Mr. Neil Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 http://www.atsnn.com/story/46042.html HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Well, if you're trying to suggest that the ark is on Mount Ararat, then you're saying that the Bible is wrong, because the Bible doesn't say that the ark landed on Mount Ararat. It says that the ark landed on the mountains of Ararat (Gen. 8:4), which is a totally different geologic location! Those satellite photos are extremely weak, since you can't make out any detail whatsoever. You have to apply a liberal amount of imagination in order to insinuate that that's a boat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atheist_thinker Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 I got pictures of big foot and some aliens doing it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 I've got some ocean front property in Arizona. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted May 10, 2005 Author Share Posted May 10, 2005 I read your article and looked at the picture, I do not see conclusive proof of a ship on the mountain. Where is the information regarding the expedition that was planned for the summer of 2004? This article is over a year old. The picture show nothing specific, just an anomaly. Also, Above Top Secret is not the most reputable source. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Im not really impling that the evidence is conclusive or correct. The structure of many sources to the answers of todays "unknowns" are supposedly in theoritical bias. My question is simply, Is theory "science" really legitimate. The point is that any "human" logic is apt to be incorrect, regardless of the number of tests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted May 10, 2005 Author Share Posted May 10, 2005 Also, if this were the final resting place of the ark would not the remains of non indigenous species be found in the area? How would they get off the mountain? Just curious. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I dunno. The only thing the Bible says is that it rested on the mountains of Ararat, and in regards to getting out, it says they saw land and God told them to get out of the Ark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted May 10, 2005 Author Share Posted May 10, 2005 How does a boat-like object, or even what appears to be a boat, even remotely prove that there was a global flood? It doesn't. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Um? If the "boatlike" object is confirmed to be the same dimensions of the Ark of the Bible, then it would validify the Flood of the Bible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted May 10, 2005 Author Share Posted May 10, 2005 Now... where have I heard that little bit of mis-information before? Oh yes... Read this page, paying attention to the where it says "A new species of coelacanth" and "the Indonesian coelacanth is a new species." http://www.elsevier.fr/html/news/cras3mars99/pouyaud.html Now, try to understand this... THE FISH THEY CAUGHT IS NOT THE SAME SPECIES AS THE FOSSIL. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This is my whole point, Crazy tiger. There are many other sites that swear the opposite, scientifically of course. Really, Its not even about the fish; its about everthing that people are "claiming" to be scientific evidence. How does one scientist say one thing and another says different about the same "evaluation" of the same object? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caretaker Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 If indeed there was ever an ark that landed on such a high peak, the glaciers would have pulverised it centuries ago. The ark would have been buried, but it surely wouldn't remain in tact for thousands of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Um? If the "boatlike" object is confirmed to be the same dimensions of the Ark of the Bible, then it would validify the Fllod of the Bible *headdesks repeatedly* The word is validate. Did you not listen? Those photos are from Mount Ararat! The Bible says that the ark landed on the Mountains of Ararat. These are two completely different geologic locations! A boat-shaped object on Mount Ararat is irrelevent, because it's the wrong mountain! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Now... where have I heard that little bit of mis-information before? Oh yes... Read this page, paying attention to the where it says "A new species of coelacanth" and "the Indonesian coelacanth is a new species." http://www.elsevier.fr/html/news/cras3mars99/pouyaud.html Now, try to understand this... THE FISH THEY CAUGHT IS NOT THE SAME SPECIES AS THE FOSSIL. This is my whole point, Crazy tiger. There are many other sites that swear the opposite, scientifically of course. Really, Its not even about the fish; its about everthing that people are "claiming" to be scientific evidence. How does one scientist say one thing and another says different about the same "evaluation" of the same object? Reference please. What sites are "scientifically" claiming that the fish is the same species? What science was done to make this claim? Do you even know what the hell you're talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted May 10, 2005 Author Share Posted May 10, 2005 *headdesks repeatedly* The word is validate. Did you not listen? Those photos are from Mount Ararat! The Bible says that the ark landed on the Mountains of Ararat. These are two completely different geologic locations! A boat-shaped object on Mount Ararat is irrelevent, because it's the wrong mountain! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You should hurry and tell them the way of truth before its to late!!!! Hurry, run, run. !!!!! READ MY POSTS PLEASE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmallStone Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Regarding fishes, it should be noted that there are species alive today that were also alive millions and millions of years ago. Sturgeons are one example. Finding a living fish that is identical to a fossil many of millions of years old isn't reason to even raise an eyebrow. I'll be darned. Here's one now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 READ MY POSTS PLEASE. I did, and you seem unaware that you have the wrong mountain. You linked to an article about the Ararat anomoly. You claimed that these were photos of the Ark, but if that's you're claim, then you're contradicting the Bible. Actually, there are photos of Noahs Ark by independant researchers as well as the CIA. Really? Would you mind giving a link or some documentation? http://www.atsnn.com/story/46042.html WRONG MOUNTAIN! Let me put it this way. Let's say that there's an anomoly on Mount Olympus, and people think it might be the Bible. But the Bible says that the Ark is on another mountain. Would you assume that the Ark is on Mount Olympus based on the anomoly? No, of course not. Why? Because then you'd be assuming that the Bible is wrong. You'd have to conclude that whatever the anomoly is, it can't be the Ark. Well, Mount Ararat is not the location claimed in the Bible, so the anomoly on Mount Ararat is worthless. You have no choice but to admit that it can't be Noah's Ark, because to do so would be to assume that the Bible is wrong. So why did you link to an article of photos of Mount Ararat when Oberon asked you for photos of Noah's Ark? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doomguarder Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 This is my last reply to you YoYo, which BTW is a very good nic for you. I have read all of your posts, tried to understand your questions and answers, and failed. This could be a Doomguarder problem, but I think the issue is on your end of the conversation. You truly are one of the most obtuse people I have had the misfortune of meeting on the internet. You argue about subjects you do not understand and have not researched. When the very book you claim is 100% correct is quoted you argue that the verse is out of context (that is, of course, unless you quoted it). I hope you are happy in your ignorance, you have my pity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atheist_thinker Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Im not really impling that the evidence is conclusive or correct. The structure of many sources to the answers of todays "unknowns" are supposedly in theoritical bias. My question is simply, Is theory "science" really legitimate. The point is that any "human" logic is apt to be incorrect, regardless of the number of tests. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't think everything thing is 100%, like true or either false, but everything goes by the odds and probablities. Any thing that has high enough probability then it has the momentum for being true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atheist_thinker Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 The ark, jesus landing in my backyard with elvis and smurfes are on the scale of 0.1. If there are pictures of the ark then I would really like to see them besides some blurry pics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 This is my whole point, Crazy tiger. There are many other sites that swear the opposite, scientifically of course. Really, Its not even about the fish; its about everthing that people are "claiming" to be scientific evidence. How does one scientist say one thing and another says different about the same "evaluation" of the same object? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You had to bring up a long-debunked piece of creationist mis-information... Now, why would you do that? As for your question... "How does one scientist say one thing and another says different about the same "evaluation" of the same object?" Your example of scientists doing that is WRONG BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT THE SAME SPECIES OF FISH! The only people who DO say they are the same are the Creationists who keep saying it in their constant attempts to discredit evolution. You do understand that you've parroted a lie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saviourmachine Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 This is a miracle. Seems like a monkey evolved that fast, that it even got his fingers on a keyboard and managed to convey some information it got from a website. Yo yo! Happy fishing for arks and coelacanths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 http://www.atsnn.com/story/46042.html Okay Yoyo, I read your evidence. Maybe you should read it again too. It expressed the intention of a bunch of guys during 2004 to climb Ararat and LOOK at areas indicating funny satallite pictures intending to see what's actually there (while yes they are hoping for the ark). This is not evidence of the ark's existence, this is the intention to LOOK for potential evidence. There is a difference. Looking for proof and finding proof are two very different things. So? They went last summer. It's almost summer again. Well? What did they find? If they'd found a boat (of any kind) we'd have heard about big ARK speculations early as last fall. It would have been all over CNN. Where are the follow-up articles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Um? If the "boatlike" object is confirmed to be the same dimensions of the Ark of the Bible, then it would validify the Flood of the Bible First off, validify is not a word. You seem to be mixing up solidify and validate. Second, no it wouldn't. If someone tells me that poseidon rose up out of the water during a storm, and launched a boat 60 miles inland, then "proves" it by showing us a boat 60 miles inland, is not proving that poseidon rose up out of the water during a storm!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 This is my whole point, Crazy tiger. There are many other sites that swear the opposite, scientifically of course. Really, Its not even about the fish; its about everthing that people are "claiming" to be scientific evidence. How does one scientist say one thing and another says different about the same "evaluation" of the same object? Show me one site that claims it's the same species. Just one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Show me one site that claims it's the same species. Just one.A reputable scientific resource, that is. No creationist or apologetic resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 A reputable scientific resource, that is. No creationist or apologetic resources. Hey, she said scientists....creationist and apologetic sources are not scientific.[/b] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 YoYo, to go back to your original question: Your question imagines scientists verifying the age of the Ark. By what experiments and methodology? If you want them to use scientific dating methodology to verify a hypothetical Ark, then you commit yourself to the results of those methodologies when they are used to date other things. Do you do this? Many things in geology and paleontology have already been dated by these methodologies. Do you deny their validity because the resulting dates don't match a literal reading of Genesis, or do you accept their dating even if it yields an "old earth" and explodes a literal reading of Genesis? If you hold out for the former, then you are not at all serious about wanting scientists to date anything. You have to follow the argument where it leads once you accept its methodology as valid. Your example of the coelecanth does not disprove the theory of evolution. It shows that fossils that were once believed to be of an extinct species of fish were actually of a still-living species of fish. No one claimed any individual coelecanth was millions of years old. Note what follows from the above paragraph. Scientists are willing to use experimental methods that are reproducible by anyone, regardless of religious presuppositions. They yield consistent results time after time. That's what builds an international community of scientists. You strike me as unwilling to accept the results of scientific research except in cases when they agree with your interpretation of the Bible. So you're not serious about letting science do its thing. Finally, your questions about whether science is theory are good ones. You touch on the philosophy of science. Try reading Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery, for starters, and then come back and continue the conversation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
narcissist Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 2 year old (yoyo) Ask some grown up questions and you might get some grown up answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts