Real Science Radio: The Search for Noah's Ark

[Lordkalvan]

Nope.

Were you ever interested in a discussion?

More so than you, demonstrably.

 

[Lordkalvan]

Who? :idunno:

Such studied confusion is bordering on the disingenuous.

 

[gcthomas]

Nope.

Were you ever interested in a discussion?

Oh, you crack me up! :chuckle: What a killer put down - where do you get them all?

 

[Stripe]

Oh, you crack me up! :chuckle: What a killer put down - where do you get them all?

Is that a "no"?

 

[Nick M]

Actually it doesn't even matter that we know where Mt. Ararat is because the Bible says Noah's ark came to rest on the mountains (Plural) of Ararat (ie. somewhere on the Ararat mountain range).

The name of the mountain is not Ararat. That is a western bastardized name because people saw it up there before the earth cooled like it is today. The mountain's name is Masis in Armenian, or Agri Dagh. We call it Ararat ex post facto. And now it has sort of stuck.

It all comes down to what is the thing under the ice, the giant box car shaped object hundreds of feet long that was photographed in 1989 under the ice. I say that because it matches the description given to a sighting in 1906, or somewhere there abouts.

 

[Lighthouse]

You tend to get back what you shoot off around here. :idunno:

Try a rational and respectful discussion. :up:

Instead of being a troll. :troll:

Exactly!

 

[Lordkalvan]

Exactly!

Curious....

 

[Bob Enyart]

I gotta sleep on it...

I gotta sleep on it...

Opinions differ. Here are a couple of quotes:

Some geologists like Clifford Burdick have found pillow lava (lava spewed into water, ice, or snow) up to the 14,000-foot level where the 17-square mile ice cap typically begins. However, since pillow lava may be formed with ice or snow water, it is not a convincing argument for a flood-time mountain creation. -- http://www.noahsarksearch.com/ararat.htm
___________________
Pillow Lava on Ararat
There are different types of volcano, and Ararat is a Stratovolcano. This type of volcano is composed of alternating layers of lava and ash, and is typical of land-based volcanoes. It also shows much evidence of pyroclastic ejecta, which is another feature you would not see underwater. There is no evidence whatsoever that Ararat was underwater.
Of course, the claim could be made that it was underwater, and then it continued erupting when it was dry land. If it did so, however, the supposed pillow lava would be buried. -- http://www.oldearth.org/rebuttal/other/ltm/seminar4.htm​

Paulos, thank you for your input. I will make a mental note to not use the pillow lava argument again until I check out your links and their claims, and then only if they can be refuted (i.e., either by geologic evidence, or by a really big boat being found atop Ararat ).

Thanks again!

-Bob

 

[Lighthouse]

Curious....

You're being s troll. You're trying to discuss an issue that isn't even relevant rather than the issue I brought forth. You're trying to deflect from your poor logic; and failing, by the way, because you're just showcasing more of it.

 

[Lordkalvan]

You're being s troll. You're trying to discuss an issue that isn't even relevant rather than the issue I brought forth. You're trying to deflect from your poor logic; and failing, by the way, because you're just showcasing more of it.

And the issue you 'brought forth' and the reason my comments don't follow from that issue are what, exactly? Complaining that 'poor logic' is demonstrated by someone who simply discusses the implications of your comments and that by doing this that person is a 'troll' rather suggests that all you have to offer when confronted are insults.

 

[Bob Enyart]

fool, can I ask you Stripe's question again?

fool, can I ask you Stripe's question again?

If I ever make it out to Colorado you'll be my first stop.

Oops. Too many Internet people in my life! (Not really ). I confused you with a local fool. Sorry.

Bad logic there, The Wizard of Oz mentions Kansas, and Kansas is a real place. That doesn't make the story true.Likewise you can go visit Hill Cumorah, yet neither you or I are Mormons.

I think you're answering my question fool (really, Stripe's question), but I'm not quite sure. Can I ask it again? If it turns out that Jesus' affirmation of the global flood and Noah's ark was corroborated such that you agreed that it was a historical reality, would you then humble yourself to believe in the rest of His message? I don't want to answer for you, because I would doubt that you would. As Jesus said, even if they see a man rise from the dead, the will not believe. (That's Jefferson's point.) Fool, I wasn't implying that of everyone who's ever believed in the Ark, everything they've ever said was true. I was speaking in the context of you and I knowing each others general belief system (even if not our neighborhoods) and so, finding Noah's Ark is a good example of what would be a major corroboration, so you can use that to search your heart, and see if it's simply too hard or if you remain open to evidence.[/QUOTE]

It would be interesting for sure but still only evidence of people doing people stuff.

You don't really believe that it would only be evidence of people doing stuff, right? If you were serious, then it wouldn't be worth chatting with you.[/QUOTE]

Let me turn it around and ask you a similar question. What if they find a crashed spaceship up there? Would that shake your faith or would you simply reinterperet the Bible to fit the new info?

That's a great question. Let me think through this out loud. (That's what we extroverts do). Over the years I've mentioned various conditions that would move me to reject Christianity. There's one example I posted at rsr.org/on-doubt in reply to an agnostic blogger who asked me if I ever have doubts. Christianity would be falsified, as the Bible says it would, in this condition (and there are others):

If Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead as prophesied​

As to the remains of a crashed alien spaceship being found anywhere, whether in a geologic setting or Times Square, herje's a bet I'll make with you (which I'll honor whether you accept it or not). I'll bet you everything I own to a penny that no alien space ship, crashed or otherwise, will ever be found. (Well, half of everything; I'd have to check with Cheryl to see if she's all in ).

Here are some of my observations about the topic of aliens (from rsr.org/aliens):

- Humans Made Aliens: Atheists claim that God didn't make man but that man made God. However with many atheists claiming that aliens made life on earth, they are actually doing exactly what they falsely accuse Christians of.

- Unfalsifiable: Dawkins claim that aliens would have evolved by Darwinian means shows evolution "theory" to be pliable enough to account for any observations, even if imaginary, like alien physiology.

- Flying Monsters: Atheists REALLY DO BELIEVE in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so that what started out as their joke ends up being on them.​

Thanks for asking fool.

-Bob E.
rsr.org

 

[Nick M]

As a side note, that TV show on "History channel" (maybe they should rename the station) has Ancient Aliens. Some of it is obvious pre-flood and early post flood. They know it, so they cook up the alien story, because anything is better than having the Bible validated.

Like the stones in South America that have the Stegosaurus on it. They know it is real, and not a hoax, so they say aliens to get it into people's mind that the earth is still billions of years old.

 

[Lordkalvan]

As a side note, that TV show on "History channel" (maybe they should rename the station) has Ancient Aliens. Some of it is obvious pre-flood and early post flood. They know it, so they cook up the alien story, because anything is better than having the Bible validated.

Like the stones in South America that have the Stegosaurus on it. They know it is real, and not a hoax, so they say aliens to get it into people's mind that the earth is still billions of years old.

Um, no. Most sceptics identify the Ica Stones as an entirely human hoax, as some of their manufacturers have admitted:

' Dr. Cabrera claims that a farmer found the stones in a cave. The farmer was arrested for selling the stones to tourists. He told the police that he didn't really find them in a cave, but that he made them himself. Other modern Ica artists, however, continue to carve stones and sell forgeries of the farmer's forgeries. In 1975, Basilio Uchuya and Irma Gutierrez de Aparcana claimed that they sold Cabrera stones they'd graved themselves and that they'd chosen their subject matter by copying from "comic books, school books, and magazines" (Polidoro 2002).'

Source: http://www.skepdic.com/icastones.html

 

[Lighthouse]

And the issue you 'brought forth' and the reason my comments don't follow from that issue are what, exactly? Complaining that 'poor logic' is demonstrated by someone who simply discusses the implications of your comments and that by doing this that person is a 'troll' rather suggests that all you have to offer when confronted are insults.

Your response to me was a better argument against Bob than your initial post to which I responded, logically speaking.

But it was a redirect when directed at me as a response to my post, as my post was merely pointing out the flawed logic underlying the initial post [which was lacking].

It was your attempt at redirection to take the focus off the truth of my comment that you were lacking in logic, which shows you to be a troll.

P.S.
Even though the argument was better it's still wrong.

 

[Lordkalvan]

Your response to me was a better argument against Bob than your initial post to which I responded, logically speaking.

But it was a redirect when directed at me as a response to my post, as my post was merely pointing out the flawed logic underlying the initial post [which was lacking].

It was your attempt at redirection to take the focus off the truth of my comment that you were lacking in logic, which shows you to be a troll.

P.S.
Even though the argument was better it's still wrong.

As I was not commenting upon the truth or otherwise of your criticism of Paulos' logic, but rather opening a discussion prompted by what appeared to be your argument that a story may be regarded as true so long as evidence proving it false remains unfound, your complaints about redirection and lack of logic appear moot at best. You seem to have an idiosyncratic view of what constitutes a troll.

 

[Lighthouse]

As I was not commenting upon the truth or otherwise of your criticism of Paulos' logic, but rather opening a discussion prompted by what appeared to be your argument that a story may be regarded as true so long as evidence proving it false remains unfound, your complaints about redirection and lack of logic appear moot at best. You seem to have an idiosyncratic view of what constitutes a troll.

No, my argument was that if one already believes something to be true then the absence of proof of said belief is not going to lead them to stop believing it.

You are clearly incapable of following along and paying attention.

 

[Lordkalvan]

No, my argument was that if one already believes something to be true then the absence of proof of said belief is not going to lead them to stop believing it.

You are clearly incapable of following along and paying attention.

I think you need to pay more attention yourself to your post that I was responding to:

'I don't know if this is bad logic or just bad grammar, but evidence not being found does not mean the evidence is non-extant, or did not once exist; nor does it mean the story is not true.

To prove the story false one would have to actually find evidence that proved the opposite true.'

I don't see anything there that constitutes an argument that 'if one already believes something to be true then the absence of proof of said belief is not going to lead them to stop believing it.' Rather, I see statements that my comments were entirely appropriate to and followed logically from.

 

[Nick M]

he didn't really find them in a cave, but that he made them himself.

How many did he make? Do you have any idea how many there are? You don't have to guess. You are so far out in left field it doesn't matter. The reason for claiming aliens is the farmer didn't produce the stones. And they know it. So they cook up the other story. Just like the USG letting people chase the aliens that don't exist in Area 51, to thwart what is really there.

 

[gcthomas]

It all comes down to what is the thing under the ice, the giant box car shaped object hundreds of feet long that was photographed in 1989 under the ice. I say that because it matches the description given to a sighting in 1906, or somewhere there abouts.

The Ararat anomaly is larger than a Nimitz class aircraft carrier at 1000 - 1200 ft long. Isn't that a little large for a wooden boat? And larger than what the bible says?

 

[fool]

Oops. Too many Internet people in my life! (Not really ). I confused you with a local fool. Sorry.

No problem, I'm still gonna look you up if I ever make it out there.

I think you're answering my question fool (really, Stripe's question), but I'm not quite sure. Can I ask it again? If it turns out that Jesus' affirmation of the global flood and Noah's ark was corroborated such that you agreed that it was a historical reality, would you then humble yourself to believe in the rest of His message?

No

I don't want to answer for you, because I would doubt that you would. As Jesus said, even if they see a man rise from the dead, the will not believe. (That's Jefferson's point.) Fool, I wasn't implying that of everyone who's ever believed in the Ark, everything they've ever said was true. I was speaking in the context of you and I knowing each others general belief system (even if not our neighborhoods) and so, finding Noah's Ark is a good example of what would be a major corroboration, so you can use that to search your heart, and see if it's simply too hard or if you remain open to evidence.

Definatly open to evidence, but the Ark would be evidence in favor of
the OT. Not Jesus.

You don't really believe that it would only be evidence of people doing stuff, right? If you were serious, then it wouldn't be worth chatting with you.

That was in response to finding an Ark up there. If we add in the scenario that we're convinced it was born there by water that would change things. If it's just an Ark it could have been built in-situ by a doomsday cult. Now if it's complete with barnacles and ships log and it all carbon dates right I would have to accept that there was an Ark and a flood. As I said this doesn't help Jesus and only marginally helps the OT. (lots of cultures have flood stories)

That's a great question. Let me think through this out loud. (That's what we extroverts do). Over the years I've mentioned various conditions that would move me to reject Christianity. There's one example I posted at rsr.org/on-doubt in reply to an agnostic blogger who asked me if I ever have doubts. Christianity would be falsified, as the Bible says it would, in this condition (and there are others):

If Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead as prophesied​

As to the remains of a crashed alien spaceship being found anywhere, whether in a geologic setting or Times Square, herje's a bet I'll make with you (which I'll honor whether you accept it or not). I'll bet you everything I own to a penny that no alien space ship, crashed or otherwise, will ever be found. (Well, half of everything; I'd have to check with Cheryl to see if she's all in ).

Here's an Alien checking out an old Alien spacecraft that arrived prior to him;

Note that neither Conrad, the Surveyor, or the LEM in the background are from that moon, hence Aliens.

Here are some of my observations about the topic of aliens (from rsr.org/aliens):

- Humans Made Aliens: Atheists claim that God didn't make man but that man made God. However with many atheists claiming that aliens made life on earth, they are actually doing exactly what they falsely accuse Christians of.​

I would disagree with that, if Yaweh created life on Earth he would fall in to the Alien catagory.

- Flying Monsters: Atheists REALLY DO BELIEVE in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so that what started out as their joke ends up being on them.

Have you ever considered that the OT may be true but that Yaweh is just an ET?

Thanks for asking fool.

-Bob E.
rsr.org

Always a pleasure.