Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 12/13/07 12:48 AM, JerkClock wrote:

That is a point yes, of course it could be that there has been ones that there are no record of. Of course, you'd think the media would be quick to pick up on it, but then again they seem all too wrapped up in politics to care about anything else half the time.

If you were to go on an extremely difficult journey to attempt to find the Arc, and in the end you actually found it, why wouldn't you present your findings at least to other religious people?

Even if the news agencies would refuse to report such a thing, why wouldn't you just report your findings to scientists? Of course they wouldn't believe you at first, but you should be able to have a well documented journey and be able to tell them exactly where you were along with photo and other evidence showing that you had indeed found the true arc.

Even if scientists were biased enough that they wouldn't give you the time of day to prove yourself, why wouldn't you go to the Vatican with your findings? I would think they would be thrilled if your findings were well documented and showed proof of the arc.

Finally you could create a website documenting your evidence including videos, pictures, maps, and experts that you took along with you to see it. One way or another, such a momentous discovery would get out.

So why should this vague thing in this satellite photo hold any sway over people when the people showing it as evidence are unwilling to even go there to see what it is?

Not necessarily. Although perhaps a great archeological discovery, it would be arguably no more relevant to the proof of religion than the existence of Jesus, which is undeniable real.

Although I think it is fairly clear that there was a Jesus, there is no evidence that I am aware of that shows that he was the son of god, or that he actually had divine powers (other then scripture which I don't think is sufficient in it self). Do you know of any such evidence? Without such evidence, proof of his existence only shows that the founder of the religion did exist.

The thing about the Arc would be that it would serve as visual evidence that man at that time could build a boat of the size needed to be Noah's arc, and that it somehow got onto the top of a mountain. At that point, it would be plausible that something like the world flooding caused it to get up there, as no one could have possibly lifted a boat of that size to the top of a mountain. Heck, I don't think we could do that today even if we put lots of effort into it.

---

At 12/13/07 12:48 AM, JerkClock wrote:

Tell me, what specific feature would distinguish this from a ridge of rock, or even a ridge of snow and ice? What makes you look at that and say "I think there's something buried under there"?

The black parts that were circled?

There are no black parts that are circled. There's one brown thing that's circled that appears to be a rock.

---

At 12/13/07 01:19 AM, mayeram wrote:
If you were to go on an extremely difficult journey to attempt to find the Arc, and in the end you actually found it, why wouldn't you present your findings at least to other religious people?

Dunno why someone wouldn't, although there are people out there who really wouldn't. Though I was more referring to the fact that even if you did there's no garentee by any means it would get any media attention.

Even if the news agencies would refuse to report such a thing, why wouldn't you just report your findings to scientists?

If you know where they are, I see no reason not to either. I dunno about you though, but I've net met a scientist in my life, nor do I know where to find one. I could ask around and find out, but even then if all I'm doing is saying "I found an ark on a mountain", what's the scientist going to do? Is he going to go, "ZOMG YOU FOUND TEH ARK!!!!!! GRATS!!!!!"?

I would think they would be thrilled if your findings were well documented and showed proof of the arc.

Possibly, even so it doesn't mean you would remember your way back, or that you wouldn't get lost trying to find your way back and never turn up the proof. Or that even if this didn't happen word would get out.

Finally you could create a website documenting your evidence including videos, pictures, maps, and experts that you took along with you to see it. One way or another, such a momentous discovery would get out.

If you have a computer, and the internet, and the extra money for said site sure. Of course, even then that only accounts for more recent years, people would dismiss it as made up hogwash, and there's no garentee that the thought would occur to them in the first place.

So why should this vague thing in this satellite photo hold any sway over people when the people showing it as evidence are unwilling to even go there to see what it is?

Well do you wanna climb 14000 feet up in the frigid temperatures? I sure as fuck don't. It's not like driving to a location down the road, you can die or get seriously injured climbing mountains(Yes I know you can die in car wrecks too, but it's much easier to avoid it). It's also a lot more difficult.

Although I think it is fairly clear that there was a Jesus, there is no evidence that I am aware of that shows that he was the son of god, or that he actually had divine powers

There are plenty of witness accounts to this, even amongst non-followers, or there were, their long dead. Still even then people argue he was just a person with ESP and stuff. The point is it's more proof than pastafarianism has.

---

At 12/13/07 12:04 PM, JerkClock wrote:

Even if the news agencies would refuse to report such a thing, why wouldn't you just report your findings to scientists?

If you know where they are, I see no reason not to either. I dunno about you though, but I've net met a scientist in my life, nor do I know where to find one. I could ask around and find out, but even then if all I'm doing is saying "I found an ark on a mountain", what's the scientist going to do? Is he going to go, "ZOMG YOU FOUND TEH ARK!!!!!! GRATS!!!!!"?

Generally, if you're going on an expedition like this, that's something you would know beforehand. And you know what a scientist would say? They'd ask you specific questions depending on their field (remember, "scientist" isn't actually a job title), but mostly they'd ask something like "Oh, ok, well where was it, and do you have any pictures or samples?"

Or more likely, they'd do what you hired them to do, which is probably dating on whatever sample you might have brought back.

I would think they would be thrilled if your findings were well documented and showed proof of the arc.

Possibly, even so it doesn't mean you would remember your way back,

Duh, hello, I'm Jim, the dumbest explorer. I'm going to get supplies, hire guides and plan everything out for this mountain expedition. However, I'm not going to bring a GPS or even a map, I'm just going to let Forgetful Frank remember the location for me and assume everything works out fine.

SEEMS LIKELY TO ME.

If you have a computer, and the internet, and the extra money for said site sure. Of course, even then that only accounts for more recent years, people would dismiss it as made up hogwash, and there's no garentee that the thought would occur to them in the first place.

If you can afford to go on a mountain expedition to find the ark, and certainly if you actually DID find it, you can spare the twenty bucks for a domain name and web hosting.

Well do you wanna climb 14000 feet up in the frigid temperatures? I sure as fuck don't.

Well then don't try to fucking use it as evidence. All you're saying is "Here's something that could possibly maybe be evidence for what I'm saying, but I don't want to find out whether it actually is and neither does anyone else. Just trust me."

---

This may sound stupid, but how did, for example, all the say, Kangaroos get from atop this mountain and find their way to Australia?

---

Scientifically speaking... The weight of an electron is small enough that the largest atom doesn't have enough electrons to equal even a single weight of a proton or neutron, for this reason, science has deemed that electrons don't weight enough to be consider significant.

Consider the length of time in your life, the fact that when you die, you end. And that everything you did does nothing but continue a journey of the human race along it's path of doing without realizing it does nothing, thinking without realizing it's thoughts mean nothing, like running race with no end, only a defeat.

Be at peace with this and console to the fact that as far as any hypothetical super-intelligence is concerned, you don't exist. So just keep living, because that's the only reason you are here.

---

At 12/13/07 08:27 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Be at peace with this and console to the fact that as far as any hypothetical super-intelligence is concerned, you don't exist. So just keep living, because that's the only reason you are here.

Amen.

O shi-

---

There are no black parts that are circled. There's one brown thing that's circled that appears to be a rock.

K, but they're not the same colors as the surrounding rocks, making it appear a foreign object.

Generally, if you're going on an expedition like this, that's something you would know beforehand. And you know what a scientist would say? They'd ask you specific questions depending on their field (remember, "scientist" isn't actually a job title), but mostly they'd ask something like "Oh, ok, well where was it, and do you have any pictures or samples?"

Right, but you missed an important point. How do they get the info out there and assure that it'll become widespread knowledge.

Duh, hello, I'm Jim, the dumbest explorer. I'm going to get supplies, hire guides and plan everything out for this mountain expedition. However, I'm not going to bring a GPS or even a map,

GPS is recent technology, it does not account for anything more than 5 years ago, And a map doesn't help in the middle of nowhere. You can't tell if you're walking perfectly in a direction or not and you no signs to guide you like you do on road travel. All you have is endless terrrain that looks just about the same all around. Not a good guiding point,

If you can afford to go on a mountain expedition to find the ark, and certainly if you actually DID find it, you can spare the twenty bucks for a domain name and web hosting.

And of course, you ignored the point that this would only apply to recent years, and would just tardpiled by athiests claiming it's a hoax even if it isn't.

Well then don't try to fucking use it as evidence.

Right, a satelite photo suggesting there may indeed be something in a spot that many people throughout history have been witness to there being something there means nothing because you say so.

This may sound stupid, but how did, for example, all the say, Kangaroos get from atop this mountain and find their way to Australia?

Pangea.

---

At 12/13/07 08:44 PM, JerkClock wrote:

This may sound stupid, but how did, for example, all the say, Kangaroos get from atop this mountain and find their way to Australia?

Pangea.

Continental drift takes more than 4400 years.

---

At 12/13/07 08:44 PM, JerkClock wrote:

There are no black parts that are circled. There's one brown thing that's circled that appears to be a rock.

K, but they're not the same colors as the surrounding rocks, making it appear a foreign object.

Oh, you mean the shadows cast by the ridge? You mean the feature that makes a ridge visible on a snowy surface? Again, how does this distinguish it from ANY OTHER RIDGE?

GPS is recent technology, it does not account for anything more than 5 years ago, And a map doesn't help in the middle of nowhere. You can't tell if you're walking perfectly in a direction or not and you no signs to guide you like you do on road travel. All you have is endless terrrain that looks just about the same all around. Not a good guiding point,

Compasses have existed for a while now. Also, since we're talking about expeditions that are going to take place in the future, GPS is extremely applicable. There is NO WAY today that an expedition would lose the location of the ark if it was discovered.

And of course, you ignored the point that this would only apply to recent years, and would just tardpiled by athiests claiming it's a hoax even if it isn't.

Again, atheists claim that these things are hoaxes because somehow every single time people have failed to bring back any evidence, or have brought back evidence that is revealed to be an obvious fraud.

Right, a satelite photo suggesting there may indeed be something in a spot that many people throughout history have been witness to there being something there means nothing because you say so.

Again, finding a ridge made of rock or snow is not an unusual event on ANY MOUNTAIN. You have still failed miserably to say what feature makes it look as though there must be something underneath it.

This may sound stupid, but how did, for example, all the say, Kangaroos get from atop this mountain and find their way to Australia?

Pangea.

Boy, continental drift sure is speedy these days, isn't it? You're suggesting that we speed up an observable geological process by about sixty thousand times in order to support your bullshit theory.

---

At 12/13/07 09:32 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 12/13/07 08:44 PM, JerkClock wrote:

This may sound stupid, but how did, for example, all the say, Kangaroos get from atop this mountain and find their way to Australia?

Pangea.

That is the stupidest fucking thing I have heard in my entire life. I actually could feel part of my brain starting to implode after reading that post. Your dead serious in stating that Noah somehow created a boat and gathered every animal on the earth 60 million years ago. I pity you. I'm serious when i say that. I just cant believe that you could be so diluted and misinformed. It makes me very sad to write this and to think that in as advanced a society we live in there are still people who are so blinded by belief that they brush aside common facts and institute there own ideas as the ultimate truth over critical thinking. I do so pity you and whoever you com in contact with in real life. Please, oh please, leave your computer, sit in a large comfortable chair, and read about the world today and the discoveries people have actually made so that you can raise yourself to the level of intelligence of someone belonging to the human species.

---

Continental drift takes more than 4400 years.

Correction, at the continent's current speed it does, but that's assuming that the speed of continental drift is constant and it more than likely isn't. It's more than likely that they drifted apart faster when they first broke apart than they do now.

But as for 4400 years, who are we to say it was 4400 years ago and not much, much longer?

Oh, you mean the shadows cast by the ridge?

They were to dark to be shadows dude :|

Compasses have existed for a while now.

Yes but compasses don't constantly point due north either. In fact the direction they actually point in flucuates quite a bit. While it's true that this pattern can be learned, it's not quite something an amature could do either.

Also, since we're talking about expeditions that are going to take place in the future, GPS is extremely applicable.

In the future yes, but the original question asked why no such expedition happened in the past, did it not?

Again, atheists claim that these things are hoaxes because somehow every single time people have failed to bring back any evidence, or have brought back evidence that is revealed to be an obvious fraud.

No it wasn't revealed to be obvious fraud, it was revealed inconclusive. There is a difference.

Boy, continental drift sure is speedy these days, isn't it?

As explained, we don't know how long ago the flood happened or how fast the continents drifted when they first broke apart.

That is the stupidest fucking thing I have heard in my entire life.

Unsubstantiated, erroneous, and childish personal attack.

Your dead serious in stating that Noah somehow created a boat and gathered every animal on the earth 60 million years ago.

Note the obliviousness in your reply, I did not once say he gathered ALL the animals on earth I said this:

more like it could hold every known animal in the within the region of the place it was built(ie. every known one within perhaps a 100 mile radius) which is a reasonable assumption for how such a thing could have happened.

ie. not every animal on earth, dumbfuck.

I pity you. I'm serious when i say that. I just cant believe that you could be so diluted and misinformed. It makes me very sad to write this and to think that in as advanced a society we live in there are still people who are so blinded by belief that they brush aside common facts and institute there own ideas as the ultimate truth over critical thinking.

Another childish, unsubstantiated, and erroneous personal attacked, with invective. As expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

I do so pity you and whoever you com in contact with in real life. Please, oh please, leave your computer, sit in a large comfortable chair, and read about the world today and the discoveries people have actually made so that you can raise yourself to the level of intelligence of someone belonging to the human species.

Another childish, unsubstantiated, and erroneous personal attacked, with invective. As expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

---

Not to make an attack but since when has believing that a man and his family built the largest ship ever created, followed by the earth flooding, and that now the ships apart of a mountain ever been logical. Or on another point hows is not believing unsubstantiated claims made in a 2000 year old book illogical. You are indeed the one supporting a totally illogical argument.

---

At 12/15/07 03:06 PM, JerkClock wrote: Correction, at the continent's current speed it does, but that's assuming that the speed of continental drift is constant and it more than likely isn't. It's more than likely that they drifted apart faster when they first broke apart than they do now.

Just wondering, do you know how the convection that drives continental drift actually works?

Also, if you think that the animals migrated across pangaea after the flood, what kind of time period are we actually looking at in this flood? When do you think, realistically speaking, it could have actually happened?

Oh, you mean the shadows cast by the ridge?

They were to dark to be shadows dude :|

Against a drop of bright white snow, there's going to be sharp contrast with any shadows. Also, what do you propose those black things actually are, if they're indicating a buried object? Protruding wood that failed to erode over thousands (or whatever time period you're suggesting)? Some sort of other protrusion which was never covered by snowfall?

Give it up, what you're saying just doesn't make any sense. You're basing your opinion off of a few dark dots on a picture of a mountain, which don't actually appear to be anything. Even a quick inspection of the picture shows that the thing they circled in red doesn't follow the curvature of the ridge that they have arrows pointing to.

In the future yes, but the original question asked why no such expedition happened in the past, did it not?

I thought we were talking about why nobody has yet gone after what is supposedly "buried" on the mountain when we have photographs which, according to you, suggest a buried object.

No it wasn't revealed to be obvious fraud, it was revealed inconclusive. There is a difference.

When someone claims to have seen a gigantic ship that defies all current engineering practice, then brings back wood from the wrong time period, or has all of the evidence miraculously destroyed, yet still fails to give any indication of where they may have found it, I'd consider it fraud. If you make a claim that should be easy to provide evidence for, but then fail to provide that evidence for nonsensical reasons, it's almost definitely a fraud.

Boy, continental drift sure is speedy these days, isn't it?

As explained, we don't know how long ago the flood happened or how fast the continents drifted when they first broke apart.

Again, to make this claim, and have Pangaea fit into a realistic time frame for some sort of miracle-working shipwright, you would have to propose an entirely new mechanism for continental drift. The Earth's mantle would have to somehow magically exhibit plasticity on much shorter time scales.

Look, if you want to believe in the bible, go ahead, but don't pretend you're going to find scientific evidence for it. The only way to reconcile the biblical account with observable reality is through a deliberately deceptive creator. Not impossible, but not something you'll find evidence for.

---

At 12/15/07 03:24 PM, ThorKingOfTheVikings wrote: Not to make an attack but since when has believing that a man and his family built the largest ship ever created, followed by the earth flooding, and that

;
Lets pretend that the water to cover the earth , leaked out into space so that dry land could reappear.
I know, its quite a load to try & imagine ( load as in load of crap)
But the idea of 8 people, keep peace between predators & prey AND...
Somehow these people managed to feed & more importantly CLEAN UP after thousands of animals every day...
Yes... sniff, sniff
I can smell the feces ...sniff,,, yep I'm almost positive its Bull Shit !
Someone must have missed some .
lmao, Noah's ark being a possibility... stop it your making me laugh so hard its starting to hurt.

---

Not to make an attack but since when has believing that a man and his family built the largest ship ever created, followed by the earth flooding, and that now the ships apart of a mountain ever been logical.

I see that you are a Ferous Cranus. As I explained it would not be the biggest ship ever built as it didn't need to actually house every animal on Earth.

Just wondering, do you know how the convection that drives continental drift actually works?

Plat Techtonics right?

Also, if you think that the animals migrated across pangaea after the flood, what kind of time period are we actually looking at in this flood? When do you think, realistically speaking, it could have actually happened?

That I don't know, but what I do know is that it's possible no matter how long ago it was.

Against a drop of bright white snow, there's going to be sharp contrast with any shadows.

It's not that, it's just that shadows don't tend to be pitch black(or anywhere near it)

Also, what do you propose those black things actually are, if they're indicating a buried object? Protruding wood that failed to erode over thousands (or whatever time period you're suggesting)?

Possibly, it's possible that could indeed happen.

I thought we were talking about why nobody has yet gone after what is supposedly "buried"

Right, hence it refers to the past, not the future.

When someone claims to have seen a gigantic ship that defies all current engineering practice

Or alternatively, merely exaggerated the details.

then brings back wood from the wrong time period

Wood which was inconclusively dated, possibly with bad testing methods.

yet still fails to give any indication of where they may have found it

14000 feet up, between 2 mountains that were named is an indication.

Again, to make this claim, and have Pangaea fit into a realistic time frame for some sort of miracle-working shipwright, you would have to propose an entirely new mechanism for continental drift.

So you're proposing that tectonics move at constant speeds then, or that man couldn't have existed for millions of years, that it's not at all possible?

But the idea of 8 people, keep peace between predators & prey AND...

It's called cages dude. Those were primitive times, not stupid times.

---

At 12/15/07 04:39 PM, JerkClock wrote: I see that you are a Ferous Cranus. As I explained it would not be the biggest ship ever built as it didn't need to actually house every animal on Earth.

Given the biblical dimensions, the size of ship people are looking for, the size of the ship people claim to have found, and the amount of animals he still WOULD need to house, yes, it would be the largest wooden ship ever built.

The picture that you suggests has something buried under it is easily a few hundred feet long. You can't make your position internally inconsistent in an attempt to make it externally consistent with the real world, it doesn't work. Either the picture isn't evidence, or the boat is the largest wooden ship ever made.

Just wondering, do you know how the convection that drives continental drift actually works?

Plat Techtonics right?

"Plat Techtonics" is a different name, not a mechanism. What I'm asking you is if you understand the forces that actually drive the motion of the continental plates.

That I don't know, but what I do know is that it's possible no matter how long ago it was.

Not really. It's not logically feasible that this happened millions of years ago, because that would mean that technological progress progressed quite a bit, at least to the point of relatively advanced ship-building, then technology in all areas stopped progressing for millions of years before miraculously restarting again a few thousand years ago.

On top of that, you're also suggesting that all evidence of all homo sapiens that lived before or for the first few millions of years after the flood also miraculously vanished, and only that which fits in with a logical evolutionary timeline remains.

Against a drop of bright white snow, there's going to be sharp contrast with any shadows.

It's not that, it's just that shadows don't tend to be pitch black(or anywhere near it)

Neither does wood. You know what is black sometimes? Rocks.

Furthermore, look at the picture itself. There is nothing pitch black along the ridge itself, the best you could get out of that is a mid-blue. The only thing that I can see in the photo near the ridge that looks black is the part behind the ridge, which as you can see is precisely the same colour as what appears to be either shadows cast by other snow ridges on the mountain or protrusions of rock.

Either there's nothing there, or there's a whole mess of boats.

Maybe if you actually took the photo and indicated visually what you're talking about, it would be easier for me to help you understand. Unless you're willing to do that, I don't want to hear anything else about that stupid photo.

Also, what do you propose those black things actually are, if they're indicating a buried object? Protruding wood that failed to erode over thousands (or whatever time period you're suggesting)?

Possibly, it's possible that could indeed happen.

Well, no, not really, and that still doesn't explain why it was never covered in snow.

Let's recap our respective positions on this:

You:
- Wood that magically failed to undergo weathering over a period of thousands (or millions, you haven't decided) of years
- Wood that also magically repels snow in order to remain visible

Me:
- Shadows, which are really the only feature that make ridges visible in snow from above

Which seems more likely to you?

I thought we were talking about why nobody has yet gone after what is supposedly "buried"

Right, hence it refers to the past, not the future.

Ok, but plenty of good navigation equipment has been around for the last several decades at least, and that's being GENEROUS. If we've known where it is for such a long time, and so many people have supposedly found it, there is no excuse for a complete lack of hard evidence at this point.

When someone claims to have seen a gigantic ship that defies all current engineering practice

Or alternatively, merely exaggerated the details.

Or alternatively, any very large boat still doesn't fit in with all of the other details of your story.

then brings back wood from the wrong time period

Wood which was inconclusively dated, possibly with bad testing methods.

The three labs that had sufficient data came back with a consistent date. The inconsistencies were from one lab which had a small sample size, which was still reasonably consistent with the other dates, and one lab which never published a report, which was the date that agrees with your theory.

If you have an issue with the testing done by the other labs, please, go ahead and name it.

See, in science, you can't just dismiss people's findings without cause by calling them "bad." You have to give an actual reason for it.

yet still fails to give any indication of where they may have found it

14000 feet up, between 2 mountains that were named is an indication.

That's a band of elevation a thousand feet wide that would stretch for miles around the mountain. That's hardly what I'd call "specific."

If they could even say what face they were on, or some recognizable landmarks, it might be more credible. The fact that none of these people have ever managed to actually demonstrate that they found it is a strong indicator that none of these claims are actually true.

So you're proposing that tectonics move at constant speeds then, or that man couldn't have existed for millions of years, that it's not at all possible?

I like how you didn't respond to the point about how you'd have to completely change the physical character of the Earth's mantle in order to make the change your suggesting. Yes, continental drift moves at a relatively slow and constant pace, and certainly wouldn't maintain an average speed hundreds or thousands of times faster than it currently has just to make your hare-brained scheme work out.

As for humans existing for millions of years, again, scientific evidence suggests that homo sapiens has not been around for many millions of years. Furthermore, the shipwright techniques and tools required for a single person to make a ship of this magnitude don't even exist today, and certainly not millions of years in the past.

On top of all this, there's no evidence in the geologic column to suggest a massive worldwide flood.

On top of THAT, the idea of a massive worldwide flood doesn't even make any physical sense, because that much water can't arrive and subside in a matter of forty days, or even forty years.

Again, what I'm telling you is that you will never be able to reconcile this idea with scientific observations.

You're a troll at best, and at worst woefully ignorant of the science you're trying to discuss. Come up with something good, or I think this discussion is finished.

---

At 12/15/07 04:39 PM, JerkClock wrote:

I see that you are a Ferous Cranus. As I explained it would not be the biggest ship ever built as it didn't need to actually house every animal on Earth.

I have to admit that was clever and I lol'd. I'll ignore the fact that it is the most hypocritical statement i have ever heard but to make it so that this isn't just a hate post ill add some thoughts.

-None of the evidence that has been presented for your case is conclusive so I, being cpible of critical thought, am allowed and albeit encouraged to disagree with you.

-If you took ever animal in existence on the planet today (which i will roughly estimate is close to the same amount that populated the earth since the time when Noah could have supposedly made his boat)
and placed them on a ship it would indeed have to be the largest ship ever built.

-How could Noah and his relations( being the last people left on the earth) repopulate without massive failure to to inbreeding and incest related gene mutation?

---

A version of noah's arc could have happened for the following reasons... note that....

1) the bible doesn't list all of the animals he brought onto the boat, only 'every animal in the world'
2) The bible definately had no knowledge of the Americas, and probably knew next to nothing about places other than areas near by Mesopotamia and Egypt, and maybe india
3) From 1 and 2, we can conclude that the bible's knowledge of all of the animals in the world at that time was probably biased to animals only from the region. My guess is, it was reffering to 2 kinds of the no more than 10-15 species brought on by 'Noah'
4) 3000+ years ago, almost all of the large congregations of human life existed in river valleys, the primary ones being the nile, the yellow and yangzi, and the tigris and the euphrates as well as the indus. ALL of these rivers experience flood periods once and sometimes twice a year, meaning the possibility of having ONE of those floods being exceptionally devestating is quite possible.
4.5) Ancient texts of historical happenings are usually exaggerated. Even in the high middle ages, claims on historical happenings that are clearly impossible exaggerations exist, but historians don't decide that the story itself is false, rather, that the chroniclers were being poor writers of history and for particular historical events
5) now, taking 2, 4 and 4.5 into consideration, a very devastating flood COULD be turned into a global flood.
6) the 'flood of Noah' appears in various forms in various ancient cultures in the world, an example i know is the epic of Gilgamesh. [which takes place at the same time] and i'm fairly certain that gilgamesh, though as a character in the epic which is clearly fabricated, is considered a genuine historical figure, and not a fairy tale. Such things would indicate that the bible story of noah isn't a flawless dictation of a historical occurrence as my fellow atheists can agree, but it DOES mean that the story was more likely to occur somewhere at some time, than a creation myth of some culture that never spread beyond it's boundaries and has 0 evidence to back it up.

---

At 12/15/07 09:27 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: A version of noah's arc could have happened for the following reasons... note that....

We are talking about supposedly the inspired word of an allegedly omniscient being.

If he didn't know about animals around the globe, why call him all-knowing?

---

Well dude, I for one am luthern and I for one believe all major religions revolve around one spectral being as being God, Alah er whoever, that is alrght for me, as long as a person believes there is a being out there that created us and will meet when we die, I believe that person is saved.

The thing is that your religion should be along the lines of doing good and not evil, that is the basic way of living a good life, to treat people as you would want to be treated.

---

At 12/16/07 04:12 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: as long as a person believes there is a being out there that created us and will meet when we die, I believe that person is saved.

Which is absolutely barbaric.
Any belief system that bases salvation by means of belief over moral behaviour is deplorable.

---

Dude, of course I mean religions that are peaceful, as all religions should be and probably are.
It is people that find it in themselves to rid the world of other religions, people who choose what they also choose,to rid the world of that religion.
The fact of the matter is that choice and free will make this possible, to distort your religion to justify murder and other sins is wrong by their religion, and they cannot be forgiven for they think they are doing as their religion commands.
A type of mental problem maybe, or just a crappy way of getting people out their way. Religion is not an issue to many, but its people who choose to make it one are not true to their own religion.

But there is that saying, "Evil only wins when good decides to quit." This expression is a good one if you look at it the right way, to stop evil without doing evil, putting people in jail and being with people like them and probably be killed as they would to other people, that I think is probablythe rifht thing maybe. But that is the problem with the jails we have, prisoners are raped and killed because of the ignorance of the people who had them built and didn't care about the safety of the prisoner because they were damned anyway. That is a real problem for me because they are doing as much evil as the people themselves do, they have a hand in people getting killed because they fail to care, that is evil even when the people being killed are evil.

"Thou shall not kill" meaning you cannot kill or be involved with the killing of another person, that is plain and simple, so what they are doing in Iraq right now is evil, they have no reason to be over there because the people there do have a choice. The Iranians have a choice even if they create a nuclear bomb which is highly unlikely since they abandoned their program 4 years ago, if they had created one, they would have millions of nuclear bombs pointed at them in case they tried to use it.

The right to choose and the choices we make, that is what separates the good people from the evil people.

---

Um, WHAT THE FUCK.
I'm not talking about peacefulness. I'm talking about how immoral and stupid it is that nearly all major religions consider believing more important than being moral.

---

I dont think any religions have anything about violence in it, that is made up by the people who disagree with parts of their own religion and want to fight to make their own dominant.
Christianity definitely doesn't permit killing.
Morals can come from religion yes but....what are u trying to say anyway?
Religion has nothingto do with violence or bad morals, tis the people,

---

At 12/16/07 04:04 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 12/15/07 09:27 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: A version of noah's arc could have happened for the following reasons... note that....

We are talking about supposedly the inspired word of an allegedly omniscient being.

If he didn't know about animals around the globe, why call him all-knowing?

I am looking at the bible from an empirical standpoint, that it was written by someone in the region, not by Amon-Ra, the sundisk, or Zeus, And that from this, and the 6 and a half bullets i mentioned would lead me to beleive something similar to a Noah's arc occurred.

Because some people beleive that the torah was written during the early classical age by those damn stealth Jews. and was a complete compilation of stories that have no origin.

I would hope that somone who reads my points and realise i'm using physical matter to describe the noah's arc story would think that i actually don't beleive that this was written by an angry power god floating in the clouds.

---

At 12/15/07 05:33 PM, Elfer wrote:
Given the biblical dimensions, the size of ship people are looking for, the size of the ship people claim to have found, and the amount of animals he still WOULD need to house, yes, it would be the largest wooden ship ever built.

Even so, considering that wooden ships weren't exactly massive, that's not saying much.

"Plat Techtonics" is a different name, not a mechanism. What I'm asking you is if you understand the forces that actually drive the motion of the continental plates.

Explain.

Not really. It's not logically feasible that this happened millions of years ago, because that would mean that technological progress progressed quite a bit, at least to the point of relatively advanced ship-building, then technology in all areas stopped progressing for millions of years before miraculously restarting again a few thousand years ago.

Not necessarily. We've technologically regressed quite a few times just throughout known history. Back then if a society with advanced knowledge was invaded by a barbarian horde, the scientists killed, and the libraries burnt, that was it. The technology was just fucking lost. It's not like today where there are endless records everywhere in networks and computers, and where it's nearly impossible to destroy all of it.

And keep in mind also that the further back in history you go, the more war prone human society was. It is more than possible that war kept us at a technological standstill for that long.

On top of that, you're also suggesting that all evidence of all homo sapiens that lived before or for the first few millions of years after the flood also miraculously vanished, and only that which fits in with a logical evolutionary timeline remains.

Huh? I don't know where I said that or what you're suggesting by this.

Neither does wood. You know what is black sometimes? Rocks.

Well actually wet wood can, or tar, if the ship was coated with it.

Furthermore, look at the picture itself. There is nothing pitch black along the ridge itself, the best you could get out of that is a mid-blue. The only thing that I can see in the photo near the ridge that looks black is the part behind the ridge, which as you can see is precisely the same colour as what appears to be either shadows cast by other snow ridges on the mountain or protrusions of rock.

It's also in a spot where there is nothing above it to form a shadow for that matter. And oddly enough, none of the mountain rock matches its color.

Unless you're willing to do that, I don't want to hear anything else about that stupid photo.

Wow it's circled in red and you still don't know what I'm talking about.

Well, no, not really, and that still doesn't explain why it was never covered in snow.

Well yes, really, it is. And snow shifts around dude, just like sand does. It doesn't have to be covered in snow now to have been covered in the past.

Ok, but plenty of good navigation equipment has been around for the last several decades at least, and that's being GENEROUS. If we've known where it is for such a long time, and so many people have supposedly found it, there is no excuse for a complete lack of hard evidence at this point.

Granted, people living in the area should go and research it, but how do you know they won't?

Three laboratories dated it to 720 to 790 A.D

That is not a consistant date :|

See, in science, you can't just dismiss people's findings without cause by calling them "bad."

No but you can question why results aren't pinpointing things exactly. What you can't do is say, "Well the ones that support my side were conclusive and the ones that don't, weren't."

That's a band of elevation a thousand feet wide that would stretch for miles around the mountain. That's hardly what I'd call "specific."

While that's true, it's not a lack of indication either.

If they could even say what face they were on, or some recognizable landmarks, it might be more credible. The fact that none of these people have ever managed to actually demonstrate that they found it is a strong indicator that none of these claims are actually true.

Or that it was in the middle of nowhere with no visible landmarks for them to be able to pinpoint exactly where it is.

I like how you didn't respond to the point about how you'd have to completely change the physical character of the Earth's mantle in order to make the change your suggesting.

Plate techtonics involves the Earth's mantle, so no I did not.

Yes, continental drift moves at a relatively slow and constant pace,

And you know this how? Did you live for millions of years monitering its speed?

hare-brained scheme

Unsubstantiated and erroneous personal attack.

As for humans existing for millions of years,

What was Homo erectus?

On top of all this, there's no evidence in the geologic column

That's not true either, what about the packs of skeletons that have been found crushed by water pressure above sea level?

On top of THAT, the idea of a massive worldwide flood doesn't even make any physical sense,

While that is true it's possible it could have receded to the mountaintops within their lifetime.

what I'm telling you is that you will never be able to reconcile this idea with scientific observations.

Because you say so right?

You're a troll at best, and at worst woefully ignorant of the science you're trying to discuss.

This is an unsubstantiated and erroneous Ad Hominem fallacy.

I think this discussion is finished.

Ah, I see you are invoking cut and run.

hypocritical statement

Your unsubstantiated presupposition is erroneous.

None of the evidence that has been presented for your case is conclusive so

Never said it was, just said it's more than pastafarianism has.

If you took ever animal in existence on the planet today (which i will roughly estimate is close to the same amount that populated the earth since the time when Noah could have supposedly made his boat)

and placed them on a ship it would indeed have to be the largest ship ever built.

Ad Nauseum, you are ignoring the fact that it could have been only the ones Noah knew about.

How could Noah and his relations( being the last people left on the earth) repopulate without massive failure to to inbreeding and incest related gene mutation?

They wouldn't, but inbreeding may not have been taboo back then either(and probably wasn't).

---

Science will somehow prove its unvalid.

---

At 12/16/07 12:17 PM, JerkClock wrote: Even so, considering that wooden ships weren't exactly massive, that's not saying much.

Ok, but in the modern era, people built large wooden ships. As I pointed out to you earlier in the topic, the largest wooden ship ever built was 2/3 the size of the biblical dimensions of the ark, but it needed metal bracing to keep it together and a steam pump was needed to get rid of the water that came from leaks that came from the twisting of the boat caused by water currents.

I'm not saying it would just be a record, it would be an extremely important feat of mechanical engineering, developed long, long before the required techniques would have been known to anyone else.

"Plat Techtonics" is a different name, not a mechanism. What I'm asking you is if you understand the forces that actually drive the motion of the continental plates.

Explain.

Ok, the phrase "plate tectonics" actually references a mechanism, it's not just a fancy sounding thing they thought up to impress people.

Basically, what happens is that the Earth's mantle (look it up) behaves elasto-plastically, that is to say that it behaves elastically (look it up) in the short term, and plastically (look it up) in the long term. To make this convection go faster, you would have to drastically reduce the time scale on which the mantle behaves in a plastic manner, i.e. you would have to drastically change the physical properties of the Earth's mantle.

Not necessarily. We've technologically regressed quite a few times just throughout known history. Back then if a society with advanced knowledge was invaded by a barbarian horde, the scientists killed, and the libraries burnt, that was it.

Ok, but we're talking millions of years here. It's more than likely that one of the civilizations would progress enough to be immune to barbarians. A million years is a long time for no technological progress to happen.

On top of that, you're also suggesting that all evidence of all homo sapiens that lived before or for the first few millions of years after the flood also miraculously vanished, and only that which fits in with a logical evolutionary timeline remains.

Huh? I don't know where I said that or what you're suggesting by this.

Let me put it bluntly: Your theory completely disagrees with the fossil record unless you assume that all evidence of modern humans beyond a few hundred thousand years ago was miraculously destroyed.

Neither does wood. You know what is black sometimes? Rocks.

Well actually wet wood can, or tar, if the ship was coated with it.

So our options are:
1) Magic impervious wood that repels snow
2) Shadows cast by snow
3) Rocks

Which option or options seems most likely? (Hint: Mountains are made of rocks and covered in snow)

It's also in a spot where there is nothing above it to form a shadow for that matter. And oddly enough, none of the mountain rock matches its color.

Uh, snow can cast shadows. It's opaque. Also, if you're hell-bent on denying that it's shadows, consider the possibility of rocks, and the fact that there's shit of exactly the same colour all over the mountain.

Unless you're willing to do that, I don't want to hear anything else about that stupid photo.

Wow it's circled in red and you still don't know what I'm talking about.

That's brown, not black. Definitely not "pitch black" as you were calling it. Second, you referred to it as "things" as opposed to one thing. Third, that's a fucking rock. Fourth, it doesn't even follow the curvature of the ridge that you claim looks like it has something buried under it.

Well yes, really, it is. And snow shifts around dude, just like sand does. It doesn't have to be covered in snow now to have been covered in the past.

So you're saying that it was exposed to moving water and ice, but failed to weather after millions of years? Awesome.

Granted, people living in the area should go and research it, but how do you know they won't?

A find that important wouldn't go unfound for that long if we actually knew that there was something there, and other people had found it before.

Three laboratories dated it to 720 to 790 A.D

That is not a consistant date :|

Are you fucking kidding me? It's within five percent. That's not bad for a spread of three ranges.

No but you can question why results aren't pinpointing things exactly. What you can't do is say, "Well the ones that support my side were conclusive and the ones that don't, weren't."

Because measurements that you take have a certain amount of uncertainty in them. If you do the same measurement of the same value five times, you'll get slightly different results each time, it's just something we have to deal with in real life. That's why scientists report things as ranges and not exact values. We don't have equipment sensitive enough to measure right down to the fucking molecular level. That's why people report an approximate year instead of saying "Oh, this wood was cut down August 23rd 753 AD 2:53 PM.

It's not my fault you don't fucking understand how practical science works, and it's not their fault either.

While that's true, it's not a lack of indication either.

A vague indication of the whereabouts is not evidence for the existence of something if it was never actually found there.

Plate techtonics involves the Earth's mantle, so no I did not.

What are you even trying to say here? "Yes, your comment was relevant, so I did not respond to it"?

And you know this how? Did you live for millions of years monitering its speed?

I know this because I understand the mechanism of plate tectonics. I am actually aware of how it works, and realize what increasing the speed of it would actually entail.

hare-brained scheme

Unsubstantiated and erroneous personal attack.

Actually, it's not unsubstantiated, I was pointing out the problems the whole time. It's a hare-brained scheme because it cannot possibly work.

Let me explain. You claim that someone built a large boat that could fit all of the animals in the area on it, then the animals galloped away across Pangaea. We'll ignore the obvious flaws of "if even one animal dies and entire branch of the animal kingdom is gone" and assume that they all survived and procreated copiously, to be generous to your argument.

Now, this needed to occur at a time when the technology to build such a large wooden ship actually existed. This technology does not exist today, but let's be generous again and say a million years ago, which is five times longer than modern humans are believed to have existed, much less advanced shipwrights.

Now, Pangaea broke up about 200 million years ago. But again, let's be generous. Let's do something completely impossible, and speed up continental drift by a factor of 100. This could never happen, but hey, what the hell, right? That still leaves us at two million years ago.

That means that even with large, sweeping, impossible suggestions, the two events required for your theory would still be a million years apart in their possible rages of occurrence.

Therefore, it's a hare-brained scheme.

What was Homo erectus?

Hominid precursors to humans that used basic stone tools, and didn't build boats.

That's not true either, what about the packs of skeletons that have been found crushed by water pressure above sea level?

A) Source?
B) Before even seeing your source, I can tell you that local floods do exist, and more than likely can explain what you're talking about.

While that is true it's possible it could have receded to the mountaintops within their lifetime.

That still doesn't explain the magic hydrogenesis you would need.

Because you say so right?

No, because scientific observations say so.

This is an unsubstantiated and erroneous Ad Hominem fallacy.

Considering the blatant, flagrant ignorance you've shown in regard to things you been discussing (i.e. plate tectonics, radiometric dating) I'd say that it's well substantiated.

Ah, I see you are invoking cut and run.

You are ignorant of the science we're trying to discuss, and unwilling to learn. It's over, I win.

---

He's right JerryClock, you just got owned in the ass.