It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientific Evidence of a Global Flood

page: 19
22
<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
Also the need for something to be scientifically possible? Goes right out
the window when God is involved. So if you don't believe in a God why
would he want to stand in your way with evidence for himself or a flood?
And I can't tell another man what to believe. But for those of us who do?
There be evidence enough for us.
Funny how that works out, I think.


That's a cop out. What sense does it make that a god would violate the laws of physics that he laid out for the universe, create a world wide flood, then destroy ALL the evidence that said flood occurred? Then in some cases, god not only destroyed all the evidence, but apparently created NEW evidence that paints a different picture than the account in the bible (such as the archaeological record). Or was that Satan?

If god truly wanted such an event to have an impact on human knowledge and morality, then it would make sense to leave the evidence intact. God truly must work in mysterious ways. "Obey me or else I'll destroy you! Oh but I'm going to make it impossible to find evidence of my existence and handiwork in the physical world." Sounds like a sick joke to me.

Heck how about you reconcile how Noah even floated his ark? I have yet to see anyone explain to me how the ark with the dimensions specified in the bible was able to float. I've seen people say that god held it together (apparently god is a type of glue now). But that doesn't explain why god would demand that Noah create a structurally unsound ship, if in the end god was going to hold it together anyways. Couldn't god have just created the boat himself? Or if he really wanted Noah to work for the effort, make him build a structurally sound ship but change its interior dimensions (we are already in the realm of denying laws of physics). It seems like even a moron could figure out this, yet god doesn't and has to use this roundabout method of making the boat able to float.

Also, none of that explains how Noah fit all those animals into the boat, how he fed the animals, where he stored the food, how he kept the meat eaters from eating all the other animals, how he obtained all the animals in the first place, and many more inconsistencies with the story.
edit on 2-10-2014 by Krazysh0t because: replace moses with noah. My bad.




posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

at what point will you be convinced that this is a futile discussion? neither of you is going to budge. whats the sense in pursuing this.
edit on 2-10-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Heck how about you reconcile how Moses even floated his ark?


I'll just let that one go shot.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Heck how about you reconcile how Moses even floated his ark?


I'll just let that one go shot.



no, answer it. what i have read of krazyshot's posts tells me he is not here to play games. so dont you start.
edit on 2-10-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

I agree and I'll take my leave.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm



I agree and I'll take my leave.





and with you goes all the "evidence"...




posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




no, answer it. what i have read of krazyshot's posts tells me he is not here to play games. so dont you start.


Okay, Moses didn't build an arc that had to float.



Heck how about you reconcile how Moses even floated his ark?

edit on Rpm100214v242014u56 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm




no, answer it. what i have read of krazyshot's posts tells me he is not here to play games. so dont you start.


Okay, Moses didn't build an arc that had to float.



Heck how about you reconcile how Moses even floated his ark?


if it didnt float, that means it sat on the ground. under water. for weeks. effectively killing everything on board.

not a whole lot of reconciliation happening here.
edit on 2-10-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   
The story of the ark in Genesis references a Godly man named "Noah". Not Moses...



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Krazysh0t

at what point will you be convinced that this is a futile discussion? neither of you is going to budge. whats the sense in pursuing this.


Well as an agnostic, I allow for any possibility to be true. So I will always entertain evidence if it is provided and is credible. Though always expect me to be overly critical of evidence for ideas and theories that aren't "mainstream" so to speak. Most of the time that evidence is faulty.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Heck how about you reconcile how Moses even floated his ark?


I'll just let that one go shot.



Sorry, when I said Moses, I meant Noah. That was a typo.

Why do you say that?
Noah's Ark is too big to float


So, depending on what you use for a cubit, Ye Arke is about 450 feet long, 75 wide, and 45 tall, right? I work best in metres, so lets do a bit of conversion: that's 137.16 by 22.86 by 13.716 metres, right? For ease of calculation, let's call it 140 x 23 x 14. This give you 45.080e+3 cubic metres. One cubic metre of pure water is one metric tonne. Salt water is a bit more dense. Be nice, add another thousand tonnes or so... Ye Arke displaces 46,000 tonnes. Maybe 46,400 at max. And I'm being generous. (The reader who knows something about ship-building will also spot a certain minor problem with the above figures. No creationist has ever seen it... in part 'cause if it's corrected, things get orse for Ye Arke.)

The sheer size. HMS _Victory_, still preserved at Portsmouth, was 186 feet long on the gundeck. HMS _Victoria_, the last full-rigged 1st rate ship of the line to serve as flag of the Channel Fleet, built in 1859, was 250 feet long on the gundeck. And she had a steel frame because the RN had found that building wooden ships much bigger than 225 feet long was not a good idea because they tended to straddle or to hog on being launched; that is, they tended to bend, their bows and sterns to stick up out of the water at an angle, (that¹s straddling) or to bend the other way, the bows and sterns supported by waves but the midships sections out of the water (or at least not as well supported) (that¹s hogging) and either way their keels tended to crack under the strain. Even with steel frames, wooden ships bigger than 250 feet long tended to hog or straddle. Don't take my word for it, look it up for yourself. One possible source: _The Wooden Fighting Ship In the Royal Navy, 897-1860_, EHH Archibald, Blandford Press, London. Sorry, my copy
was published back before ISBNs. Edward Archibald was at the time of writing the curator of the National Maritime Museum, Portsmouth, England. Or build a wooden boat 250 feet long and see what happens. Ye Arke was the size of _two_ 1st rate line of battleships, laid end-to-end. Noah was a shepherd. He knew better than the shipwrights at Chatham who built the ships with which the RN dominated the world for 150 years? If I'm wrong, and it is possible to build a 450 foot wooden vessel, by all means demonstrate it. I'll even put up some of the money... so long as I get to record the launch of said vessel. And so long as those who say that such a craft would be safe are willing to stay on it while it's being launched. Me, I figure that I'd get some _great_ pix.


So please explain to me how Noah floated his ark.
edit on 2-10-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
Did I say anything about 4000 years? You're just being ignorant.
i'm perfectly on topic speaking of anthropological evidence,
Unless anthropology isn't a science now. Who knows with you people?


4000-6000 years is the typical time frame given for the flood by its supporters.

Anthropology is NOT a science, not in the sense you are using it. It can derive information from existing sciences, but is largely not science in itself. Science requires experiments. Legends and myths from the past are not scientific evidence and are not testable, therefor NOT scientific. Nice try.



Somebody explain how a local flood could be responsible for worldwide
ancient knowledge of what is obviously the same event?


You are twisting it around. It wasn't ONE LOCAL FLOOD. It was hundreds of them all over the planet. Humans have written down myths and stories since they knew how to write. There isn't any more reason to believe the great flood than there is to believe in Zeus or Osiris. Humans like to embellish. Just look at the history of all religions ever. They obviously are not all right.


Were they forewarned? 66%


Appeal to popularity fallacy. I'm not sure where you got that statistic, but it doesn't matter. Ancient stories having similar themes doesn't prove anything. The same argument can be used to suggest that modern pop music is the best music of all time. It's illogical.

So about that science?



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: GoOfYFoOt
The story of the ark in Genesis references a Godly man named "Noah". Not Moses...


Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't notice my mistake. I was multi-tasking when I wrote that post and didn't notice my error.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Text By the way, if the earth were 40% smaller, then the gravity of the earth would be 40% less. That means that the atmospheric content would be VERY different than what it is today since the gravity wouldn't be able to hold as much gas near the surface of the planet. That would mean that humans would have been reliant on different gas compositions in the past than today. It is unlikely that humans would be able to thrive in both conditions. So you'll also have to explain that as well. Oh and since gravity would be weaker, humans should be taller (heck all life should be bigger then) and weaker since there isn't as much gravity pulling you to the ground. All animal life would have evolved VERY differently under a smaller gravitational pull.

Your getting very close now. Don't give up cause one day you will know. That is if you live long enough.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Krazysh0t

at what point will you be convinced that this is a futile discussion? neither of you is going to budge. whats the sense in pursuing this.


Well as an agnostic, I allow for any possibility to be true. So I will always entertain evidence if it is provided and is credible. Though always expect me to be overly critical of evidence for ideas and theories that aren't "mainstream" so to speak. Most of the time that evidence is faulty.



In all sincerity, can you cite a time when you encountered evidence contrary to mainstream beliefs that swayed your opinion of that belief? Please provide specifics...



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Full Scale Ark


Just as the first storms of winter roll in, Dutchman Johan Huibers has finished his 20-year quest to build a full-scale, functioning model of Noah's Ark — an undertaking of, well, biblical proportions.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Text By the way, if the earth were 40% smaller, then the gravity of the earth would be 40% less. That means that the atmospheric content would be VERY different than what it is today since the gravity wouldn't be able to hold as much gas near the surface of the planet. That would mean that humans would have been reliant on different gas compositions in the past than today. It is unlikely that humans would be able to thrive in both conditions. So you'll also have to explain that as well. Oh and since gravity would be weaker, humans should be taller (heck all life should be bigger then) and weaker since there isn't as much gravity pulling you to the ground. All animal life would have evolved VERY differently under a smaller gravitational pull.

Your getting very close now. Don't give up cause one day you will know. That is if you live long enough.


What does this even mean? Are you trying to patronize me here?



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm
I said it was obvious and it is. But a source was provided.


I respectfully disagree with the obviousness of the observation here. It's more of a correlation equals causation scenario. You correlate the various flood myths as stemming from the same source therefore that source must be true without looking into the pertinent factors such as when these various flood myths came into existence for example. Not to mention that refusing to acknowledge the scientific data is just throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Top of the page amigo.


Please take this as constructive criticism of the source more so than you Randy but... when I read the source I really had to grimace as the author, who used no annotations in the "source" is well known for promoting some very dangerous "advice" and I use the term very loosely, regarding his "Cancer Cure" in which he promotes what he calls "Leatrile Detoxification". He does so with the very false claim that Laetrile is a vitamin and therefore natural. He creates a corollary between ingesting vitamin C to ward off Scurvy and ingesting Laetrile to ward off cancer because it is vitamin B17. There is no B17 and what Laetrile is is a modified form of amygdalin.

Amygdalin is a natural compound found in plants of the genus Prunus. This includes apricots, bitter almonds and black cherries. Amygdalin is also found in apples. Sounds good so far and reasonably harmless if not possibly beneficial right? not so much because what he fails to mention is that this compound is highly toxic when ingested in quantities he recommends as certain enzymes produced when ingested turn the amygdalin/laetrile into cyanide. I think we can all agree that cyanide is bad for us in any way shape or form if ingested.

So please don't be too offended if I have to call Bull # on pretty much anything that comes from the mind, mouth or pen of Phillip Day. He has caused far more harm than good by conning people in the last throes of desperation to live by getting them to abandon traditional medicine in favor of quackery that will certainly kill them faster and reduce the quality of whatever time they have left with their loved ones.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   
it turns out the hebrew word that is commonly translated as "world" also means "land". as in, a country or a province. is it possible to bury a continent under water without flooding the entire planet?



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Krazysh0t

at what point will you be convinced that this is a futile discussion? neither of you is going to budge. whats the sense in pursuing this.


Well as an agnostic, I allow for any possibility to be true. So I will always entertain evidence if it is provided and is credible. Though always expect me to be overly critical of evidence for ideas and theories that aren't "mainstream" so to speak. Most of the time that evidence is faulty.


and do you really think you will find anything in this thread that turns your beliefs and convictions on their heads? this is page 19 of what im sure isnt even your first thread concerning global floods. if it was gonna happen, it would have happened by now. so whats the game here?
edit on 2-10-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
22
<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in

join