Noah's Ark Found?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] How's that mocking it? You believe what it says. Snipes_2

Many christians take it a metaphorical story.. Not as truth, if people are going to claim that what the bible says in stories like Noahs Ark is 100% truth, not metaphor or a tall story covering up natural events.. Then be prepared to get mocked.

I doubt it ever existed, so this is probably another bogus story..

I doubt it ever existed, so this is probably another bogus story..

kerrman

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Many christians take it a metaphorical story.. Not as truth, if people are going to claim that what the bible says in stories like Noahs Ark is 100% truth, not metaphor or a tall story covering up natural events.. Then be prepared to get mocked.

scorch-62

I hope it turns out to be real and legit. Wouldn't that be way more awesome than anything else that could happen in the situation?l0ve

And inside are remains of animals not seen by man in 4000 years!

There are questions regarding carbon dating. The recent discoveries of dinosaur soft tissues and DNA, beetle wings retaining their sheen, salamander tissue, insect tissue, frozen penguin DNA, squid tissue and ink, in rocks dated to be "millions of years old" are tough ones to explain for the adherents of faith in scientific naturalism.

blackregiment

No, not really, and to accept this carbon dating while rejecting all other forms of radiometric dating is basically to assert that for whatever reason this particular instance of C-14 is the only isotope with a reliable half-life, or something thereabouts.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] How's that mocking it? You believe what it says. Snipes_2

Many christians take it a metaphorical story.. Not as truth, if people are going to claim that what the bible says in stories like Noahs Ark is 100% truth, not metaphor or a tall story covering up natural events.. Then be prepared to get mocked.

... Absolutely if they have the exact same ridiculous beliefs.. I have no problem with believiing in god.. But when people start disregarding scientific discoveries due to what their parents taught them and what they read from a religious book, I have problems.. These fundamentalists, are actually quite popular on the news when it comes to the Islamic faith.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Many christians take it a metaphorical story.. Not as truth, if people are going to claim that what the bible says in stories like Noahs Ark is 100% truth, not metaphor or a tall story covering up natural events.. Then be prepared to get mocked.

sSubZerOo

... Absolutely if they have the exact same ridiculous beliefs.. I have no problem with believiing in god.. But when people start disregarding scientific discoveries due to what their parents taught them and what they read from a religious book, I have problems.. These fundamentalists, are actually quite popular on the news when it comes to the Islamic faith.

[QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Why should someone be mocked for their Beliefs? Do you mock Muslims or Jewish people? The Qur'an or the Torah?Snipes_2

... What relevence does this hold? You make it sound like people are specifically going after the Bible.. They are not, its just the predominate fundamentalist followers on this site are of the Christian faith.. Blame unrepresentation if anything, expect the same amount of ridicule if a fundamentalist came on to this site of a different religion declaring certain things they believe as truth.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Why should someone be mocked for their Beliefs? Do you mock Muslims or Jewish people? The Qur'an or the Torah?Snipes_2

... Absolutely if they have the exact same ridiculous beliefs.. I have no problem with believiing in god.. But when people start disregarding scientific discoveries due to what their parents taught them and what they read from a religious book, I have problems.. These fundamentalists, are actually quite popular on the news when it comes to the Islamic faith.

No we arn't, we acknowledge that they found a boat.. Maybe even the boat thats depicted in Noah's Ark.. Now did that boat carry every animal, and other such wild claims? Hardly, most believe it was a story of a local flood within the Middle East.. Not the entire world, and that is the point.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="scorch-62"] Because stories that involve talking snakes and other biological impossibilities is stupid.sSubZerOo

... What relevence does this hold? You make it sound like people are specifically going after the Bible.. They are not, its just the predominate fundamentalist followers on this site are of the Christian faith.. Blame unrepresentation if anything, expect the same amount of ridicule if a fundamentalist came on to this site of a different religion declaring certain things they believe as truth.

Noah's Ark, because all the animals in the world were in walking distance and fit on a boat built by one guy :P

Honestly you believe that you will believe anything.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

... Absolutely if they have the exact same ridiculous beliefs.. I have no problem with believiing in god.. But when people start disregarding scientific discoveries due to what their parents taught them and what they read from a religious book, I have problems.. These fundamentalists, are actually quite popular on the news when it comes to the Islamic faith.

sSubZerOo

No we arn't, we acknowledge that they found a boat.. Maybe even the boat thats depicted in Noah's Ark.. Now did that boat carry every animal, and other such wild claims? Hardly, most believe it was a story of a local flood within the Middle East.. Not the entire world, and that is the point.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Have you ever read the Qur'an?

Snipes_2

... What relevence does this hold? You make it sound like people are specifically going after the Bible.. They are not, its just the predominate fundamentalist followers on this site are of the Christian faith.. Blame unrepresentation if anything, expect the same amount of ridicule if a fundamentalist came on to this site of a different religion declaring certain things they believe as truth.

.. Because the Christian faith is the predominate religion within the United States, AND these forums? That if your going to have any fundamentalist posting on the site its mainly going to be one of a Christian? So your obviously going to get the most backlash against that faith if anything else?

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

... What relevence does this hold? You make it sound like people are specifically going after the Bible.. They are not, its just the predominate fundamentalist followers on this site are of the Christian faith.. Blame unrepresentation if anything, expect the same amount of ridicule if a fundamentalist came on to this site of a different religion declaring certain things they believe as truth.

sSubZerOo

.. Because the Christian faith is the predominate religion within the United States, AND these forums? That if your going to have any fundamentalist posting on the site its mainly going to be one of a Christian? So your obviously going to get the most backlash against that faith if anything else?

There's no way people believe the story of Noah's Ark...do they?

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Many christians take it a metaphorical story.. Not as truth, if people are going to claim that what the bible says in stories like Noahs Ark is 100% truth, not metaphor or a tall story covering up natural events.. Then be prepared to get mocked.

scorch-62

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] People are disregarding this discovery. I don't see how it's logical. Snipes_2

No we arn't, we acknowledge that they found a boat.. Maybe even the boat thats depicted in Noah's Ark.. Now did that boat carry every animal, and other such wild claims? Hardly, most believe it was a story of a local flood within the Middle East.. Not the entire world, and that is the point.

This is making the ascertion that god exists, and we have no proof.. So we must take everything at face value.. You may think other wise, but thats not how the history or the science community thinks nor is it how many people think in these forums... The proof of burden is upon YOU to prove that its 100% fact, and for something like this your going to need alot more then just a supposed boat..

A) If the entire earth flooded, the animals would have to walk thousands of miles to reach him.. Not to mention many can only live in one supposed climate or they will die.. Either through disease or other such thing..

B) Animals is depicted as merely everything except insects.. We depend off insects, AND plants to survive.. If they all were wiped out, our ecosystem would collapse wither and die.. Infact there are already fears of this happening when it appears that the bees are disppearing and they are a prime polinator..

C) The size and construction of such a ship far exceeds that of a old man..

D) A pair of two is not enough to have the pro-creation of every spieces.. Ones like mice possibly, but ones that take long periods of time such as the larger mammals, not so much..

The burden of proof is upon you, not the other way around to disprove these.

There's no way people believe the story of Noah's Ark...do they?

urdead18

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

... What relevence does this hold? You make it sound like people are specifically going after the Bible.. They are not, its just the predominate fundamentalist followers on this site are of the Christian faith.. Blame unrepresentation if anything, expect the same amount of ridicule if a fundamentalist came on to this site of a different religion declaring certain things they believe as truth.

sSubZerOo

.. Because the Christian faith is the predominate religion within the United States, AND these forums? That if your going to have any fundamentalist posting on the site its mainly going to be one of a Christian? So your obviously going to get the most backlash against that faith if anything else?

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

No we arn't, we acknowledge that they found a boat.. Maybe even the boat thats depicted in Noah's Ark.. Now did that boat carry every animal, and other such wild claims? Hardly, most believe it was a story of a local flood within the Middle East.. Not the entire world, and that is the point.

sSubZerOo

This is making the ascertion that god exists, and we have no proof.. So we must take everything at face value.. You may think other wise, but thats not how the history or the science community thinks nor is it how many people think in these forums... The proof of burden is upon YOU to prove that its 100% fact, and for something like this your going to need alot more then just a supposed boat..

A) If the entire earth flooded, the animals would have to walk thousands of miles to reach him.. Not to mention many can only live in one supposed climate or they will die.. Either through disease or other such thing..

B) Animals is depicted as merely everything except insects.. We depend off insects, AND plants to survive.. If they all were wiped out, our ecosystem would collapse wither and die.. Infact there are already fears of this happening when it appears that the bees are disppearing and they are a prime polinator..

C) The size and construction of such a ship far exceeds that of a old man..

D) A pair of two is not enough to have the pro-creation of every spieces.. Ones like mice possibly, but ones that take long periods of time such as the larger mammals, not so much..

The burden of proof is upon you, not the other way around to disprove these.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] The relevance is, no one questions any other religion as much as they question the Christian faith. They do specifically go after the Bible. Snipes_2

.. Because the Christian faith is the predominate religion within the United States, AND these forums? That if your going to have any fundamentalist posting on the site its mainly going to be one of a Christian? So your obviously going to get the most backlash against that faith if anything else?

.. Who knows, they may be the most vocal.. But that doesn't mean anything.. Yet again, the majority of people in these forums have to deal with the Chrsitain faith more then any other religion most likely within the United States.. Furthermore with fundamentalism in Christian belief GROWING, expect to see more backlash on its criticism.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] How do you know though? Anything is possible with God. Snipes_2

This is making the ascertion that god exists, and we have no proof.. So we must take everything at face value.. You may think other wise, but thats not how the history or the science community thinks nor is it how many people think in these forums... The proof of burden is upon YOU to prove that its 100% fact, and for something like this your going to need alot more then just a supposed boat..

A) If the entire earth flooded, the animals would have to walk thousands of miles to reach him.. Not to mention many can only live in one supposed climate or they will die.. Either through disease or other such thing..

B) Animals is depicted as merely everything except insects.. We depend off insects, AND plants to survive.. If they all were wiped out, our ecosystem would collapse wither and die.. Infact there are already fears of this happening when it appears that the bees are disppearing and they are a prime polinator..

C) The size and construction of such a ship far exceeds that of a old man..

D) A pair of two is not enough to have the pro-creation of every spieces.. Ones like mice possibly, but ones that take long periods of time such as the larger mammals, not so much..

The burden of proof is upon you, not the other way around to disprove these.

I am not ruling him out because we have no evidence to prove he exists, the proof of burden is upon you to make that variable.. This would be me argueing that Ireland would beat Great Britain because Super Man would come in its aid.. Are we suppose to take this kind of point seriously in wieghing against the likely outcome of such a conflict?

Like I said, You can't disprove there's no God. So, how can you rule him out?Snipes_2

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

This is making the ascertion that god exists, and we have no proof.. So we must take everything at face value.. You may think other wise, but thats not how the history or the science community thinks nor is it how many people think in these forums... The proof of burden is upon YOU to prove that its 100% fact, and for something like this your going to need alot more then just a supposed boat..

A) If the entire earth flooded, the animals would have to walk thousands of miles to reach him.. Not to mention many can only live in one supposed climate or they will die.. Either through disease or other such thing..

B) Animals is depicted as merely everything except insects.. We depend off insects, AND plants to survive.. If they all were wiped out, our ecosystem would collapse wither and die.. Infact there are already fears of this happening when it appears that the bees are disppearing and they are a prime polinator..

C) The size and construction of such a ship far exceeds that of a old man..

D) A pair of two is not enough to have the pro-creation of every spieces.. Ones like mice possibly, but ones that take long periods of time such as the larger mammals, not so much..

The burden of proof is upon you, not the other way around to disprove these.

sSubZerOo

I am not ruling him out because we have no evidence to prove he exists, the proof of burden is upon you to make that variable.. This would be me argueing that Ireland would beat Great Britain because Super Man would come in its aid.. Are we suppose to take this kind of point seriously in wieghing against the likely outcome of such a conflict?

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]Like I said, You can't disprove there's no God. So, how can you rule him out?xaos

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] How do you know though? Anything is possible with God. Snipes_2

This is making the ascertion that god exists, and we have no proof.. So we must take everything at face value.. You may think other wise, but thats not how the history or the science community thinks nor is it how many people think in these forums... The proof of burden is upon YOU to prove that its 100% fact, and for something like this your going to need alot more then just a supposed boat..

A) If the entire earth flooded, the animals would have to walk thousands of miles to reach him.. Not to mention many can only live in one supposed climate or they will die.. Either through disease or other such thing..

B) Animals is depicted as merely everything except insects.. We depend off insects, AND plants to survive.. If they all were wiped out, our ecosystem would collapse wither and die.. Infact there are already fears of this happening when it appears that the bees are disppearing and they are a prime polinator..

C) The size and construction of such a ship far exceeds that of a old man..

D) A pair of two is not enough to have the pro-creation of every spieces.. Ones like mice possibly, but ones that take long periods of time such as the larger mammals, not so much..

The burden of proof is upon you, not the other way around to disprove these.

[QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Why should someone be mocked for their Beliefs? Do you mock Muslims or Jewish people? The Qur'an or the Torah?alexside1

[QUOTE="urdead18"]

There's no way people believe the story of Noah's Ark...do they?

alexside1

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Like I said, You can't disprove there's no God. So, how can you rule him out?Snipes_2

I am not ruling him out because we have no evidence to prove he exists, the proof of burden is upon you to make that variable.. This would be me argueing that Ireland would beat Great Britain because Super Man would come in its aid.. Are we suppose to take this kind of point seriously in wieghing against the likely outcome of such a conflict?

This would be me argueing that Ireland would beat Great Britain because Super Man would come in its aid.. Are we suppose to take this kind of point seriously in weighing against the likely outcome of such a conflict?

sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

.. Because the Christian faith is the predominate religion within the United States, AND these forums? That if your going to have any fundamentalist posting on the site its mainly going to be one of a Christian? So your obviously going to get the most backlash against that faith if anything else?

sSubZerOo

.. Who knows, they may be the most vocal.. But that doesn't mean anything.. Yet again, the majority of people in these forums have to deal with the Chrsitain faith more then any other religion most likely within the United States.. Furthermore with fundamentalism in Christian belief GROWING, expect to see more backlash on its criticism.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Like I said, You can't disprove there's no God. So, how can you rule him out?Snipes_2

I am not ruling him out because we have no evidence to prove he exists, the proof of burden is upon you to make that variable.. This would be me argueing that Ireland would beat Great Britain because Super Man would come in its aid.. Are we suppose to take this kind of point seriously in wieghing against the likely outcome of such a conflict?

No I am not argueing against the Bible because YOUR persepctive may not be correct.. Other Christians like LJ have voiced before that Noah's Ark is a myth based upon real events.. That a flood did happen, but it was localized within the Middle East. So yet again, why is yours correct and his isn't? especially when his syniposis no way impedes with the base beliefs within the Bible while cattering to the scientific method and reasonign?

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]Like I said, You can't disprove there's no God. So, how can you rule him out?xaos

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"]Like I said, You can't disprove there's no God. So, how can you rule him out?Snipes_2

This is the final inerrant proof of the non-existence of God.

God: "I refuse to prove I exist, for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing."

but says mankind "the found ark is a dead give away, solid, undeniable evidence. It proves that you do exist, andtherefore you don't;quod erat demonstrandum.

God: "Oh dear. I hadn't thought of that."
and he immediately vanishes in a puff of logic.Leon2793

[QUOTE="alexside1"]

[QUOTE="scorch-62"] Because stories that involve talking snakes and other biological impossibilities is stupid.scorch-62

They found the Ark though. Snipes_2

They found something. That it is the ark described in the Bible is a decision that they have arrived at, and which others have arrived at countless numbers of times throughout history. That people see nothing wrong with being basically absolutely certain that this is "the" ark, when people have been absolutely certain repeatedly in the past, baffles me.

Of course, beyond that, I would not be surprised if the stories in the Bible have some basis in historical fact. For example, the plagues of Egypt describe very well the resulting fallout of a volcanic eruption. This does not mean that the part where it says "God did it" is true, however; it is just as easy to suppose that that part was the attempt of a primitive people to understand something recorded in oral history.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"]Like I said, You can't disprove there's no God. So, how can you rule him out?alexside1

Snipes_2

Christian Faith yes, but I was not targeting that.. The evangelical movement which are Christian fundamentalists aka extremeists are growing within the United States.. We just had a Evangelical president in office not too long ago, and its literally hijacked the Republican Party.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

sSubZerOo

Christian Faith yes, but I was not targeting that.. The evangelical movement which are Christian fundamentalists aka extremeists are growing within the United States.. We just had a Evangelical president in office not too long ago, and its literally hijacked the Republican Party.

Are they really growing? Or are they just becoming more vocal?

[QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="alexside1"] It's was describe as a talking serpent, (which back then could be represent Staten; lost of legs describe the evolution of the snake?). Besides, you need to be careful on what you said because you just insulted Christianity in general.alexside1

. . . because serpents have a greater tendency towards speech than a snake does.

Your point?

That the distinction is completely irrelevant because animals can't talk.