Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/11/07 01:33 PM, JerkClock wrote:

At 12/11/07 11:26 AM, Drakim wrote: JerkClock, I understand your frustration, but, you have made a claim, with no sources to back them up.

With sources like wikipedia being among them, I'd say it's the same as zero.

Simply because a Wiki is in the mix with other sources does not invalidate those sources.

Commander wrote:

Thus far, you are just proving my point.

This is another claim which is both unsubstantiated and erroneous.

You've done nothing to defend your position other than claiming people are idiots, then ranting on how they are dodging questions. You seem to forget that you have yet to ask a question that wasn't answered by more than one person. Just in case you are unaware as to what a troll is, the link will give you a definition so you can finally understand.

Funny, someone did, and found the very thing you were hunting, and managed to prove it was hoax.

Argumentum Ad Nauseum, laced with deliberate ignoring of something even you agreed to, that this wasn't all proven false. As expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

Do you even know what your spouting? This is the definition of Argumentum Ad Nauseum kid, and if you don't get your act in line you going to get kicked for trolling by one of the less kindly mods. Now then what you were probably looking for was argumentum ad infinitum where the point is discussed to such a degree that it is dropped and from then on considered valid, which is what you are trying to do right now. Now then, I gave you how many search engines to choose from and you still have yet to give me anything to debate other than your ramblings that you are correct, and I am not. Do something already.

Funny, I use Google all the time

Then you are contradicting yourself, you claim it is a good search engine that can reliably find info, or at least you imply that you think so. And yet if you used it, you would know it is not.

How am I contradicting myself, I use Google all the time, hell it is my homepage for crying out loud, and has been since I got my laptop from Dell. It is great, it tells me the weather forcast for the next 3 days, the date, and has the added perk of having a search engine right there at my finger tips. This isn't even touching on the fact that you are the one who dimissed Google, not I, and so I strongly suggest you don't put words in other peoples mouths, as you will never get a shred of respect on the forums otherwise.

That would be true, except for the fact that the groups producing the information not only relied on a hoax for its main source of information,

That is you making an unsubstantiated and erroneous presupposition, as proteas has proven that is not the case.

Unsubstaniated eh? Proteas is using a different set of information altogether, I'm attacking the case which you have been so rabidly defending up until now, or have you finally given up on that lost cause? As for Proteas, I'd suggest you pay attention to how he does things as he is pretty good at making a point, and even more importantly, not leaving it completely undefended.

Genetics, in conjunction with DNA has shown extrodinary evidence that such things have occured.

How nice, you dodged the point that your "millions of years" argument is unproven.

Dodged the question? You seem to have missed the point, and so I will make it ever more clear until you can get it. The study of genetics and DNA sequencing have given strong evidence that evolution from a common ancestor has taken place, the easiest, and most notable find being that
of the similarity of humans to other species of animals, most notably chimps with whom we share about 97% of the same DNA.

A) If you think you can apply classical physics to a situation like the big bang, get fucked.

Everything in reality is bound by the laws of science.

He didn't say that, he said that classical physics would not apply to such a situation, read, then post.

At 12/11/07 02:36 PM, CommanderX1125 wrote:

Simply because a Wiki is in the mix with other sources does not invalidate those sources.

Right, but I explained about the other source, and the "hoax" bickering was invalidated by proteas, a fact you are deliberately being oblivious to. As expected, from someone who lacks a logical argument.

You've done nothing to defend your position other than claiming people are idiots,

This unsubstantiated presupposition is nothing more than another of your erroneous claims.

Do you even know what your spouting? This is the definition of Argumentum Ad Nauseum

This unsubstantiated presupposition is erroneous.

How am I contradicting myself,

If you used google you would know what a horribly lost cause searching for 13 year old news article using long phrases on it would be.

Unsubstaniated eh? Proteas is using a different set of information altogether,

Like what? The info that evidence of noah's ark was found which was what I was claiming all along?

Dodged the question? You seem to have missed the point, and so I will make it ever more clear until you can get it. The study of genetics and DNA sequencing have given strong evidence that evolution from a common ancestor has taken place,

Right, evolution is a part of the planet, I never said it wasn't. In fact, I said it makes sense for a God to design life that way.

He didn't say that, he said that classical physics would not apply to such a situation, read, then post.

Mayhaps you should let him explain what he means and not speak for him?

It's hard (if not impossible) to prove that your religion is any more important than any other. Given that many religions share the same ideals or beliefs there's no point in trying to argue that it is better. Thankfully, I haven't been subjected to a religious zealot trying to prove me wrong over the fact that all religions deserve the same respect, regardless of my own religion (I don't follow one, by the way).

At 12/11/07 02:46 PM, JerkClock wrote:

At 12/11/07 02:36 PM, CommanderX1125 wrote:

Simply because a Wiki is in the mix with other sources does not invalidate those sources.

Right, but I explained about the other source, and the "hoax" bickering was invalidated by proteas, a fact you are deliberately being oblivious to. As expected, from someone who lacks a logical argument.

He didn't invalidate the article which was posted earlier, he has his own information he is working with, though I doubt you would recognize the fact, as it is becomming painfully clear that you don't read the links people provide. For someone who claims logic above all else, you seem to lack it.

You've done nothing to defend your position other than claiming people are idiots,

This unsubstantiated presupposition is nothing more than another of your erroneous claims.

How am I making a false claim? Go ahead, by all means, show me where I have made a false claim, and I will be more than happy to retract that statement, if not, then it is you who have made a false claim. I suggest you stop for a moment and actually think.

Do you even know what your spouting? This is the definition of Argumentum Ad Nauseum

This unsubstantiated presupposition is erroneous.

How is it unsubstantiated? You have done nothing other than say "This unsubstantiated presupposition" then claim that a statement is erroneous with no form of proof other than your word on the matter. This doens't work here, this isn't general.

How am I contradicting myself,

If you used google you would know what a horribly lost cause searching for 13 year old news article using long phrases on it would be.

How much more painfully clear that I'm using Google do I have to get for you? Here is a fun little fact, I found the article you claim is a lost cause. It is from the Ararat Report #32, May 1993.

Unsubstaniated eh? Proteas is using a different set of information altogether,

Like what? The info that evidence of noah's ark was found which was what I was claiming all along?

No, you were clinging to an article in 1993, which I have provided to you, and now you are hoping that Proteas will save you from yourself. Read for once man, if you keep on this path you are going to lose all credibility.

Dodged the question? You seem to have missed the point, and so I will make it ever more clear until you can get it. The study of genetics and DNA sequencing have given strong evidence that evolution from a common ancestor has taken place,

Right, evolution is a part of the planet, I never said it wasn't. In fact, I said it makes sense for a God to design life that way.

At 12/10/07 07:36 PM,

1. only theory

2. neglecting the more minor things, like a species having different variants. Something could have moved to different continent where it evolved into both deer on one, and elk on another.

You attacked the idea of millions of years for evolution, you lost on it, get over it and get on with it. If you had only said the second statement there wouldn't have been an issue.

He didn't say that, he said that classical physics would not apply to such a situation, read, then post.

Mayhaps you should let him explain what he means and not speak for him?

A) If you think you can apply classical physics to a situation like the big bang, get fucked.

Everything in reality is bound by the laws of science.

He said the part about classical physics, you said "Everything is bound by the laws of science.", thus attacking his statement.

Now then, provide something already.

At 12/11/07 03:20 PM, CommanderX1125 wrote:

He didn't invalidate the article which was posted earlier, he has his own information he is working with,

Right but the point you missed is it validates my argument about evidence being discovered of Noah's ark really happening. A point you missed, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

How am I making a false claim?

Because I have done more than point out people's fallacies, you made a claim no substantiation to the contrary.

How is it unsubstantiated?

Because you merely made the statement without any demonstration as to how it was so.

You have done nothing other than say "This unsubstantiated presupposition" then claim that a statement is erroneous

False, I have only done so in responce to the multiple Ad Hominem and Strawman fallacies that were directed my way. And they were indeed unsubstantiated and erroneous, making a true statement over and over is not Argumentum Ad Nauseum, making a false claim over and over is. A point you fail to comprehend.

How much more painfully clear that I'm using Google do I have to get for you?

You can make that up all you want but that does not change the fact that you are making it up.

No, you were clinging to an article in 1993,

This unsubstantiated presupposition is erroneous. I was talking about several reports that were abound at the time as well as before.

You attacked the idea of millions of years for evolution,

No you idiot I attacked the idea that it takes millions of years to evolve into sub-species(such as evolving into deer and elk) not the idea of stuff forming over millions of years.

you lost on it,

Unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

He said the part about classical physics, you said "Everything is bound by the laws of science.", thus attacking his statement.

Perhaps I was pointing that out so that he would reply, clarifying exactly what he meant, no?

It seems you dodged the point that you != elfer and that you have no authority to speak for him. No surprise considering you lack a logical argument.

You should be extra careful about "discoveries" of the Ark:

Hoaxes

A number of hoaxes have attended the search for the physical remains of Noah's Ark (note that this article addresses only modern-era incidents, and not the earlier, pre-modern Christian, Jewish and Islamic traditions which grew up around the Ark story).

According to a story widely disseminated on the Internet, Nicholas II of Russia sent an expedition to Mount Ararat in 1917-1918 to investigate the Ark. The fact that Nicholas abdicated during the February Revolution at the beginning of March 1917 (Gregorian calendar) makes the whole story unlikely. A few sources, apparently noticing this, put the date of the expedition at 1916, ("the Russian imperial air force ... is supposed to have sent 150 men up Mount Ararat in 1916 to explore a large object said to be as long as a city block," reads one), but even in 1916 the Russians were engaged in an increasingly desperate struggle with Germany on the Eastern Front, and it is unlikely that men and aircraft could have been spared for the adventure. No records of such an expedition have ever come to light.

On April 1, 1933, the Koelnische Illustrierte Zeitung of Cologne published a story about an expedition sponsored by a Mrs. Putrid Lousey and including a "Prof. Mud" from "the Royal Yalevard University" in Massachusetts, the other "Prof. Stoneass". The story was accompanied by pictures including what looked like a giant boat on a mountainside, and also flintlock weapons, presumably for the explorers' protection in the wilderness, even though they could be seen to lack the necessary flints. On April 8 the paper admitted the article had been an April Fools Day hoax. Nevertheless, a refugee publication called Rubez adapted and published the story. In turn, a White Russian refugee publication called Mech Gedeona ("Sword of Gideon"), ran a Russian-language version. The names became garbled in transliteration, but the same pictures were reprinted each time. In 1972 the Mech Gedeona article came into the hands of Charles Willis of Fresno, California, who provided it to two Ark-search enthusiasts, Eryl Cummings and his wife. John Bradley, another Ark searcher, quickly provided them with the original German text, but even after this the Cummingses pursued for nearly four more months the possibility that the joke names were mistranscriptions into German rather than a hoax. (The idea that the specific association of the Ark with Mount Ararat - rather than the more general "mountains of Ararat" mentioned in Genesis - began with the Cologne paper's hoax, is widely disseminated on the Web, but is a misconception - the idea is far older, as demonstrated by the many medieval paintings of the subject).

In 1955 French explorer Fernand Navarra reportedly found a 5-foot wooden beam on Mount Ararat some 40 feet under the Parrot Glacier on the northwest slope and well above the treeline. The Forestry Institute of Research and Experiments of the Ministry of Agriculture in Spain certified the wood to be about 5,000 years old. A claim that is disputed by Radio Carbon dating -- two labs have dated the 1969 samples, one at 650 C.E. +/- 50 years, the other at 630 C.E. +/- 95 years. Navarra's guide later claimed the French explorer bought the beam from a nearby village and carried it up the mountain.

In 1977, a documentary called "In Search of Noah's Ark" aired on numerous television stations, claiming that the Ark had been found on Mt. Ararat; it was based on a book of the same title by David Balsiger and continues to be taken seriously by some in the Ark-search community, though is widely regarded as another hoax. This production is not to be confused with an episode from the third season of "In Search Of... Noah's Flood" (1979) narrated by Leonard Nimoy.

In 1993 CBS aired a highly sensationalized special entitled "The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark,", which contained a long section devoted to the claims of George Jammal, who showed what he called "sacred wood from the ark". Jammal's story of a dramatic mountain expedition which allegedly took the life of "his Polish friend Vladimir" was actually a deliberate hoax, and Jammal - who was really an actor - later revealed that his "sacred wood" was wood taken from railroad tracks in Long Beach, California, and hardened by cooking with various sauces in an oven.

(source, wikipedia, which links to other sources, thus, if you don't like wikipedia, you can read it directly from there instead.)

At 12/11/07 01:33 PM, JerkClock wrote:

A) If you think you can apply classical physics to a situation like the big bang, get fucked.

Everything in reality is bound by the laws of science.

Let me try to explain this simply, so that even you can understand.

The "laws" of classical physics only apply in situations where classical physics can be applied. Classical physics is an excellent approximation when we're taking about large objects that are moving slowly, just as a bullet being fired from a rifle.

However, when we get into things that are moving very fast, we have to use relativity, and when we get into things that are very small, we have to use quantum mechanics.

When we're talking about the early stages of the big bang, we're dealing with something that is very small, and moving very fast. To reiterate, if you think you can apply classical physics to a situation like the big bang, get fucked.

I wish people of religion would stop looking for evidence only to back up their beliefs, and instead look for the truth.

At 12/10/07 10:17 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

You find that in same scope of "some elders passing something down verbally" coming true thousands of years later? In the meantime several more powerful civilizations have fallen into nothingness, never to return?

I wonder how many times similar prophecies have been made in the past that didn't come true. I would bet over a thousand. Odds were pretty good that one of them would come true.

At 12/11/07 03:47 PM, JerkClock wrote: And they were indeed unsubstantiated and erroneous, making a true statement over and over is not Argumentum Ad Nauseum, making a false claim over and over is. A point you fail to comprehend.

Actually, even if the statement is true, it can still be argumentum ad nauseum if the conclusion does not follow logically from the evidence, which in this case it does not. You claim over and over that there is a convincing article, which you have presented no evidence for, and which does not appear to actually exist.

Even if this article DOES exist somewhere out there in the universe, until you provide us with some sort of evidence that it does exist, it's still argumentum ad nauseum. For example, I could keep telling you that I have a balloon. Sure it's true, but I can't prove to you that it's true simply by saying it over and over.

No, you were clinging to an article in 1993,

This unsubstantiated presupposition is erroneous. I was talking about several reports that were abound at the time as well as before.

So you're clinging to reports from 1993 or earlier, none of which you have managed to produce, despite the fact that the discovery of an actual large Ark of any kind would be a fairly momentous occasion, not just for the theistic value, but also for the engineering value. Noah's ark would easily be the largest wooden boat ever built, and apparently a single builder engineered and built a seaworthy boat using only wood, something that a team of modern engineers could barely do with a smaller wooden boat, even with the help of steel cross-bracing and a steam pump to alleviate the leaking problems associated with a long wooden boat frame in turbulent sea waters.

You claim that they found a boat matching the biblical description, and they also found cages for the animals. With a claim that big, you'd think that ONE of us would be able to find a source for it that hasn't been debunked as a hoax. You'd think that someone, by now, would have collected some hard evidence.

It seems you dodged the point that you != elfer and that you have no authority to speak for him.

Well, since my statement was entirely unambiguous, he was actually correct. It was an entirely legitimate response for him to make.

Anyway, until you come up with some evidence for your ghost article, I'm just going to assume that this is a troll and leave it at that.

(source, wikipedia, which links to other sources, thus, if you don't like wikipedia, you can read it directly from there instead.)

Wikipedia != valid. It very often contains lies.

At 12/11/07 05:38 PM, Elfer wrote:

Let me try to explain this simply, so that even you

Erroneous personal attack.

When we're talking about the early stages of the big bang, we're dealing with something that is very small, and moving very fast. To reiterate, if you think you can apply classical physics to a situation like the big bang, get fucked.

That still does not contradict "classical physics" so I don't see your point.

Actually, even if the statement is true, it can still be argumentum ad nauseum if the conclusion does not follow logically from the evidence, which in this case it does not.

Your claim is erroneous, and ignores proteas' links.

So you're clinging to reports from 1993 or earlier, none of which you have managed to produce, despite the fact that the discovery of an actual large Ark of any kind would be a fairly momentous occasion, not just for the theistic value, but also for the engineering value. Noah's ark would easily be the largest wooden boat ever built,

You are ignoring what I said earlier about it maybe being a boat that held only the known species. It wouldn't necessarily be a giant ship that held every existing creature. It could be one that held only the ones Noah knew about, very easily.

Anyway, until you come up with some evidence for your ghost article,

I know that you keep ignoring Proteas' evidence, but it was posted, and does exist. I don't have to post evidence when it's been posted.

Patafarianism is a joke.

At 12/11/07 07:46 PM, JerkClock wrote: You are ignoring what I said earlier about it maybe being a boat that held only the known species. It wouldn't necessarily be a giant ship that held every existing creature. It could be one that held only the ones Noah knew about, very easily.

However, if it was the biblically stated length of 300 cubits, it would still be the largest wooden ship ever built.

I know that you keep ignoring Proteas' evidence, but it was posted, and does exist. I don't have to post evidence when it's been posted.

Ok, but if I debunk Proteas's evidence, I'm going to chalk that up as debunking your mystery article too, because you seem to think that it falls under what Proteas has posted.

At 12/11/07 08:00 PM, Elfer wrote:
However, if it was the biblically stated length of 300 cubits, it would still be the largest wooden ship ever built.

That's a point, however it wasn't an impossibility. Especially if they weren't expecting to have to push it into water, but rather for the water to come on its own.

Ok, but if I debunk Proteas's evidence, I'm going to chalk that up as debunking your mystery article too, because you seem to think that it falls under what Proteas has posted.

But you see it does, because my point was that evidence of the event was discovered.

At 12/11/07 12:12 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 12/10/07 06:50 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: NO THERE FUCKING HAS NOT.

In 1955, there was a man by the name of Fernando Navara. He was a French explorer. Navara not only claimed to have found Noah's ark, but he estimated it at a weight of about 50 tons. .

Also, the first unbiblical sentence of the page is 'The word of God is the inerrant truth authored by the finger of God.'
I really don't think this is the most reliable source.

At 12/11/07 08:13 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: .

Also, the first unbiblical sentence of the page is 'The word of God is the inerrant truth authored by the finger of God.'
I really don't think this is the most reliable source.

It's more reliable than wikipedia, which is what you cited.

As a note, since you're using a site called "God Said Man Said" I think it's only fair that I use talkorigins as a resource. Both of our sources are referenced equally well.

At 12/11/07 12:12 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 12/10/07 06:50 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: NO THERE FUCKING HAS NOT.

In 1955, there was a man by the name of Fernando Navara. He was a French explorer. Navara not only claimed to have found Noah's ark, but he estimated it at a weight of about 50 tons. He actually brought back a piece of wood that was coated with a bituminous compound. What was so amazing about a piece of wood with a bituminous coating? He was up 14,000 feet on Mt. Ararat, which is a mountain between Turkey and Russia. There is no wood within 300 miles of this place...

So, he claimed to have found a fifty ton ark, which he couldn't direct people to, and which nobody else has ever found. Fifty tons of wood is no packet of matches, so I don't see how it would be lost again so easily.

His evidence for this is a piece of wood. You say that there's no wood near the area, I say that while that may be true, he could have gotten the wood from somewhere else, for example, anywhere that there is wood.

Navara brought it back, where the age of the beam was measured to be between four and five thousand years old. The scriptures' account of Noah's ark took place approximately 4,500 years ago.

Five laboratories examined the wood. Three laboratories dated it to 720 to 790 A.D. +/- 90 yrs. One dated it to 260 A.D. +/- 120 yrs, but had an insufficient sample size. The only laboratory to date it to the appropriate time period never published a report.

So, the three laboratories that used proper testing procedures had a relatively fixed date that was far too young for the wood to be from the ark. One was still too young with the wrong sample size, and the one you cite never published any report of their findings.

I don't consider that "evidence"

In the last 122 years, Noah's ark has been spotted by over 186 people of note. In ancient times, it was seen by the Jewish historian Josephus, who was one of the most famous historians immediately following the time of Christ. Josephus speaks about Noah's ark, saying that he saw it.

1900 year old hearsay from an apologist who had obvious reasons for promoting the truth of the old testament is not valid scientific evidence.

Marco Polo, about whom you've read in history books, was a famous explorer. Many pay homage to this man in regard to his accomplishments, but lose respect when he gets to the point where he says, "I saw Noah's ark."

As far as I can find, the actual quote from Marco Polo goes as such:

"In the heart of Greater Armenia is a very high mountain , shaped like a cube (or cup), on which Noah's ark is said to have rested, whence it is called the Mountain of Noah's Ark. It [the mountain] is so broad and long that it takes more than two days to go around it. On the summit the snow lies so deep all the year round that no one can ever climb it; this snow never entirely melts, but new snow is for ever falling on the old, so that the level rises."

He saw Mount Ararat and was told that it was the resting place of Noah's Ark. I am not denying that the mountain exists, nor that people think there is a boat on it.

According to the Turkish government, there was a team of workers that entered three of the ark's compartments in 1840. A man by the name of Dr. Noui, the Archdeacon of Jerusalem in Babylon, saw the ark in 1892. There was a Russian pilot by the name of Vladimir Roscovitski who went with a military expedition to find the ark just prior to the Russian Revolution. He reported that plans were drawn and complete measurements, as well as photographs, were taken. I believe these records were destroyed during the Russian Revolution.

Again, hearsay with a bunch of mysteriously disappeared "evidence." Why is it that with biblical creationist arguments, the information just always mysteriously disappears?

Furthermore, Roscovitsky's story and even his name are ADMITTED FALSEHOODS.

In the 1960s, NASA sighted what could be Noah's ark: an alien, cigar-shaped object approximately 14,000 feet up on Mt. Ararat. The ark was, of course, cigar-shaped.

I'm going to post one of these satellite photos so you can see what type of "object" they're talking about. Whoever is analyzing it is drawing the conclusion of a large wooden ship from what looks like a bit of a rocky ridge and a protrusion of rock that don't even seem to be related.

It then goes on to sight ancient inscriptions speaking of a worldwide flood in other cultures, and sites them all for reference.

Floods occur all over the world. It is not inconceivable that more than one writer could come up with a story about a catastrophic flood. Furthermore, apparently the story on the website was translated to English by a missionary. In addition, there is no evidence presented that this story predates the introduction of the bible to these people.

JerkClock, why do you look at wikipedia with such distrust and yet accept Proteas' site http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/topic3.asp ?Cat2=262&ItemId=965 as proof? It seems like a pro-religious site to me. I would think that evidence coming from a pro-religion site should be looked at very very closely before being accepted. Not really saying that they are purposefully saying untruths, but when you are trying to prove a point, you typically only look for information that helps validate your point of view.

Also, if so many people found the arc, why did no one make a map of where on the mountain it is? Why has no one taken or even drawn a picture of it? I would expect the arc to be considered a holy thing, since it was inspired by god. Why have modern Christians not put considerable effort into finding it and demonstrating its existence to the world? If they did, it would be something to greatly increase the credibility of their beliefs, and it would be one of the greatest archeological discoveries of all time.

Also, please don't attack each other guys, it won't get us anywhere. All it does is cause the person you are attacking to go into defense mode rather then a thinking mode. It's best that we all remain in a thinking mode and especially not descend into a 'pissed' mode. :D

At 12/11/07 08:41 PM, JerkClock wrote:
It's more reliable than wikipedia, which is what you cited.

No it's not.

At 12/11/07 08:49 PM, Elfer wrote:

So, he claimed to have found a fifty ton ark, which he couldn't direct people to, and which nobody else has ever found. Fifty tons of wood is no packet of matches, so I don't see how it would be lost again so easily.

In all fairness, it is rather difficult to direct somebody to the middle of nowhere without a satelite, which he did not have.

His evidence for this is a piece of wood. You say that there's no wood near the area, I say that while that may be true, he could have gotten the wood from somewhere else, for example, anywhere that there is wood.

If the wood showed signs of erosion caused by high up snow storms(or whatever effects would be had that high on the mountain), that would certainly make it plausible.

Five laboratories examined the wood. Three laboratories dated it to 720 to 790 A.D. +/- 90 yrs. One dated it to 260 A.D. +/- 120 yrs, but had an insufficient sample size. The only laboratory to date it to the appropriate time period never published a report.

And at the same time the details of the bible are extremely ambiguous, hence why there is a ton of confusion about a lot of things within its text.

May I also ask what their methods of "dating" this were?

1900 year old hearsay from an apologist who had obvious reasons for promoting the truth of the old testament is not valid scientific evidence.

Christians who deliberately lie about God and the bible are considered Blasphemers who are considered to be sent to hell. While this doesn't mean they wouldn't do it, it does mean that it's unlikely they would. One who truly believes would not likely send oneself to eternal damnation for 15 minutes of fame.

He saw Mount Ararat and was told that it was the resting place of Noah's Ark. I am not denying that the mountain exists, nor that people think there is a boat on it.

While his statement does appear an exaggeration, it is consistant with the other stories of the location and the object.

Again, hearsay with a bunch of mysteriously disappeared "evidence." Why is it that with biblical creationist arguments, the information just always mysteriously disappears?

All lot of stuff info that existed before the communist revolution would be destroyed. Hearsay is at least better than nothing when it is consistant with other hearsay.

Furthermore, Roscovitsky's story and even his name are ADMITTED FALSEHOODS.

How so?

I'm going to post one of these satellite photos so you can see what type of "object" they're talking about. Whoever is analyzing it is drawing the conclusion of a large wooden ship from what looks like a bit of a rocky ridge and a protrusion of rock that don't even seem to be related.

While much of the "object" is covered in snow, it is nonetheless consistant with the other stories, is it not? It's an indication of something, which is more than there is for pastafarianism, which was the whole point from the beginning.

JerkClock, why do you look at wikipedia with such distrust and yet accept Proteas' site http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/topic3.asp ?Cat2=262&ItemId=965 as proof? It seems like a pro-religious site to me.

Much of the info we get has to be filtered from opinionated sources, which tend to have at least some factual info, albiet dressed up in hogwash and rhetoric.

No it's not.

Strawman.

There was a flood MANY YEARS AGO.
Perhaps that set off Noah`s Ark? Yay christians.

lololololololololololol

At 12/11/07 09:44 PM, JerkClock wrote: While much of the "object" is covered in snow, it is nonetheless consistant with the other stories, is it not? It's an indication of something, which is more than there is for pastafarianism, which was the whole point from the beginning.

Sure, it's "consistent" with the story of the bible that there would be some sort of observable thing on Ararat. However, something being consistent with a story isn't really evidence unless you can draw the story from the evidence. That lump could just as easily be a small ridge of rocks, in which case there's no way at all you could use it as evidence.

Saying this is equivalent to saying that the existence of pasta is evidence of the divine inspiration of the FSM, and is therefore "evidence" for pastafarianism.

Everything else in your post is pretty much addressed in the sources, or is summed up by saying "hearsay is not scientific evidence"

Also, would you mind providing me with some geological evidence of a worldwide catastrophic flood? You'd think it would be evident in the column.

At 12/11/07 09:44 PM, JerkClock wrote:

At 12/11/07 08:49 PM, Elfer wrote:

In all fairness, it is rather difficult to direct somebody to the middle of nowhere without a satelite, which he did not have.

Don't be stupid. He obviously knew where he was or how the fuck would he have gotten back to society?
People made maps of North America before they had satellites. of course these maps had flaws but idf you saw one you would most likely recognize it next to a satellite image.

If the wood showed signs of erosion caused by high up snow storms(or whatever effects would be had that high on the mountain), that would certainly make it plausible.

Read back and you'll see someone all ready disproved this little hoax.....

Christians who deliberately lie about God and the bible are considered Blasphemers who are considered to be sent to hell. While this doesn't mean they wouldn't do it, it does mean that it's unlikely they would. One who truly believes would not likely send oneself to eternal damnation for 15 minutes of fame.

They might lie and not know there lying because they're idiots...

Again, hearsay with a bunch of mysteriously disappeared "evidence." Why is it that with biblical creationist arguments, the information just always mysteriously disappears?

...Because it's all a pile of bullshit that would be torn apart by modern man....

No it's not.

And yet an obviously religiously funded site would post information that leads to the unltimate demise of a couple thousand pages that people have believed for 2000 years.....right?

Strawman.

....Idiotman.

I've said this hundreds of times and I'll say it again.

Science moulds the theory around the evidence.
Religion moulds the evidence around the theory.

At 12/11/07 07:46 PM, JerkClock wrote:

At 12/11/07 05:38 PM, Elfer wrote: When we're talking about the early stages of the big bang, we're dealing with something that is very small, and moving very fast. To reiterate, if you think you can apply classical physics to a situation like the big bang, get fucked.

That still does not contradict "classical physics" so I don't see your point.

Apparently I was unclear, even though I tried to make it as obvious as possible. Let me break it down for you.

- Classical physics is a set of rules based on empirical observations.

- In case you don't know what "empirical observations" means, it means something that we observe during an experiment.

- Because they came from empirical evidence and were not derived from theory, this means that the laws of classical physics were true where classical physicists observed motion.

- HOWEVER, relative to the subatomic scale, classical physicists were observing very very large objects. When we look at objects on a small scale, we find that the forces governing motion are different than those assumed in classical physics.

- IN ADDITION, when objects are moving at speeds that are significant relative to the speed of light, classical physics break down, and special relativity takes over. Again, just like the other fundamental forces, relativity is always in play, the laws of classical physics are just a very good approximation when we're talking about low speeds.

- Therefore, the laws of classical physics are merely approximations of what is actually happening. On a scale where the distances are large enough for gravity to be the dominant force, these approximations are very accurate. However, when we look at small distances, the other fundamental forces (i.e. strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic) begin to take a more important role, and the laws of classical physics are no longer an accurate approximation. The same holds true for high speeds.

- In the early period of the big bang (Remember, this is what Proteas was asking his question about. I know that two things is a lot for you to keep track of, but keep these in mind. We're talking about early big bang conditions, and we know that classical physics doesn't apply to small things or fast things) the matter involved was interacting at very small distances, and it was moving extremely fast. Therefore, Newton's laws of classical physics, such as the law of inertia, do not apply to this situation.

- On top of all this, the big bang theory doesn't assume that the matter in the universe was stationary for any period of time, just that it was all very close and expanded rapidly. Proteas either invented a part of the big bang theory so he could refute it, or just thought that this was a part of the big bang theory based on his own misunderstanding of it.

So there you go. That's why Proteas's argument doesn't hold water, and why classical physics doesn't always apply.

At 12/11/07 10:21 PM, Elfer wrote:
Sure, it's "consistent" with the story of the bible that there would be some sort of observable thing on Ararat.

Well actually I meant with the other reports you were talking about, not the story in the bible itself.

Everything else in your post is pretty much addressed in the sources, or is summed up by saying "hearsay is not scientific evidence"

While this is true, enough consistant hearsay is better than nothing, and is more than the pastafarian, "You can't disprove it." Especially with NASA finding something that may(ever vaguely) be what was talked about in what happens to be the same location.

Don't be stupid.

Erroneous Ad Hominem fallacy.

He obviously knew where he was or how the fuck would he have gotten back to society?

Not necessarily. People who get lost, end up in the middle of nowhere, and live to tell the tale obviously didn't know where they were. Yet they got back to society.

Read back and you'll see someone all ready disproved this little hoax.....

Strawman

And yet an obviously religiously funded site would post information that leads to the unltimate demise of a couple thousand pages that people have believed for 2000 years.....right?

I didn't say there wasn't biased info, I said it was more reliable than a site where some dumb fuck admin will knowingly place false info onto articles because his birth certificate has a misprint.

Idiotman.

That's an unsubstantiated claim, and it is erroneous.

At 12/11/07 11:01 PM, JerkClock wrote: While this is true, enough consistant hearsay is better than nothing, and is more than the pastafarian, "You can't disprove it." Especially with NASA finding something that may(ever vaguely) be what was talked about in what happens to be the same location.

One person from 1900 years ago is not something I would consider consistent. Also, the hearsay is not independent of the original story. It is very very possible that the story is what motivated him to say it. Furthermore, I can't find the actual writings in which he claimed this. The claim that Marco Polo said he saw the ark seemed to be erroneous, so I wouldn't mind a primary source for Josephus.

In addition, a ridge is not evidence. If that's evidence, I could claim that every hill is evidence for an FSM tomb. Sure I don't know what's inside the hill and I have no intention of checking, but it still may ever vaguely be what I'm looking for.

At 12/11/07 11:01 PM, JerkClock wrote:
That's an unsubstantiated claim, and it is erroneous.

I could say that about all of your posts in this thread.