*PROOF OF NOAH'S ARK & THE FLOOD*

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. Yes Noah's Ark is real, and has been found.
2. Like the Bible says, its in the Range of Newly formed mountains of Ararat, Newly formed in the time of The Flood.
3. Before The Flood, there was only high hills, and the Earth was a real round ball, like the moon.
4. Stay tuned and enjoy all this thread and a bag of chips, its only getting started.
5. Here's the Proof Link: http://www.arkdiscovery.com/noah's_ark.htm

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Labrocca]

Kinda cool stuff. Archeology is a neat field.

[AlonzoMourning23]

In April businessman and Christian activist Daniel McGivern announced with great fanfare a planned summer expedition to Mount Ararat in Turkey. The project, he said, would prove that the fabled Noah's ark was buried there.

Explorers have long searched for the ark on the Turkish mountain. At a news conference in Washington, D.C., McGivern presented satellite images, which he claimed show a human-made object—Noah's ark—nestled in the ice and snow some 15,000 feet (4,570 meters) up the mountain.

"We are not excavating it," McGivern told the audience. "We're going to photograph it and, God willing, you're all going to see it." If successful, he said, the discovery would be "the greatest event since the resurrection of Christ."


The announcement received generous news coverage. But the U.S. $900,000 expedition quickly hit a snag: The Turkish government refused to grant the explorers permission to climb the mountain. Soon, the mission itself was put on ice.

But how credible was the expedition in the first place?

McGivern may have been more interested in generating publicity than mounting a serious search, critics now suggest. By making an early announcement, he may have tried to persuade the Turkish government into granting him a permit. Few expeditions have actually obtained clearance to climb Mount Ararat, which is located in a military zone.

The choice of expedition leader—a Turkish academic named Ahmet Ali Arslan, who claims to have climbed Mount Ararat 50 times in 40 years—also raised a red flag with those familiar with previous expeditions.

(Neither McGivern nor Arslan responded to requests by National Geographic News for interviews for this story.)

Arslan was involved in a 1993 documentary, aired on CBS television, which claimed to have found the ark. Some of the evidence presented in that documentary turned out to be a hoax, raising concerns about Arslan's testimony.

Some archaeologists charge that Noah's-ark expeditions like McGivern's are nothing but wild-goose chases. Even if the ark existed, these scholars argue, it is unlikely that the wood from the boat would still be preserved today, thousands of years later. Moving ice is likely to have swept away any wooden structure, experts say.

"These expeditions are a waste of time, energy, and money—all of which could be put to much better use by supporting existing scholarly excavations around the world," said Eric Cline, a historian and archaeologist at the George Washington University in Washington, D.C.
The story of Noah's ark is found in the Bible's Book of Genesis. It says God saw how corrupt the Earth had become and decided to "bring floodwaters … to destroy all life under the heavens."

God reportedly told Noah to preserve life on Earth by building an ark and filling it with two of every species on the planet. The rains unleashed by God are said to have lasted for 40 days and 40 nights. The Bible says that water came from under the Earth as well. When the waters receded, the ark landed in the region of Mount Ararat, according to the biblical account.

Reports of ark sightings have been common. Witnesses have described an old wooden structure sticking out of the snow and ice near the summit of Mount Ararat, which is located in Turkey near its border with Armenia and Iran.

Because of Soviet complaints that explorers were spying, the region was off limits until 1982. Since then, scores of climbers have scaled the mountain but failed to substantiate what the object is.

In 1997 the U.S. government released images taken by its Air Force in 1949 that were believed by some to show a structure covered by ice on Mount Ararat. These photographs had reportedly been kept in a government file labeled "Ararat Anomaly." However, experts deemed the images inconclusive.

While no scientific evidence of the ark's existence has emerged, the Turkish government has reportedly documented cases of expeditions bringing wood up to Mount Ararat and "finding" it the next year.

In the CBS documentary, The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark, a man named George Jammal displayed what he claimed to be an ancient piece of wood from inside the ark. Jammal, an Israeli actor living at the time in Long Beach, California, later said the wood was actually from some railroad tracks in Long Beach. He admitted he had never set foot in Turkey.

The documentary also dramatized a 1989 solo expedition by Ahmet Ali Arslan in which he claims to have come within 200 feet (60 yards) of the ark and photographed it. But experts have questioned the authenticity of the photos and Arslan's story.

"Ahmet is a big talker," said one well-known ark researcher, who asked that his name be withheld so as not to jeopardize his own chances of obtaining an expedition permit from the Turkish authorities. "In one conversation he will say that he has 3,000 photos, and in another conversation ten minutes later 5,000 photos."

No Proof

For years, attempts by McGivern to have satellite images taken of Mount Ararat failed. In the summer of 2003 he recruited DigitalGlobe, a commercial satellite-imagery firm, to try again. This time, a heat wave that hit Europe that year had partially melted the snowcap on top of the mountain.

McGivern claimed the new images showed a large structure, with vertical beams and one horizontal beam, buried on the mountain. He said he was 98 percent sure it was the ark.

Most experts, however, were skeptical. The object in the images could easily be a rock formation, they said, adding that some of the photos were nonscientific and fuzzy.

"It's very easy to get something that looks like it's man-made [in these images]. But once you get there, it turns out to be nothing," said Lorence Collins, a retired geology professor at California State University at Northridge and an expert on photo-geology. "It's simply hopeful thinking."

WorldNetDaily.com, a politically conservative Web site that often reports religious news, quoted McGivern: "The government of Turkey did not issue a research visa, which is sad, but it's their country. We haven't totally given up, but it's pretty obvious they're not going to give us one."

Melting Glaciers

If Noah's ark exists, could it be buried on Mount Ararat? That depends on whether the flood actually happened.

Some Christians were encouraged by a theory advanced by Walter Pitman and William Ryan, two geology professors at Columbia University in New York. The researchers suggested that a great deluge at the end of the last ice age, 8,400 years ago, caused the Aegean Sea to overflow into the Black Sea.

However, other geologists argue the Black Sea was already full by the time Noah is said to have sailed off on his ark. They say a much slower rise in the sea level occurred up to 12,000 years ago, as the glaciers melted.

"Evidence [instead] points conclusively to strong outflow from the Black Sea basin into the Mediterranean through the intervening Marmara Sea since about 11,000 years ago," said Richard Hiscott, a professor of earth sciences at Memorial University in St. John, Canada.

Most geologists seem to agree that it would probably be impossible for a ship to make landfall at an altitude of 15,000 feet (4,570 meters). (Some explorers claim the ark is buried elsewhere, noting the Bible talks about several mountains.)

Cline, the George Washington University historian and archaeologist, calls the Noah's ark expeditions "fringe archaeology."

"Speaking strictly for myself," he said, "I am happy to stay out of such an area of debatable research."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0920_040920_noahs_ark.html

There's no proof for noah's ark and evidence is weak at best. Even if a ship were discovered, it by no means provides evidence that the events outlined in the bible were accurate, or that earlier, less miraculous stories (like gilgamesh) aren't closer to what happened, if anything.

[forest_ranger254]

Sorry bout that,

1. Yes Noah's Ark is real, and has been found.
2. Like the Bible says, its in the Range of Newly formed mountains of Ararat, Newly formed in the time of The Flood.
3. Before The Flood, there was only high hills, and the Earth was a real round ball, like the moon.
4. Stay tuned and enjoy all this thread and a bag of chips, its only getting started.
5. Here's the Proof Link: http://www.arkdiscovery.com/noah's_ark.htm

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


I am a Christian, but I also happen to have a small amount of knowledge of how decomposition works. An ark made of gopher wood would have already decompose by now. Thus, I doubt there will be tangible proof found, considering that the ark is already nothing more than a bunch of dirt. Understand that this does not mean I don't believe the Bible story is true, it is just something I take on faith.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. Sure take it on faith if you must, but proof is better.
2. Thomas had to see, and he did see, Jesus wasn't mad.
3. There's proof in the world on everything, even the Resurrected Jesus has proof.
4. Not requiring proof is an act of trying to earn works.
5. There's no disgrace in requiring proof, as have many people in the Bible asked for proof from Gawd when having contact with Gawd.
6. The proof of the Bible is provable, and the facts of The Flood are found.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[forest_ranger254]

Sorry bout that,

1. Sure take it on faith if you must, but proof is better.
2. Thomas had to see, and he did see, Jesus wasn't mad.
3. There's proof in the world on everything, even the Resurrected Jesus has proof.
4. Not requiring proof is an act of trying to earn works.
5. There's no disgrace in requiring proof, as have many people in the Bible asked for proof from Gawd when having contact with Gawd.
6. The proof of the Bible is provable, and the facts of The Flood are found.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


1. Got a scripture for that?
2. But Jesus then said that those who do not see and believe are more blessed than those who do.
3. Let's see, he left behind the Bible and the Christian faith. But try this, can you prove conclusively that Job existed, considering that the events take place well before the journey Abraham made?
4. Not requiring proof is an act according to the Bible. "Faith is the evidence of things hoped for..."
5. And did they always get proof? no they didn't. And quit mispelling God's name. If you are so ashamed of your God, then why don't you get out of the debate?
6. And we wonder why the public looks at Christianity and bursts out laughing. I have faith that God is coming for the rapture. Prove that He is.

En Cristo por siempra,
Polean Drenden

[CheesyMuslim]

[color=white]

Sorry bout that,

1. Sure take it on faith if you must, but proof is better.
2. Thomas had to see, and he did see, Jesus wasn't mad.
3. There's proof in the world on everything, even the Resurrected Jesus has proof.
4. Not requiring proof is an act of trying to earn works.
5. There's no disgrace in requiring proof, as have many people in the Bible asked for proof from Gawd when having contact with Gawd.
6. The proof of the Bible is provable, and the facts of The Flood are found.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


1. Got a scripture for that?

a) If you honestly research scriptures you will find that most humans who had contact with Gawd did ask for proof. I could list them, but you should know which ones did.



2. But Jesus then said that those who do not see and believe are more blessed than those who do.



b) Thing is Jesus was right, many over the centuries never had a chance to meet him in person, so he was explaining to you and me, that there is much honor on our faith over those who did see him, many of them did not believe, we have and Jesus place's much honor on this unseen faith, and yet we still believed.




3. Let's see, he left behind the Bible and the Christian faith. But try this, can you prove conclusively that Job existed, considering that the events take place well before the journey Abraham made?


c) Sure, but that's like asking can I prove that the sun will come up tomorrow, the proof is he was written about in scriptures, that's proof enough for me.



4. Not requiring proof is an act according to the Bible. "Faith is the evidence of things hoped for..."



d) Humans nearly always require proof, even you do right now, you seem conflicted.



5. And did they always get proof? no they didn't. And quit mispelling God's name. If you are so ashamed of your God, then why don't you get out of the debate?



e) Most times Gawd did give proof, you seem quite the instigator, and want to tell me what to do, no thanks. Ashamed of you perhaps.



6. And we wonder why the public looks at Christianity and bursts out laughing. I have faith that God is coming for the rapture. Prove that He is.


f) I don't need no stinking Liberal Public, if they laugh now, they scream with terror later, they are more or less going to be left out, just like what happened during Noah's time. The proof is in front of your eye's on a daily bases, as Jesus said this world, would conclude clearly described as he said, from his mouth. Maybe you should look into it.

En Cristo por siempra,
Polean Drenden


g) But you seem to have drifted off topic, this thread is about *Noah's Ark Found & The Flood*

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[forest_ranger254]

g) But you seem to have drifted off topic, this thread is about *Noah's Ark Found & The Flood*

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


Yes it is. However, one of the underlying theories is that God always gives proof. I go by faith. Remember, Jesus said that faith that is only the size of a mustard seed could move mountains. There is no proof of Noah's ark because it would decompose. The ark was made of wood. Wood decomposes. that means the ark decomposes.

[CheesyMuslim]

g) But you seem to have drifted off topic, this thread is about *Noah's Ark Found & The Flood*

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


Yes it is. However, one of the underlying theories is that God always gives proof.

Sorry bout that,

1. Proof is there that pesky ship's shell up on a mountain top, in a mud flow that came from up higher on the mountain.


I go by faith. Remember, Jesus said that faith that is only the size of a mustard seed could move mountains.


2. Maybe allegorically speaking this mustard seed is Noah's Ark. It has been moved, and they found many seeds in it. How did these seeds get in it?



There is no proof of Noah's ark because it would decompose.


3. Gopher Wood, now do you really know what gopher wood is?




The ark was made of wood. Wood decomposes. that means the ark decomposes.



4. Wood also petrifies. Turns to stone. Some one looked back and turned to stone. By looking back at Noah's Ark, we find it turned to stone.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Nathan Brazil]

Why on earth would anyone use ALUMINUM in boat construction? I mean, Noah had access to bronze, which is far more chemically suited for a marine environment than ALUMINUM.

Just another one of God's little screwups, I guess.

[forest_ranger254]

g) But you seem to have drifted off topic, this thread is about *Noah's Ark Found & The Flood*

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


Yes it is. However, one of the underlying theories is that God always gives proof.

Sorry bout that,

1. Proof is there that pesky ship's shell up on a mountain top, in a mud flow that came from up higher on the mountain.


I go by faith. Remember, Jesus said that faith that is only the size of a mustard seed could move mountains.


2. Maybe allegorically speaking this mustard seed is Noah's Ark. It has been moved, and they found many seeds in it. How did these seeds get in it?



There is no proof of Noah's ark because it would decompose.


3. Gopher Wood, now do you really know what gopher wood is?




The ark was made of wood. Wood decomposes. that means the ark decomposes.



4. Wood also petrifies. Turns to stone. Some one looked back and turned to stone. By looking back at Noah's Ark, we find it turned to stone.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


Somebody get me a scientific show of what happened. For one, Noah and his family would need wood to build their house. With no use for the ark anymore, the logical thing to do is to use that wood. The next thing is the fact that wood petrifies under certain circumstances, and there is nothing in the Bible to even assume it petrified. Matter of fact, I have proof that the conditions were not met for wood to petrify:
How long wood takes to petrify depends on the conditions. First, the wood needs to be sealed away from oxygen so that it petrifies at all, rather than decays; petrification can only take place under anoxic conditions where the organisms which contribute to decay can't live. However, if that condition is met it turns into a "how long is a piece of string" question.
The Ark was never buried like that. The Bible places it on top of the mountain, not in it. Sorry, that argument does not stand up. Under the conditions in the Bible, the ark would decompose.

[forest_ranger254]

Why on earth would anyone use ALUMINUM in boat construction?Â*Â*I mean, Noah had access to bronze, which is far more chemically suited for a marine environment than ALUMINUM.

Just another one of God's little screwups, I guess.



??? What does this have to do with the price of tea in china. For one, what evidence is there that Noah had any kind of metal?

[Nathan Brazil]

Why on earth would anyone use ALUMINUM in boat construction?Â*Â*I mean, Noah had access to bronze, which is far more chemically suited for a marine environment than ALUMINUM.

Just another one of God's little screwups, I guess.



??? What does this have to do with the price of tea in china. For one, what evidence is there that Noah had any kind of metal?


Read the link Chesswarsnow posted.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. The world as it was before The Flood, was flat, on the most part.
1.a) There was high hills, no more than three hundred feet tall.
2. The Oceans were not. And it had never rained before.
2.a) As far as that goes river were not.
3. There was a small stream.
4. It flowed out of the Garden of Eden.
5. There were lakes and ponds.
5.a) Some fresh water, some salt.
6. The waters were calm, without waves or ripples.
7. When The Flood happened during the close of it the Mountains were thrust up, and the Ocean Bottoms tanked out, due to the massive weight of the waters, making room for all the extra water from the deep, and the firmament.
8. The Firmament made the sky appear purple.
9. But after this huge bubble burst that encompassed the whole Earth, all living things lost a protective layer that used to block ultra violet rays from the sun.
9.a) This is the main reason humans don't live till their 900 these days.
10. Noah's Ark was on top of Mount Ararat, but over time has been brought down from a mud slide, seeing the Ark was built so well it wasn't destroyed.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[forest_ranger254]

Sorry bout that,

1. The world as it was before The Flood, was flat, on the most part.
1.a) There was high hills, no more than three hundred feet tall.

Biblical evidence?:


2. The Oceans were not. And it had never rained before.
2.a) As far as that goes river were not.

Again, biblical evidence, please. here is mine against:

2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Looks like that destroyed that one.

3. There was a small stream.
4. It flowed out of the Garden of Eden.

This is the dumbest thing in the list. Here is something that will blow it apart. the mention of two modern day rivers existing at the time.
Genesis 2:14
And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
And there are two more than are mentioned in this verse. The Euphrates river is a big river.



5. There were lakes and ponds.
5.a) Some fresh water, some salt.

Again, refer to the above passage of God moving on the waters.

6. The waters were calm, without waves or ripples.

Again, since the waters mentioned are the oceans, and the waves are caused by the tide, which is caused by the gravitational pull of the sun and moon, you have no leg to stand on. No, this is scientifically impossible. Even when the world is flattened at the second coming, there will be waves. Only the new earth will have a lack of water.

7. When The Flood happened during the close of it the Mountains were thrust up, and the Ocean Bottoms tanked out, due to the massive weight of the waters, making room for all the extra water from the deep, and the firmament.

THE DEEP. What is the ocean referred to as in the rest of the Bible? The deep. duhdiduh.

8. The Firmament made the sky appear purple.

What?!?! There is no evidence of this.

9. But after this huge bubble burst that encompassed the whole Earth, all living things lost a protective layer that used to block ultra violet rays from the sun.

Water does not block ultraviolet rays. Shoot, it magnifies them just like it does light.

9.a) This is the main reason humans don't live till their 900 these days.

No, disease is the reason. Diseases didn't have time to become as advanced as they are now. With their constant encounters with the human immune system and modern antibiotics, they have become stronger and stronger, lessening the human life expectancy. I am not even trying yet, just wait until I get into the real technical stuff.


10. Noah's Ark was on top of Mount Ararat, but over time has been brought down from a mud slide, seeing the Ark was built so well it wasn't destroyed.

And why wouldn't Noah, obviously a good enough carpenter to build the ark, use the wood in the ark to build a home? You have been building straw man on straw man since I met you. Nobody is on your side here. At least I am taking a pragmatic view of the evidence, or lack thereof. You make a good storywriter, but it is not evidenced by history.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. The world as it was before The Flood, was flat, on the most part.
1.a) There was high hills, no more than three hundred feet tall.

Biblical evidence?:

1. It is written look for it.


2. The Oceans were not. And it had never rained before.
2.a) As far as that goes river were not.


2. a) Gawd took the water away and made land, oceans came later during The Flood.
b) Thats why Noah's Had to trust and have faith in Gawd, he to never saw rain.
c) The rivers were more like streams, back then, now they are much different after The Flood.
c2) This only stream was the one, that branched out into the four rivers.

Again, biblical evidence, please. here is mine against:

2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Looks like that destroyed that one.


3. Nope, not really, So void and without form and darkness spells what? This was the early stage of creation.
3.a) Adam and Eve came later, along with the lakes and ponds.

3. There was a small stream.
4. It flowed out of the Garden of Eden.

This is the dumbest thing in the list. Here is something that will blow it apart. the mention of two modern day rivers existing at the time.
Genesis 2:14
And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
And there are two more than are mentioned in this verse. The Euphrates river is a big river.


5. Sure it is now, but not back then, it was just a stream, but after The Flood it became a huge river.



5. There were lakes and ponds.
5.a) Some fresh water, some salt.

Again, refer to the above passage of God moving on the waters.

6. The waters were calm, without waves or ripples.

Again, since the waters mentioned are the oceans, and the waves are caused by the tide, which is caused by the gravitational pull of the sun and moon, you have no leg to stand on. No, this is scientifically impossible. Even when the world is flattened at the second coming, there will be waves. Only the new earth will have a lack of water.


6. As it was then it will be again, when this era is over.

7. When The Flood happened during the close of it the Mountains were thrust up, and the Ocean Bottoms tanked out, due to the massive weight of the waters, making room for all the extra water from the deep, and the firmament.

THE DEEP. What is the ocean referred to as in the rest of the Bible? The deep. duhdiduh.

8. The Firmament made the sky appear purple.

What?!?! There is no evidence of this.




9. But after this huge bubble burst that encompassed the whole Earth, all living things lost a protective layer that used to block ultra violet rays from the sun.

Water does not block ultraviolet rays. Shoot, it magnifies them just like it does light.

9.a) This is the main reason humans don't live till their 900 these days.

No, disease is the reason. Diseases didn't have time to become as advanced as they are now. With their constant encounters with the human immune system and modern antibiotics, they have become stronger and stronger, lessening the human life expectancy. I am not even trying yet, just wait until I get into the real technical stuff.


10. Noah's Ark was on top of Mount Ararat, but over time has been brought down from a mud slide, seeing the Ark was built so well it wasn't destroyed.

And why wouldn't Noah, obviously a good enough carpenter to build the ark, use the wood in the ark to build a home? You have been building straw man on straw man since I met you. Nobody is on your side here. At least I am taking a pragmatic view of the evidence, or lack thereof. You make a good storywriter, but it is not evidenced by history.




Regards,
SirjamesofTexas

[forest_ranger254]

1. The world as it was before The Flood, was flat, on the most part.
1.a) There was high hills, no more than three hundred feet tall.

Biblical evidence?:

1. It is written look for it.[/quote]

Sorry, but I do not do your research for you. YOU FIND THE SCRIPTURE OR DROP THE POINT.


2. The Oceans were not. And it had never rained before.
2.a) As far as that goes river were not.

Then what waters did God move over. Considering the fact that the earth was without form, all there was before creation was ocean. Then God created land, and created the four rivers, which includes the Euphrates River and the Tigris river. what you say is directly contradictory with the Bible.


2. a) Gawd took the water away and made land, oceans came later during The Flood.
b) Thats why Noah's Had to trust and have faith in Gawd, he to never saw rain.
c) The rivers were more like streams, back then, now they are much different after The Flood.
c2) This only stream was the one, that branched out into the four rivers.


IT WAS CALLED A RIVER. READ THE VERSE.

Again, biblical evidence, please. here is mine against:

2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Looks like that destroyed that one.


3. Nope, not really, So void and without form and darkness spells what? This was the early stage of creation.
3.a) Adam and Eve came later, along with the lakes and ponds.


You know, you have yet to bring in even one Bible verse in your whole posting on here. We wonder why you have such a low reputation on this site.

This is the dumbest thing in the list. Here is something that will blow it apart. the mention of two modern day rivers existing at the time.
Genesis 2:14
And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
And there are two more than are mentioned in this verse. The Euphrates river is a big river.


5. Sure it is now, but not back then, it was just a stream, but after The Flood it became a huge river.


Now that is definitely the stupidest thing I have heard. The Euphrates is fed by an underground river. The flood would do nothing to that


Again, since the waters mentioned are the oceans, and the waves are caused by the tide, which is caused by the gravitational pull of the sun and moon, you have no leg to stand on. No, this is scientifically impossible. Even when the world is flattened at the second coming, there will be waves. Only the new earth will have a lack of water.


6. As it was then it will be again, when this era is over.

??? Quit being so cryptic. I have already stated that will be the NEW EARTH. there will be NO WATER on it, not a lake or a pond.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. What makes you think there won't be water?
2. Read the part where it says there was high hills, that's what I am talking about, before The Flood there was high hills, but after The Flood the world had Newly Formed Mountains, when the Bible was written they had to refer to things that they saw, not things that were.
3. The same goes for the rivers.
4. The waters were over the Earth till Gawd put them up in the sky, making the firmament.
5. This is when Gawd, made the lakes and ponds, and separated the land from the waters. Before he made man and woman.
6. The firmament took away the tide effect of the lakes and ponds.
6. a) It would shift and move over the Earth, countering the effects of gravitational pulls.
7. Yes the stream that came from the Garden of Eden was formed from the four springs, which made the four streams. And the Streams were sourced of the springs, that came from the Inner Garden of Eden.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[forest_ranger254]

Sorry bout that,

1. What makes you think there won't be water?

Revelation 21:1
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

2. Read the part where it says there was high hills, that's what I am talking about, before The Flood there was high hills, but after The Flood the world had Newly Formed Mountains, when the Bible was written they had to refer to things that they saw, not things that were.

cryptic cryptic cryptic. I want book, chapter, and verse. If it is Biblical, it will be there. If it isn't you will never find it.

5. This is when Gawd, made the lakes and ponds, and separated the land from the waters. Before he made man and woman.

All I see in the creation is seperated the lands from the waters. No mention of how big the waters. In Hebrew, words are listed from least to greatest in the way of prominence. Since "waters" is the last word, it stands to reason that there was more water than land.

6. The firmament took away the tide effect of the lakes and ponds.
6. a) It would shift and move over the Earth, countering the effects of gravitational pulls.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Someone tell me, why does the gravitational pull effect the magma beneath the crust? Number one, EVERYTHING GENERATES GRAVITY. This means that the firmament would generate the gravitational pulls as well, and since the pull of the firmament would be in the same direction as the moon's pull, it would make the tide even bigger. Makes for some fun surfing I believe.

7. Yes the stream that came from the Garden of Eden was formed from the four springs, which made the four streams. And the Streams were sourced of the springs, that came from the Inner Garden of Eden.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


The river flowed into the four springs??? The Bible clearly puts the split downstream from the source. I think you are just making this up as we go along. You ever thought of taking a philosophy class?

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. Well the Oceans will go back up into the firmament.
2. And all the Mountains will be brought back down low, only high hills will remain.
3. The Earth's gravity is very strong, with it and the Firmament, this caused the bodies of water, which were ponds and lakes to be very calm as glass.
4. You want me to search for book, chapter and verse?
5. You are a scholar, you do a search, google for it.
5.a) Type *High Hills*
6. The Four Springs were the source, you didn't understand that?
7. When the world was being created, it was a void place, with water covering the entire surface, and had no life in the waters, it was void of life whatsoever.
8 Gawd put the water in the sky, except for the ponds and lakes, some salt some fresh.
9. You need everything spelt out for you huh ?, Whatever your name is.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[forest_ranger254]

Sorry bout that,

1. Well the Oceans will go back up into the firmament.
2. And all the Mountains will be brought back down low, only high hills will remain.
3. The Earth's gravity is very strong, with it and the Firmament, this caused the bodies of water, which were ponds and lakes to be very calm as glass.
4. You want me to search for book, chapter and verse?
5. You are a scholar, you do a search, google for it.
5.a) Type *High Hills*
6. The Four Springs were the source, you didn't understand that?
7. When the world was being created, it was a void place, with water covering the entire surface, and had no life in the waters, it was void of life whatsoever.
8 Gawd put the water in the sky, except for the ponds and lakes, some salt some fresh.
9. You need everything spelt out for you huh ?, Whatever your name is.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas



Revelations says that the world will be a perfect sphere with a single "high mountain" on which Jerusalem will sit. Sounds like the plains and forests all about, not a lake to be found. The Bible puts the fork DOWNSTREAM from the source. It says that it COMES TO a point where it splits. If it is COMING TO that point, it is flowing into the springs.

En Cristo por siempra,
Polean Drenden.

PS: there, you have a name to put to me.
A Doulos forever,
Polean Drenden

[CheesyMuslim]

[size=small]

Sorry bout that,

1. Well the Oceans will go back up into the firmament.
2. And all the Mountains will be brought back down low, only high hills will remain.
3. The Earth's gravity is very strong, with it and the Firmament, this caused the bodies of water, which were ponds and lakes to be very calm as glass.
4. You want me to search for book, chapter and verse?
5. You are a scholar, you do a search, google for it.
5.a) Type *High Hills*
6. The Four Springs were the source, you didn't understand that?
7. When the world was being created, it was a void place, with water covering the entire surface, and had no life in the waters, it was void of life whatsoever.
8 Gawd put the water in the sky, except for the ponds and lakes, some salt some fresh.
9. You need everything spelt out for you huh ?, Whatever your name is.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas



Revelations says that the world will be a perfect sphere with a single "high mountain" on which Jerusalem will sit. Sounds like the plains and forests all about, not a lake to be found.

1. No there will be lakes and ponds, just like in pre flood times.

The Bible puts the fork DOWNSTREAM from the source.

2. Sure the Fork was down stream, but the Four Springs were in The Garden, which all flowed into one stream, then went through The Garden passing out of The Garden, then some distance away split into four streams.[b]

It says that it COMES TO a point where it splits. If it is COMING TO that point, it is flowing into the springs.

3. When you were standing at this junction, outside of The GardenÂ*Â*where the Four Streams split off, all these streams appeared to be a point that met the one single stream coming from The Garden, so in away there was a pointed looking area in the land where this branching of the stream took place. And the water didn't flow into the springs, it flowed away from them, they were the source, I don't know how you read that it was backasswards.

En Cristo por siempra,
Polean Drenden.

4. Nice to put a real name to your posts, SirPolean

PS: there, you have a name to put to me.
A Doulos forever,
Polean Drenden

[forest_ranger254]

1. No there will be lakes and ponds, just like in pre flood times.

Read this and tell me what it says:

Revelation 21
1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

2And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

3And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

4And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

5And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

6And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

7He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

8But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

9And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.

10And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

11Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;

12And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:

13On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates.

14And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

15And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof.

16And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.

17And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.

18And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass.

19And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald;

20The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolyte; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst.

21And the twelve gates were twelve pearls: every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.

22And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

23And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

24And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

25And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

26And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.

27And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

This is the BIBLE. If it is false, you are definitely not Christian

2. Sure the Fork was down stream, but the Four Springs were in The Garden, which all flowed into one stream, then went through The Garden passing out of The Garden, then some distance away split into four streams.[b]

Is it just me, or are you purposefully lying. It is physically impossible for one river to have four sources and one starting point.

It says that it COMES TO a point where it splits. If it is COMING TO that point, it is flowing into the springs.

[b]3. When you were standing at this junction, outside of The GardenÂ*Â*where the Four Streams split off, all these streams appeared to be a point that met the one single stream coming from The Garden, so in away there was a pointed looking area in the land where this branching of the stream took place. And the water didn't flow into the springs, it flowed away from them, they were the source, I don't know how you read that it was backasswards.

I read it in the Bible's version. Here:
Genesis 2:10
And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

rather simple.

En Cristo por siempra,
Polean Drenden.

PS: the pic is a friend of mine, not my own. I am a miss.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. Well a Sea is a very large body of water, like the Mediterranean Sea, a Lake or pond is quite smaller, most lakes you can see to the other side, ponds are even smaller most people can throw a rock across a pond.
2. The Four Springs came from the same area, about the size of a good sized lake,, they watered The Garden of Eden, then passed out of Eden dividing into the Four Streams.
3. The Garden was a area that was more or less a bowl shaped land mass, where the springs were in the four corners of the compass, one N. S. E. and West, these waters flowed towards the middle then in a ravine and on out of the Garden into a remote area to split into the Four Streams.
4.Simple really.
5. Their were Four Springs of water.
6. You can find it I am sure.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[forest_ranger254]

Sorry bout that,

1. Well a Sea is a very large body of water, like the Mediterranean Sea, a Lake or pond is quite smaller, most lakes you can see to the other side, ponds are even smaller most people can throw a rock across a pond.

The Greek word used there is Thallassa. It is used in two ways, depending on the context. If it has mention of the Mediterranean Sea earlier in the passage, it refers to the Mediterranean Sea. However, in Revelations there is not a single mention of the Mediterranean Sea in the book. In this context, it was used to refer to ALL bodies of water. Here is the verse in Greek:
Kai edo kainos auronos kai kainos ge gar protos ouranos kai protos ge parerchomai kai esti ou eti thallassa.

no mention of the Mediterranean Sea there.

2. The Four Springs came from the same area, about the size of a good sized lake,, they watered The Garden of Eden, then passed out of Eden dividing into the Four Streams.

Now you have fully contradicted yourself. You first said that they were the source and that they merged at the point I talked about. Now you are saying that it was a big lake and that it split at the point I said. Get your stories straight.

3. The Garden was a area that was more or less a bowl shaped land mass, where the springs were in the four corners of the compass, one N. S. E. and West, these waters flowed towards the middle then in a ravine and on out of the Garden into a remote area to split into the Four Streams.

The garden was located in the corner of the Tigris and Euphrates river. It is a very fertile area that is very flat. You ever looked at the topographic map of it?
4.Simple really.
5. Their were Four Springs of water.
6. You can find it I am sure.

YOU ARE DOING YOUR OWN RESEARCH! I have enough trouble doing my own research on deaf culture and this website. I am not doing your research.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. As I said, if you dare to look you will find that there was four springs, in the Garden of Eden, this was a bowl shaped area, where was these four springs, that all collect towards the middle, then passed into a ravine, and went out of this valley type area.
2. As it passed a short piece of distance it split, to four streams, whats so hard about that to understand?
3. What happened to the Dinosaurs you may ask?
4. Did you know that Dino's and Humans walked together before The Flood?

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[forest_ranger254]

Sorry bout that,

1. As I said, if you dare to look you will find that there was four springs, in the Garden of Eden, this was a bowl shaped area, where was these four springs, that all collect towards the middle, then passed into a ravine, and went out of this valley type area.


2. As it passed a short piece of distance it split, to four streams, whats so hard about that to understand?
And again, I showed you the Bible. You claim to be a Christian yet deny the Bible. That makes you a hypocrite. Pure and simple. The difficulty I have is that you igbnore the Bible completely. And you never answered my thing about the new earth. I showed you Revelations 21. Are you not allowed to read the Bible, as the Bible demands? "Thy Words have I hid in my heart, that I might not sin against Thee." How do you hide your words in your heart if you are not daily in His word?

3. What happened to the Dinosaurs you may ask?
4. Did you know that Dino's and Humans walked together before The Flood?

Shoot, David mentions an animal that might have been a dinosaur in one of his psalms. I believe he referred to it as a leviathan. The closest description I have for this is the alosaurus. That means they could have been in existence as recently as David's reign. However, dinosaurs were not suited to live alongside men as the technologies and other things increased. What happened to the dinos? They were driven to extinction by men. I believe that by every animal, God meant EVERY animal. Since dinos were animals, they were on the ark.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. Nope, not every creature was allowed on The Ark.
1.a) Just those whom Gawd whispered into their ears to follow Noah.
2. They were one part of the problem before The Flood.
3. They were eating the people.
4. And were one reason Gawd had to flood the globe, to get rid of the Dinosaurs and the corrupted humans all in one whack.
5. The Dinosaurs were pesky creatures, and not able to be made domestic animals.
6. They were all washed into the Oceans.
7. Except those who were snagged on a huge tree or pinned by some large rocks.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[forest_ranger254]

Since I am too tired to create my own arguments based on the Bible, I am only going to give you Bible verses.

1. Nope, not every creature was allowed on The Ark.
1.a) Just those whom Gawd whispered into their ears to follow Noah.
Genesis 6:19
And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

2. They were one part of the problem before The Flood.
3. They were eating the people.
4. And were one reason Gawd had to flood the globe, to get rid of the Dinosaurs and the corrupted humans all in one whack.
5. The Dinosaurs were pesky creatures, and not able to be made domestic animals.
Genesis 6:5-7
5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.


6. They were all washed into the Oceans.

How did they get washed into oceans that aren't there?

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. If Dinosaurs were in the Ark, we would still be seeing Dinosaurs.
2. And the proof that Dinosaurs were not here way before Man, Evolution states they were here 65 million years ago.
2.a) But if you head down south to Texas, perhaps no less than 60 miles from where I am typing this message, you will find in Glen Rose, Texas, Dinosaur tracks with Human footprints right next to them.
3. In the very same river bottom.
4. In the same layer of sediment.
5. There goes that Evolution Theory. :)
6. There is no way for these tracks to be in the same mud, unless they were on that river bottom at the same time.
7. There has been much debate about these facts, from scientists who have thrown plenty of mud on these facts.
8. They know if these tracks are for real they got alot of words to be eating.
9. They will do anything possible to disprove these tracks, even destroy them.
10. The problem is that there are more than these tracks showing proof of man walking with the Dinosaurs, no less than 5 different sites scattered across America.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Nathan Brazil]

Sorry bout that,

1. If Dinosaurs were in the Ark, we would still be seeing Dinosaurs.
2. And the proof that Dinosaurs were not here way before Man, Evolution states they were here 65 million years ago.
2.a) But if you head down south to Texas, perhaps no less than 60 miles from where I am typing this message, you will find in Glen Rose, Texas, Dinosaur tracks with Human footprints right next to them.
3. In the very same river bottom.
4. In the same layer of sediment.
5. There goes that Evolution Theory. :)
6. There is no way for these tracks to be in the same mud, unless they were on that river bottom at the same time.
7. There has been much debate about these facts, from scientists who have thrown plenty of mud on these facts.
8. They know if these tracks are for real they got alot of words to be eating.
9. They will do anything possible to disprove these tracks, even destroy them.
10. The problem is that there are more than these tracks showing proof of man walking with the Dinosaurs, no less than 5 different sites scattered across America.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


Of course, the "man tracks" (http://paleo.cc/paluxy.htm) aren't human tracks, but don't let that stop you.

[Nathan Brazil]

Sorry bout that,

1. Nope, not every creature was allowed on The Ark.
1.a) Just those whom Gawd whispered into their ears to follow Noah.
2. They were one part of the problem before The Flood.
3. They were eating the people.
4. And were one reason Gawd had to flood the globe, to get rid of the Dinosaurs and the corrupted humans all in one whack.
5. The Dinosaurs were pesky creatures, and not able to be made domestic animals.
6. They were all washed into the Oceans.
7. Except those who were snagged on a huge tree or pinned by some large rocks.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


So what you're saying is that God made a mistake and She tried to wash it away with a lot of imagainary water. Not a very impressive God, is She?

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But no I am not saying that.
2. Gawd did wash away the Dinosaurs and Humans other than those in the Ark.
3. Those tracks that were claimed to be Dinosaur tracks that are huge, were said to be by some Scientist dude's who were trying to make outlandish claims to throw poo poo on the whole idea of Human footprints next to Dinosaurs.
4. In reality, and I can attest to it myself, there are real human footprints in Glen Rose Texas, I have laid my eyes on them myself.
4. a) And have placed my foot on the one I found.
5. It is a size 9 American man.
6. My size 11.5 didn't fit.
7. Its a fact, and if you live in Texas I can tell you where it is exactly.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Nathan Brazil]

Sorry bout that,

1. But no I am not saying that.
2. Gawd did wash away the Dinosaurs and Humans other than those in the Ark.
3. Those tracks that were claimed to be Dinosaur tracks that are huge, were said to be by some Scientist dude's who were trying to make outlandish claims to throw poo poo on the whole idea of Human footprints next to Dinosaurs.
4. In reality, and I can attest to it myself, there are real human footprints in Glen Rose Texas, I have laid my eyes on them myself.
4. a) And have placed my foot on the one I found.
5. It is a size 9 American man.
6. My size 11.5 didn't fit.
7. Its a fact, and if you live in Texas I can tell you where it is exactly.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


Sure, you're saying exactly that. You're saying the She put animal on the planet that found man tasty, and that She erased them with a magic flood. Clearly that was a mistake on her part.

What, you can't tell people where it is if they're not unfortunate enough to come from Texas? George Bush is smart enough, but the rest of us aren't?

Too funny!

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But no I am not saying that.
2. Gawd did wash away the Dinosaurs and Humans other than those in the Ark.
3. Those tracks that were claimed to be Dinosaur tracks that are huge, were said to be by some Scientist dude's who were trying to make outlandish claims to throw poo poo on the whole idea of Human footprints next to Dinosaurs.
4. In reality, and I can attest to it myself, there are real human footprints in Glen Rose Texas, I have laid my eyes on them myself.
4. a) And have placed my foot on the one I found.
5. It is a size 9 American man.
6. My size 11.5 didn't fit.
7. Its a fact, and if you live in Texas I can tell you where it is exactly.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


Sure, you're saying exactly that.Â*Â*You're saying the (She) Did you bump your head?) put animal on the planet that found man tasty, and that She (lol) erased them with a magic flood.Â*Â*Clearly that was a mistake on her (lol) part.

What, you can't tell people where it is if they're not unfortunate enough to come from Texas?Â*Â*George Bush is smart enough, but the rest of us aren't?

Too funny!


Sorry bout that,

1. But you seem to think Gawd a female.
2. You would be mistaken.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Nathan Brazil]

1. But you seem to think Gawd a female.
2. You would be mistaken.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


Nope, God doesn't exist, therefore She doesn't have any gender at all.

Got any evidence to show that God isn't a She?

[CheesyMuslim]

1. But you seem to think Gawd a female.
2. You would be mistaken.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


Nope, God doesn't exist, therefore She doesn't have any gender at all.

Got any evidence to show that God isn't a She?


Sorry bout that,

1. Sure I got proof.
2. Gawd is a Man, and his name is Jesus.
3. There is plenty of evidence that Jesus is real.
4. To the wise they will always seek him out.
5. To the fool he isn't Gawd.
6. Maybe you should think on it.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[forest_ranger254]

Sorry bout that,

1. If Dinosaurs were in the Ark, we would still be seeing Dinosaurs.

[i]With today's technology? Shoot, the possibility of them killing people is only half of the group of animals. Here is a quote from a website (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/anatomy/Diet.shtml):

Some dinosaurs were carnivores (meat-eaters) but most were herbivores (plant-eaters). In any food chain, there have to be more organisms at the lower levels of the chain because the transfer of food energy is inefficient and much of the energy is lost at each stage of the process.

A large number of plants (called producers or autotrophs) can support a smaller number of plant-eaters (called primary consumers). These plant-eaters are eaten by a smaller number of carnivores (secondary consumers).

Considering that most of them were veggie eaters, that could not be the reason. For another thing, destroying just the meat-eaters would insure that dinosaurs were here today, since there would be no control. What happened is that when the plant-eaters got off the ark and couldn't find a large enough food source, they started dying off because of both the food shortage and the meateaters. When the amount of plant-eaters dwindled, the meateaters started attacking one another until there was one wounded dinosaur left. That would place full extinction at about David's time.

2. And the proof that Dinosaurs were not here way before Man, Evolution states they were here 65 million years ago.
2.a) But if you head down south to Texas, perhaps no less than 60 miles from where I am typing this message, you will find in Glen Rose, Texas, Dinosaur tracks with Human footprints right next to them.
3. In the very same river bottom.
4. In the same layer of sediment.
5. There goes that Evolution Theory. Smile



6. There is no way for these tracks to be in the same mud, unless they were on that river bottom at the same time.
7. There has been much debate about these facts, from scientists who have thrown plenty of mud on these facts.
8. They know if these tracks are for real they got alot of words to be eating.
9. They will do anything possible to disprove these tracks, even destroy them.
10. The problem is that there are more than these tracks showing proof of man walking with the Dinosaurs, no less than 5 different sites scattered across America.
I am not even going there, so you don't need to debate evolution with me. I am not chasing the red herring.

Back onto one of our earlier topics, you stated that Catholic churches have effective deaf ministries. I went to some of those googled results, and found out that they were using outdated methods. How do you say they have deaf ministries when they use methods that the deaf find as barbaric? The two handed alphabet is out of service, replaced with a much more efficient one handed fingerspelling. Instead of one word every ten seconds, you can effectively jump to a word every two-three seconds.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But Polean plz stay on topic.
2. The Deaf topic is in another thread.
3. Footprints.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Nathan Brazil]

1. But you seem to think Gawd a female.
2. You would be mistaken.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


Nope, God doesn't exist, therefore She doesn't have any gender at all.

Got any evidence to show that God isn't a She?


Sorry bout that,

1. Sure I got proof.
2. Gawd is a Man, and his name is Jesus.
3. There is plenty of evidence that Jesus is real.
4. To the wise they will always seek him out.
5. To the fool he isn't Gawd.
6. Maybe you should think on it.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


So, you think citing a work of fiction is "proof"?

Explain why god should have sexual organs.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. Oh I see you have issues about who and why Gawd has formed you.
2. I really prefer not to argue for Gawd.
3. Maybe you ask Gawd, he can speak for Himself.
4. Don't wait to long I would advise, no one is sure of tomorrow.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Nathan Brazil]

Sorry bout that,

1. Oh I see you have issues about who and why Gawd has formed you.
2. I really prefer not to argue for Gawd.
3. Maybe you ask Gawd, he can speak for Himself.
4. Don't wait to long I would advise, no one is sure of tomorrow.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


So, since you're not responding to my posts, would you have the courtesy to inform us exactly who it is that your are responding to?

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. Oh you didn't like that last post eh?
2. Well that's what you got bud.
3. I can't undo it for you.
4. Work with it.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Nathan Brazil]

Sorry bout that,

1. Oh you didn't like that last post eh?
2. Well that's what you got bud.
3. I can't undo it for you.
4. Work with it.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


Nope, didn't express an opinion of what you said. That would require the I expend effort thinking about it. Clearly it's not worth the effort since it's a little orphan, not apparently attached to any other post on the thread.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why you think God has gonads? You seem to have missed a golden opportunity here.

[forest_ranger254]

Sorry bout that,

1. But Polean plz stay on topic.
2. The Deaf topic is in another thread.
3. Footprints.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


Look, YOU are way off-topic. Evolution is not something I am debating with you because I already believe in Creationism.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But these footprints show that indeed man and Humans walked together on the Earth at the same time.
2. That proves that this 60-200 million year theory of when the Dinosaurs were alive is false, which disproves Evolution as well.
3. They all tie into each other.
4. Noah lived when Dinosaurs were present.
5. They didn't get saved.
6. They were all or mostly washed into the Sea.
7. As were all the Humans not on the Ark.
8. The Flood killed off the Dinosaurs, not an impact of a meteor.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Nathan Brazil]

Sorry bout that,

1. But these footprints show that indeed man and Humans walked together on the Earth at the same time.
2. That proves that this 60-200 million year theory of when the Dinosaurs were alive is false, which disproves Evolution as well.
3. They all tie into each other.
4. Noah lived when Dinosaurs were present.
5. They didn't get saved.
6. They were all or mostly washed into the Sea.
7. As were all the Humans not on the Ark.
8. The Flood killed off the Dinosaurs, not an impact of a meteor.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


So this alleged flood....how'd it kill the plesiosaurs?

[AlonzoMourning23]

1. But these footprints show that indeed man and Humans walked together on the Earth at the same time.
2. That proves that this 60-200 million year theory of when the Dinosaurs were alive is false, which disproves Evolution as well.

According to the standard geologic timetable, humans did not appear on earth until approximately 60 million years after dinosaurs became extinct. Nevertheless, for many years claims were made by some strict creationists, and continue to be encouraged by a few individuals, that fossil human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside dinosaur tracks in the Paluxy Riverbed of Glen Rose, Texas.

However, initial critical work in the early 1970's (Neufeld, 1975), and more intensive scientific studies in recent years, have convincingly refuted the "man track" claims, and led to their abandonment even by most creationists. The alleged human tracks involve a variety of phenomena, including elongate dinosaur tracks, erosional features, indistinct markings of unknown origin, and a few carvings.

The Taylor Site. This was Paluxy site most often claimed to contain human tracks, beginning with Stanley Taylor's research and film in the late 1960's and early 1970's (Taylor, 1973), and continuing with other claims throughout the 1970's and 1980's. However, the most thorough analyses indicate that the alleged human tracks here are elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks--made by dinosaurs that, at least at times, impressed their soles and heels as they walked (Kuban, 1986a, 1986b; Hastings, 1988)). When the digit marks of such tracks (which are common in the Paluxy Riverbed) are subdued by one or more factors (erosion, sediment infilling, or mud-collapse), they often resemble giant human prints. Most of the tracks on the Taylor Site are largely infilled with a secondary sediment which hardened into the original track depressions. When the tracksite surface is well cleaned, at least some tracks in each trail show shallow tridactyl (three-toed) digit impressions indicating dinosaurian origin, as as well as color and texture distinctions corresponding to the infilled material and further confirming the dinosaurian nature of the tracks (Kuban, 1986b; Hastings, 1978a). Recent claims that some of these tracks have human prints within them have been shown to be as baseless as the original claims.(Kuban, 1989).

State Park Ledge. This shelf, situated above the main track layer in Dinosaur Valley State Park, is across the river from the north-west parking lot. A variety of supposed "man tracks" here were first publicized by Stanley Taylor and crew in the late 1960's, and were subsequently advocated by other "man track" enthusiasts.(Bierle, 1977, Dougherty, 1979). Included were some alleged striding trackways, child prints, and even a supposed bear print. However, careful analysis of the supposed prints here indicates that they are merely natural irregularities and erosional features of the substrate. None show a clear and natural suite of human features (especially in regards to bottom contours), and the alleged striding trails do not show consistent human-like stride patterns. Many past "man track"advocates had applied water, oil, or other substances to the markings to encourage the appearance of human shapes; however, without selective highlighting none show clear human features.(Farlow, 1987; Kuban, 1986a)

The Baugh/McFall Sites. In the late 1960's and 1970's one trail on this ledge was considered human by a some workers (Taylor, 1968), but later acknowledged by other creationists to consist of eroded, elongate dinosaur tracks (Morris, 1980). Since 1982 several other sites along this ledge have been excavated by Carl Baugh and associates, who claimed many other "man tracks" there (Baugh, 1982, 1987). However, rigorous studies have failed to support such claims. The alleged human tracks on these sites involve several phenomena, including elongate dinosaur tracks and parts thereof; indistinct elongate marks of unknown origin that were not in striding trails; shallow, vague markings in the rock surface or overlying marl; invertebrate trace patterns, and some markings with evidence of deliberate alteration (Cole and Godfrey, 1985).

Alleged Human and Cat tracks loose rocks. Some loose blocks of rock with human or cat-like prints, reputed to have come from Glen, first appeared during the late 1930's. These tracks were once promoted as genuine by a number of creationists (Burdick, 1950; Morris and Whitcomb, 1961). However, anatomic problems with the prints, knowledge of past carving practices in Glen Rose, and problematic cross-sectional features, lead most researchers, even among creationists, to reject their authenticity (Neufeld, 1975). An exception is Carl Baugh, who continues to advocate one of the loose slabs called the "Burdick Track" as a genuine giant human footprint. However, it not only exhibits the problems mentioned above, but also evidence from algal features in cross sections that the putative human print was carved on what was originally the bottom of the slab (Kuban and Wilkerson, 1989).

Conclusions. Although genuine dinosaur tracks are abundant in Texas, claims of human tracks have not withstood close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been largely abandoned even by most creationists. Alleged Paluxy "man tracks" involve a variety of spurious phenomena, including metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, indistinct markings of unknown origin, and a few loose carvings.


http://paleo.cc/paluxy/mantrack.htm

for more extensive articles on this issue:
http://paleo.cc/paluxy.htm

[forest_ranger254]

Sorry bout that,

1. But these footprints show that indeed man and Humans walked together on the Earth at the same time.
2. That proves that this 60-200 million year theory of when the Dinosaurs were alive is false, which disproves Evolution as well.
3. They all tie into each other.
4. Noah lived when Dinosaurs were present.
5. They didn't get saved.
6. They were all or mostly washed into the Sea.
7. As were all the Humans not on the Ark.
8. The Flood killed off the Dinosaurs, not an impact of a meteor.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


So this alleged flood....how'd it kill the plesiosaurs?


I would like to know that too. How does the flood kill the animals that were in the water? The number one defense against the lack of oceans is the fossils of animals that were too large to live in lakes or ponds. What happened to the dinosaurs that required an ocean to live in?

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. The Sea Creature you referred to also died during The Flood, Nathan Brazil.
1.a) The reason they didn't survive is, they were forced deeper, into the Ocean while the fresh water stayed on the surface, and the salt water sank, during The Flood many or most of the Sea Creatures now dead were driven to the surface, where they died from the fresh water, those Sea creatures that were fresh water fish stayed at the upper layer.
2. Those huge footprints were mislabeled.
3. But I have seen a perfect Human footprint, the man's left foot, size 9 like I said before. Paluxy River Bed, Glen Rose, Texas
4. Toes, ball of the foot, arch area and heel.
5. A perfect Human Footprint, within three or so feet from a Dinosaur track.
6. Its a fact, I can tell you where it is.
7. If you would like to go see it yourself.
8. Maybe I will go take some pics of it and post itÂ*Â*here for all to see.
9. A picture's worth 200 million words.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[forest_ranger254]

Sorry bout that,

1. The Sea Creature you referred to also died during The Flood, Nathan Brazil.
1.a) The reason they didn't survive is, they were forced deeper, into the Ocean while the fresh water stayed on the surface, and the salt water sank, during The Flood many or most of the Sea Creatures now dead were driven to the surface, where they died from the fresh water, those Sea creatures that were fresh water fish stayed at the upper layer.
2. Those huge footprints were mislabeled.
3. But I have seen a perfect Human footprint, the man's left foot, size 9 like I said before. Paluxy River Bed, Glen Rose, Texas
4. Toes, ball of the foot, arch area and heel.
5. A perfect Human Footprint, within three or so feet from a Dinosaur track.
6. Its a fact, I can tell you where it is.
7. If you would like to go see it yourself.
8. Maybe I will go take some pics of it and post itÂ*Â*here for all to see.
9. A picture's worth 200 million words.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas



For one, the footprint is a plant. A human could never make a permanent footprint in a river. Not with the running water. It is physically impossible.
For another, Salt water is the same density as fresh water. That and now you have completely crossed yourself. You said earlier that the oceans did not exist.
Thirdly, now you are saying that all the salt-water fish died in fresh water. Now you have no explanation for the millions of species of salt-water fish alive now.

[AlonzoMourning23]

2. Those huge footprints were mislabeled.
3. But I have seen a perfect Human footprint, the man's left foot, size 9 like I said before. Paluxy River Bed, Glen Rose, Texas
4. Toes, ball of the foot, arch area and heel.
5. A perfect Human Footprint, within three or so feet from a Dinosaur track.
6. Its a fact, I can tell you where it is.
7. If you would like to go see it yourself.
8. Maybe I will go take some pics of it and post it here for all to see.
9. A picture's worth 200 million words.


Pictures of it are plentiful. Unless you have done studies that refute studies done by actual scientists, I'm not sure what new evidence you have.

[Nathan Brazil]

Salt water is the same density as fresh water.


Not true. Dissolved salts increase the density of water.

[Nathan Brazil]

Sorry bout that,

1. The Sea Creature you referred to also died during The Flood, Nathan Brazil.
1.a) The reason they didn't survive is, they were forced deeper, into the Ocean while the fresh water stayed on the surface, and the salt water sank, during The Flood many or most of the Sea Creatures now dead were driven to the surface, where they died from the fresh water, those Sea creatures that were fresh water fish stayed at the upper layer.
2. Those huge footprints were mislabeled.
3. But I have seen a perfect Human footprint, the man's left foot, size 9 like I said before. Paluxy River Bed, Glen Rose, Texas
4. Toes, ball of the foot, arch area and heel.
5. A perfect Human Footprint, within three or so feet from a Dinosaur track.
6. Its a fact, I can tell you where it is.
7. If you would like to go see it yourself.
8. Maybe I will go take some pics of it and post itÂ*Â*here for all to see.
9. A picture's worth 200 million words.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas



According to you, there were no seas before the Flood. Now you're arguing that not only were there seas, they were obviously extensive enough to support monster-sized dinosaurs long evolved for the marine environment.

Then you're claiming that that the innundation of the globe by 27,000 feet of water in forty days (675 feet per day of rain, or 28 feet per hour!) enabled hydrologic stratification on a global scale. That's flat nonsense, of course. Sharks survived, needless to say, and would plesiosaurs...if they hadn't been extinct for 65 million years or more...and if that silly flood had happened, which it hadn't.

But, the key thing to note about this post of yours is that you're not arguing from both sides, and doing badly on both sides at the same time.

[CheesyMuslim]

(QUOTE NATHAN)
For one, the footprint is a plant. A human could never make a permanent footprint in a river. Not with the running water. It is physically impossible.
For another, Salt water is the same density as fresh water. That and now you have completely crossed yourself. You said earlier that the oceans did not exist.
Thirdly, now you are saying that all the salt-water fish died in fresh water. Now you have no explanation for the millions of species of salt-water fish alive now.
[/quote]

Sorry bout that,

1. This Paluxy River is known to go dry for extended periods of time, soft mud, Humans and Dinosaurs make tracks, it hardens, then is covered by layers of other sediments, then uncovered this Century.
2. The Oceans didn't exist before the Flood, the Oceans are from the Firmament.
3. The Salt Water Fish we see today, stayed below the surface of the fresh water up above, on the surface.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[forest_ranger254]

Sorry bout that,

1. This Paluxy River is known to go dry for extended periods of time, soft mud, Humans and Dinosaurs make tracks, it hardens, then is covered by layers of other sediments, then uncovered this Century.
2. The Oceans didn't exist before the Flood, the Oceans are from the Firmament.
3. The Salt Water Fish we see today, stayed below the surface of the fresh water up above, on the surface.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


Dude, I am a creationist. What would I have to gain by saying that it is a plant?

Ok, explain where the whales lived. Some species are know to grow as big as five school busses long. Did they live in the firmament?:D

[Nathan Brazil]

2. The Oceans didn't exist before the Flood, the Oceans are from the Firmament.

3. The Salt Water Fish we see today, stayed below the surface of the fresh water up above, on the surface.

I see where you're ignoring what I said about stratification. Are you seriously suggesting that you can dump three bathtubs full of water in a tank already holding one bathtub's worth, and not have them mix most thoroughly?

Can more people like you get in front of the school boards across America and demand they teach ID to impressionable youngsters? That'd be a great help to my cause.

[forest_ranger254]

2. The Oceans didn't exist before the Flood, the Oceans are from the Firmament.

3. The Salt Water Fish we see today, stayed below the surface of the fresh water up above, on the surface.

I see where you're ignoring what I said about stratification.Â*Â*Are you seriously suggesting that you can dump three bathtubs full of water in a tank already holding one bathtub's worth, and not have them mix most thoroughly?

Can more people like you get in front of the school boards across America and demand they teach ID to impressionable youngsters?Â*Â*That'd be a great help to my cause.


No kidding, I think people like this are why nobody investigates our claims seriously enough.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But the whales lived in salt water lakes, before The Flood, and stayed below the fresh water surface during The Flood.
2. Before The Flood there were no mountains.
3. Just some high hills.
4. The mountains came at the end of The Flood.
5. Some areas of the globe were sunken down while other areas were thrust up, right at the end of The Flood.
6. Take a look at the mountains seems all land masses have them.
7. It was the mountains that brought up some livable land mass for man to re populate.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Nathan Brazil]

Sorry bout that,

1. But the whales lived in salt water lakes, before The Flood, and stayed below the fresh water surface during The Flood.
2. Before The Flood there were no mountains.
3. Just some high hills.
4. The mountains came at the end of The Flood.
5. Some areas of the globe were sunken down while other areas were thrust up, right at the end of The Flood.
6. Take a look at the mountains seems all land masses have them.
7. It was the mountains that brought up some livable land mass for man to re populate.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


Simple Question, answer it with a single word, either "yes" or "no":

Do you believe that the water which you claim fell from the sky in the "Deluge" didn't mix immediately with the water already on the Earth?

[Nitrus]

How exactly did the mountains "come". You have no geographical evidence. Proove to me that the "flood" caused mountains to come??

Are you saying that the "flood" reduced the ground level?? Therefore increasing the height of the hills already there??

And I thought the "flood" killed all humans, since they had sinned, how did they re-populate??

Can you clear this up for me??

-N

[CheesyMuslim]

[/quote] Nathan Brazil

Simple Question, answer it with a single word, either "yes" or "no":

Do you believe that the water which you claim fell from the sky in the "Deluge" didn't mix immediately with the water already on the Earth?
[/quote]

Sorry bout that,

1. No.
2. What happened is the firmament had an Electro Magnetic Charge, which as this water came to the surface of the earth and rose up to cover the Earth it had a natural holding element to it, that more or less made a blanket over the whole Earth for a period of time.
3. The time ended when the Mountains thrust up, this is what mixed the waters, and made the Oceans as we see them now.
4. This happened very quickly, and captured the fresh water fish in lakes on dry lands.
5. Those salt water fish that didn't go into the fresh water layer survived, and are still here after the mixing occurred, from the mountains being thrust up, this mountain thrusting happened within seconds, not century's.
6. Take a close look at the mountains, if they were all of 4 billion years old they would be worn rounded , with no sharp edges.
7. You can also find lake sediments up on Mount Everest.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Nitrus]

There are more explanations for number 7, which have far more evidence.

And as for number 6, have you ever heard of earthquakes?? Is it not possible that they wouldnt have round edges because, say, and earthquake tore bits of the mountain, disrupting the "rounded" edges?? Freeze-Thaw wheathering, is another one, it rains, it finds cracks in the "smooth" mountains, and then when the air around it cools, it turns to ice, expanding the crack. Then the air around warms, and the fragment falls off, again, disrupting the "smooth" part of the mountain.

Explain that.

-N

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But sure some of this occurs, but how the Mountains got to where they are is what I have explained.
2. Mountains didn't grow from tectonic plates grinding on each other while one side was forced up.
3. They were thrust up, from the used to be basically smooth surface of the Earth except some high hills at the time.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Nitrus]

Yes, they were thrust up from the earth, but, tectonic plates are the earth, thats where the mountains come from, anthing below them, is molten, and wouldnt create a smooth surface neccessarily.

This whole Ark thing, is just another example, of someone thinking about a possiblity, and seeing a rock formation, and immediately assuming they are connected, without using common sense.

-N

[AlonzoMourning23]

Sorry bout that,

1. But sure some of this occurs, but how the Mountains got to where they are is what I have explained.
2. Mountains didn't grow from tectonic plates grinding on each other while one side was forced up.
3. They were thrust up, from the used to be basically smooth surface of the Earth except some high hills at the time.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


Mountains grow and shrink due to plates pushing against each other. The changes can be measured, it's not just historical data.

Ocean sediment, fossils of ocean life etc. exist on mountains because those areas were not always mountains and were one cover with water.

[BoogyMan]

Sorry bout that,

1. Sure take it on faith if you must, but proof is better.
2. Thomas had to see, and he did see, Jesus wasn't mad.
3. There's proof in the world on everything, even the Resurrected Jesus has proof.
4. Not requiring proof is an act of trying to earn works.
5. There's no disgrace in requiring proof, as have many people in the Bible asked for proof from Gawd when having contact with Gawd.
6. The proof of the Bible is provable, and the facts of The Flood are found.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


Read Matt 12:39
" But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign"

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But Boogyman, a sign and proof are two different things.
2. A sign is like making the Earth Rotate backwards for 5 minutes.
3. Proof is looking at the obvious.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Newscaster]

Wow, that was quite an essay on a myth. Yes, I believe the story of Noah never happened. One reason being that if you check the histories of dozens of nations around the world, you will find similiar stories woven into their own archives. Many of those countries were on the opposite side of the world from where the Noah story is believed to have taken place.

Now, at the time of the alleged flood, all the oceans of the world were in existence, Atlantic, Pacific, Meditarranean, Indian, etc etc etc. In all that time, earth has not ADDED one new drop of water. The same water that makes up the oceans, evaporates, floats aloft and falls back as rain. Its a never ending cycle.

Now, the lengthy description states that the flood emenates from inside the earth. Okay, just where was that water stored before it flooded everything. To cover the entire planet, you would need one humungous amount of water. Remember now, the interior of the planet is molton magma or lava if you will. Its very very hot. Also remember that oxygen burns. Thats why you cant smoke anywhere near an oxygen tank in a hospital. Water is made up of hydrogen and two parts oxygen. To be in that close proximity to all that fire, it wouldnt take long before all you'd have left is hydrogen. So, if there was a volcano that opened the way for the water to spill out, that fire would burn off the oxygen and your supply of flood waters would decrease. But, lets assume that did not happen. If not, where did all that water go? Back underground? Into deep space or to a Sparkletts processing plant.

Now there have periodically been devastating floods all over the world but the geologists so far, have not found evidence of a single flood that covered everything. And if there was such a flood, WHERE DID ALL THAT WATER GO WHEN THE FLOODING ENDED 40 DAYS AND FORTY NIGHTS LATER?

nOW, LETS LOOK AT THE FLOOD ITSELF. RAIN WATER IS not BRINE (saltwater) and is inhospitable to fish that live in the ocean. So, with all that pure water mixing with all that salt water and you would have a fish die-off ot monumental proportions. And fresh water fish would die off from the introduction of saltwater into their habitats. And when the floods receeded, millions of fish would find themselves stranded on dry land. But all this is not part of the story. How come?

Now, that ark. Lets face it, that vessel was not constructed as the QE2 was put together or even the Mayflower. There were no precision power tools around back then and certainly no electricity. So the beans, rafters and hull in all likl;ihood were filled with holes due to imprecise cutting. So, common sense says, fill those holes with caulking. Well, they didnt have spackle, cement, super glue or even school glue. And I am sure no one knew that mixing flour and water makes a good paste.
So, launching that Ark must have been a lot of fun, just keeping it afloat.

Now the cargo. All those animals, two by two. Wow, that must of been a tumult to end all tumults. Lions, tigers and bears in makeshift cages sharing space with bugs bunny, wylie coyote and tweety bird. Must have been the world's first zoological abbattoir. Now I understand that birds could fly about and land on the deck. And fish can swim along side the boat and shortly die of saltwater water poisoning or pure water po9insoning or by being eaten by seagoing predators. That must have been a lot of fun for the neighborhood guppies. And inside? Suppose an elephant got a massive case of mal de mer? Oh a lion suddenly found out he had claustrophobia. How do you think they dealt with that.

Still on the subject of animals. There sure was a gang of them on board, all eating regularly, I hope. I'd hate to have to charge Noah with animal cruelty. But in addition, I must assume the digestive systems of the animals was working fine, causing a stench in that ark second to none.
Yuck and double yuck. Even with the windows up...it still stank to high heaven. It might even have caused God to second guess himself, saying, there might have been a better, less pungent way to rid the world of bad people.
But there is one factor we can be assured off....Noah's wife and daughter-in-laws were not happy campers. IF you know anything about women, you know cleanliness is an obsession and trying to keep that seagoing zoo clean must have been an impossible task. Add to that the smell and you can bet they made life pure hell for Noah and the boys.

After they debarked on top of Ararat, can you imagine the tongue lashing they gave to Noah and Sons Shipping, Inc.

Finally, where did Noah store all the food he would need? Fresh meat for the carnivores, seed for the birds, plants for the vegetarians or herbivores, and a space to save the garbage, or did they just dump it into the water, polluting everything?

Is the story of Noah true? Of course not. It is put into the bible for reasons of population control. Obey the law or look at what God will do to you. And those folks back then, with almost no real education, believed it.

So, if you get to climb Ararat one day, dont expect to find the HMS Ark or whatever might be left of it, because it aint there.

Phew, that was long. Now, I need a nap.

:P

[CheesyMuslim]

Wow, that was quite an essay on a myth.

Sorry bout that,

1. But its a fact.



Yes, I believe the story of Noah never happened.Â*Â*One reason being that if you check the histories of dozens of nations around the world, you will find similiar stories woven into their own archives. Many of those countries were on the opposite side of the world from where the Noah story is believed to have taken place.

Now, at the time of the alleged flood, all the oceans of the world were in existence, Atlantic, Pacific, Meditarranean, Indian, etc etc etc.




[/b]2. No they weren't, this planet was a sphere shape, perfectly round, with some lakes, and a small stream that grew into four streams.




In all that time, earth has not ADDED one new drop of water. The same water that makes up the oceans, evaporates, floats aloft and falls back as rain. Its a never ending cycle.


3. Before the flood we had some lakes, some fresh some salt, the The Firmament which was like a bubble of water that encompassed the whole globe, which was the primary source of all The Flood, and the Oceans we see today.

Now, the lengthy description states that the flood emenates from inside the earth. Okay, just where was that water stored before it flooded everything.

4. Some of The Flood waters did come from underground as well, didn't take all that much to flood the planet seeing there wasn't any real high grounds back then, only "high hills", maybe 300 feet high at the most.


To cover the entire planet, you would need one humungous amount of water.

5. Refer to number 4.

Remember now, the interior of the planet is molton magma or lava if you will. Its very very hot. Also remember that oxygen burns. Thats why you cant smoke anywhere near an oxygen tank in a hospital. Water is made up of hydrogen and two parts oxygen. To be in that close proximity to all that fire, it wouldnt take long before all you'd have left is hydrogen.Â*Â*So, if there was a volcano that opened the way for the water to spill out, that fire would burn off the oxygen and your supply of flood waters would decrease. But, lets assume that did not happen. If not, where did all that water go? Back underground? Into deep space or to a Sparkletts processing plant.

6. Water is here in the Oceans now, while the mountains were not here, but are here now, these mountains supply the land mass, and burst through the basically flat surface on the Earth, to create the mountain ranges we see today.

Now there have periodically been devastating floods all over the world but the geologists so far, have not found evidence of a single flood that covered everything.

7. Refer to the first post in this thread, the proof is there, on Mount Ararat, the Ark has been found.

And if there was such a flood, WHERE DID ALL THAT WATER GO WHEN THE FLOODING ENDED 40 DAYS AND FORTY NIGHTS LATER?


8. Its in the Oceans, some went back under ground as well, also this is when the Ice Caps were formed on the Mountains, and North and South poles.

nOW, LETS LOOK AT THE FLOOD ITSELF. RAIN WATER IS not BRINE (saltwater)Â*Â*and is inhospitable to fish that live in the ocean. So, with all that pure water mixing with all that salt water and you would have a fish die-off ot monumental proportions. And fresh water fish would die off from the introduction of saltwater into their habitats. And when the floods receeded, millions of fish would find themselves stranded on dry land. But all this is not part of the story. How come?


9. The Firmament held the clue you seek, it had and ElectroMagnetic charge and held together over the Earth Ocean, where the fresh water was on top of the salt waters below, Fresh water fish stayed in upper layer, those fish that were salt water fish that didn't stay down in that layer died.

Now, that ark. Lets face it, that vessel was not constructed as the QE2 was put together or even the Mayflower. There were no precision power tools around back then and certainly no electricity. So the beans, rafters and hull in all likl;ihood were filled with holes due to imprecise cutting. So, common sense says, fill those holes with caulking. Well, they didnt have spackle, cement, super glue or even school glue. And I am sure no one knew that mixing flour and water makes a good paste.
So, launching that Ark must have been a lot of fun, just keeping it afloat.


10. It was built with the utmost boat craftsmanship, with blue prints on loan from Gawd, then covered in pitch, tar, oil product.



Now the cargo. All those animals, two by two. Wow, that must of been a tumult to end all tumults. Lions, tigers and bears in makeshift cages sharing space with bugs bunny, wylie coyote and tweety bird. Must have been the world's first zoological abbattoir.


11. Gawd spoke to the animals and told them how to act, they did so.



Now I understand that birds could fly about and land on the deck. And fish can swim along side the boat and shortly die of saltwater water poisoning or pure water po9insoning or by being eaten by seagoing predators. That must have been a lot of fun for the neighborhood guppies. And inside? Suppose an elephant got a massive case of mal de mer? Oh a lion suddenly found out he had claustrophobia. How do you think they dealt with that.

12. Never happened.

Still on the subject of animals. There sure was a gang of them on board, all eating regularly, I hope. I'd hate to have to charge Noah with animal cruelty. But in addition, I must assume the digestive systems of the animals was working fine, causing a stench in that ark second to none.
Yuck and double yuck.


13. That's why they had some insects to eat the dung, also they threw it over board as a keep busy job.



Even with the windows up...it still stank to high heaven. It might even have caused God to second guess himself, saying, there might have been a better, less pungent way to rid the world of bad people.
But there is one factor we can be assured off....Noah's wife and daughter-in-laws were not happy campers. IF you know anything about women, you know cleanliness is an obsession and trying to keep that seagoing zoo clean must have been an impossible task. Add to that the smell and you can bet they made life pure hell for Noah and the boys.


14. Your assuming something here.

After they debarked on top of Ararat, can you imagine the tongue lashing they gave to Noah and Sons Shipping, Inc.

15. No I can't. They survived where all other Humans did not.



Finally, where did Noah store all the food he would need? Fresh meat for the carnivores, seed for the birds, plants for the vegetarians or herbivores, and a space to save the garbage, or did they just dump it into the water, polluting everything?


16. Noah had built a few other smaller boats that he strung together, this is where he kept the food. Yes he did fling waste to the new Oceans.


Is the story of Noah true? Of course not.

17. You would be mistaken, again.

It is put into the bible for reasons of population control. Obey the law or look at what God will do to you. And those folks back then, with almost no real education, believed it.

18. Only a fool says there's no Gawd.



So, if you get to climb Ararat one day, dont expect to find the HMS Ark or whatever might be left of it, because it aint there.


19. Well if you look in the right place you will find it, it is there.



Phew, that was long. Now, I need a nap.

20. Yes do rest, take your rest bud.

:P






21. Unless you learn about the truth of what this world went through during The Flood, you self doom yourself to that same end, you will perish in this same stupid way, not in Flood waters, but all the same, taken away, forever. You choose.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Newscaster]

Thanks guys for that extensive answer to my post. It was quite entertaining. Do not consider this an answer to the "facts" presented.
I am too tired...tired with the subject, tired with typing and tired because of the blazing heat in California today.

So I will stop now with a request...if the Ark has been found...bring me a piece of the wood so I can have it analyzed. Thanks.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry but that,

1. But I just dug this up from so many pages ago.
2. Its a good read.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Newscaster]

Would you get into a bronze boat built without the exacting tools that would be needed and the shipbuilding knowhow? I dont think so.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But yes.
2. Especially if it was my only hope.
3. And being lucky enough to be the son of Noah, I would of listened to my Father, and helped him build it, and expected it to rain, even thou we had never seen rain before, and I would of expected a flood, just like what happened.
4. Think about this , Why are the mountains with sharp edges, if they were millions of millions of years old, they would be worn smooth.
5. And why is there signs of ocean life up there???

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Danoz]

4. Think about this , Why are the mountains with sharp edges, if they were millions of millions of years old, they would be worn smooth.
5. And why is there signs of ocean life up there???

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


I'm not a geologist, so I have no idea. I have a strong hunch that there'd be a rational explaination for it, but if there isn't, as yet, I'm far more positive that a supernatural explaination isn't required - as has been the churches immediate response to just about any unsolved or entirely proven phenomenon. What? You can't explain it? Great, it's a miricle. Funny thing is that it's seen as being a noble thing to be a christian scientist, just as long as you don't ask the wrong questions which is kinda like saying it's fine to be a prosecuter in a court case as long as you don't accuse anybody of anything.

Religion always gets the nod and it is somehow up to scientists to refute the fact that no, it wasn't god after all. Then when it finally is shown to be a natural phenomenon, and 200 years or so go by, the church accepts the said fact as fact rather than trying to "irrationalise" it (as I like to call it) as a divine mystery or miricle.

Anyway, back to the topic. I am not a geologist, rather I'm a mathematician, but I'd bet my life that you are no goelogist and got that bit of information (true or false, you nor I have little way of knowing) from a "completely unbiased" website on appologetics or eqivalent *gasp* book.

However I bet that you also have no idea as to why star light from stars hundreds of millions of light years away is still reaching our telescopes when we point them up into the night sky.

The typical responce to this is that god placed the photons in their paths from the stars in order to test our faith by deliberately confusing us into thinking that he lied about the Genesis creation account, which I find utterly abhorent.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that if you're going to try and rationalize the bible, then you too must be prepared to answer rational questions about the bible itself. What's good for the goose must be good for the gander I say.

But the fact is that so far all you've been interested in doing is avoiding such questions, so until you do I'll consider nothing you say scientific and continue to ridicule you, because your posts deserve nothing better. Argue like an adult and I'll treat you like one.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But way up on mountain tops far from a fault line, in the middle of a huge land mass, are signs of ocean critters.
2. Not a lot of signs, just a little, very rare, very few, but they are there, they were not eroded away, not washed down to the rivers.
3. Still findable, thats why this isn't a billion year old planet.
4. And the mountains rose up from the flood.
5. Bringing a small amount of proof with them, which is still findable, just Google it.
6. More proof, for the active mind, if your mind isn't open for it, don't go look.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Newscaster]

The ongoing debate over the "Great Flood" and whether Noah's Ark has been found, is really getting tiresome. For several reasons.
1. If you do any kind of anthropological research, you will find there are many cultures that tell stories of a great flood and a family of good people who were saved by the gods after they built a boat and took animals on board. Many South Pacific tribes have such stories. Problem is, these floods, if the stories are accurate, occurred at different times, negating the idea of one flood covering everything and everyone.
2. No, mountains do not form under water. Go to the beach and make a sandpile. Then pour water on it or around it. Does the sand pile get bigger or does the water turn that pile into loose mud causing it to flow down and flatten out? Mountains form primarily from surface soil and rocks being pushed into a pile. In geological history, has there ever been such a time when the surface soil was pushed into mountains? Yes. The Ice Age. In fact, if you look at a good topographical map, you can see the path of the massive ice floes, each path lined with mountains of varying heights. And as you come closer to a body of water, those mountains slope downward and flatten out along the coast lines.
3. Now all that ancient sealife found up in the mountains. Its all fossilized remains.
I does indicate the presence of sealife in the general area but its sealife that existed long before today's species were around. Trillobites are perfect examples. They were waterborne creatures that sort of resemble todays cockroach. But how did they get high up in the hills? Remember those ice floes? Ash the ice came by, it scraped up all sorts of fossils and shoved them higher and higher onto the piles of surface soil where they were deposited and lay waiting for us to find them. But there was also another reason. Earthquakes. In the early history of the planet, there were massive quakes, larger than any we have today, that shoved the tectonic plates into the air. If those plates had been part of the seabed or close to a body of water, it would have brought the fossils with them.
Its a simple fact.....the earth, as old as it is (not six thousand years) continues to undergo change. Continents are still moving. Tectonic plates still get jolted, changing the seabottoms. And what might have been laying peacefully for millions of years in one place, suddenly finds itself somewhere else.
4. Recent geological studies have determined that there are periodic floods in many parts of the world and some of those floods are really big ones. But never has there been a flood in which all dry land on the planet disappeared. Once dry land appeared, caused by early earthquakes, they stayed dry escept for rain. Also, they stayed visible. A flood may have occurred in the area but it was just a regional flood caused by heavy rains that flowed back into the Mediterranian Sea.
5. Finally........despite claims by several people, the Ark has NOT been found. There is a rock formation that resembles a boat but the shape is wrong and the size is wrong. And it is not petrified wood. It is rock and nothing more.
6. Oh, one more thing. If that Great flood wiped out everything escept Noah, his family and those animals, how come there are no animals remains of polar bears, penguins, Kangaroos, alligators, elephants, etc in the area around the mountain?
Seems to me that those animals would not have all gone back to where they came from. Some if not all would have stayed where they were, adapted and become part of the local fauna. And even those who decided to head home, after a tough boat ride as they reportedly had, I would imagine they wopuld not have been in just great physaical shape and many might have died on the spot. Especially the tropical creatures not used to living on the frigid mountain top.

The story of Noah is included, as I said in many cultures but its purpose is to teach a moral lesson, not a historical one. And if there are similiar ancient stories around the world, this tends to indicate that God found good people everywhere and they survived, not just those atop Mount Ararat. All around the world, natural phenomena is blamed on "the Gods". And over the years, the scope of the story can change and grow larger.

And I still want to know where all that food for the animals was stored on the ark or was there a second storage ark? There are other questions but I'll save those for another posting.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But look on all the Nations of the World, all have mountain ranges.
2. Where the land masses were pulled up by them.
3. Volcanoes are behind most mountains but not all.
4. When The Flood came, the weight of the all that water fractured the weakest surfaces, which happened to be a huge circular area that spanned from china, up north towards Alaska, down the coast of America, on south on west coast of South America, on over to Australia, over to the east coast of Africa, then back up to China.
5. Called the Circle of Fire.
6. But many mountains are far from this mountain maker.
7. And these mountains were pushed up at the time of The Flood.
8. When this traumatic Flood occurred.
9. This is what happened, not any other way.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[lily]

Excellent explanation Newscaster

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But Polar Bears didn't need rescuing, they can swim and eat fish.
2. All the Swimming animals didn't go onto the ark.
3. And there's no way that the glaciers can scrape up fossilized sea critters and push them up on-top of mountains, they don't push up, but out.
4. Your asking us to believe that ice digs up ground, and stacks this into mountains, yeah right, Hehehehehehehe,........
5. Not going to happen.
6. There are defined layers that construct mountains.
7. And way up high on some mountains there's a layer of the sea floor.
8. Over 20k feet up on some mountains.
9. It was thrust up, not push by a slow moving Glacier.
10. Also who's to say that Gawd didn't create more animals