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: 20
22
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

lets get back to the crux of this whole thing as it is your postulation... what evidence is there that the earth was ever 40% smaller let alone in the last 6000-10,000 years? This comes off as some desperate reaching and grasping at straws to maintain your personal paradigm.




posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: GoOfYFoOt
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...


Well if credible evidence that was contrary to mainstream beliefs surfaced then it would be a viable alternative to the mainstream account. So, to answer your question, not really. All evidence that I encounter for "theories" (I put theories in quotation marks because they are really hypotheses) contrary to mainstream accounts always seem to have a confirmation bias driving them. The way I see it, if credible evidence surfaces for alternative theories then there isn't much stopping them from becoming the mainstream accounts. That's how science works. It discards and updates ideas as new evidence surfaces. All mainstream ideas and theories were all fringe ideas at one point, but credible evidence was collected over the years that showed they were true and now they are mainstream.


originally posted by: GoOfYFoOt
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.




First off, the Daily News is a tabloid, so you got that going against you, but hey let's break down the article. Here's the picture that the article provided:

Notice anything about that ark? There is a black platform under it which is CLEARLY holding it together. But that's not all. Even the bit of text that you quoted me says that it is a model. The article does use the adjective "functioning", but at NO point during the article did it mention that the ark was placed in the water and allowed to sail for an extended period of time. In fact everything about the description of this ark indicates that its entire purpose is to be a NON-functioning model that sits on a platform in the water.
edit on 2-10-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

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?


I like the debate, and just because evidence surfacing against my ideas is unlikely, doesn't mean that I shouldn't pursue it. If I close my ears to the participants in this thread and write it off, I won't be able to see any good evidence posted. Just because I doubt that it exists, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. How else would you suggest I keep an open mind?

At least in this thread there is more than one person debating the topic, unlike this thread which just has one person repeating the same nonsense over and over again. I've pretty much abandoned that thread.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TzarChasm

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?


I like the debate, and just because evidence surfacing against my ideas is unlikely, doesn't mean that I shouldn't pursue it. If I close my ears to the participants in this thread and write it off, I won't be able to see any good evidence posted. Just because I doubt that it exists, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. How else would you suggest I keep an open mind?

At least in this thread there is more than one person debating the topic, unlike this thread which just has one person repeating the same nonsense over and over again. I've pretty much abandoned that thread.


hmm. okay. another question: since you seem to have a firm stance on the possibility (or lack thereof) of a global flood having occurred as recorded in the bible, what possibilities are you open to?



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TzarChasm

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?


I like the debate, and just because evidence surfacing against my ideas is unlikely, doesn't mean that I shouldn't pursue it. If I close my ears to the participants in this thread and write it off, I won't be able to see any good evidence posted. Just because I doubt that it exists, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. How else would you suggest I keep an open mind?

At least in this thread there is more than one person debating the topic, unlike this thread which just has one person repeating the same nonsense over and over again. I've pretty much abandoned that thread.


hmm. okay. another question: since you seem to have a firm stance on the possibility (or lack thereof) of a global flood having occurred as recorded in the bible, what possibilities are you open to?


I'm open to all possibilities. If you can imagine it then I will say it is a viable hypothesis to being true. Though if the evidence isn't there to support it, I won't be signing off on your hypothesis as an accurate description of reality.

Read my posts in this thread to get an idea of how I go about entertaining ideas. I see you have already participated in that thread, but I put a lot of thought into my responses there and feel it is a close representation of my beliefs. So if you go back and reread my responses there, you'll get a better idea of how I think.
edit on 2-10-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Apparently, after a little more research, the photo that you pulled from the article, is in fact the 1/2 sized replica.
Here is the actual life-sized version...



I don't see a platform in this photo. The first one does appear to be stationary, as an attraction. But the full-sized one is meant to travel to different places, according to the builder.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: GoOfYFoOt
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Apparently, after a little more research, the photo that you pulled from the article, is in fact the 1/2 sized replica.
Here is the actual life-sized version...



I don't see a platform in this photo. The first one does appear to be stationary, as an attraction. But the full-sized one is meant to travel to different places, according to the builder.



has it done so?



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: GoOfYFoOt
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Apparently, after a little more research, the photo that you pulled from the article, is in fact the 1/2 sized replica.
Here is the actual life-sized version...



I don't see a platform in this photo. The first one does appear to be stationary, as an attraction. But the full-sized one is meant to travel to different places, according to the builder.



has it done so?


Not yet, according to Wiki...(I know)

And, in support of Krazysh0t, the article also states that the larger one is built on 25 LASH barges. But it does have a Coaster's seaworthiness license...

Johan's Ark - Wikipedia



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: GoOfYFoOt


This Ark is carried on a platform made up of 25 LASH barges and has a coaster's seaworthiness license.


It wasn't just built on the barges, it is carried on them as well, and that's the point I'm trying to make. It has to rest on the barges in order to float. Johan had to modify the original design to make sure that the structure didn't break apart in the water. This is just a testament to the fact that a wooden ship that size is NOT a sea worthy vessel.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

To that, I can only quote Matthew 19:26

"But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: GoOfYFoOt
a reply to: Krazysh0t

To that, I can only quote Matthew 19:26

"But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."



or you could just say, "gee, that's an excellent point, i must reevaluate my position in the subject"



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: GoOfYFoOt
a reply to: Krazysh0t

To that, I can only quote Matthew 19:26

"But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."



or you could just say, "gee, that's an excellent point, i must reevaluate my position in the subject"


My position, is merely to further the dialog. As for my Faith, nothing man can say or do, will dissuade me from believing on the Almighty.

Unlike many men, who are full of themselves, I subscribe to the Ultimate Authority!

For I have humbled myself in awe of His presence, and found that which I was searching for...



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: GoOfYFoOt

So now we come full circle to the point I made earlier. From a post on the previous page


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.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: GoOfYFoOt

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: GoOfYFoOt
a reply to: Krazysh0t

To that, I can only quote Matthew 19:26

"But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."



or you could just say, "gee, that's an excellent point, i must reevaluate my position in the subject"


My position, is merely to further the dialog. As for my Faith, nothing man can say or do, will dissuade me from believing on the Almighty.

Unlike many men, who are full of themselves, I subscribe to the Ultimate Authority!

For I have humbled myself in awe of His presence, and found that which I was searching for...




i wouldnt expect you to. the words of man are cheap, which is why the divorce rate is so damn high. what i would hope would dissuade you (or force you to question with sincerity) is cold hard evidence staring you in the face. such as evidence demonstrating that at the very most, the ark making a successful voyage is a very highly unlikely scenario as well as the global flood. and at the very least, both are frankly impossible.
edit on 2-10-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: GoOfYFoOt

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: GoOfYFoOt
a reply to: Krazysh0t

To that, I can only quote Matthew 19:26

"But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."



or you could just say, "gee, that's an excellent point, i must reevaluate my position in the subject"


My position, is merely to further the dialog. As for my Faith, nothing man can say or do, will dissuade me from believing on the Almighty.

Unlike many men, who are full of themselves, I subscribe to the Ultimate Authority!

For I have humbled myself in awe of His presence, and found that which I was searching for...




i wouldnt expect you to. the words of man are cheap, which is why the divorce rate is so damn high. what i would hope would dissuade you (or force you to question with sincerity) is cold hard evidence staring you in the face. such as evidence demonstrating that at the very most, the ark making a successful voyage is a very highly unlikely scenario as well as the global flood. and at the very least, both are frankly impossible.


Actually, I think the answer is rather simple...

We have no knowledge of what the Bible refers to as "gopher wood". We don't know it's weight, it's density, it's strength, it's buoyancy, or how long a plank made from it, could be! We don't know if it even exists, today, as it could have been a very isolated species, that only grew locally to the area where the Ark was constructed! It could have been eradicated by the flood to preserve free will!

For all we know, it could have been lighter than balsa and stronger than maple, and grew taller than the redwood!

SO...how can you be so sure that we are talking about a physical impossibility? Let alone a Divine one?



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: GoOfYFoOt


We have no knowledge of what the Bible refers to as "gopher wood". We don't know it's weight, it's density, it's strength, it's buoyancy, or how long a plank made from it, could be! We don't know if it even exists, today, as it could have been a very isolated species, that only grew locally to the area where the Ark was constructed! It could have been eradicated by the flood to preserve free will!


the bolded part is a very good reason to not do what you did in the rest of the quoted selection. that is to say...speculate. because you have NO MEANS of proving your speculations are any more plausible than santa and his reindeer.


SO...how can you be so sure that we are talking about a physical impossibility? Let alone a Divine one?


because i have been given no reason to consider it other than "i dont like the other answers"



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Although I replied to your post, my response was more for Krazysh0t.

I am merely suggesting possibilities, which are endless, because man is nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is...
As for my beliefs, there is no need to argue. For those that do require proof, I can only pray that you will receive the sign that you are looking for. But, based on Scripture, I wouldn't hold my breath...



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



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


I realise that and I tried to let it go. But someone insisted.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs




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


I don't care. And till next time guys.


edit on Rpm100214v31201400000054 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Barcs




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


I don't care. And till next time guys.



thats one of the most honest response i have seen on this thread. "i dont care" sums up the entire reason we are still having this debate.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join