|
| |
 What Do You Make Of This?, Maybe this is the "proof" some of you wanted ... |
|
|
|
|
 Jul 6 2006, 01:06 PM
|
The Rant Master
Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 1,225
Joined: 17-April 05
From: Atlanta, Georgia
Member No.: 1,333
|
Hi Folks: I know that the Polls Topic “Do you believe in God,” was locked the other day when to some it appeared that the topic was “going bad” and there was a concern of a “thinly-veiled contempt” that was thought to exist. Fine. That is the responsibility of those who have accepted the responsibility to monitor the posts that are made here – and I actually think these folks do a wonderful job of allowing topics to take their “own direction,” as much as they can. This topic is not being offered to do anything other than to point out some additional “NEWS” that has recently come to light. There is a just recently returned expedition to a mountain in northern IRAN where the participants have brought back with them some very interesting artifacts, pictures, and videos. The cautious claim is that this “may be” the final resting place of the world’s first “Ocean Liner,” the ARK, built by Noah. I know that some of you say you often wrestle with the idea of God and wonder if it is all true or not and I think I know how you feel. But, let me ask you a question. IF the pieces these explorers have brought back do prove to be 6000 year old petrified wooden beams, what would you think? Would this be THE piece of evidence that might put things in a different perspective for you? The structure that has been found, the one this group believes to be the Ark, is approximately 400 feet long and it is made up of what appear to be “rocks” that look remarkably like blackened wood beams – where other rock in the area is distinctively brown. Once piece of the suspect “rock” was very clearly cut at a 90-degree angle. Of course, there is probably no way to prove beyond all doubt that this particular wreckage actually is THE Ark because they just aren’t going to find a label saying, “Built by Noah.” However, they have already determined that the material they have really IS petrified wood! Not only that, but samples from immediately around the site (within some 2000 feet) the explorers found thousands of fossilized sea shells and a 1 inch think slab of rock was later examined (in a laboratory) and found to contain fossilized clams. No matter what is finally determined, I think all of this is pretty darn interesting to find on a mountain 13,120 feet above sea level. Don’t you? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 6 2006, 02:59 PM
|
The Rant Master
Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 1,225
Joined: 17-April 05
From: Atlanta, Georgia
Member No.: 1,333
|
QUOTE(AspiringPilot @ Jul 6 2006, 01:59 PM) [snapback]92405[/snapback] Well thats a bit old. I saw that news report a year ago. And I dont think proving that the Ark exist is truely going to make non believers believe that God exists. I believe so it doesnt really matter. Well, this report is dated Friday, June 30, 2006. I know about the information that was published over a year ago, but apparently these guys JUST returned the first part of last month and had the "rock" tested to be sure that it was, infact, petrified wood. They are suppossedly doing tests now to determine if there is evidence of "pitch" being used to seal the wood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 6 2006, 03:13 PM
|
The Rant Master
Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 1,225
Joined: 17-April 05
From: Atlanta, Georgia
Member No.: 1,333
|
QUOTE(c150student @ Jul 6 2006, 02:55 PM) [snapback]92425[/snapback] I agree. Not trying to be disrespectful or anything, but I think there are many more logical explanations as to how it got there than Noah. And besides, there isnt enough water to flood the whole world up to 13,120 feet all over
It is howvever, an interesting find. I just think that theres lots of possible explanations for the discovery, and God is only one theory. And how do you know there isn't enough water to flood the whole world to that depth? How much water is there underground around the world? How much water is contained in ice flows at the poles? that might be what some would believe to be true, but that doesn't make it "fact." And, I believe that it would be interesting to hear what some of those "other explanations" might be -- to find petrified, fossalized sea creatures, in the surrounding rock strata at 13,000 feet above sea level. I can hear it now .... an army of personnel carried a whole lot of sea water to that elevation some number of thousands of years ago ... an incredibly fortunate individual found some fossalized sea creatures in rock formations that are uncannily identical to rocks found at 13,000 feet up a mountain and he enlisted an army of personnel to carry all of those fossallized rocks up 13,000 feet ... and this activity was conceived and carried out to "fool" the massive amount of people that would just happen to be walking by on that particular mountain at that particular elevation??? Yes, it would be at least an interesting experience, that is for sure!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 6 2006, 05:52 PM
|
Space Shuttle Member
Group: FL350 CREW
Posts: 755
Joined: 10-February 05
From: US (KSDL)/China (VHHH)
Member No.: 775
|
QUOTE(c150student @ Jul 6 2006, 11:55 AM) [snapback]92425[/snapback] I agree. Not trying to be disrespectful or anything, but I think there are many more logical explanations as to how it got there than Noah. And besides, there isnt enough water to flood the whole world up to 13,120 feet all over.
It is howvever, an interesting find. I just think that theres lots of possible explanations for the discovery, and God is only one theory. It would take 4,400,000,000 cubic kilometers of water to cover the earth (including mountains). The oceans contain 1/3 that much water. For the "heavens" to hold that much water the atmospheric pressure would have to be 840 times higher than it is and be 99.9% water vapor. I'm not even going to get into the thermodynamics of it. Let's just say it would be HOT.The fossils at high elevations is easy. The logistics behind getting all the animals aboard is a great study in planning and execution (penguins don't travel on the ground very well, for example. And those sloths...). Posted in spite of my better judgement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 7 2006, 05:57 AM
|
Space Shuttle Member
Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 1,448
Joined: 16-January 06
From: SE United Kingdom
Member No.: 2,891
|
geez are people going to pick me up on every word I say? Cant people just accept this is NOT an essay writing board. Good English and good grammer I can understand, and making sure I say pretty much the right thing. But its annoying whenever people post something they get their post back with words underlined and an angry face underneath it. And if that is the case, I have something to say about the title of the topic. I know what Airrabbit meant, but the way it is 'this is the 'proof''. Well, what does proof mean? Well, it means the evidence that will prove something. So what does prove mean? 'To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence'. http://www.answers.com/prove and theres a link to the dictionary definition, if anyone would like it. Proof is something that will prove something, to show something to be definately there, not there, or something that will show that something happened or not happened. Using the word proof is incorrect, because the 'evidence' presented is not conclusive proof. For conclusive proof, I need either a photograph of Noah, God and all the animals together, or a video (an original, not doctored by an IT geek). And even if it is Noah's ark, it doesnt necessarily mean there is a God. To back my point up on that, the Bible says God created the earth (look in Genesis) and yes, there is an earth, but no proof to show a link to God. So even if we found Noah's ark, which is still in the Bible, it doesnt mean it had any link to God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 7 2006, 06:04 AM
|
Space Shuttle Member
Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 2,007
Joined: 26-April 05
From: South Staffordshire
Member No.: 1,410
|
I find this site very interesting: Noah's Ark SearchIt explains what they're doing, and where they are searching for the supposed "Noah's Ark." They say that there is no scientific or photographic proof that the Ark exists, but they are searching in the region stated in Genesis of the Bible near Mt. Ararat. A quote: QUOTE Though there have been many claims of a discovery of Noah's Ark in ancient documents and recent books/films, there is no scientific proof, public photograph, or evidence of the survival or existence of Noah's Ark.
However, there are hundreds of cultures around the world that make reference to the flood and Noah's Ark, but most researchers focus the search within the biblical mountains of Ararat/Urartu as stated in the Genesis account. Within this region there are four primary areas of interest. So, they're out there to find proof of this "Ark" existing, and the tests on the rock are probably the first stages of this. Dan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 7 2006, 06:37 AM
|
Space Shuttle Member
Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 716
Joined: 30-December 05
Member No.: 2,779
|
QUOTE(learguy @ Jul 6 2006, 10:52 PM) [snapback]92462[/snapback] It would take 4,400,000,000 cubic kilometers of water to cover the earth (including mountains). The oceans contain 1/3 that much water.
For the "heavens" to hold that much water the atmospheric pressure would have to be 840 times higher than it is and be 99.9% water vapor. I'm not even going to get into the thermodynamics of it. Let's just say it would be HOT.
The fossils at high elevations is easy. The logistics behind getting all the animals aboard is a great study in planning and execution (penguins don't travel on the ground very well, for example. And those sloths...).
Posted in spite of my better judgement. There is your answer... your therory again proved to be rubbish.. and don't go on about how got put more water on the earth for the flood... sorry... but i'd rather believe the Goldilocks and the Three Bears story to be true... Why? Someone wrote about it so long ago we don't know who actually invented the story although there are many "gospels" written by different authors today, so that shows there are witnesses to it happening.... its old.... people have always talked about it so it must be true... Bears sure do like sugary stuff and many Three Bears story tellers have told us (so it must be true) that there was sugar on the porridge to make it sweeter... Sound like i'm on drugs? Well just replace a few of those words with God Jesus Miricles etc... there's what ya Bible believers tell us . Also, if you want to provide links too and take them to be the "truth" I will do the same... QUOTE However, there are no eyewitness accounts to the supposed life of Jesus. It appears that the four known Gospels were taken from the accounts of Paul. Paul never met Jesus. There is no credible ex-Bible supporting evidence for the miraculous events of this period. It is all very suspicious hearsay, full of inconsistency and inaccuracy mixed with made-up astounding occurrences not recorded elsewhere. The alleged proceedings took place in a time of total superstition when ‘messiah’s’ were a dime a dozen. The people were scientifically ignorant and prone to harsh Roman rule and were in need of reprise from their situation. Imagine for a moment if on the touted death of Jesus, the dead Saints rose from their graves and mixed with the population. The Romans would have their version of the CIA investigate this wonder in an effort to make their armies invincible to death. Why have we not read about this in history? Walking on water and feeding the multitudes etc. would have evoked the same result. OmFgDoDaBoGaLoO!!!!!!11111ONEONEONETWOTWO --->> Now THAT is a bombshell. There's my backing for the HearSay theory... remember I had NOT researched this, yet I came up with the same thing that this guy has wrote (which I searched for the purposes of the argument... it is COMMON SENSE... easy. (taken from here: http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/doesgodexist.htm ) If someone in your local pub says that Maggie down the road shovells cats off the road, then eats them.. it will make people laugh... they will tell someone else... and then... so and behold she is known as Maggie the Cat Woman at Number 64. See? Happens today.. no proof, no eyewitnesses... all gossip and stuff.. Remember the logic back then... if you had a mole people thought you were a witch and promptly burned you... everyone now think's it's rubbish and all the "witches" are mad and need a visit from the nice men in white coats... By the way.. in the last thread someone quoted me saying "Isn't it funny how the non-believers always run out of stuff and then hide and don't reply after making huge claims" but it was locked before I had my chance to answer... So here is: Answer: Atheists rarely pretend to know everything on the subject, when we're asked something we do NOT make things up, or enterpret things how we want them to be enterpreted. In other words... we don't start to lie. QUOTE Does God exist? I find it interesting that so much attention is given to this debate. The latest surveys tell us that over 90% of people in the world today believe in the existence of God or some higher power. Yet, somehow the responsibility is placed on those who believe God does exist to somehow prove that He really does exist. To me, I think it should be the other way around. Taken from another artical. And, they are right... you are pushing us CONSTANTLY to provide the proof he doesn't exist, but it should be YOU trying to convince us.. that's what god would want right? Preaching... and some of you had the audacity to call US lazy.... erm yeah... whatever. Callum, (Hope this doesn't start a flamefest (no joke intended by the "flame". If anyone wants to know what i'm on about here, PM me  ))
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 7 2006, 06:44 AM
|
Space Shuttle Member
Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 1,504
Joined: 10-September 05
From: Sydney, Australia
Member No.: 2,096
|
QUOTE(charliepapa @ Jul 7 2006, 03:37 AM) [snapback]92540[/snapback] There is your answer... your therory again proved to be rubbish.. and don't go on about how got put more water on the earth for the flood... sorry... but i'd rather believe the Goldilocks and the Three Bears story to be true... Why? Someone wrote about it so long ago we don't know who actually invented the story although there are many "gospels" written by different authors today, so that shows there are witnesses to it happening.... its old.... people have always talked about it so it must be true... Bears sure do like sugary stuff and many Three Bears story tellers have told us (so it must be true) that there was sugar on the porridge to make it sweeter... Sound like i'm on drugs? Well just replace a few of those words with God Jesus Miricles etc... there's what ya Bible believers tell us . Also, if you want to provide links too and take them to be the "truth" I will do the same... OmFgDoDaBoGaLoO!!!!!!11111ONEONEONETWOTWO --->> Now THAT is a bombshell. There's my backing for the HearSay theory... remember I had NOT researched this, yet I came up with the same thing that this guy has wrote (which I searched for the purposes of the argument... it is COMMON SENSE... easy. (taken from here: http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/doesgodexist.htm ) If someone in your local pub says that Maggie down the road shovells cats off the road, then eats them.. it will make people laugh... they will tell someone else... and then... so and behold she is known as Maggie the Cat Woman at Number 64. See? Happens today.. no proof, no eyewitnesses... all gossip and stuff.. Remember the logic back then... if you had a mole people thought you were a witch and promptly burned you... everyone now think's it's rubbish and all the "witches" are mad and need a visit from the nice men in white coats... By the way.. in the last thread someone quoted me saying "Isn't it funny how the non-believers always run out of stuff and then hide and don't reply after making huge claims" but it was locked before I had my chance to answer... So here is: Answer: Atheists rarely pretend to know everything on the subject, when we're asked something we do NOT make things up, or enterpret things how we want them to be enterpreted. In other words... we don't start to lie. Callum, (Hope this doesn't start a flamefest (no joke intended by the "flame". If anyone wants to know what i'm on about here, PM me )) BREATHE CALLUM! Inhale,exhale,inhale,exhale and so on so forth. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 7 2006, 07:17 AM
|
Space Shuttle Member
Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 1,448
Joined: 16-January 06
From: SE United Kingdom
Member No.: 2,891
|
Callum, well said  I agree totally with everything you mentioned Unfortunately, I dont have any evidence, or a link, to prove that I agree totally, so everyone take my word on it, ok Thing is, people are all fine to go preaching to those who dont believe in God. 'Oh, he does exist, definately, the bible says so' but get offended whenever people say 'errr, no he doesnt'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 7 2006, 10:46 AM
|
The Rant Master
Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 1,225
Joined: 17-April 05
From: Atlanta, Georgia
Member No.: 1,333
|
QUOTE(charliepapa @ Jul 7 2006, 06:57 AM) [snapback]92544[/snapback] One more thing: Also disquieting for those who believe in God is the paradox introduced by the question, “Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?” Whatever answer to this question is given appears to be in tension with the idea that God is omnipotent; this shows that there can be no such thing as an omnipotent God... Gotcha Well, let’s see if you really do, shall we? First, let’s look at the definition of the word “omnipotent.” It means “having unlimited authority or influence.” What is “unlimited authority or influence?” Without intending to sound redundant, unlimited means without limits. So, my initial response to the rhetorical and paradoxical question you asked, “Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?” must necessarily be completely dependent on an understanding of the attributes of God. If you look back to one of my earlier posts, I gave you a statement of what I believe about God, including His omnipotence. By that, I mean God is unlimited in His authority, unlimited in His influence, and unlimited in His abilities. I’m assuming that you intended for me to “stumble” over the paradoxical nature of your question. What you forgot is that you pose the question with limitations on omnipotence. If omnipotence, by its very nature, cannot include limitations, you are describing actions that are limitedly unlimited. In today’s vernacular, that constitutes an oxymoron. When you understand logic you understand that God’s omnipotence is defined by His power to overcome what some may think is an inherent contradiction of statements or questions such as the one you ask. As God really IS omnipotent (i.e., without limitation) He is able to do what is logically impossible (from any perspective you choose) and, therefore, He can not only create situations which He cannot handle but, because He is not bound by limits, He can also handle situations which He cannot handle. So, here is the answer to your question – without the oxymoron attributes … 1. God can do the logically impossible. 2. God creates a stone which He cannot lift. 3. God then lifts the stone. Gotcha?  Umm... No. I don’t think so.  PS – I’m not ignoring the post from Learguy … it doesn’t take much space to offer criticisms … and, at least sometimes, it takes a bit more time and bit more space to offer credible responses to those criticisms … and I plan to do that. Stay tuned…
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 7 2006, 11:14 AM
|
Space Shuttle Member
Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 716
Joined: 30-December 05
Member No.: 2,779
|
QUOTE(AirRabbit @ Jul 7 2006, 03:46 PM) [snapback]92573[/snapback] Well, let’s see if you really do, shall we? First, let’s look at the definition of the word “omnipotent.” It means “having unlimited authority or influence.” What is “unlimited authority or influence?” Without intending to sound redundant, unlimited means without limits. So, my initial response to the rhetorical and paradoxical question you asked, “Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?” must necessarily be completely dependent on an understanding of the attributes of God. If you look back to one of my earlier posts, I gave you a statement of what I believe about God, including His omnipotence. By that, I mean God is unlimited in His authority, unlimited in His influence, and unlimited in His abilities. I’m assuming that you intended for me to “stumble” over the paradoxical nature of your question. What you forgot is that you pose the question with limitations on omnipotence. If omnipotence, by its very nature, cannot include limitations, you are describing actions that are limitedly unlimited. In today’s vernacular, that constitutes an oxymoron. When you understand logic you understand that God’s omnipotence is defined by His power to overcome what some may think is an inherent contradiction of statements or questions such as the one you ask. As God really IS omnipotent (i.e., without limitation) He is able to do what is logically impossible (from any perspective you choose) and, therefore, He can not only create situations which He cannot handle but, because He is not bound by limits, He can also handle situations which He cannot handle. So, here is the answer to your question – without the oxymoron attributes … 1. God can do the logically impossible. 2. God creates a stone which He cannot lift. 3. God then lifts the stone. Gotcha? Umm... No. I don’t think so. PS – I’m not ignoring the post from Learguy … it doesn’t take much space to offer criticisms … and, at least sometimes, it takes a bit more time and bit more space to offer credible responses to those criticisms … and I plan to do that. Stay tuned… Thats all very good, but you've ignored my earlier post... I'd like you to try and rip that to shreds too Also... what you said last is a double triple oxymoron? Jeez, it's worse than those different types of chocolate ice cream. Logically impossible? Yeah, fair enough... but you are basically saying that whether he could lift a certain rock goes on whether he decides to or not... that's a pretty basic statement... so that doesn't really do much for a case backed by proof. I don't want what it is thought he can do... I want proof of what he can do...
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
|
|
|
|
| 
|
