Noah's Ark, page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

reply posted on 24-12-2008 @ 06:08 AM by Quiintus

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
reply to post by FlyersFan

When will you people LEARN MATH, this s not a flame or a slam MODS, look at their Posts. They keep saying 6 people but they keep MENTIONING 8, am I the only one that is counting NOAH AND HIS WIFE or what? Lets cover this i a simple MANNER shall we...

1+1 = 2
2+2 = 4
3+3 = 6
4+4 = 8

Now let's use these simple math equations to prove am correct and therefore it is not a flame...

Noah + wife = 2
Shem + wife = 2
Ham + wife = 2
Japeth + wife = 2
_______________
2+2+2+2 = ? I say 8 but where oh where did I get this nonconformists number from??? MATH SKILLS..

If they can't add up to 8 in their posts why should I bother responding? That is a GREAT point, so I shall stop responding to the ones who cant get 4x2 = 8

There Mod I am done with them and I believe I have proven my point through a new science called MATH, well new to some it seems!

Sorry I see your point and you're math is correct. The people on here don't really care for any facts, historical texts or evidence of any thing real. They want things that are broken up by time and dissipated forever. All the different written evidence that is left behind they ignore. So why wouldn't they ignore what you are saying... Maths doesn't matter to them hahahaha

reply posted on 24-12-2008 @ 06:14 AM by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Quiintus
Sorry I see your point and you're math is correct. The people on here don't really care for any facts, historical texts or evidence of any thing real.

You didn't read the thread did you? If you did then you would see the FACTS that you claim to care about. SCIENCE FACTS. 3 pair of reproducing humans (or even 4 pair if you want to whine about it) could NOT have reproduced enough humans of different races to repopulate the earth in a healthy DNA manner. IMPOSSIBLE.

So you can save your finger wagging and your claim that we don't care about facts or evidence. Obviuosly YOU don't care about facts or evidence. The human reproductive EVIDENCE and FACTS are there. THAT is what is real.

reply posted on 25-12-2008 @ 07:01 PM by Quiintus

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Quiintus
Sorry I see your point and you're math is correct. The people on here don't really care for any facts, historical texts or evidence of any thing real.

You didn't read the thread did you? If you did then you would see the FACTS that you claim to care about. SCIENCE FACTS. 3 pair of reproducing humans (or even 4 pair if you want to whine about it) could NOT have reproduced enough humans of different races to repopulate the earth in a healthy DNA manner. IMPOSSIBLE.

So you can save your finger wagging and your claim that we don't care about facts or evidence. Obviuosly YOU don't care about facts or evidence. The human reproductive EVIDENCE and FACTS are there. THAT is what is real.

Partly fact, yes. There's much more writings that indicate there were survivors of the flood that weren't on the boat, they came out after they landed. Different versions that state there were 40 people on the boat. Which one are we talking about? Sorry I meant part fact..

So you're wrong. From what I heard Z took the people that were closest to him. The people that helped him build the boat and there families. This to me is more likely to be accurate. Why would he use these people to help him build the boat then let them perish. There is no doubt that there was more than 8 people on the boat in my mind.

Arguing the point that the bible is not 100 percent accurate is ludicrous to me at this point. We all know it's part fiction part fact. Go through those details I provided from Rohl's book and prove them wrong. If you do that then you'd be beating the facts. So far you're just arguing about stuff that is already known to be part fact and part fiction. Trying to say that it's totally unbelievable makes you seem unintelligible.

[edit on 25-12-2008 by Quiintus]

reply posted on 25-12-2008 @ 07:48 PM by Essan

Originally posted by Quiintus
There's much more writings that indicate there were survivors of the flood that weren't on the boat, they came out after they landed.

Which means either God lied or God failed. Either way an interesting theological problem.

reply posted on 25-12-2008 @ 08:07 PM by mmiichael

I hope this isn't too off topic. While we have knowledgeable Biblical experts here, is there any truth to the story that the Fall of the Tower of Babel was a pre-planned demolition intended as a false flag operation?

Mike F

reply posted on 26-12-2008 @ 12:04 PM by Hanslune

reply to post by mmiichael

I understand that Gilgamesh was heard to say later in the marketplace that he had given orders to, "pull it". No one has yet explained why thousands of oxen, entangle in harness, were found crushed in the ruins.

reply posted on 26-12-2008 @ 03:58 PM by dooper

reply to post by Hanslune

But not the water, which, where I come from, is fluid. Ever read any Velikovsky? Hapsgood?

Your understanding of the crust is a bit lacking, and there are sequences which would actually, permit a "rollover."

Every year the geologists keep revising what they think they know, and during a crustal displacement, coinciding with a pole shift, it is entirely possible for a "rollover" event to occur, and we have all the geological evidence right there for examination to validate.

I'll state it again. Water is fluid and wishes to continue in the same direction, which would include oceans.

Across northern Europe, you'll see evidence of just such an event as the boulders are washed ashore for many miles, the larger closer to the coast, gradually decreasing in size.

In Alaska, near Fairbanks, one can find the equivalent of the typical tide line you find at any beach, but on a massive scale.

Maybe it is you that should broaden your study.

reply posted on 26-12-2008 @ 04:28 PM by Hanslune

reply to post by dooper

But not the water, which, where I come from, is fluid. Ever read any Velikovsky? Hapsgood?

Hans: Yes I have read The Earth's Shifting Crust, Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, and his 1970 book who name I now forget plus V's World's in Collision. The question is have you been reading anything outside of fringe materials?

Your understanding of the crust is a bit lacking, and there are sequences which would actually, permit a "rollover."

Hans: No, Not based on what we know about plate tectonics* friction and the amount of energy needed to move such a weight as the crust – how much do you think the weight of the crust is by the way? How much energy would be required to send it – fast in any direction – where does this energy come from?

Every year the geologists keep revising what they think they know,

Hans: Yes they are using a methodology called ‘science’ you should learn about it. It’s wonderful stuff.

and during a crustal displacement, coinciding with a pole shift, it is entirely possible for a "rollover" event to occur, and we have all the geological evidence right there for examination to validate.

Hans: We have solid evidence for pole shift (wandering of the magnetic pole and a shift in magnetic polarity. We do not have evidence for the entire crust rotating around on top of the mantle – which is what I think you are suggesting.

I'll state it again. Water is fluid and wishes to continue in the same direction, which would include oceans.

Hans: you do realize that the land is also moving in the same direction and that the water is in ocean basin that is also on the same crust – in your theoritical shift have also moved…..or are you saying that the continental plates are somehow moving and the oceanic basin’s aren’t…….???

Across northern Europe, you'll see evidence of just such an event as the boulders are washed ashore for many miles, the larger closer to the coast, gradually decreasing in size.

Hans: I believe you are referring to glacial action

In Alaska, near Fairbanks, one can find the equivalent of the typical tide line you find at any beach, but on a massive scale.

Hans: Can you point to the published study of this geological feature?

Maybe it is you that should broaden your study.

Hans: perhaps you should too and I would recommend non-fringe sites, try geology books.

* If you are a believer in Hapgoods defunct theory you have a long uphill struggle against the evil forces of science!

reply posted on 26-12-2008 @ 05:14 PM by dooper

reply to post by Hanslune

Yes, there is a mechanism by which a rollover could occur. You keep leaning on the crust. The crust "floats" on different pockets of magma, which differ in concentrations, materials, size, and density.

Unlike the depictions as presented in the past, these have no semblance to the layer presentation, like layers in an onion. These magma concentrations of different densities, fluidity, materials, size, and concentration would look more like a lava lamp.

These varying pockets of differing materials, density and size results in different masses. Ever see a tire out of balance? Think about the physics of a sphere like Earth that is slightly out of balance from one or more of these different magna pockets. You'll note that increasingly, the heavier portions within these pockets will begin to shift further toward the outside, making the imbalance more pronounced.

These underlying pockets and material have much more mass than does the crust, and during their natural shifting and churning, they can indeed assist in the mass enough to precipitate a rollover.

The question then is whether or not the crust "sticks" to the new rotation, partially stick and partially slips, or just slips? Due to significant anomalous evidence, including ancient writings, it would appear that regardless the mechanism, the crust quicky follows and relocates in relation to the new spin.

Thus the apparent anomalous "sudden" relocation of tropical species to arctic areas, sub-tropical to temperate, and vice-versa. Their sudden relocation and deposition can be explained in no other way.

If you believe that the oceans would remain in their basins during one of these rollover events, do a simple experiment for yourself. Fill a cake pan with water to the brim, and start to rotate, gradually pick up speed, and then stop. Now the basin is right under the water, but you'll note that the water sloshes right over the rim, and will even oscillate back and forth in an increasingly diminishing motion.

The rocks that have been spread over vast areas of northern Europe are not rocks that have been deposited by glaciers, as they have no marks common to rocks and boulders as they are "ground" by glaciation. They do however give the appearance of having been "tossed" onto the land, with the lighter rocks being tossed further inland.

As for the discoveries near Fairbanks, even noting that you'll find within this tideline the crushed remains of animals from all over the world, there are also many finds of mammoths, and their tusks are treasured.

Besides, I don't want to have to do your homework, because if I did, you wouldn't learn anything for yourself.

Only after a wide study, including ancient texts, and a broad study not only of geology, do some of these anomalous artifacts begin to make a bit of sense.

And if you believe in steady-state geology as currently taught by academia, then

reply posted on 26-12-2008 @ 05:18 PM by dooper

And if you believe in steady state geology as currently taught by academia, then you'll always have nothing but anomalous artifacts with absolutely no answer for.

Even Darwin was stunned when he got out of la-la-land of academia and into the real world.

Here's a good question for you.

How many feet of organic material does it take to make one foot of coal?

Once you get that calculation, then explain how in hell you get hundreds of feet of organic material piled high enough to make these coal seams twenty and thirty feet thick?

And when you get through that, please tell me how polonium and insect parts, still identifyable and still retaining thier emerald color can still be retained inside coal?

reply posted on 26-12-2008 @ 08:13 PM by Quiintus

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by Quiintus
There's much more writings that indicate there were survivors of the flood that weren't on the boat, they came out after they landed.

Which means either God lied or God failed. Either way an interesting theological problem.

If by God you mean lower case 'g' god and the pantheon of Sumerian gods that were all rolled into one all knowing, all powerful, omniscient God that became the God in the Bible then yeah he lied. I mean read the bible and God comes across as a Schizophrenic loon that at minimum has multiple personality disorder. This because the story and the characters, what they said and did are all changed and chopped, why?? Who knows. Maybe to shorten the story purely for editing purposes but I prefer to say it was more likely for more sinister purposes.

He failed in what? If the whole purpose of the bible and why they changed all the details is lost to us today, then how are we going to know if he failed. Maybe this is exactly how it was meant to be. Maybe they wanted us ignorant of our own origins.

reply posted on 27-12-2008 @ 05:02 AM by letthereaderunderstand

reply to post by Essan

The problem is everyone thinks that Noah lived, but people don't read very close.

God said, "the end of ALL FLESH has come before me".

Think about this for a moment. The only thing of anyone that is saved (to the living), is the memory of them.

Why were they building the "tower of babel". Because they wanted to make a "name" for themselves to be remembered by, lest they be spread all over the earth.

God, being the living, had Noah (which means rest) build an Ark which in Egyptian is dbt meaning "Coffin". It was not Gopher "wood". Wood was added after they couldn't figure out the translation because the g looked like a K. It should of been Kopher "stone". You may also recognize "Debt".

God remembered Noah (Rest).

reply posted on 27-12-2008 @ 05:29 AM by letthereaderunderstand

Originally posted by Quiintus

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by Quiintus
Maybe they wanted us ignorant of our own origins.

Maybe they don't want you to know that you are God, well you yourself are not God in totality, but you are part in.

God is OF the living, like the united states is OF America or the constitution is OF the people. He is the living God, not the dead.

Think of life like a big game of "Marco Polo". Your the one saying Marco, but as soon as your born, somebody else starts saying Marco also, but they are supposed to be saying polo. They are messing up the game, by not playing fair.

[edit on 27-12-2008 by letthereaderunderstand]

reply posted on 27-12-2008 @ 09:59 AM by Essan

Originally posted by dooper

Here's a good question for you.

How many feet of organic material does it take to make one foot of coal?

Once you get that calculation, then explain how in hell you get hundreds of feet of organic material piled high enough to make these coal seams twenty and thirty feet thick?

I've seen plenty of peat banks that deep. All it takes is spagnum moss and a few thousand years. Just imagine what a rainforest and a few million years could produce!

Before you dismiss geology, maybe you should find out a bit about it?

btw if there was a crustal displacement, how convenient that Greenland and Antarctica both stayed exactly where they are, thus ensuring no discontinuity in the ice cores - which in the latter case go back over 400,000 years. Handy also that the floods didn't affect N America and drown the bristlecone pines and creosote bushes (some of which are around 12,000 years old).

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^