![]() |
So, after doing some independent research (googling "Noah's ark proof" and clicking on the first 2 links) I came up with this article that says it has not been proven. This comes from a Christian website, so if there were any bias, it would be toward the side of its existence.
Quote:
even if there were proof that a boat that large existed in the mountains, that doesn't mean it held 2 of every animal aboard, or even that there was a great flood. All it proves is that there were some people living in the mountains that were afraid of a great flood. |
Quote:
The "recent proof" I've heard about is speculation about the source of the flood: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory |
Yeah, that all jibes with what I've heard. There's archaeological/geologic evidence of a super catastrophic flood in Babylon roughly when the story takes place, but no evidence whatsoever of Noah, his Ark, or that no living creatures otherwise survived the flood.
|
Quote:
Also, you guys have way too much fucking time on your hands. :picard: |
Quote:
|
There's nothing wrong with wanting to know where we came from, and discussing it with other people with different points of view. It's very educational and mind-opening, if that's a word. The thread isn't too bad if you stay caught up :lol:
|
Quote:
The second point is that everyone likes to say that there is no evidence of a global flood...when in fact, there is an entire planet full of evidence. Practically every surface feature we see today is the result of catastrophic water-sourced erosion, or the aftereffects. Only huge floods and rapid sedimentation could be responible for the incredible numbers of fossils we have worldwide (we are talking multiple trillions...with a "T"). Flood hydrology and geomorphology (fancy name for land-changing processes) is what I got my degree in, and I have seen much of this firsthand. I can't speak about the ark, and if it still exists or not, but I can tell you this much...anyone who says that there is no evidence that a global flood occurred simply has not actually looked at the earth and studied what is out there. |
Sorry man, but that post proves nothing beyond your lack of understanding of biology and geology.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
In any case, I don't have to "pretend" anything...the evidence is there, just depends on how you want to interpret it. You said "There is most certainly NOT any evidence of a "global flood."". So are you saying that sedimentary layers that extend worldwide could not have been caused by a global flood? Are you saying that the trillions upon trillions of fossils found worldwide could not have possibly been buried and preserved by sediment from a global flood? Are you saying that even though most of the world's landmass is made up of miles thick sedimentary layers, a global flood could not have possibly been the reason they are there? Are you saying that the evolutionary geologic model is the ONLY possible explanation there is? You must be smarter than Einstein then to be able to state, as a fact, that there is no evidence for a global flood. I am actually curious...where did you learn about geology? By the way, if you drop the mountain ranges and raise the ocean basins, there is PLENTY of water to cover everything...tectonic models actually do allow for this to have possibly been the case. If you have evidence to prove otherwise, I'd like to see it. Quote:
Hmmm..."preposterous, silly, and irresponsible"...is that all you can do is to throw out more of those obviously condescending remarks (see my note from earlier)? After 7 years of official study, and many more outside of the classroom, I find a literal understanding of Genesis to make alot more sense than to believe that some cosmic accident made everything from nothing (something evolutionists STILL cannot explain), and that we all evolved from rocks. As for everyone descending from Noah and his family, even the director of the Human Genome Project admits that all humans come from a single genetic ancestor. So, no, my ideas are not as silly as you think they are, if the number 1 geneticist on the planet agrees with me. Also, if a global flood didn't kill all of those animals, then would you care to explain how we have trillions of fossils preserved under miles of sediments all around the world? Fossilization requires RAPID burial to even have a chance...no other process will work. Once again, I will suggest to you that you actually study the claims and scientific models produced by the creation community and stop relying so much on the 6-7 regular guests that show up on Discovery and History channel every time this subject is brought up. |
Quote:
Sorry if that doesn't flow too well, I wrote in spurts. |
Wouldn't massive, world-wide flooding also kill most of the plant species?
|
And wouldn't all of the oceans mix with all of the lakes, making every lake saline?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Many smaller flood events would leave a distinctive pattern of varying grain size in the layers (larger on bottom, smaller on top). You would see this pattern repeated in sequence every time you had a flood. We do see this on a small scale with local flooding, but the big sediment deposits (ie. the Navaho Sandstone in Grand Canyon) do not show this pattern. Neither do they show evidence of surface erosion between layers as you would expect to see between flood events. You would also have to find a way to explain why the same layers can be found in Arizona, New York, and Scotland. It takes a global scale flood to move that much sediment and distribute it halfway across the planet. Of course, there are other processes that have shaped our world more recently, but that still does NOT eliminate the possibility that a global flood did most of the damage. Millions of years of smaller floods could certainly erode mountains and canyons, but they would have left different erosion patterns than what we actually see in the rocks. The big assumption is that the earth actually had the time to do this (the millions of years thing)...and there are several lines of evidence that show that the earth could not possibly be that old. Everyone that believes in millions of years has to rely on one of two things...the geologic column and age dating. The geoligic column was invented without the benefit of age dating, or even any evidence that the rocks appear in age sequence. Rocks matching the geologic column's age sequence do not exist on earth ANYWHERE...and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. Even my own professors admitted they don't exist. Next, ALL age dating techniques are faulty and do not work...been proven time and again BY SECULAR SCIENTISTS. They are all based on assumptions about initial conditions that no one was around to observe. The only reason why the millions of years thing was invented was to try to give some credability to evolution theory, whcih needs the time to even have a chance (even with that it can't work, but that is a molecular biology discussion....happy to get into that as well). Other evidence for a young earth involve things like the reduction in earth's rotational speed, the ever-increasing distance of the moon, and atmospheric carbon 14 equlilibrium issues. Happy to discuss them all. By the way, Lake Lahontan drying up isn't an issue of erosion, but rather climate change. It was a realitively recent event, even by geologic standards. The whole idea here is to realize that, based on the actual evidence seen in the rocks (not to mention some laws of physics), a global flood does a much better job of explaining the geologic features than smaller local floods over millions of years. The formation of the Grand Canyon is one of my favorate examples of how people can totally ignore facts to try to push a dead theory....more on that later if you are willing to learn. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I don't know why so many discussions on this forum have to turn into a pissing match of who is more educated. There is nobody alive today who was around to physically witness any of this. Neither side (evolutionist/creationist) has a complete, highly detailed, word for word account of the beginning of the earth, mankind, or the flood. There will always be arguments on both sides as to why these issues are true or untrue. Personally, I honestly don't see the big deal with finding the Ark. Lets assume that Noah's Ark will be found some day in the future. If it is, will you automatically change what you believe? Will you say "here is that evidence I have been looking for, I guess I will now believe the bible". I doubt it. There will then arise arguments about who's boat it actually was and that it still doesn't prove there was a flood etc etc etc.
There is not a single person who has come into this thread unbiased. There are some issues that will probably never be resolved and questions that will never be answered. Faith is required to believe either side. I feel that a person can only prove to themselves what they believe. I personally believe creation because, to me it makes the most sense and also gives the most meaning to life. Like everyone, I too have many questions about the opposing belief. If evolution springs forth out of necessity, why do even the most brilliant of minds only use such a small portion of our brain? If death is a natural part of humanity, why do people get so upset and filled with grief when someone dies? Why are humans so completely different from all other living creatures? As humans we enjoy love, comedy, art, music, we see in color, we can taste an endless variety of flavor, we have a strong sense of justice, we are always trying to learn and better ourselves, we question how and why we are alive and on this planet. This leads me to personally believe that we were created for a purpose. That being the amazing creatures that we are is a result of intelligent design and not mere coincidence. |
Here are some super-quickie answers that work for those questions which, IMO, do not conflict with the major explanations of Why We're Here.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I thought the point of this thread (since the derailment) was to go back and forth? Whether I accept some of the answers I'm given or not, it is a great source of deep thought. I don't care if I convince anyone to believe what I do or not. I'd like to think I haven't insulted anyone's intelligence, I haven't been trying to, and I know that mine hasn't been insulted. Isn't this how people get answers, though? By asking questions?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:02 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All Content Copyright Subaru Enthusiasts Car Club of the Sierras unless otherwise noted.