Noah's Flood...

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:14 pm

"Concerned" is probably too strong a word.

don't know what you are worried about. i am under no illusion that the ark will or has been found. there are problems with such a discovery:

1. who would believe it? so much skepticism and criticism would be forth coming that it may be impossible to do any objective tests.

2. how would they prove it? theone identifying feature, gopher wood, is so unknown who could say positively that is what it is?

3. what happens to faith?

4. then where do we store the ark? would such storage allow public viewing and lead people to salvation?

i donot need the ark to sustain my faith, nor do i need to waste my life looking for it. i have enough evidence and proof to believe the Flood and Noah existed.

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:29 pm

Answers:

1- Christian jerkoffs. They seem to believe just about anything.

2- I'm sure they could convince you...you have a low threshold for "proof."

3- What does it matter when they can convince themselves that they have found the ark?

4- Christian jerkoffs would open an ark theme park...complete with dinosaurs.

5- You have no evidence.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:42 pm

sadly, your number 4 may be correct. your #5 is a statement of denial so it shall be ignored.

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:52 pm

You've never posted anything except biblical rantings so I will continue to state that you have 'no evidence' until you prove me wrong.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:57 pm

much discussion has been done about the water needed to cover present day mountains. here is what Schoch says on pg. 164 of his book, 'Voices of the Rocks':

"The geoid's bulginf shape has a profound effectonaltitude. if the wrinkled bump on the surface of Earth that represents the Himalayan area surrounding Mount Everest, which liesat approx. 28 degrees north latitude and protrudes 29,028 feet above sea level, were moved south to the equator, the peak would be only 13, 434 feet tall...Why the change in altitude? The geoid surface at the equator is over 15,000 feet further from the center of the earth thanit is at 28 degrees n. lat.. As a result, the Mt. everest bump that standsa out so tall at 28 deg. n. lat. is much diminished in relative height when it is moved to the equator."

thus it is possible that one pole shift took place, or that the ancient world was not like the modern world and all the modern calculations done without taking this into account, leads one to a misconception.

which means that the wonderful math demonstration posted earlier is done based upon incorrect data and conclusions based upon those in error.

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:02 pm

Now you wish to remake the earth in order to salvage your pet theory?

Occam's razor, arch. It never happened.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:10 pm

Now you wish to remake the earth in order to salvage your pet theory

i post evidence from a SECULAR source and yu still don't accept it. consider what Scoch said in lightof the following verse:

10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for
in his days was the earth divided; and his brother’s name was
Joktan.

book of Genesis. food for thought. it is possible that this would support Hapgood's thinking (thoughonly once not many times) and Schoch's observation in the quote i posted.

it would also reject any calculation concerning the volume of water based upon modern geography and not ancient, if we knew exactly what took place in Peleg's time.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:27 pm

I believe the calculations were done with a much smaller mountain as the example. Not everest. Still ain't enough water to cover the planet that deep.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:28 pm

ed wrote:errr .. I know of pontine tumors but the rest is a blur. Care to illucidate?

[When his blathers on about his "Five Possible Choices" nonsense.--Ed.]

Minimalist:

Interesting what a confession of faith reveals:

1. who would believe it? so much skepticism and criticism would be forth coming that it may be impossible to do any objective tests.

Scientific tests are objective. That is why they are done. If tests on the Shroud of Turin revealed blood, it would be because blood is there. Prior to the apparent rise of Skeptic Science--did I miss a memo?--pious scientists could not find evidence.

Typical of his misrepresentation of biblical scholarship and archaeology--"Denmark versus Him"--the field is soaked with members who would welcome any evidence. Notice the "hooplah" over the James Ossuary forgery.

2. how would they prove it? theone identifying feature, gopher wood, is so unknown who could say positively that is what it is?

SCIENCE!!

3. what happens to faith?

THAT is the question! THAT is what he fears! "What about it?" is the answer. Why elevate blind belief in things contrary to evidence to a virtue?

4. then where do we store the ark? would such storage allow public viewing and lead people to salvation?

BWA!HA!HA!HA!HA! This one is going "in the file."

i donot need the ark to sustain my faith, nor do i need to waste my life looking for it. i have enough evidence

Yes he does. That is why he defends it. He knows, deep down inside, he has no evidence.

--J.D.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:31 pm

Frank Harrist wrote:I believe the calculations were done with a much smaller mountain as the example. Not everest. Still ain't enough water to cover the planet that deep.

I chose the highest mountain in Palestine--what I assumed would be the highest mountain known by the authors of the myths. I was "fair" in that way. If I took it literally then it is a HUGE amount of water that only makes the case far more ridiculous.

--J.D.

ed · Post by ed » Wed Sep 06, 2006 3:14 pm

archaeologist wrote:much discussion has been done about the water needed to cover present day mountains. here is what Schoch says on pg. 164 of his book, 'Voices of the Rocks':

"The geoid's bulginf shape has a profound effectonaltitude. if the wrinkled bump on the surface of Earth that represents the Himalayan area surrounding Mount Everest, which liesat approx. 28 degrees north latitude and protrudes 29,028 feet above sea level, were moved south to the equator, the peak would be only 13, 434 feet tall...Why the change in altitude? The geoid surface at the equator is over 15,000 feet further from the center of the earth thanit is at 28 degrees n. lat.. As a result, the Mt. everest bump that standsa out so tall at 28 deg. n. lat. is much diminished in relative height when it is moved to the equator."

thus it is possible that one pole shift took place, or that the ancient world was not like the modern world and all the modern calculations done without taking this into account, leads one to a misconception.

which means that the wonderful math demonstration posted earlier is done based upon incorrect data and conclusions based upon those in error.

The calculation was done using the mean diameter, it stands.

a "pole shift" like the earth shifting? Wow. Talk about elaborating explanatory factors. That is the last refuge of a person with a failed hypothosis. If, then, else ... evidence?

I am really shalken by that post. The absurdity rivels that of suggesting the ark could contain all species.

ed · Post by ed » Wed Sep 06, 2006 3:17 pm

archaeologist wrote:
Now you wish to remake the earth in order to salvage your pet theory
i post evidence from a SECULAR source and yu still don't accept it. consider what Scoch said in lightof the following verse:

10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for
in his days was the earth divided; and his brother’s name was
Joktan.
book of Genesis. food for thought. it is possible that this would support Hapgood's thinking (thoughonly once not many times) and Schoch's observation in the quote i posted.

it would also reject any calculation concerning the volume of water based upon modern geography and not ancient, if we knew exactly what took place in Peleg's time.

Wait, let me be sure that I understand. Are you suggesting that the basic geography of the earth changed in a few thousand years? This is your answer to keep the myth alive?

Sorry, this is delusional.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 4:05 pm

Apparently no one noticed it.

Except Islam: "Mohammed? There is a mountain to see you."

--J.D.

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 4:24 pm

10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for
in his days was the earth divided; and his brother’s name was
Joktan.

book of Genesis. food for thought. it is possible that this would support Hapgood's thinking (thoughonly once not many times) and Schoch's observation in the quote i posted.

[/quote]

Have you been hitting the rice wine today? WTF is that supposed to prove?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 4:45 pm

armchair and monday morning quarterbacks are all you are.

the ball is still in your court and the challenge is still on. but i highly doubt anyone will venture any 'evidence' to prove their side, by the guidelines i set.

it is easier for you to mock than it is to produce something credible that remotely supports your side of the debate.

well now it is up to you to produce or be silent about the biblical account.