'll let you know when and if I see the documentary.

What credible evidence is there? A few vague satellite photos which show a strange blemish on the summit. A few explorers claim to have seen it, but none have come up with any actual proof (except for one, who found 5000 year old wood in a crevasse).

It's obvious you didn't click on the link. CLICK ON THE LINK! I PUT THERE FOR A REASON! MUAHAHAHAHAHA!

It's obvious you didn't click on the link. CLICK ON THE LINK! I PUT THERE FOR A REASON! MUAHAHAHAHAHA!

I did click on the link. I was looking at the 'past discoveries' section.

I admit I oversimplified a little, but the evidence does still seem a little inconclusive.

The trouble with the Noah's Ark story is it was probably based on an Assyrian or Babylonian story involving floods.
Why is that "trouble"?

You do know that for a boat to hold 7 of each animal (2 clean and 5 unclean) the boat would be so big if it was made of wood it would collapse. Even if it didn't, Noah would have died from all methane poisoning due to all the animal excrement. Then there's the question of the water. Where did it all go? Where did it come from? You just can't say "God did it" if you want to convert anyone with a rational mind.

I'm somewhat intrigued that you beleive and entire ecosystem was maintained on a boat in ancient times. And that such a small selection of animals were able to repopulate the earth.


That.... and the fact that the entire human race would be one very large, very incestuous family...

Why people don't understand a metaphor when they see one is beyond me.


Great floods are mentioned throught most cultures and these stories do have a basis in the earth's history.
Around 10 000 years ago, when the last ice age ended (well, not so much "ended" as "got a lot warmer suddenly", but that's beside the point), the sudden change in climate in combination with the huge masses of water that were no longer frozen led to torrential rainfalls and massive floodings and inundations, espacially in Mesopotamia and the Middle East.
Such an event was of course told to every following generation, each time being exagurated a bit... until finally every living thing drowned in the story.
"But, granddad, if everybody drowned, where do we come from?" - "Erm, did I ever tell you about your ancestor Noah?"

I did click on the link. I was looking at the 'past discoveries' section.
Oh. Please forgive me. *blushes*

There are more than 90,000 species of creatures now living on earth. Scientists have calculated that Noah could have fit 35,000 species of land animals into the ark. Most of them are small animals such as rats and cats, and only some of the beasts are large, e.g. giraffes and elephants. It is estimated that the animals took up only 37% of the Ark's space, with a lot of rooms remained to move around, and for storage of food and water.


Genesis 6:15 "The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high." With this building ratio, the ark would not capsize even if it tilts at 60 degrees in the wave front. It is estimated that the gross floor area is over 10,000 square feet, larger than 20 basketball courts. Its loading capacity is over 1,518,000 in cubic feet, in equivalent to 569 modern rail cargos at least

Oh. Please forgive me. *blushes*

No problem. I did kind of oversimplify the information that was provided.

Agh, I don't know why I'm even bothering to debate this. I haven't got my 'debating hat' on today...

Note: I don't actually have a debating hat, which I must wear in order to debate with people. It was a metaphor.

That.... and the fact that the entire human race would be one very large, very incestuous family...

Why people don't understand a metaphor when they see one is beyond me.


Great floods are mentioned throught most cultures and these stories do have a basis in the earth's history.
Around 10 000 years ago, when the last ice age ended (well, not so much "ended" as "got a lot warmer suddenly", but that's beside the point), the sudden change in climate in combination with the huge masses of water that were no longer frozen led to torrential rainfalls and massive floodings and inundations, espacially in Mesopotamia and the Middle East.
Such an event was of course told to every following generation, each time being exagurated a bit... until finally every living thing drowned in the story.
"But, granddad, if everybody drowned, where do we come from?" - "Erm, did I ever tell you about your ancestor Noah?"

Perhaps all the other flood stories stemmed from the Big one? That is all possible too.

Not to mention many of these flood stories are very similar although their cultures were vastly apart (e.g. Maya and Greece)

And not to mention many modern Chinese characters have their roots from the Flood. Seriously. No joke.

Almost every culture has a flood myth. Water is cleans away the worlds sins. Baptism. Need I say more.

Almost every culture has a flood myth. Water is cleans away the worlds sins. Baptism. Need I say more.
Well, yeah, you need say more, because the topic of the thread is the up-coming documentary. ;)

Almost every culture has a flood myth. Water is cleans away the worlds sins. Baptism. Need I say more.

And those cultures might have stemmed from the same family, thus the similar stories and similar traditions.

WE ARE ONE BIG FAMILY!! :D

Almost every culture has a flood myth. Water is cleans away the worlds sins. Baptism. Need I say more.

And then you have Tsumamis which clean up coastlines.

And then you have Tsumamis which clean up coastlines.

I hope this doesn't mean what I think it means.

And then you have Tsumamis which clean up coastlines.

Not funny.

The Flood myth isn't limited to a region. It is about the cleansing of the world. Washing away the corruption of man. It is about rebirth.

Perhaps all the other flood stories stemmed from the Big one? That is all possible too.

Not to mention many of these flood stories are very similar although their cultures were vastly apart (e.g. Maya and Greece)

And not to mention many modern Chinese characters have their roots from the Flood. Seriously. No joke.

Some people also place the sinking of Atlantis into that time... But most likely it wasn't one big big flood covering all the globe but rather regional floods and inundations over a longer period of time as described here:

http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/floods/mfloods.html

Btw., some people most likely would have started to build ships, seeing that the floods kept coming back. And they would have put their livestock on them together with their families. So that might be another root of the biblical story. I don't say it doesn't have some basis in truth, but Noah saving the human race and every species of animal on the planet? Extremely unlikely. Though a very nice story.

Hah! You find remnants of a boat (like they only made one of those before) and assume its Noah's Ark! I can smell the irony.

I would find this hard to believe, especially if the boats 50 times bigger than any normal boat. Dont you think that just mabye it could be the boat? seeing as how its soooo freaking large? I highly dis-regard that this boat could be a simple fisherman's boat or something like that.

The Ark would be the world's biggest discovery, and yet ONLY a evangelical group from China are carrying news about this?

Pull the other one, lad, its got bells on.

Okay okay. I surrender. It's not the lack of proof/evidence that is stopping you. It's your core attitudes and your general, subjective bias towards anything religious/spiritual.

Very convenient to think that isnt it?

The Ark would be the world's biggest discovery, and yet ONLY a evangelical group from China are carrying news about this?

Pull the other one, lad, its got bells on.

If that there REALLY is Noah's Arch, how come that in - how much? - well, several thousands of years nobody has discovered it? How come the mountain did not become a tourist attraction for crusaders, how come no Victorian would-be archeologist ran up that mountain to carry it back to the British Museum, how come there Turkish government is not raking in the cash selling this story to the highest bidder?

Problem: Why would the Turkish government deny U.S. (NATO Ally) researchers access but grant Chinese (Strained relations) permission to go and look for the Ark?
Solution: Me thinks that this is a hoax, and fell for it, you have.
But, fo the sake of argument, lets play with some other ideas. Where did all of that water come from? Where did it go afterwards? Maybe God magically made it appear, and then magically dissappear, which would certainly be His privilege. Somehow, I don't think that there is enough atmospheric water or water in the ice caps, glaciers, and snowpacked mountains to raise the level of the worlds oceans to cover 16,945 feet of mountain.
Diameter of earth=7,926.41miles, 12,756.32 km or 41,851,444 feet.
Radius of Earth=3,963.205 miles, 6,378.16 or 20,925,722 feet.
Volume of the Earth= (4/3)(pi r^3) (we will be using meters for the equation)
(4/3) (pi 6378160.0m^3) = 1.086 x 10^21m^3.
Thats the rough volumne of the earth. I say rough because the earth is not round, it is an ovoid, but the comparison that I am making here will be valid anyway.
Now, as the Earth has a diameter of 6,378,160m, when we add Mt. Ararat's 5,137m to it, and get a new volume of 1.089x10^21m^3. That is a difference of .003x10^21m^3, or 3.0x10^18m^3, or 3,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic meters of water. There is about 2,678,000 cubic meters of water in the icecaps and glaciers right now. A bit of a discrepancy, is it not?

Very convenient to think that isnt it?

Convenient, but reasonable.

Hong Kong.

HONG KONG.

NOT CHINA.

If that there REALLY is Noah's Arch, how come that in - how much? - well, several thousands of years nobody has discovered it? How come the mountain did not become a tourist attraction for crusaders, how come no Victorian would-be archeologist ran up that mountain to carry it back to the British Museum, how come there Turkish government is not raking in the cash selling this story to the highest bidder?
I have the same questions myself.

A group of explorers from Hong Kong obtained permission from the Turkish government to explore Mount Ararat, and with the help of the local Kurds, they claim to have found the remnants of Noah's Ark. Since then they have made a documentary.

More information here: http://www.thedaysofnoah.com/en_index.asp

What do you think?

I think it's a hoax, and a lame one too. Mt. Ararat is just an ordinary stratovolcano.

Hong Kong.

HONG KONG.

NOT CHINA.

Same thing :D

Problem: Why would the Turkish government deny U.S. (NATO Ally) researchers access but grant Chinese (Strained relations) permission to go and look for the Ark?
Solution: Me thinks that this is a hoax, and fell for it, you have.
But, fo the sake of argument, lets play with some other ideas. Where did all of that water come from? Where did it go afterwards? Maybe God magically made it appear, and then magically dissappear, which would certainly be His privilege. Somehow, I don't think that there is enough atmospheric water or water in the ice caps, glaciers, and snowpacked mountains to raise the level of the worlds oceans to cover 16,945 feet of mountain.
Diameter of earth=7,926.41miles, 12,756.32 km or 41,851,444 feet.
Radius of Earth=3,963.205 miles, 6,378.16 or 20,925,722 feet.
Volume of the Earth= (4/3)(pi r^3) (we will be using meters for the equation)
(4/3) (pi 6378160.0m^3) = 1.086 x 10^21m^3.
Thats the rough volumne of the earth. I say rough because the earth is not round, it is an ovoid, but the comparison that I am making here will be valid anyway.
Now, as the Earth has a diameter of 6,378,160m, when we add Mt. Ararat's 5,137m to it, and get a new volume of 1.089x10^21m^3. That is a difference of .003x10^21m^3, or 3.0x10^18m^3, or 3,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic meters of water. There is about 2,678,000 cubic meters of water in the icecaps and glaciers right now. A bit of a discrepancy, is it not?


Actually, those floods did take place....

http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastr...ds/mfloods.html

Hong Kong.

HONG KONG.

NOT CHINA.

Hong Kong is again part of china since 1997 or so, if i recall right... :rolleyes:

Hong Kong.

HONG KONG.

NOT CHINA.
Last I looked, Hong Kong was in China. Did the CCP give it back to the UK?

Yes! But Hong Kong and China operate two different systems. We are DIFFERENT!

Yes! But Hong Kong and China operate two different systems. We are DIFFERENT!

But the same country.

Actually, those floods did take place....

http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastr...ds/mfloods.html

The side doesn't load. Besides, i'm pretty sure the Deluge (literaly according to Genesis) did not and could never have taken place, for a multiplicity of reasons:

- As mentioned earlier, there is not enough water on Earth for a global flood. If there was, where did it come from, and where did it go to afterwards?

- There is no geological evidence for a global flood. If you think fossils and sediments are evidence for a global flood, then you evidently have no understanding of even the most simple basics of geology.

- Dendrochronology date back to circa 10,000 years and ice core samples date back to over 700,000 years, and neither say anything about a global flood.

- Who says it's possible to build such a gigantic wooden boat and maintain it with just such a small number of people, and who says it would survive such an event?

- It would have been impossible for the ark to to hold all animal species of the world. All the millions of insect species would never have found room in it. And if you add all the *known* extinct species, the figure gets even higher.

- It would have been impossible to feed all these species during the flood and afterwards, and it would have been impossible of preventing them from feeding on each other.

- How do you explain that there are more extinct species than living ones if you assume that they were all saved from the flood on board of Noah's Ark. Just for your information, Dinosaurs are not the only extinct group of animals.

- How do you explain the present-day (and fossil) distribution and restriction of certain types of animals? For example why are there Marsupials in Australia, and why have fossils of horses never been found in Antarctica and Australia?

- Some species of animals do not have two genders, they are hermaphrodites and some even reproduce via parthenogenesis. Talking about pairs...

- The Deluge would have been an extreme population bottleneck. There is no evidence for such a bottleneck in the gene pool of the living species, and it's unlikely that they would have recovered from it.

- Most aquatic ecosystems would have died because of the change of salinity.

- Most plants would not have survived the year of flood.

I don't think the story of Noah is just a parable. Parable's usually have morals. What kind of moral did we learn from Noah? Nothing. Well, maybe that God will flood you, put some good guy on a boat, and restart earth if you not good. I doubt that is why it was made. Noah's Ark actually existed.

Your right. Noahs' Ark is more than a parable. It's a story made up to explain the rainbow phenomenon. The Church didn't know about the Electromagnetic Spectrum (of which visible light is in), nor did they know about refraction. People who tried to tell them were accused of heresy.

Contrary to popular belief, Noah was not a "good guy". What was the first thing he did when the water went away? He made some wine, and whilst pissed out of his tits he rolled around naked in front of his son!

But the same country.

"one country, TWO SYSTEMS"!

It's funny that most of the political crises gripping Hong Kong right now actually stem up the argument whether "one country" is prevalent or "two systems"...

snip


All been said in my earlier posts...

There was global flooding, but it didn't cover the entire globe. It was due to the melting of most of the glaciers and polar caps at the end of the last ice-age, about 10 000 years ago.

Such an event would stay on peoples minds, they would hand down the story and exagerate it, of course.

With returning massive flooding, some poeple would of course have built boats and put their family and livestock on them.

So, these are the roots of that story. That's also why similar stories can be found in so many different cultures, they all date back to the same event.

Why I don't (and, indeed, can't) accept the story of Noah's Ark as any sort of fact; and why I'm astonished that many educated adults consider it to be history and not mythology.
For me, it is one of the least believable parts of the entire Bible, and any theist who attempts to use it convert someone will have a hard job on their hands.

Let's look at it: Noah (at the ripe old age of 600!) and his sons built, using their bare hands, a seagoing vessel large enough to comfortably house a breeding pair of every land animal on the planet (although the bible isn't clear on this; in one place it says a pair of each creature, a few verses away it says seven of each clean, and two of each unclean creature (how did Noah know if tigers, kangaroos and penguins are clean or unclean?)), for at least forty days.











The Ark
This boat would have had to have been bigger than a super-tanker!
There are MILLIONS of species on the land. There are over three hundred and fifty thousand species of beetle alone. The sheer number of insects would fill several arks, before you even consider the larger creatures. The ark would have to be the single largest ship ever in the history of the world. Modern technology could not possibly create a ship large and stable enough to act as Noah's Ark (someone on alt.atheism suggested that Noah would have needed a space-suit to walk on the deck!).
Many species of land animal require highly specialised habitat and food to survive. Koalas, for instance, eat one kilogram of fresh Eucalyptus- tree leaves per day, which provide all their water and nutrition (some people have suggested Noah had a year's supply of dried Euc. leaves. But Koalas need the leaves for their water. What did Noah do? Rehydrate them? With what, a desalination plant? Hold them out in the rain every morning?) Also, no matter what time of year it was, many creatures would be hibernating (it's always winter somewhere on the globe). Many creatures are only found on one continent, indeed some are limited to a small island/forest/mountain. It's a neat trick to be able to walk thousands of miles to the Middle East if you're hibernating on a remote island near Alaska.

How could the ark cope with all the specialised requirements of food/environment for millions of creatures? The 320 different species of humming-bird, for example, have very high metabolic rates and have to consume large amounts of nectar throughout the day. The Ark would have had to cater for 640 humming-birds, requiring an almost constant supply of fresh nectar. From flowers. Which wouldn't grow in great abundance in a dark, damp boat.

How could the ark cope with disposing of the waste products of those creatures? It must have had an incredibly advanced plumbing and ventilation system, superior to anything to be found on modern ocean liners or large military vessels (eg. aircraft carriers). One problem that dairy farmers have is that vast quantities of fresh dung produce highly toxic gases (falling into the slurry pit can be fatal because of this), and it would have been many times worse on an Ark. Next time you are at a zoo, ask one of the keepers how easy it is to deal with the needs of the few hundred animals they have for a month, and then imagine scaling that up to a gigantic floating zoo with millions of creatures being looked after by one old man and his family.

Where did Noah find the pitch to waterproof the Ark with? Flood theorists say that all the world's oil / petroleum deposits were formed during the Flood. How could Noah find and use pitch to waterproof the Ark before the Flood, when the pitch was formed during the Flood? Did he have SCUBA gear as well, and kept diving down to gather fresh pitch from the ocean floor and apply it to the Ark while it was floating around? Pitch is a petroleum deposit, which takes more than a couple of thousand years to form. (Some people argue that "wood-pitch" was used instead, although the commonly held belief is that it was petroleum-pitch).

Using modern equipment, it can take a good shipyard years to build a large ship, using hundreds of men. Noah (five hundred years old at the time) apparently had himself, a few helpers and a lot of gopher-wood trees. We are expected to believe that he built the Ark, using crude hand-tools, over a period of many years in a world filled with evil, scheming criminals. ("The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.")

The ark took 120 years to build. With 120 years you can build anything.

All right, I don't get people who take stories like Noah's Ark LITERALLY...

But I don't get people either who can't see a metaphor and a parabel when they see one. This one has roots in the earth's history, and the bible uses these roots to make a simple moral statement....

The Animals
Next, I have to ask how all the creatures managed to get back to their original habitats, or at least ones that would support them.
How did the koalas and kangaroos get back to Australia?
How did the polar bears and penguins get back the north/south poles?
How did the giant tortoises get back to the Galapagos islands?
How did the flightless dodos get back to Mauritius?
How did the army ants get back to the Amazon rain-forests?
As there were only two (or seven, depending) of each species, how did they manage to travel thousands of miles back to their place of origin without being eaten, dying in accidents or of starving to death due to lack of their normal (specialised) food supply?
Of course, not all the animals were able to get away. According to Genesis 8:20 Noah immediately sacrificed at least one of each pair of clean animal! That could have potentially been a lot of animals. Seems a bit pointless, really. After all, God told him to build the Ark - it would appear to be rather unnecessary to thank God afterwards for looking after the Ark, and thanking God by slaughtering His creations and producing a huge pile of bloody corpses seems a little odd... So, that's the "clean" breeding pairs ruined (or reduced considerably if there were seven). Unless of course they were breeding/pregnant during the voyage. But then, how did the Ark cope with all the extra mouths to feed?

Some creationists have come up with quite remarkably imaginative explanations as to how Noah managed to gather and store all the animals in a restricted space. A couple of the more interesting ones I've come across are:

He did not take adult animals, but eggs, babies and infants.
Presumably then, the creatures arrived at the Ark of their own accord, laid eggs or gave birth, and left poor old Noah to cope with the mess and figure out the best way to tend to the needs of the newborn tiger, chicken or tarantula. Exactly who got the job of producing all the gallons of milk for the young mammals is not explained.
He did not even gather babies and eggs, but sperm and ova (egg eggs, if you will).
The difficulties that this situation raises are best left to the imagination, and should probably not be brought up as a topic of conversation at the dinner table, or in front of sensitive Aunts.
Many of the animals hibernated, or went into some sort of suspended animation.
As mentioned above, how the already-hibernating beasties get there in the first place? Was this a natural form of hibernation (which requires the build-up of large fat reserves first), or some sort of miraculous state? How did the animals build up enough fat whilst walking thousands of miles to the Ark (which would be quite good exercise)? If it was all done with miracles, then why do creationists insist on explaining everything in naturalistic terms? Which is it? Magic or mundane?

All been said in my earlier posts...

Yes-yes, i didn't read them all. :p


There was global flooding, but it didn't cover the entire globe. It was due to the melting of most of the glaciers and polar caps at the end of the last ice-age, about 10 000 years ago.

Yeah, it's quite possible that the end of the last ice age was the base for the numerous flood stories. Especially at sensitive points like the strait of Hormuz and the sea of Bosporus, a raising of the sea level must have been disastrous (either could be the origin of the flood stories of the Middle East).


Such an event would stay on peoples minds, they would hand down the story and exagerate it, of course.

With returning massive flooding, some poeple would of course have built boats and put their family and livestock on them.

So, these are the roots of that story. That's also why similar stories can be found in so many different cultures, they all date back to the same event.

Yeah, you have a point there. However, in that respect it's arrogant and ignorant by the Yecs to assume the deluge story from Genesis is the right one, isn't it? :(

The Animals
Next, I have to ask how all the creatures managed to get back to their original habitats, or at least ones that would support them.
How did the koalas and kangaroos get back to Australia?
How did the polar bears and penguins get back the north/south poles?
How did the giant tortoises get back to the Galapagos islands?
How did the flightless dodos get back to Mauritius?
How did the army ants get back to the Amazon rain-forests?
As there were only two (or seven, depending) of each species, how did they manage to travel thousands of miles back to their place of origin without being eaten, dying in accidents or of starving to death due to lack of their normal (specialised) food supply?
Of course, not all the animals were able to get away. According to Genesis 8:20 Noah immediately sacrificed at least one of each pair of clean animal! That could have potentially been a lot of animals. Seems a bit pointless, really. After all, God told him to build the Ark - it would appear to be rather unnecessary to thank God afterwards for looking after the Ark, and thanking God by slaughtering His creations and producing a huge pile of bloody corpses seems a little odd... So, that's the "clean" breeding pairs ruined (or reduced considerably if there were seven). Unless of course they were breeding/pregnant during the voyage. But then, how did the Ark cope with all the extra mouths to feed?

Some creationists have come up with quite remarkably imaginative explanations as to how Noah managed to gather and store all the animals in a restricted space. A couple of the more interesting ones I've come across are:

He did not take adult animals, but eggs, babies and infants.
Presumably then, the creatures arrived at the Ark of their own accord, laid eggs or gave birth, and left poor old Noah to cope with the mess and figure out the best way to tend to the needs of the newborn tiger, chicken or tarantula. Exactly who got the job of producing all the gallons of milk for the young mammals is not explained.
He did not even gather babies and eggs, but sperm and ova (egg eggs, if you will).
The difficulties that this situation raises are best left to the imagination, and should probably not be brought up as a topic of conversation at the dinner table, or in front of sensitive Aunts.
Many of the animals hibernated, or went into some sort of suspended animation.
As mentioned above, how the already-hibernating beasties get there in the first place? Was this a natural form of hibernation (which requires the build-up of large fat reserves first), or some sort of miraculous state? How did the animals build up enough fat whilst walking thousands of miles to the Ark (which would be quite good exercise)? If it was all done with miracles, then why do creationists insist on explaining everything in naturalistic terms? Which is it? Magic or mundane?

How do you have an idea of where the animals came from before the Flood???

If the Flood was a Godsend, then God would be there for Noah, no?

Yeah, you have a point there. However, in that respect it's arrogant and ignorant by the Yecs to assume the deluge story from Genesis is the right one, isn't it? :(

It's a bit like looking for the garden of Eden, or Atlantis, or the Holy Grail...
All of them metaphors, but enough stupid people over the ages took them liteally and went looking for them until they became ledgend...
In our culture at least. Why Chinese people would go looking for them is a bit beyond me, considering that their culture most likely provides them with plenty of myths on their own...

im getting real sick of christians when ever you confront them have right and they dont have any anwsers thay can just say "only god knows" its so fucking iritating i cant stand it.... (no hard fellings thats just me) ' :headbang:

my oppinion about christianity(smiliar religions) is that it is a easy way out of all lifes hard questions ... kinda cowardly and who can say they are wrong? if you belive in somthing you can't see u can believe anything (i'm a 5000 year old invisible greek god with a pink fuzzy cock)

and if every body but noah died how could they be more people or did he just fuck a pig?

The Animals
Next, I have to ask how all the creatures managed to get back to their original habitats, or at least ones that would support them.
How did the koalas and kangaroos get back to Australia?
How did the polar bears and penguins get back the north/south poles?
How did the giant tortoises get back to the Galapagos islands?
How did the flightless dodos get back to Mauritius?
How did the army ants get back to the Amazon rain-forests?
As there were only two (or seven, depending) of each species, how did they manage to travel thousands of miles back to their place of origin without being eaten, dying in accidents or of starving to death due to lack of their normal (specialised) food supply?
Of course, not all the animals were able to get away. According to Genesis 8:20 Noah immediately sacrificed at least one of each pair of clean animal! That could have potentially been a lot of animals. Seems a bit pointless, really. After all, God told him to build the Ark - it would appear to be rather unnecessary to thank God afterwards for looking after the Ark, and thanking God by slaughtering His creations and producing a huge pile of bloody corpses seems a little odd... So, that's the "clean" breeding pairs ruined (or reduced considerably if there were seven). Unless of course they were breeding/pregnant during the voyage. But then, how did the Ark cope with all the extra mouths to feed?

Some creationists have come up with quite remarkably imaginative explanations as to how Noah managed to gather and store all the animals in a restricted space. A couple of the more interesting ones I've come across are:

He did not take adult animals, but eggs, babies and infants.
Presumably then, the creatures arrived at the Ark of their own accord, laid eggs or gave birth, and left poor old Noah to cope with the mess and figure out the best way to tend to the needs of the newborn tiger, chicken or tarantula. Exactly who got the job of producing all the gallons of milk for the young mammals is not explained.
He did not even gather babies and eggs, but sperm and ova (egg eggs, if you will).
The difficulties that this situation raises are best left to the imagination, and should probably not be brought up as a topic of conversation at the dinner table, or in front of sensitive Aunts.
Many of the animals hibernated, or went into some sort of suspended animation.
As mentioned above, how the already-hibernating beasties get there in the first place? Was this a natural form of hibernation (which requires the build-up of large fat reserves first), or some sort of miraculous state? How did the animals build up enough fat whilst walking thousands of miles to the Ark (which would be quite good exercise)? If it was all done with miracles, then why do creationists insist on explaining everything in naturalistic terms? Which is it? Magic or mundane?

I know where you're getting all this stuff from. I've seen it- word for word- on another website. Tell me, I'm curious, are you copying your own material or are you copying from someone else?

How do you have an idea of where the animals came from before the Flood???

If the Flood was a Godsend, then God would be there for Noah, no?

Btw, the flood story raises some questions about the power of god. It's said that he got sick of what humans were doing on Earth, and that he sent the flood therefor. Why couldn't he just kill the humans outright without a deluge? I thought god was supposedly omnipotent. How inconsistent... :rolleyes:

I know where you're getting all this stuff from. I've seen it- word for word- on another website. Tell me, I'm curious, are you copying your own material or are you copying from someone else?

he maby thought it was good and wrote it? :eek:

Btw, the flood story raises some questions about the power of god. It's said that he got sick of what humans were doing on Earth, and that he sent the flood therefor. Why couldn't he just kill the humans outright without a deluge? I thought god was supposedly omnipotent. How inconsistent... :rolleyes:

*shock*

Is sending a giant flood not powerful enough???

Christ Dragons Bay, did you get some sand in your Vagina? :-)

Sure, you have a different system from China, but China has soverneighty over you. If you doubt me, why don't you get some of your fellow city's sitizens to declare independence, and we can have this question settled immediately.

Btw, the flood story raises some questions about the power of god. It's said that he got sick of what humans were doing on Earth, and that he sent the flood therefor. Why couldn't he just kill the humans outright without a deluge? I thought god was supposedly omnipotent. How inconsistent... :rolleyes:

Metaphor ... :rolleyes:

It's a pretty impressive story this way, isn't it?
In my experience as a catholic, god is somebody who will to go enormous lengths for a really good story (see Joseph in Egypt, see the Egyptian plagues and the Exodus, see David and Goliath, see more or less everything about Jesus ;) )

*shock*

Is sending a giant flood not powerful enough???

but not so agile solution (probably noah wasn't the only innocent guy on earth

*shock*

Is sending a giant flood not powerful enough???

Well, he could have killed them all outright, with a single instant. Why all the expense with the millions of tons of water? :D

Christ Dragons Bay, did you get some sand in your Vagina? :-)

Sure, you have a different system from China, but China has soverneighty over you. If you doubt me, why don't you get some of your fellow city's sitizens to declare independence, and we can have this question settled immediately.

I wanted to answer 'no' on the thread which asked whether you have ever been mistaken for another gender online. I now have to answer 'yes'.....muahahahahahaha

We can't declare indepedence. We are part of 'China', but we can't be under the 'Communists'. See?

im getting real sick of christians when ever you confront them have right and they dont have any anwsers thay can just say "only god knows" its so fucking iritating i cant stand it.... (no hard fellings thats just me) ' :headbang:

my oppinion about christianity(smiliar religions) is that it is a easy way out of all lifes hard questions ... kinda cowardly and who can say they are wrong? if you belive in somthing you can't see u can believe anything (i'm a 5000 year old invisible greek god with a pink fuzzy cock)

and if every body but noah died how could they be more people or did he just fuck a pig?

You sound quite angry there, fella.
Seriously, should we Christians have all the answers? The atheists don't. Neither do the agnostics, no matter if any of them are bold enough to claim they do. I think it takes more than stupidity to hold on to a belief when you don't have the facts. It takes a personal bias, one that comes from any number of reasons. You have your beliefs, and I assure you, you cannot prove them. So let us Christians have ours, and why get so worked up about it?

Well, he could have killed them all outright, with a single instant. Why all the expense with the millions of tons of water? :D

Special effects :D

"And suddenly, they all were dead" doesn't make a thrilling story, does it?

but not so agile solution (probably noah wasn't the only innocent guy on earth

There is no point questioning God's actions because His logic is over us. That's the point of 'God'...

Metaphor ... :rolleyes:

It's a pretty impressive story this way, isn't it?
In my experience as a catholic, god is somebody who will to go enormous lengths for a really good story (see Joseph in Egypt, see the Egyptian plagues and the Exodus, see David and Goliath, see more or less everything about Jesus ;) )

Yeah, it works fine if you take it metaphoprical... but, i'm opposing literalism here (i generally oppose literal interpretation of scripture. If you have observed the ongoing evolution-creation debates, you may have noticed that :D ). So, my point is that if you take it literal, it becomes inconsistent...

Btw, the flood story raises some questions about the power of god. It's said that he got sick of what humans were doing on Earth, and that he sent the flood therefor. Why couldn't he just kill the humans outright without a deluge? I thought god was supposedly omnipotent. How inconsistent... :rolleyes:

Technically, Noah and his family were the only non-sinners left. (This is bollocks. See my earlier posts.)

Besides, why go to all that bother of a flood? Kill them in their sleep! It saves on the logistical problems and is much quicker.

Metaphor ... :rolleyes:

It's a pretty impressive story this way, isn't it?
In my experience as a catholic, god is somebody who will to go enormous lengths for a really good story (see Joseph in Egypt, see the Egyptian plagues and the Exodus, see David and Goliath, see more or less everything about Jesus ;) )

I don't see why the one who made the earth isn't entitled to treat it anyway he wants to. You have the same privilige with the things that you create.

The Bible says that Noah was the only righteous man......note, not innocent....but righteous. That is, he had a relationship with God, a good one.

Yeah, it works fine if you take it metaphoprical... but, i'm opposing literalism here (i generally oppose literal interpretation of scripture. If you have observed the ongoing evolution-creation debates, you may have noticed that :D ). So, my point is that if you take it literal, it becomes inconsistent...

I didn't debate that... I'm catholic, yes, but that debate is plain stupid. Creationism doesn't make any sense at all to me, it's a bit like "Hey, yes, evolution is probably correct. Now, how do we fit god into that?"

If you are simple enough to take stories like that literal, I don't think you would have the mental capacity (or willingness) to follow a logical discussion. Your only counter-argument would be the omnipotence and infalibility of god and a 4000 year old book that got translated so many times that most of the original sense is lost anyway.

There is no point questioning God's actions because His logic is over us. That's the point of 'God'...

What's wrong with questioning God's logic? Would you be offended if your best friend questioned you about something that seemed a bit odd to him or her? I would think that God likes the hard questions to be asked. Truth doesn't get any less the truth, even when it is cross-examined.

There is no point questioning God's actions because His logic is over us. That's the point of 'God'...

Heh, i could come with the really mean argument why did he let the holocaust happen? And all the other atrocities humans comitted during the millennia...

All been said in my earlier posts...

There was global flooding, but it didn't cover the entire globe. It was due to the melting of most of the glaciers and polar caps at the end of the last ice-age, about 10 000 years ago.

Such an event would stay on peoples minds, they would hand down the story and exagerate it, of course.

With returning massive flooding, some poeple would of course have built boats and put their family and livestock on them.

So, these are the roots of that story. That's also why similar stories can be found in so many different cultures, they all date back to the same event.
I'm not sure if I buy that. The melting of the icecaps wouldn't have happened over night, it would (I have nothing to support this, just guessing :) ) have taken hundreads of years.

I don't see why the one who made the earth isn't entitled to treat it anyway he wants to. You have the same privilige with the things that you create.

The Bible says that Noah was the only righteous man......note, not innocent....but righteous. That is, he had a relationship with God, a good one.

I didn't say he couldn't do that... I like dramatic gods.

Heh, i could come with the really mean argument why did he let the holocaust happen? And all the other atrocities humans comitted during the millennia...

He let the Holocaust happen, but He will never let the perpetuators get away with it. In addition to be loving, He is also just and fair.

Just because you don't see payback now, doesn't mean there won't be payback, ya?

Technically, Noah and his family were the only non-sinners left. (This is bollocks. See my earlier posts.)

Besides, why go to all that bother of a flood? Kill them in their sleep! It saves on the logistical problems and is much quicker.

Nobody claimed Noah and his family were the only non-sinners left. Do you need to read it again. It says that they had good standing in Gods eyes, or something to that effect.

Noah was a preacher. He had about a hundred years of warning people about a flood. Since there had never been a flood at that time, people laughed at him. My point is that that civilisation had plenty of time to change their ways......but they laughed at Noah because he apparently had no proof. How like today!!

There is no point questioning God's actions because His logic is over us. That's the point of 'God'...

No. Questioning God is important, else we become dimwits who succumb to dogma left, right and center.

I loathe people who blindly follow their faith without question (I make an exception for infants, because they haven't been told anything else). If you question your beliefs at least once, and still belive in God, I respect you.

On another point: the point of God is to give a cushy job for priests! :)

You sound quite angry there, fella.
Seriously, should we Christians have all the answers? The atheists don't. Neither do the agnostics, no matter if any of them are bold enough to claim they do. I think it takes more than stupidity to hold on to a belief when you don't have the facts. It takes a personal bias, one that comes from any number of reasons. You have your beliefs, and I assure you, you cannot prove them. So let us Christians have ours, and why get so worked up about it?
thats a rather un fact based accusation.. i have beliefs that isnt scientifficly proved but they are logical... as i have said before the chance of it being as the bible sais(earth is a test of who has the faith to believe..yabber yabber yabber) it could be who is naive enought to belive in somthing that far out...
(i let you christians have your beliefs and dont try n put words in my mouth im youst expressing my opinions)



(the bible contains graphic violence, child murdering, rascism and fascism and should be read with suspicion)

I'm not sure if I buy that. The melting of the icecaps wouldn't have happened over night, it would (I have nothing to support this, just guessing :) ) have taken hundreads of years.

Nope, not really. Ten years would be a good guess...

Don't imagine these flood as melting glaciers suddenly flooding everything. There simply was suddenly a lot more water on the planet and a lot less ice...

There were rising sea levels causing floods (if you've ever seen high tides today in a relatively stable climate, you know how devastating they can be), plus there were torrential rainfalls all over the globe due to the change in climate, also leading to floods. Imagine the begining of the monsoon in India... but worse.

Heh, i could come with the really mean argument why did he let the holocaust happen? And all the other atrocities humans comitted during the millennia...

Do you mean that you want a god who could clean up after everyone's mess. To somehow give them the choice of being good or bad, and yet not let them suffer if they make the bad choice? How would that be possible?

No. Questioning God is important, else we become dimwits who succumb to dogma left, right and center.

I loathe people who blindly follow their faith without question (I make an exception for infants, because they haven't been told anything else). If you question your beliefs at least once, and still belive in God, I respect you.

On another point: the point of God is to give a cushy job for priests! :)

I do question God - but only about my life. How God deals with the lives of other people is completely out of my attention. Like when His disciples asked Jesus about the fate of Judas the Iscariot after His reserrection, and He responded, saying that it was none of their business. That's true, because if it was, then I could be a god!

Do you mean that you want a god who could clean up after everyone's mess. To somehow give them the choice of being good or bad, and yet not let them suffer if they make the bad choice? How would that be possible?

What "bad choice" did one-million Jews, many of them children, make?

Nope, not really. Ten years would be a good guess...

Don't imagine these flood as melting glaciers suddenly flooding everything. There simply was suddenly a lot more water on the planet and a lot less ice...

There were rising sea levels causing floods (if you've ever seen high tides today in a relatively stable climate, you know how devastating they can be), plus there were torrential rainfalls all over the globe due to the change in climate, also leading to floods. Imagine the begining of the monsoon in India... but worse.
I agree with the climate changes, but they would also have been gradual. Do you have anything to back up your 10 years? It seems an awful short time, for something like that to happen.

To get back to the Deluge, i have to re-iterate it's simply not possible, and there is simply no evidence whatsoever.

Yecs talk about clams found at mountaintops and the claim this was evidence of deluge. They don't realize that these mountains are former sea floor that has been folded up by plate tectonics. Our fellow Mt. Ararat is a stratovolcano, and no clams (question: i don't think they're really always clams, many may also be brachiopods, but Yecs usually don't care for the difference) have been found there, ever... :D

thats a rather un fact based accusation.. i have beliefs that isnt scientifficly proved but they are logical... as i have said before the chance of it being as the bible sais(earth is a test of who has the faith to believe..yabber yabber yabber) it could be who is naive enought to belive in somthing that far out...
(i let you christians have your beliefs and dont try n put words in my mouth im youst expressing my opinions)



(the bible contains graphic violence, child murdering, rascism and fascism and should be read with suspicion)

Are you saying that your beliefs are more logical than Christianity? Do you really think that all Christians are naive simply because they believe? I wonder if you have any far-out beliefs? Like, for example, where does matter come from? Or life? Or love, and human compassion? Could you provide believable explanations? The popular theory has it that it came out of a big bang? Really? And that supposed to be logical? It certainly is one explanation, but please don't call it logical.

Christianity certainly has logical beliefs too. What could be more logical that trusting a loving all-powerful all-loving God, particularly in situations where one is clearly out of control?

History books are full of graphic violence, rape, murder etc. Should we read them with suspicion too? I would be more suspicious if the Bible contained none of the miserable actions of humans, and included only the good ones.

I agree with the climate changes, but they would also have been gradual. Do you have anything to back up your 10 years? It seems an awful short time, for something like that to happen.

I can't find any exact numbers online, sorry. I was qouting a documentary I saw some 5 years ago which was actually about ancient Egypt and the dating of the Sphinx.

You might refer to this source, though they don't give any exact numbers, but they do describe the general global effect pretty well:

http://www.grisda.org/origins/17008.htm

What "bad choice" did one-million Jews, many of them children, make?

I never claimed that every person suffers the consequences of only their choices while here on earth. If someone wants your money bad enough, they will beat you up or even kill you to get it. That doesn't mean you deserved it. That a rather way-to-simple model of how God's justice works. If that thief chooses to be bad, and this is my point, God is not going to step in and prevent that evil from happening, at least not in every case. For that would mean that his or her choice was not really a real choice. God has more respect for human choice than that.


The Christians' perspective of justice takes into account the after life also, and Judgement Day, when every deed will be exposed to God's justice. And since we exist for eternity, there will be plenty of 'time' to right all the wrongs. In a million 'years' from now, who is going to worry whether they died in a gas chamber or in their own comfortable bed during their sleep?

Like I said earlier, Cabra, where did the water come from, and where did it go?\
And as was previously mentioned, your evidence site doesnt load.

I can't find any exact numbers online, sorry. I was qouting a documentary I saw some 5 years ago which was actually about ancient Egypt and the dating of the Sphinx.

You might refer to this source, though they don't give any exact numbers, but they do describe the general global effect pretty well:

http://www.grisda.org/origins/17008.htm

Sounds like a lot of nonsense, to be honest. What about the whole glacial/interglacial cycle (there are hippo fossils from he Thames from the interglacial!)? And what about the ice ages millions of years earlier, like during Carboniferous and late Ordovician?

Are you saying that your beliefs are more logical than Christianity? Do you really think that all Christians are naive simply because they believe? I wonder if you have any far-out beliefs? Like, for example, where does matter come from? Or life? Or love, and human compassion? Could you provide believable explanations? The popular theory has it that it came out of a big bang? Really? And that supposed to be logical? It certainly is one explanation, but please don't call it logical.

Christianity certainly has logical beliefs too. What could be more logical that trusting a loving all-powerful all-loving God, particularly in situations where one is clearly out of control?

History books are full of graphic violence, rape, murder etc. Should we read them with suspicion too? I would be more suspicious if the Bible contained none of the miserable actions of humans, and included only the good ones.

I have large quantities of suspicion for an all loving God that is one of the most violent b@stards out!

Where does love come from? I'll tell you. Long ago, whilst we were still homo erectus, we found an attraction to whoever we deemed the best mate; childbearing hips, stronger than all the others, the best hunter et cetera. This was a primative version of love. As we progressed to the homo sapiens of today, we looked for other criteria; the most intelligent (brains=good job=money=able to provide), the largest mammary glands (tee-hee), the longest johnson et cetera. Love is an evolved version of the desire to have suitable mates. It evolved mainly due to society. Humans are not the only race to love. Swans mate for life. This is most likely swan-love (if it isn't, then what is it?).

To get back to the Deluge, i have to re-iterate it's simply not possible, and there is simply no evidence whatsoever.

Yecs talk about clams found at mountaintops and the claim this was evidence of deluge. They don't realize that these mountains are former sea floor that has been folded up by plate tectonics. Our fellow Mt. Ararat is a stratovolcano, and no clams (question: i don't think they're really always clams, many may also be brachiopods, but Yecs usually don't care for the difference) have been found there, ever... :D

I disagree with your claim that there is no evidence for a Deluge. All the fossil fuel deposit right around the world is quite consistent with a major catastrophe that buried lots of organic matter very rapidly.

For clams to be found at mountain tops, and that mountain had to grow from the seafloor, we are talking about a rate of growth that far exceeds any we have observed (or at least to my knowlegdge, not including volcanoe mountains, which are so destructive they are hardly likely to leave anything so fragile as clams intact. Some mountains are growing, but so slowly, that it would take a lot longer than the predicted age of clams to arrive at such a height. It's far more likely that a great tsunami carried these clams up there. We certainly have enough water in our oceans today for such a tsunami.

I disagree with your claim that there is no evidence for a Deluge. All the fossil fuel deposit right around the world is quite consistent with a major catastrophe that buried lots of organic matter very rapidly.

For clams to be found at mountain tops, and that mountain had to grow from the seafloor, we are talking about a rate of growth that far exceeds any we have observed (or at least to my knowlegdge, not including volcanoe mountains, which are so destructive they are hardly likely to leave anything so fragile as clams intact. Some mountains are growing, but so slowly, that it would take a lot longer than the predicted age of clams to arrive at such a height. It's far more likely that a great tsunami carried these clams up there. We certainly have enough water in our oceans today for such a tsunami.

So if petroleum was created during the flood, how did Noah manage to apply petroleum based pitch to waterproof the hull? Don't say "God made it waterproof" because that begs the question: "why not have God make the whole bloody ship?"

I have large quantities of suspicion for an all loving God that is one of the most violent b@stards out!

Where does love come from? I'll tell you. Long ago, whilst we were still homo erectus, we found an attraction to whoever we deemed the best mate; childbearing hips, stronger than all the others, the best hunter et cetera. This was a primative version of love. As we progressed to the homo sapiens of today, we looked for other criteria; the most intelligent (brains=good job=money=able to provide), the largest mammary glands (tee-hee), the longest johnson et cetera. Love is an evolved version of the desire to have suitable mates. It evolved mainly due to society. Humans are not the only race to love. Swans mate for life. This is most likely swan-love (if it isn't, then what is it?).

I think you are confusing love with attraction. Love involves sacrifice. I wouldn't want to die for a pair of large mammary glands, no matter how good they look, no disrespect meant to the feminen gender. Love doesn't seem to confer a greater survival rate, although attraction certainly can. That's why Marx (I think it was) really hated Christianity (one of his reasons, at least), because he thought their loving communities allowed the weaker ones to live, and thus weakening the entire community.
The ultimate love is to give your life for another, to take their place. This is exaclty opposite to the survival of the fittest. Both 'laws' are in operation, survival of the fittest, and love. Real love does seem to be a lot rarer though.

Kind of seems like with all of the evidence against the flood, biological, geological, and metaphorical, that this is an open and shut case.

I disagree with your claim that there is no evidence for a Deluge. All the fossil fuel deposit right around the world is quite consistent with a major catastrophe that buried lots of organic matter very rapidly.

I'm afraid not. First of all there is stratigraphic order. I've heard Yecs claiming that 'superior creatures' would have been swimming/crawling atop of the 'inferior' ones, supposedly creating the stratigraphic order by that.. This is however UTTER NONSENSE because how could mammoths and angiosperm trees been swimming/crawling over fish and trilobites?

Also, what about reefs that have grown in situ on the continents? They can't have grown during the deluge (because the water column would have been too deep, and because they did definitly not grow in a year - there are growths rings on the corals, after all). The reefs must have formed in shallow seas millions of years ago, that's the right answer.

Then, there is a sharp distinction between terrestrial and marine sedimentation facies. In marine seds, you will find microfossils like radiolaria, foraminifera and diatoms. You won't those in terrestrial seds.

And finally, how do you explain the present-day distribution of animals? The distribution coincides very well with plate tectonics, but is totally inconsistent with a global Deluge.


For clams to be found at mountain tops, and that mountain had to grow from the seafloor, we are talking about a rate of growth that far exceeds any we have observed (or at least to my knowlegdge, not including volcanoe mountains, which are so destructive they are hardly likely to leave anything so fragile as clams intact. Some mountains are growing, but so slowly, that it would take a lot longer than the predicted age of clams to arrive at such a height. It's far more likely that a great tsunami carried these clams up there. We certainly have enough water in our oceans today for such a tsunami.

Umm, sorry, these clams are found inside the sediments, they're just not lying on top there. Have you any idea of stratigraphy? :eek:

Edit: Regarding mountain folding, to my knowledge it fits prettymuch. Look at the world map. Do you think the shapes of the continents are just random?!? Plate tectonics is a real process that is still happening right at the moment...

So if petroleum was created during the flood, how did Noah manage to apply petroleum based pitch to waterproof the hull? Don't say "God made it waterproof" because that begs the question: "why not have God make the whole bloody ship?"

The pitch that Naoh used may have easily have been another undiscovered version of pitch. There are a lot of things we have yet to discover about the ancient world, like how on flopping earth did they build the pyramids. Just because we can't explain a minor point using todays modern knowledge, it doesn't mean we refuse to believe they existed. Otherwise, we would have a real problem acknowledging the existence of the great pyramids, and all the other wonders that science can't explain about ancient civilisations.

Cabra West, I did find a link that kinda supports your theory of sudden climate changes. Here (http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html) . I'm not sure if that theory is generally accepted though.

The pitch that Naoh used may have easily have been another undiscovered version of pitch. There are a lot of things we have yet to discover about the ancient world, like how on flopping earth did they build the pyramids. Just because we can't explain a minor point using todays modern knowledge, it doesn't mean we refuse to believe they existed. Otherwise, we would have a real problem acknowledging the existence of the great pyramids, and all the other wonders that science can't explain about ancient civilisations.

Funny that you mention the pyramids. These are build mainly from limestone from the Eocene which is largely build up by foraminifera called nummulites. How do you think these limestone sediments have formed?!?

I disagree with your claim that there is no evidence for a Deluge. All the fossil fuel deposit right around the world is quite consistent with a major catastrophe that buried lots of organic matter very rapidly.

No, it's not. It's pretty consistent with organic matter being buried under tons of rock during millions of years, though.

For clams to be found at mountain tops, and that mountain had to grow from the seafloor, we are talking about a rate of growth that far exceeds any we have observed (or at least to my knowlegdge, not including volcanoe mountains, which are so destructive they are hardly likely to leave anything so fragile as clams intact. Some mountains are growing, but so slowly, that it would take a lot longer than the predicted age of clams to arrive at such a height. It's far more likely that a great tsunami carried these clams up there. We certainly have enough water in our oceans today for such a tsunami.
The clams you are referring too are not really clams, but fossils of clams. There's a difference, you see. Clams left those impressions on the seabed millions of years ago, some shells were also fossilized. As continents pushed each other, some of that seabed raised and became mountains, with fossils and all.

And there's not enough water for such a tsunami.

The pitch that Naoh used may have easily have been another undiscovered version of pitch. There are a lot of things we have yet to discover about the ancient world, like how on flopping earth did they build the pyramids. Just because we can't explain a minor point using todays modern knowledge, it doesn't mean we refuse to believe they existed. Otherwise, we would have a real problem acknowledging the existence of the great pyramids, and all the other wonders that science can't explain about ancient civilisations.

Actually, there is some evidence to suggest that the pyramids were built by slaves carrying blocks up scaffolds. Whilst I accept that this isn't likely, there is at least some evidence to suggest this it's true. You, however, have made an unfounded claim that an old man (older than anyone has lived in modern times, with all our advances in science) made one of the largest discoveries in shipbuilding, with no evidence to support it. You haven't even quoted the Bible!

I'm afraid not. First of all there is stratigraphic order. I've heard Yecs claiming that 'superior creatures' would have been swimming/crawling atop of the 'inferior' ones, supposedly creating the stratigraphic order by that.. This is however UTTER NONSENSE because how could mammoths and angiosperm trees been swimming/crawling over fish and trilobites?

Also, what about reefs that have grown in situ on the continents? They can't have grown during the deluge (because the water column would have been too deep, and because they did definitly not grow in a year - there are growths rings on the corals, after all). The reefs must have formed in shallow seas millions of years ago, that's the right answer.

Then, there is a sharp distinction between terrestrial and marine sedimentation facies. In marine seds, you will find microfossils like radiolaria, foraminifera and diatoms. You won't those in terrestrial seds.

And finally, how do you explain the present-day distribution of animals? The distribution coincides very well with plate tectonics, but is totally inconsistent with a global Deluge.



Umm, sorry, these clams are found inside the sediments, they're just not lying on top there. Have you any idea of stratigraphy? :eek:

Edit: Regarding mountain folding, to my knowledge it fits prettymuch. Look at the world map. Do you think the shapes of the continents are just random?!? Plate tectonics is a real process that is still happening right at the moment...

Just because something 'fits', doesn't mean its the right explanation. To keep an open mind, one needs to allow for several explanations, throwing away the additional ones only when the are proven wrong.

The stratigraphic order has been found to be upsidedown (I believe I have read it somewhere, but I can't remember where) in some cases. Scientists who believe in long ages have explanations for this, or course, but that doesn't make their explanation right. Creationists also have explanations for corals (I think it would take me too much digging around to get you the details), for characteristics. Sure, having an explanation doesn't make them right, but so long as it cannot be disproven, it stands. Of course, the long agers are quick to use the corals as proof for a long age, but most of them will admit that their explanations are still explanations and are based on several major assumptions about rates of growth, mineral levels in the water, etc.

The distribution of animals in their respective continents is about natural selection. The creationists also agree to this. Although, animal distribution has at times shown to be as much a headache for the long agers as the creationists. What the main disagreement tends to be about is the rate of natural selection.....how come all the marsupials can be so varied and yet all together on the same continent, and almost no where else...The creationists (Actually, to be fair, I should use YECs) think that the rate of adaptation was a lot quicker than most people realized at first. I think many of our latest studies on population movement has shown this can be true.

Funny that you mention the pyramids. These are build mainly from limestone from the Eocene which is largely build up by foraminifera called nummulites. How do you think these limestone sediments have formed?!?

My area of expertise is in genetics, microbial genetics. Perhaps you would like to tell me your version of how these limestone sediments have formed. Please add your assumptions, just to give it a fair hearing.

No, it's not. It's pretty consistent with organic matter being buried under tons of rock during millions of years, though.


The clams you are referring too are not really clams, but fossils of clams. There's a difference, you see. Clams left those impressions on the seabed millions of years ago, some shells were also fossilized. As continents pushed each other, some of that seabed raised and became mountains, with fossils and all.

Yeah, including entire reefs... :)


And there's not enough water for such a tsunami.

Well, the impact of a large asteroid (think Chicxculub, Manicouagan, Chesapeake Bay) could have caused a large tsunami that can reach area up to hundreds of kilometers far from the sea, but that's a different story. None of the mentioned impacts occured any time recently (Chicxulub, infamously, was 65 million years ago, remember? ;)) Also, mountain tops still seem unlikely, even then. :D

Actually, there is some evidence to suggest that the pyramids were built by slaves carrying blocks up scaffolds. Whilst I accept that this isn't likely, there is at least some evidence to suggest this it's true. You, however, have made an unfounded claim that an old man (older than anyone has lived in modern times, with all our advances in science) made one of the largest discoveries in shipbuilding, with no evidence to support it. You haven't even quoted the Bible!

Sorry, I didn't realize I needed to quote the Bible to you. I assumed you had read it for yourself.
I'm not sure how you expect me to come up with evidence for my explanations. I suppose you realize that I cannot. But neither can you, for yours. Be fair, at least.
I'm not trying to prove my explanations, only to make them sound possible. That's all I have to do for now. I'll await more discoveries in acheology and technology, and so forth.....

The blocks were a bit to big, in many cases, for any number of slaves.

Well, the impact of a large asteroid (think Chicxculub, Manicouagan, Chesapeake Bay) could have caused a large tsunami that can reach area up to hundreds of kilometers far from the sea, but that's a different story. None of the mentioned impacts occured any time recently (Chicxulub, infamously, was 65 million years ago, remember? ;)) Also, mountain tops still seem unlikely, even then. :D


Speaking of mountain-tops:

And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Over M.t Everest? How did Noah breath. Inside was filled with poisonous methane, and outside the air was too thin to breath (ask any mountaineer why they carry oxygen tanks).

Yeah, including entire reefs... :)



Well, the impact of a large asteroid (think Chicxculub, Manicouagan, Chesapeake Bay) could have caused a large tsunami that can reach area up to hundreds of kilometers far from the sea, but that's a different story. None of the mentioned impacts occured any time recently (Chicxulub, infamously, was 65 million years ago, remember? ;)) Also, mountain tops still seem unlikely, even then. :D

They say that if there entire earth was a perfect globe (no mountains or valleys) the world would be covered by more than a metre of water. Wouldn't you say that was enough water to make the mountains, let alone to cover them?

in Islam it is debated if Noah's flood was worldwide or local. I believe Noah was African and his ark landing in Turkey tells me the deluge was probably worldwide however counter arguments would be the lack of evidence for a worldwide deluge.

Just because something 'fits', doesn't mean its the right explanation. To keep an open mind, one needs to allow for several explanations, throwing away the additional ones only when the are proven wrong.

Nope, it's not necessarily right, but it's much more likely to be right than something which doesn't fit the evidence at all - i.e. Deluge.


The stratigraphic order has been found to be upsidedown (I believe I have read it somewhere, but I can't remember where) in some cases. Scientists who believe in long ages have explanations for this, or course, but that doesn't make their explanation right.

Upside down stratigraphic order can be only be seen when the sediments are overthrusted, and this has been only observed in mountains. How do you explain all the phenomenas of mountain formation (including granite intrusions, etc.), and how do you explain that this fits so well with what we can gather from data about the interior the mountains via seismic data?!?


Creationists also have explanations for corals (I think it would take me too much digging around to get you the details), for characteristics. Sure, having an explanation doesn't make them right, but so long as it cannot be disproven, it stands. Of course, the long agers are quick to use the corals as proof for a long age, but most of them will admit that their explanations are still explanations and are based on several major assumptions about rates of growth, mineral levels in the water, etc.

Virtually all claims of Creationists i've heard so far are inconsistent with reality and can be disproven easily. The reason is simple: it's inconsistent with what can be observed.


The distribution of animals in their respective continents is about natural selection. The creationists also agree to this.

You might know better. There exist Creationists who claim that no kind of evolution whatsoever exists, which is, again, non-consistent with the observed reality.


Although, animal distribution has at times shown to be as much a headache for the long agers as the creationists. What the main disagreement tends to be about is the rate of natural selection.....how come all the marsupials can be so varied and yet all together on the same continent, and almost no where else...

Well, don't you recognize that evolution is involved here??! Hello?

The creationists (Actually, to be fair, I should use YECs) think that the rate of adaptation was a lot quicker than most people realized at first. I think many of our latest studies on population movement has shown this can be true.

:confused:

Speaking of mountain-tops:

And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Over M.t Everest? How did Noah breath. Inside was filled with poisonous methane, and outside the air was too thin to breath (ask any mountaineer why they carry oxygen tanks).

I think you are overlooking the possibility of a tsunami. Noah and his boat didn't actually need to be up that high. Another possibility is that the atmosphere was quite different then. There is a reference in Genesis that talks about the water in the firmament, compared to the water on the earth, i.e., a division. Hard to imagine what that may have looked like. But at least it does suggest there were some differences.

They say that if there entire earth was a perfect globe (no mountains or valleys) the world would be covered by more than a metre of water. Wouldn't you say that was enough water to make the mountains, let alone to cover them?
So, are you saying that water instead of flowing down into the valleys just covered the mountains as if it was a blanket? That still wouldn't have been much of a flow, people could just have walked it out. And I'm sure Noah would have noticed enough as to make a comment somewhere.

Nope, it's not necessarily right, but it's much more likely to be right than something which doesn't fit the evidence at all - i.e. Deluge.



Upside down stratigraphic order can be only be seen when the sediments are overthrusted, and this has been only observed in mountains. How do you explain all the phenomenas of mountain formation (including granite intrusions, etc.), and how do you explain that this fits so well with what we can gather from data about the interior the mountains via seismic data?!?



Virtually all claims of Creationists i've heard so far are inconsistent with reality and can be disproven easily. The reason is simple: it's inconsistent with what can be observed.



You might know better. There exist Creationists who claim that no kind of evolution whatsoever exists, which is, again, non-consistent with the observed reality.



Well, don't you recognize that evolution is involved here??! Hello?



:confused:

Dawin was right in some respects. And many of my creationist friends may be wrong. I do not have to hold onto their explanations. Dawin was also wrong in some respects. We can see that survival of the fittest is the law around here. In that sense, Dawin was right. It is the basis of selection of genes, and of mutations. Dawins ideas about mutations creating new organs was not, and has never been, proven. It looks like he may have been wrong. There are explanations, but none of them have much weight. All the evidence points to mutations, even beneficial ones being strictly either a loss of information, or a shift in information, but never any documented gain of information. Antibiotic resistance in not a gain of information, but a shift only, in the case of one bacterial cell obtaining a plasmid from another or a gene through a virus infection.

This is a major point in the creationist camp. So far, no evolutionist has come up with a good refutation. I think you need to check your facts.

My area of expertise is in genetics, microbial genetics. Perhaps you would like to tell me your version of how these limestone sediments have formed. Please add your assumptions, just to give it a fair hearing.

If you have some knowledge of genetics, you should know we share 98% of our DNA with Chimpanzees.

I'm asking you, how is it even possible that something like analyzing phylogenetic relationship based on either RNA/DNA or morphology do actually work if they were 'created according to kinds'. And finally, how is it even possible that genetic and morphologic relationship coincide so perfectly? (doesn't that hint at a common ancestor?)

If the Yecs were right, this simply *should not be possible*. It however is possible, therefor the Yecs are wrong. Totally wrong. :p

Regarding the limestones, they were sedimented over millions of years. Think about all the biomass. If you take into account how much fossils there are inside the rocks, consider the rough amount of total sediment-bearing rocks, you will soon find that the amount of biomatter cannot have been from the same time (i.e. just prior deluge, and Yecs insist the bulk of sediments was formed during the Deluge). That's simply not possible.

If the Yecs were right and the fossil record is primarily the result of a global flood, then we should find almost entirely complete skeletons that should be preserved in situ. We should also find always large numbers of individuals per species of terrestrial vertebrates (large number of population, with a real-life age distribution amongst them) Instead, we find mostly disarticulated and incomplete skeletons, traces of scavengers, sometimes just bone 'scraps'. Complete skeletons do also exist but are quite rare (you know how paleontologists get euphoric when they find those!). We also see that we usually only have few specimen per species (again, there are some exceptions). Oh, and another taphonomic factor regarding marine environemnts however comes into my mind: what about traces of bioturbation?

So, are you saying that water instead of flowing down into the valleys just covered the mountains as if it was a blanket? That still wouldn't have been much of a flow, people could just have walked it out. And I'm sure Noah would have noticed enough as to make a comment somewhere.

Funny! No that's not what I would say at all. It definitely would have been a terrifying moment for every living creature, both for those that survived and those that didn't. My point is that there is a jolly lot of water lying around. The Bible even says, futhermore, that the earth 'opened up its gates' and water poured out of the depths of the earth. After the flood, apparently, it went back. A bit like squeasing a bottle of water. The volume doesn't change, but all the water wants to come out in a rush, depending on how much pressue you put on it, and how strong the lid is.

The story of Noah's ark really happened, not only that, but the flood explains ALL of the geological conundrums we have today. Check out http://www.answersingenesis.org/ if you don't already have your mind closed off by the lies of society and public schooling.

Sorry, I didn't realize I needed to quote the Bible to you. I assumed you had read it for yourself.
I'm not sure how you expect me to come up with evidence for my explanations. I suppose you realize that I cannot. But neither can you, for yours. Be fair, at least.
I'm not trying to prove my explanations, only to make them sound possible. That's all I have to do for now. I'll await more discoveries in acheology and technology, and so forth.....

The blocks were a bit to big, in many cases, for any number of slaves.

First off, I have read the Bible, but not in a good few years, and never in detail. Actually, it was reading the Bible that converted me to Atheism!

Why do I like evidence? I suppose it's because people who make claims without even a shard of evidence generally piss me off. However, I will be fair. I can't provide in-depth evidence because geology is not my interests. I expected evidence because you know the Bible better than me.

You weren't trying to prove anything? To be honest, I thought you were. Your attempts to make the Bible possible are commendable yet feeble (sorry I can't think of a better word). All your arguments trying to prove the correctness of the Bible have withered under scrutiny.

The blocks may have been heavy, but it can be done. Water can be used to ease the journey of the blocks (and there is evidence taken from the diary of a slave to suggest this was done). Ramps with a low gradient can mean that a block can be pushed to the desired destination without too much toil. Some people suggest that rollers would be used. Again, this makes sense. Lastly, with a workforce of 100,000 men, I'm sure anything can be done.

The pyramids even suggest that the Bible is wrong. If the world is a mere 4000 years old, how did these great buildings, well over that time limit, come about?

The story of Noah's ark really happened, not only that, but the flood explains ALL of the geological conundrums we have today. Check out http://www.answersingenesis.org/ if you don't already have your mind closed off by the lies of society and public schooling.

Deluge according to Genesis is utter nonsense. Regarding 'lies of society and public schooling', let me put that right. I've seen evidence with my very own eyes that cannot be explained by a Deluge. I assume from my very own observation that Earth is billions of years old, not because i was 'indoctrinated' by some kind of ridiculous "Evolutionist Conspiracy"... :mad:

Edit: it seems you have fallen prey to mindless Creationist propaganda...

Ummm. You should open your eyes. And learn that science is all about being open minded and searching for your own answers, instead of accepting everything others tell you.

The bible was written thousands of years ago by simple men that did not have the knowledge we do today. They were seeking answers, so they tried to explain with god.

Maybe you should put the bible down for a while, stop going to the completely biased Answers in Genesis site, that only looks up and distorts facts so they can be related to the bible, and get a true education.

If you have some knowledge of genetics, you should know we share 98% of our DNA with Chimpanzees.

I'm asking you, how is it even possible that something like analyzing phylogenetic relationship based on either RNA/DNA or morphology do actually work if they were 'created according to kinds'. And finally, how is it even possible that genetic and morphologic relationship coincide so perfectly? (doesn't that hint at a common ancestor?)

If the Yecs were right, this simply *should not be possible*. It however is possible, therefor the Yecs are wrong. Totally wrong. :p

Regarding the limestones, they were sedimented over millions of years. Think about all the biomass. If you take into account how much fossils there are inside the rocks, consider the rough amount of total sediment-bearing rocks, you will soon find that the amount of biomatter cannot have been from the same time (i.e. just prior deluge, and Yecs insist the bulk of sediments was formed during the Deluge). That's simply not possible.

If the Yecs were right and the fossil record is primarily the result of a global flood, then we should find almost entirely complete skeletons that should be preserved in situ. We should also find always large numbers of individuals per species of terrestrial vertebrates (large number of population, with a real-life age distribution amongst them) Instead, we find mostly disarticulated and incomplete skeletons, traces of scavengers, sometimes just bone 'scraps'. Complete skeletons do also exist but are quite rare (you know how paleontologists get euphoric when they find those!). We also see that we usually only have few specimen per species (again, there are some exceptions). Oh, and another taphonomic factor regarding marine environemnts however comes into my mind: what about traces of bioturbation?

Creationists have never, to my knowlegde had a problem with chimps being genetically close to humans. The creator leaves his trademark. Actually, we have two terms in genetics, convergent evolution, and divergent evolution. The first one describes two genes that are identical in bp but from such diverse organisms that they simply could not be from recent common anscestry, eg a bacteria and a human. This is a common occurance among nature. Actually, this observation better fits the rule that similarity in genes means similar function, rather than common ansestry. It's another observation that fits with creation of kinds better than evolution of kinds. Thus genetic similarity between a chimp and a human would mean similar lifestyle, thus similar functions. This is what we observe. They eat what we eat, or would eat were we living in the jungle, sleep as we sleep, have sex, etc. Thus the creationists theory fits just as well, if not better, in this case.

The story of Noah's ark really happened, not only that, but the flood explains ALL of the geological conundrums we have today. Check out http://www.answersingenesis.org/ if you don't already have your mind closed off by the lies of society and public schooling.
Lol I needed a good laugh … lol look at the ice age article :) they got everything wrong from the initial causes to the dating lol they should have just put a sticker on it saying “we are randomly making this shit up”

Funny! No that's not what I would say at all. It definitely would have been a terrifying moment for every living creature, both for those that survived and those that didn't. My point is that there is a jolly lot of water lying around. The Bible even says, futhermore, that the earth 'opened up its gates' and water poured out of the depths of the earth. After the flood, apparently, it went back. A bit like squeasing a bottle of water. The volume doesn't change, but all the water wants to come out in a rush, depending on how much pressue you put on it, and how strong the lid is.

First of all, again, geologic evidence is non-existent that something like 'fountains of the depth'. Then, do you have any idea about Earth's interior? If you think all that Crust/Mantle/Core stuff was just made up to make you believe that hell doesn't exist, you're dead wrong. It's first of all based on seismic data. We can see discontinuities in Earth's interior by this data. Discontinuities are change of sound speed due to material change. Material change happens due to different chemical properties in the depths (due to increased pressure and temperature). These different properties can be measured in laboratory experiments. Now what?!?

Why can't you accept the Biblical Deluge is something you cannot take serious?!?

Lol I needed a good laugh … lol look at the ice age article :) they got everything wrong from the initial causes to the dating lol they should have just put a sticker on it saying “we are randomly making this shit up”

To be fair, it's not as bad as TIME CUBE! :)

First off, I have read the Bible, but not in a good few years, and never in detail. Actually, it was reading the Bible that converted me to Atheism!

Why do I like evidence? I suppose it's because people who make claims without even a shard of evidence generally piss me off. However, I will be fair. I can't provide in-depth evidence because geology is not my interests. I expected evidence because you know the Bible better than me.

You weren't trying to prove anything? To be honest, I thought you were. Your attempts to make the Bible possible are commendable yet feeble (sorry I can't think of a better word). All your arguments trying to prove the correctness of the Bible have withered under scrutiny.

The blocks may have been heavy, but it can be done. Water can be used to ease the journey of the blocks (and there is evidence taken from the diary of a slave to suggest this was done). Ramps with a low gradient can mean that a block can be pushed to the desired destination without too much toil. Some people suggest that rollers would be used. Again, this makes sense. Lastly, with a workforce of 100,000 men, I'm sure anything can be done.

The pyramids even suggest that the Bible is wrong. If the world is a mere 4000 years old, how did these great buildings, well over that time limit, come about?

Thanks for the compliments! I wonder if you enjoy this sort of discussion, or do you enjoy abusing people more.

I doubt the bible had turned anyone into an atheist. Bullocks! You never even gave it a chance, and read it with an already strong bias, is a more likely explanation. Why should I know the Bible better than you? It may or may not be true, but why do you make that assumption?

How do you want me to pull evidence out of the Bible? Can I introduce you to Noah? And if I could, would you believe that he was the real item?

Sorry that my explanations 'pissed you off' so much. Really! I don't find much offensive in there, compared to your replies.

I understand water was used to transport the blocks to the pyramids, but how does one get them up to the top. And I have never read anywhere that the pyrimads say that they are older than 4000 years. Is that the faulty radio dating method back again?

Creationists have never, to my knowlegde had a problem with chimps being genetically close to humans. The creator leaves his trademark.

If it's the 'creator's mark', then the creator must have deployed evolution. Or evolution deployed on it's own, without the involvement of a creator. :D

Actually, we have two terms in genetics, convergent evolution, and divergent evolution. The first one describes two genes that are identical in bp but from such diverse organisms that they simply could not be from recent common anscestry, eg a bacteria and a human. This is a common occurance among nature. Actually, this observation better fits the rule that similarity in genes means similar function, rather than common ansestry.

Well, you still fail to explain why the phylogentic tree makes sense, and why it fits perfectly with morphology, and with chronological order and palaeontological evidence? Are you that blind?

It's another observation that fits with creation of kinds better than evolution of kinds. Thus genetic similarity between a chimp and a human would mean similar lifestyle, thus similar functions. This is what we observe.

Well, it fits with evolution. That's what we observe as well...

They eat what we eat, or would eat were we living in the jungle, sleep as we sleep, have sex, etc. Thus the creationists theory fits just as well, if not better, in this case.

Creationism doesn't fit, you leave out so much stuff. On top of that, Creationism is not even a scientific theory...

First of all, again, geologic evidence is non-existent that something like 'fountains of the depth'. Then, do you have any idea about Earth's interior? If you think all that Crust/Mantle/Core stuff was just made up to make you believe that hell doesn't exist, you're dead wrong. It's first of all based on seismic data. We can see discontinuities in Earth's interior by this data. Discontinuities are change of sound speed due to material change. Material change happens due to different chemical properties in the depths (due to increased pressure and temperature). These different properties can be measured in laboratory experiments. Now what?!?

Why can't you accept the Biblical Deluge is something you cannot take serious?!?

The crust/mantle/core is still a theory, with some plausible evidence, and in no wise contradicts the possibility of underground oceans.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I am a long way from serously discarding the Biblical Deluge....certainly not on the arguments you have presented. But to be fair, I wouldn't expect anyone to change their mind on a few short discussions like this one, myself included. One needs to have a rather lengthy and careful consideration before making up their mind on this issue. There is quite a lot at stake.

If it's the 'creator's mark', then the creator must have deployed evolution. Or evolution deployed on it's own, without the involvement of a creator. :D



Well, you still fail to explain why the phylogentic tree makes sense, and why it fits perfectly with morphology, and with chronological order and palaeontological evidence? Are you that blind?



Well, it fits with evolution. That's what we observe as well...



Creationism doesn't fit, you leave out so much stuff. On top of that, Creationism is not even a scientific theory...

Actually, if you have ever sat in a lab and tried to figure out the phylogenetic tree, you would soon see that it doesn't fit at all. And no amount of trying makes it. Oh, it's easy to categorise the larger divisions, but the smaller ones (as far as genes are concerned) are a terrible mess, and lots of geneticists don't even bother with them because they are so confusing that they are a discipline all on their own.
I'm afraid, this one goes to the creationists.

Folks, it's been nice chatting, but I have to be off. In case you are thinking that I am running away from the discussion, I do have an excuse. We have visitors, and my wife expects me to not be glued to the computer, even though I enjoy it so much.
Regards to all.
Keep thinking!!

The crust/mantle/core is still a theory, with some plausible evidence, and in no wise contradicts the possibility of underground oceans.

It does contradict. If subterranean oceans existed, we should 'see' them via seismic waves. We don't see them, therefore they don't exist.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I am a long way from serously discarding the Biblical Deluge....certainly not on the arguments you have presented.

Well, i'm not dissapointed. I just find the Creationists apparent lack of accepting reality (as disturbing as it may be to them) very sad. Why don't accept it? Why don't you accept that these millions of years of natural history happened?

But to be fair, I wouldn't expect anyone to change their mind on a few short discussions like this one, myself included. One needs to have a rather lengthy and careful consideration before making up their mind on this issue. There is quite a lot at stake.

What is at stake? Other the fact that taking bible literal or not? Besides, where does that change your faith? Should it matter, anyways?

Actually, if you have ever sat in a lab and tried to figure out the phylogenetic tree, you would soon see that it doesn't fit at all. And no amount of trying makes it. Oh, it's easy to categorise the larger divisions, but the smaller ones (as far as genes are concerned) are a terrible mess, and lots of geneticists don't even bother with them because they are so confusing that they are a discipline all on their own.
I'm afraid, this one goes to the creationists.

I've sat at a phylogenetic tree, dude. And it does fit. Seriously. :p

And you still haven't answered why it does fit so well with morphological evidence and palaeontological evidence. Stop being a blind fool! :(

Thanks for the compliments! I wonder if you enjoy this sort of discussion, or do you enjoy abusing people more.

I doubt the bible had turned anyone into an atheist. Bullocks! You never even gave it a chance, and read it with an already strong bias, is a more likely explanation. Why should I know the Bible better than you? It may or may not be true, but why do you make that assumption?

How do you want me to pull evidence out of the Bible? Can I introduce you to Noah? And if I could, would you believe that he was the real item?

Sorry that my explanations 'pissed you off' so much. Really! I don't find much offensive in there, compared to your replies.

I understand water was used to transport the blocks to the pyramids, but how does one get them up to the top. And I have never read anywhere that the pyrimads say that they are older than 4000 years. Is that the faulty radio dating method back again?

I was not aware I was abusing anyone. Offense is not the name of my game. I possibly just got a bit emotional. Sorry.

I admit I had a strong bias. But not the way you think. I used to be quite the regular Christian. Admittedly, I never went to church, but that was mainly because the last time I went I hadn't a clue what to do! Then I read the Bible. I started to feel "Hang on, this doesn't make much sense!" So I read a bit more. I belived it even less. Suddenly, God's truth became God's half-truths and lies. Then I met Mr. Science (only a metaphor). Whilst Science doesn't make much sense, at least it admits that, rather than say "This is the truth. You can not disagree with it", which Religion seemed to do. Agnosticism soon lead to Atheism. The attitude of my parents was quite simply "it's just a phase". Their attempts to convert me back pushed me deeper. There was not a point in the Bible that couldn't be refuted.

Why should you know it better than me? Simple; have you read it within the last 2 or 3 years? If yes, then you can probably remember more of it than I. Talking to you suggests that you do read it.

On the subject of the pyramids:
First of all, I meant that water was used to get them up to the top. The blocks were sent to the sites via barges. I also admit that I was wrong about the exact age of the pyramids. However, I'm sure I'm not wrong when I say that the Earth itself was not created within the last 10,000 years. See here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html) for details.

Folks, it's been nice chatting, but I have to be off. In case you are thinking that I am running away from the discussion, I do have an excuse. We have visitors, and my wife expects me to not be glued to the computer, even though I enjoy it so much.
Regards to all.
Keep thinking!!

Ah, well, now that he's gone, it just leaves me and Wisjersey here to argue. Shame, because we're basically in agreement.

Ah, well, now that he's gone, it just leaves me and Wisjersey here to argue. Shame, because we're basically in agreement.

Yeah, indeed. :D

Btw, i wonder where Dragon Bay went to? :confused:

A group of explorers from Hong Kong obtained permission from the Turkish government to explore Mount Ararat, and with the help of the local Kurds, they claim to have found the remnants of Noah's Ark. Since then they have made a documentary.

More information here: http://www.thedaysofnoah.com/en_index.asp

What do you think?

Is it big enough to fit on all those Dinosaurs that the creationists say were on there?

Yeah, indeed. :D

Btw, i wonder where Dragon Bay went to? :confused:

Don't really know.

Would you say that Bruarong was more or less rational than Dragon Bay?

Don't really know.

Would you say that Bruarong was more or less rational than Dragon Bay?

More. At least somewhat. Bruarong at least sounded more self-confident in the way of having some knowledge he could use. Although i really can't understand how one can be a geneticist while being a Creationist. It doesn't make sense. In my profession i've seen so much obvious stuff (i mentioned some of it earlier - and i didn't even start on some stuff)... but well... some people don't want to learn. :rolleyes:

Perhaps some of you could help me. I am trying to pull together funding for an expedition to the Arctic circle. I believe I have located either Santa's Workshop or Superman's Fortress of Solitude. Any cash you could send me would be apreciated. Thanks.

More. At least somewhat. Bruarong at least sounded more self-confident in the way of having some knowledge he could use. Although i really can't understand how one can be a geneticist while being a Creationist. It doesn't make sense. In my profession i've seen so much obvious stuff (i mentioned some of it earlier - and i didn't even start on some stuff)... but well... some people don't want to learn. :rolleyes:

Too true. I got confused by that myself.

Perhaps some of you could help me. I am trying to pull together funding for an expedition to the Arctic circle. I believe I have located either Santa's Workshop or Superman's Fortress of Solitude. Any cash you could send me would be apreciated. Thanks.

Wrong thread, mate. You should be looking at the one that says "I responded to that nice lawyer in Nigeria..." :)

Perhaps some of you could help me. I am trying to pull together funding for an expedition to the Arctic circle. I believe I have located either Santa's Workshop or Superman's Fortress of Solitude. Any cash you could send me would be apreciated. Thanks.

No sorry, i can't help you. I'm already participating on an expedition to elsewhere... :p

No sorry, i can't help you. I'm already participating on an expedition to elsewhere... :p

Where?

Where?

Without any further details, somewhere in North America... ;)

Without any further details, somewhere in North America... ;)


Argh! The suspense is killing me!

Argh! The suspense is killing me!

Ok, ok, i tell you... it has to do with vertebrate fossils. :)

The Noble Men- In your quote you stated that "Speaking of mountain-tops:

And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Over M.t Everest? How did Noah breath. Inside was filled with poisonous methane, and outside the air was too thin to breath (ask any mountaineer why they carry oxygen tanks)."

Well, as you argue, and I agree, there was not a world-wide flood. But, for the sake of argument, if the world DID magically flood to the top of Mt. Everest, then the air pressure at the new sea level would probably be higher than it is at sea level now, because there is less atmospheric volume for the gases to take up. Same amount of gas, smaller volume, increased pressure. Just thought I would point that out, it is not malicious or anything.

Ok, ok, i tell you... it has to do with vertebrate fossils. :)

He's going to a Rolling Stones concert.

He's going to a Rolling Stones concert.

LOL nope, far off. :D

Noah's Ark was a story stolen from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Noah's Ark never existed because A) it's a myth and B) it's not even a Christian myth. It is bullshit.

The Epic of Gilgamesh was a story of a Sumerian landlord who had built himself a raft to transport goods down the Euphrytes River. In a massive flood of the Euphrytes, he fled, his family and many animals he intended to save and use as breeeding stock when the floods receeded, into his raft. They were carried of to sea, and when they came back the other landlords demanded he pay back his debts which had stacked up during his voyage at sea. He thus fled the city and once agan went out to sea, but landed in Africa and lived there until he was taken by the Gods.

Similarities? Plenty. Conclusion, Noah's Ark was stolen by Hebrew scholars from the Sumerians.

Noah's Ark was a story stolen from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Noah's Ark never existed because A) it's a myth and B) it's not even a Christian myth. It is bullshit.

The Epic of Gilgamesh was a story of a Sumerian landlord who had built himself a raft to transport goods down the Euphrytes River. In a massive flood of the Euphrytes, he fled, his family and many animals he intended to save and use as breeeding stock when the floods receeded, into his raft. They were carried of to sea, and when they came back the other landlords demanded he pay back his debts which had stacked up during his voyage at sea. He thus fled the city and once agan went out to sea, but landed in Africa and lived there until he was taken by the Gods.

Similarities? Plenty. Conclusion, Noah's Ark was stolen by Hebrew scholars from the Sumerians.

I'm not a big Noah's Ark world wide flood defender, in fact, other Christians get mad at me for it. However, what you just said about it being an older tradition actually lends the story MORE credit, not less. If it was true every culture should remember it, and the older the culture the better...

If the flood ever 'really' happened, and killed all of the the civilizations on Earth at the same time, all it had to do was cover this area (see link map: http://************/d3dqh) if it happened early enough.

If the flood was done between 8000 and 9000 b.c., then there were no other civilizations (I'm not talking about people, I'm talking about civilization, and Egypt wasn't started yet). Civilization means the first farming and year round structure dwelling.

Well, as you argue, and I agree, there was not a world-wide flood. But, for the sake of argument, if the world DID magically flood to the top of Mt. Everest, then the air pressure at the new sea level would probably be higher than it is at sea level now, because there is less atmospheric volume for the gases to take up. Same amount of gas, smaller volume, increased pressure. Just thought I would point that out, it is not malicious or anything.


That is one of the most logical points ever. Shame it doesn't plug up all the other holes in the story. Odd thing is that it isn't from someone who belives the story.
Noah's Ark was a story stolen from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Noah's Ark never existed because A) it's a myth and B) it's not even a Christian myth. It is bullshit.

The Epic of Gilgamesh was a story of a Sumerian landlord who had built himself a raft to transport goods down the Euphrytes River. In a massive flood of the Euphrytes, he fled, his family and many animals he intended to save and use as breeeding stock when the floods receeded, into his raft. They were carried of to sea, and when they came back the other landlords demanded he pay back his debts which had stacked up during his voyage at sea. He thus fled the city and once agan went out to sea, but landed in Africa and lived there until he was taken by the Gods.

Similarities? Plenty. Conclusion, Noah's Ark was stolen by Hebrew scholars from the Sumerians.

I'm willing to bet that most of the Old Testament was stolen from other religions, to convert people to Christianity. Just a theory, and it sounds like something Dan Brown would say.

I'm not a big Noah's Ark world wide flood defender, in fact, other Christians get mad at me for it. However, what you just said about it being an older tradition actually lends the story MORE credit, not less. If it was true every culture should remember it, and the older the culture the better...

If the flood ever 'really' happened, and killed all of the the civilizations on Earth at the same time, all it had to do was cover this area (see link map: http://************/d3dqh) if it happened early enough.

If the flood was done between 8000 and 9000 b.c., then there were no other civilizations (I'm not talking about people, I'm talking about civilization, and Egypt wasn't started yet). Civilization means the first farming and year round structure dwelling.

Well, it gives it less credibility because the Sumer version is significantly older than the deluge version from Genesis.

Besides, think about it rationally. There is no evidence whatsoever that it happened literally according to Genesis. There may have been some historic, local/regional flooding event that was the base for the myths (which really occured some time 8000-9000 BC), but a global flood is simply not possible due to lack of evidence and a number of other impossibilities.

Well, it gives it less credibility because the Sumer version is significantly older than the deluge version from Genesis.

Besides, think about it rationally. There is no evidence whatsoever that it happened literally according to Genesis. There may have been some historic, local/regional flooding event that was the base for the myths (which really occured some time 8000-9000 BC), but a global flood is simply not possible due to lack of evidence and a number of other impossibilities.

The whole world was the middle east then... We're talking thousands of years before egypt, thousands of years before the European "Ice Man." But again, I reiterate, we are not talking about all people, just civilization.

A group of explorers from Hong Kong obtained permission from the Turkish government to explore Mount Ararat, and with the help of the local Kurds, they claim to have found the remnants of Noah's Ark. Since then they have made a documentary.

More information here: http://www.thedaysofnoah.com/en_index.asp

What do you think?

To come back to the topic at the start:

They found it on Mount Ararat. Mount Ararat is not a gentle hill, it is a bloody big mountain, with snow, rocks and a 100% chance of death if you are not careful. You expect me to belive that all the animals managed to survive the trip down the mountain? Without dying because it's too cold? Or getting eaten? I don't bloody well think so. Type Mount Ararat into Google Images, you'll see what I mean.

im getting real sick of christians when ever you confront them have right and they dont have any anwsers thay can just say "only god knows" its so fucking iritating i cant stand it.... (no hard fellings thats just me) ' :headbang:

my oppinion about christianity(smiliar religions) is that it is a easy way out of all lifes hard questions ... kinda cowardly and who can say they are wrong? if you belive in somthing you can't see u can believe anything (i'm a 5000 year old invisible greek god with a pink fuzzy cock)

and if every body but noah died how could they be more people or did he just fuck a pig?dude read the story before judging it says that his family came with him geez so dont make accusations and theres no need for that language

A group of explorers from Hong Kong obtained permission from the Turkish government to explore Mount Ararat, and with the help of the local Kurds, they claim to have found the remnants of Noah's Ark. Since then they have made a documentary.

More information here: http://www.thedaysofnoah.com/en_index.asp

What do you think?

I think it's probably false.

Why?

1) The alleged ark was made of wood, and subsequently abandoned, wet, on a mountain some...what, several thousand years ago. Unless the wood was left in conditions that would petrify it, it has decomposed and there won't be any real visible trace of it left.

2) The story is a parable, it's metaphorical. If there was a real ark and a real Noah figure (possible, given the slew of "saved from the flood by building a boat" stories that exist) that the tale was based upon, it most certainly did not literally occur as stated in the Bible. It just isn't physically possible.

3) Stories about Noah's ark being found occur all the time. I remember watching a "documentary" one Easter Sunday on television as a child, which showed a picture of a portion of a boat that looked very much like the traditional depictions of the ark, which was supposedly found not on Ararat, but on another nearby mountain.

Oi! You non-Christians were the ones who quickly pointed to "scientific evidence" about evolution, and how you believe that evidence is strong and credible. So when objecitivity seems to agree with religion, it's all a no-no...

P.S. Religion threads are the fastest growing threads on the General Forum! ;)
You haven't shown any evidence. All I found was talking about the expedition that was backed by an evangelist group (hardly an expedition I would expect to be bias-free) there aren't even any pictures as they seem to want to build up a hype for the movie. Show us something useful, perhaps. That and evidence that the ark was that size and carried so many animals and one human family... otherwise :rolleyes:

And also, it is not possible for us to all be descended from one family. If it was Noah, his sons and their wives who spawned the entire human race, then there would only be one y chromosome. Furthermore, the amount of genetic diversity in both humans and non-human animals indicates that they did not descend from one mating pair a short odd-thousand years ago.

Bias-free i say Mt. Ararat is a stratovolcano, and i reckon it was last active in the year 1840...

A group of explorers from Hong Kong obtained permission from the Turkish government to explore Mount Ararat, and with the help of the local Kurds, they claim to have found the remnants of Noah's Ark. Since then they have made a documentary.

More information here: http://www.thedaysofnoah.com/en_index.asp

What do you think?

I think if you're wanting people to take this seriously then you'll have to go through the following steps:

1)Get a team of archaeologists to excavate the site.

2)bring whatever they can back to a lab and reconstruct it.

3)Formulate a guess as to how the whole thing happened. (e.g. structure of the boat, time of univeral flood etc.)

4)Iron out most of the inconsistencies e.g. problems of loading the millions of species into the boat with food etc.

5)Write a paper and publish it in journal subject to peer review.

Everything else has to be subject to these conditions to be taken seriously, so call us when you get to stage 5.

Bias-free i say Mt. Ararat is a stratovolcano, and i reckon it was last active in the year 1840...

That would be a good passage:
And the Ark came to rest upon Mount Ararat, and there it stayed untill the waters died down, and then, the Mount upon which the Ark was rested, revealed itself to be a volcano, which promptly erupted and destroyed both the Ark and all inside it
And The Lord said: "Cocknobs."
And with that profane gesture, Time had rewritten itself so that the volcano did not explode, thus everyone was happy
And Noah, the only man to not be a sinner, got pissed off his tits and rolled around naked on the floor.

They say that if there entire earth was a perfect globe (no mountains or valleys) the world would be covered by more than a metre of water. Wouldn't you say that was enough water to make the mountains, let alone to cover them?
Except that there is no geological evidence for such a time.

Also, if god flooded the world with rain, you would think that first of all, the earthquaes involved to get the entire earth's curst to the same elevation would be mentioned, and secondly, 1 m of water isn't a whole lot. The ark would be stuck in place and enough people would come along to throw Noah off it and eat the animals and other provisions.

The story of Noah's ark really happened, not only that, but the flood explains ALL of the geological conundrums we have today. Check out http://www.answersingenesis.org/ if you don't already have your mind closed off by the lies of society and public schooling.
Answers in genesis is qite full of shit. They don't even source the quotes they put on posters promoting their group. Hell, they don't even actually know where they come from. I can post the email of my interaction with them if you like.

Also, there's something about guys with phd's in history or mechanical engineering or inorganic chemistry talking about biology and geology that simply doesn't sit right.

Okay okay. I surrender. It's not the lack of proof/evidence that is stopping you. It's your core attitudes and your general, subjective bias towards anything religious/spiritual.

But what has religion has to do with proof/evidence anyway? I thought its all about faith?

Actually, those floods did take place....

http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastr...ds/mfloods.html

hahaha! ted holden's website?! you have to be kidding me.

Answers in genesis is qite full of shit. They don't even source the quotes they put on posters promoting their group. Hell, they don't even actually know where they come from. I can post the email of my interaction with them if you like.

Also, there's something about guys with phd's in history or mechanical engineering or inorganic chemistry talking about biology and geology that simply doesn't sit right.

Please, do post your e-mail interaction with them. I'm curious.

You haven't shown any evidence. All I found was talking about the expedition that was backed by an evangelist group (hardly an expedition I would expect to be bias-free) there aren't even any pictures as they seem to want to build up a hype for the movie. Show us something useful, perhaps. That and evidence that the ark was that size and carried so many animals and one human family... otherwise :rolleyes:

seriously. if they had some amazing finding, you'd think that they'd have pictures, and documentation, and gps coordinates, etc. the truth of the claims would be the best possible hype for the documentary. since they offer nothing, one can only assume it is yet another in a long string of obvious hoaxes perpetrated on stupid, guilible christians.

Is there a link to a proper site about this find? A poorly translated promotional piece for a movie from a chinese evangelical group is hardly evidence of anything. To claim they are "a group of explorers" seems to go against what the website actually says.

seriously. if they had some amazing finding, you'd think that they'd have pictures, and documentation, and gps coordinates, etc. the truth of the claims would be the best possible hype for the documentary. since they offer nothing, one can only assume it is yet another in a long string of obvious hoaxes perpetrated on stupid, guilible christians.

What do you think they'll "find" next? Options are:
1.The Holy Grail.
2.The coat of many colours.
3.A shroud of Turin that agrees with Carbon-14 testing.
4.The cross that crucified Jesus.
5.The Ark of the Covenant.
6.A first edition copy of the Bible.
7.The sponge with which Jesus drank vinegar out of when crucified.
8.Gods' first draft of the universe.
9.Gods' copy of The Facts of Life (chapter 1: Immacculate conception...)
10.Josephs' White Van (well he was a carpenter)

Answers in genesis is qite full of shit. They don't even source the quotes they put on posters promoting their group. Hell, they don't even actually know where they come from. I can post the email of my interaction with them if you like.

Also, there's something about guys with phd's in history or mechanical engineering or inorganic chemistry talking about biology and geology that simply doesn't sit right.

Yes, i'd be curious to see it, what did they have to say?

10.Josephs' White Van (well he was a carpenter)

what's great is that after joseph took up staying home and handling the paperwork and networking, jesus put a bumper sticker on the van that said "my boss is a jewish carpenter"

what's great is that after joseph took up staying home and handling the paperwork and networking, jesus put a bumper sticker on the van that said "my boss is a jewish carpenter"

Imagine the slogan:

Joseph and Son
Master Carpenters
Crafting The Best Crucifixes since 0 A.D

Sick but you love it! :)

so dragon bay, the ad said the thing was going to be showing at easter. easter has come and gone. did you go SEE IT?

i want to know what they showed what they said what they claimed abbout it all.

if you havent seen it. GO SEE IT FOR GODS SAKE. then let us know

Please, do post your e-mail interaction with them. I'm curious.

I sent them this:

From: sarah [email address edited to prevent spam]
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 1:40 PM
To: Answers Department
Subject: General Inquiry

The author of this message has given permission for this message to be
considered for publication on the website.

Published elsewhere : No

Personal information : You have permission to publish my name if my
feedback is selected for publication on the Internet.

Name : sarah
Address : 13 zebra trail
City : brampon
Zip : l6r1b6
Country : canada
Email : (edited out to prevent spam, the other info is made up so it doesn't matter.)

I came accross your flier the other day and it had the following quotes:

"evolution is a fairy-tale for grown-ups"
"evolution is sheer scientific quackery"
"reality shows the absurdities in evolutionary thinking"

and it attributes them to scientists. I'm curious as to which
scientists said these things, when and in what context as the authors of
the quotes are not identified.

To which the answers in genesis people responded:

Dear Sarah,

Thank you for contacting Answers In Genesis.

The man who said, 'evolution is a fairy tale for grownups,' is former
President and Director of Research of one of the greatest research
institutes in France, the Biological Society of Strasbourg, Professor
Louis Bounoure. The link is:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i4/raven.asp

This reference is close to the end of this article. Prof. Bounoure also
said: 'There is a God who has created you, a God before whom one day
you must stand and give an answer for your life. You cannot evade or
avoid that....You can reject, like Darwin and Huxley, the offer of
salvation in the Scriptures, but you will stand before the great Judge
of heaven and earth and give an account for that.'

I am still researching the last two, but I wanted to send you this one
so you would know that we did receive your e-mail and are not ignoring
you! I will get back with you very soon.

God bless and have a great day!

Donna O'Daniel, M.Sc.
Answers In Genesis Ministries International
P. O. Box 6330
Florence, KY 41022

http://www.answersingenesis.org

Answers in Genesis is a non-profit, Christ-centered, non-denominational
ministry dedicated to upholding the authority of Scripture from the very
first verse! Due to the volume of email that we receive, not all will
receive a response. Priorities will be set for replies.

Now, I looked up the scientist they identified and found out that the quote was not even the orignial quote, nor was the author correct, nor was the man they claimed to have said it as reputable as they claimed. They couldn't even tell me who said the other quotes.

LOL, what a great explanation they gave you... :D

Now, I looked up the scientist they identified and found out that the quote was not even the orignial quote, nor was the author correct, nor was the man they claimed to have said it as reputable as they claimed. They couldn't even tell me who said the other quotes.

Ah, yes. Lying in the name of Christ isn't anything new, as is mentioned on this (http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/fundy.html) website.That website is also the source of the plagarised material I mentioned earlier.

Yeah, and also, they never got back to me about the other two quotes.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part12.html
^here's some stuff about the one they misidentified.

Ah, yes. Lying in the name of Christ isn't anything new, as is mentioned on this (http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/fundy.html) website.That website is also the source of the plagarised material I mentioned earlier.

LOL that's amazing. Thanks for this insidious link. :)

Now, I looked up the scientist they identified and found out that the quote was not even the orignial quote, nor was the author correct, nor was the man they claimed to have said it as reputable as they claimed. They couldn't even tell me who said the other quotes.
There really was a Congress. In it they said that evolution didn't happen gradually, like Darwin said it had. Instead, lifeforms had remained relatively unchanged for a period of time followed by periods of rapid change due to changes in the environment.

Far from denying evolution they were just complementing it.

A group of explorers from Hong Kong obtained permission from the Turkish government to explore Mount Ararat, and with the help of the local Kurds, they claim to have found the remnants of Noah's Ark. Since then they have made a documentary.

More information here: http://www.thedaysofnoah.com/en_index.asp

What do you think?

In one twenty four hour period, they loaded two or seven(?) of each animal species, depending on whether or not the animal was unclean or clean. Think about that, there's hundreds of millions if not billions of animal species, and they loaded them all onto the ark? How did he provision them for over 100 days? Do you realize that the dimensions the Bible gave for the ark aren't even nearly large enough? It would be more sensible to say if this utterly illogical thing happened, it would have been the size of Rhode Island and capable of boarding thousands of animals a second. Similarly, how would some creatures, such as the Kiwi bird, incapable of flight or swimming, make it all the way to New Zealand from Turkey?

And where did all the water go? I mean, there was enough to cover the earth, did it just vanish? And how did the plants survive underwater? Do you really believe this? It makes no sense.

In one twenty four hour period, they loaded two or seven(?) of each animal species, depending on whether or not the animal was unclean or clean. Think about that, there's hundreds of millions if not billions of animal species, and they loaded them all onto the ark? How did he provision them for over 100 days? Do you realize that the dimensions the Bible gave for the ark aren't even nearly large enough? It would be more sensible to say if this utterly illogical thing happened, it would have been the size of Rhode Island and capable of boarding thousands of animals a second. Similarly, how would some creatures, such as the Kiwi bird, incapable of flight or swimming, make it all the way to New Zealand from Turkey?

And where did all the water go? I mean, there was enough to cover the earth, did it just vanish? And how did the plants survive underwater? Do you really believe this? It makes no sense.

All the people who belive the story are gone, probably feeling that we heretics had ganged up on them.

All the people who belive the story are gone, probably feeling that we heretics had ganged up on them.
Probably realized they can't type and plug their ears loudly screaming "I can't hear you" at the same time.

A group of explorers from Hong Kong obtained permission from the Turkish government to explore Mount Ararat, and with the help of the local Kurds, they claim to have found the remnants of Noah's Ark. Since then they have made a documentary.
More information here: http://www.thedaysofnoah.com/en_index.asp
What do you think?Rubbish. Mount Ararat is not the place of descent. Never was. Mount Ararat has its name only since the 10th century AD after the biblical account.
And the Kurds do know better where Noah's mountain is, maybe they just don't want Hongkongers to come there.
Folks who still go for Mount Ararat are just R I D I C U L O U S and dumb as bred.

Probably realized they can't type and plug their ears loudly screaming "I can't hear you" at the same time.

Well, they could, but no ear-plug stops you from seeing the heresy on their monitors.

All the people who belive the story are gone, probably feeling that we heretics had ganged up on them.

I had no idea people could take the story literally!

I had no idea people could take the story literally!

Oh, they can! And it's the same kind of people who find the evolution theory is fundamentally wrong, because it is not mentioned anywhere in the bible... ;)

Oh, they can! And it's the same kind of people who find the evolution theory is fundamentally wrong, because it is not mentioned anywhere in the bible... ;)

Ahh, the ones who bury their heads in the sand and deny all scientific discoveries.

I had no idea people could take the story literally!

I would rather listen to a fundamentalist Bible-Basher than the people behind TIME CUBE! (http://www.timecube.com/) :)

I would rather listen to a fundamentalist Bible-Basher than the people behind TIME CUBE! (http://www.timecube.com/) :)

Woa, that site should get a prize for bad web design. Seriously! And it should get yet another prize for claiming such an incredible amount of utter nonsense (although, i'm not sure if the latter one might not better go to the Flat Earth Society or maybe Man Will Never Fly)... :D

I would rather listen to a fundamentalist Bible-Basher than the people behind TIME CUBE! (http://www.timecube.com/) :)

Thats an annoying website.

Thats an annoying website.

Yeah, isn't it amazing with what nonsense people can come up? :rolleyes:

Thats an annoying website.

But it sure is funny.

If I applied TIME CUBE theories to my physics paper, would I fail for not answering the questions correctly or would I fail by giving the elderly examiner a heart attack?

But it sure is funny.

If I applied TIME CUBE theories to my physics paper, would I fail for not answering the questions correctly or would I fail by giving the elderly examiner a heart attack?

Talking about disturbingly weird stuff, have you seen this (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm) already? It is just amazing... :D

Talking about disturbingly weird stuff, have you seen this (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm) already? It is just amazing... :D

My eyes feel dirty after reading that.

Talking about disturbingly weird stuff, have you seen this (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm) already? It is just amazing... :D

Wow... I never knew that... it all starts to make sense now.
Like, the tides and solar eclipses and time zones and the different earth climates and why Santa lives at the North Pole...

Talking about disturbingly weird stuff, have you seen this (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm) already? It is just amazing... :D

Some people just don't think these through. If the world was flat, wouldn't all the water drain away?

It's all a moot point anyway. Leonard Nimoy found Noah's Ark 20-some years ago.

It's all a moot point anyway. Leonard Nimoy found Noah's Ark 20-some years ago.

Put down the Happy-Needle!

It's all a moot point anyway. Leonard Nimoy found Noah's Ark 20-some years ago.
GAWD youre naive...

you didnt find it a bit ODD that he found it on the planet vulcan??

Talking about disturbingly weird stuff, have you seen this (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm) already? It is just amazing... :D
I found the postscripts sad.

I think you are confusing love with attraction. Love involves sacrifice. I wouldn't want to die for a pair of large mammary glands, no matter how good they look, no disrespect meant to the feminen gender. Love doesn't seem to confer a greater survival rate, although attraction certainly can. That's why Marx (I think it was) really hated Christianity (one of his reasons, at least), because he thought their loving communities allowed the weaker ones to live, and thus weakening the entire community.

Actually, it was Nietzsche who hated Christianity's sympathetic elements for that reason. Marx's beef with Christianity was basically that he considered it a tool of the ruling class to keep the lower class contented with their rôle as exploited slaves, serfs, and workers.