Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As I have stated more than once now. I do not have all the answers. And I will not try to fabricate answers. If the Bible had such details I would pass them along. Yet such details were not given. The Bible tells us where the Ark landed. And now we can see the Ark, both in still shots and video. From afar, and from inside. And soon, even more pictures will be coming are way by others who will be going to the top of Mt. Ararat to view Noahs Ark.
Would,nt the media be full of Ark stories, where are they?
Most people do not believe in the Bible, so it should come as no surprise they have little intrest in the reality of the Ark. Yet as others venture up the mountian and view what is there. I believe many will believe when they see with their own eyes. Another group is being made ready to climb the mountian once again to consider and explore the Ark.
I noticed you did not leave any link. It appears you guys say a lot of things here, yet often you do not leave any information to back up your claims.
Why is that?
OK,mea culpa on my part.I was thinking of the Ica Stones.So much unrelated nonsense is thrown up here to defend the ark that I was remembering the wrong "artifacts".
1) They show no signs of having been in the ground exposed to the effects of the soil at all.Clay things buried for hundreds or thousands of years do not look like newly made items,yet these do.
2) There was no dirt packed into the crevices of the figurines as there would have been had they truly been exposed to soil for thousands of years.The "centuries old" figurines were remarkably clean.
3)On new digs witnessed by experts for more figurines,the soil strata the figures were found in was jumbled and mixed up instead of the clearly defined soil stratification of undisturbed areas around the site.This shows that the soil had been dug up and the figurines buried and then re-covered with the now mixed up dirt.
4) The found figurines were in impossibly good shape.Most were unbroken,which is unheard of in true archeological digs.Of the few broken ones,there were no missing pieces,another archeological improbability.There were no sherds,as broken pottery is called,found.Zero.Which is mathematically impossible when dealing with 32,000 figurines.All archeological pottery finds are sherds.
Last edited by lifertexan; 06-06-2010 at 09:51 AM..
I also know that World War II really happened. Yet I could not begin to give you all the details of what occured. Does that mean it is not true. Of course not. Yet I know enought to confirm it did happen. Noah's Ark is the same. Those who believe in evolution could not give me all the details explaining evolution? Yet they still believe in the theory. Yet we have far more evidence for the Arks existance, than they have for evolution. Historically to this very day, we have numerous eyewitiness accounts of the Ark being on Mt. Ararat. We have no eyewitiness accounts of anyone witinessing evolution. And those who beileve in the theory, do so based on assumptions only. We now have pictures of the Ark from afar, and from inside of it. And since the Ark was just discovered in recent times, your technical reports will be coming. As you well know Noah's Ark Ministeries International is now picking the next group to climb Mt. Ararat to further explore the Ark. They have invited those with the technical knowhow to consider the find, and they will reveal to all what was found up there. The link below gives you an example of what we are talking about here. This is not some ancients summer cabin.
Once again, and true to form, you waltz off into stray, unrelated corners to avoid the questions. It's not about WW2 or evolution. It's about the recent claims about Noah's Ark. Remember?
So there have been numerous eyewitness accounts of the Ark being on Mt. Ararat. So what? There have been numerous eyewitness accounts about UFOs, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness Monster, and yet, nary a bolt, hair, or scale has been produced.
About the image link (that you've posted numerous items), what's that supposed to prove? Evidence? It's an artist's illustration for pete's sake. You're basing your belief about the current claims because of a drawing? That's like counting chickens before they hatch.
You say, "We now have pictures of the Ark from afar and from inside of it." Yet, not a single one of them are conclusive of anything. Remember what I previously indicated? It's easy to see such images as being the Ark because the seeds of thought, without evidence, have already been planted by those making the claims. The result amounts to subliminal preconception.
You have stated, "For me to suggest I have all the answers would be foolish." But that's exactly what you are doing. You have been claiming to have the answers, enough for you to believe the recent claims are true and that evidently the photos and videos are enough to be convincing for you. That's quite a stretch of blind faith my friend.
I'm not holding my breath that any technical reports will be coming any time soon that inconclusively prove the existence of the Ark in regard to the recent claims. If any "reports" are released, it will amount to nothing more than the usual say-nothing nonsense by the usual sources you love to provide links to. I wouldn't be surprised if the next group to go up the mountain will end up conveniently saying, "It's up there alright, but the Ark has been covered over with ice again, so we were unable get to it."
The hand-picking of "scientists" sounds mighty dodgy. I suspect it will be limited to those who already agree or whose qualifications amount to being the janitor of a research lab. And if any real scientists are selected, and conclude that it's NOT an Ark after all, do you think their professional findings will be included in the reports? Or will they be dismissed as flawed studies by jealous and biased by people who aren't "real" Christians because they just don't want to believe it?
Again, thanks for completely avoiding the points and questions raised, and for the link of an honest-to-goodness drawing of the inside scale of the Ark as convincing proof.
Last edited by NightBazaar; 06-06-2010 at 11:15 AM..
Reason: Spelling correction
As I have stated more than once now. I do not have all the answers. And I will not try to fabricate answers. If the Bible had such details I would pass them along. Yet such details were not given. The Bible tells us where the Ark landed. And now we can see the Ark, both in still shots and video. From afar, and from inside. And soon, even more pictures will be coming are way by others who will be going to the top of Mt. Ararat to view Noahs Ark.
No, you don't have ANY answers. You have a fable, you have your deluded view of what is utterly impossible, but in hundreds of posts on this topic you have not produced a single verifiable shred of evidence to support your fairy tale.
I also know that World War II really happened. Yet I could not begin to give you all the details of what occured. Does that mean it is not true. Of course not. Yet I know enought to confirm it did happen. Noah's Ark is the same. Those who believe in evolution could not give me all the details explaining evolution?
We don't? Or you won't read and consider them? Which is it? (BTW, we have all your recorded responses, so no lying please...)
Yet they still believe in the theory. Yet we have far more evidence for the Arks existance, than they have for evolution.
Ha ha. A remark, obviously, intended to inflame. Evolution's obvious evidence has far more than out-of-focus pics. Frankly, you should be reported, but then again, we'd lose the pure entertainment value. Utter nonsense of course. go on though ,Tom. Prove our points with some more!
Historically to this very day, we have numerous eyewitiness accounts of the Ark being on Mt. Ararat. We have no eyewitiness accounts of anyone witinessing evolution.
WRONG again. See: Lenski, 2008. Try to actually read it this time, Tom. I know, I know; it's quite frightening to you, and they do use a lot of multi-syllable words and all..
And those who beileve in the theory, do so based on assumptions only.
WRONG, again.
We now have pictures of the Ark from afar, and from inside of it.
WRONG, again.
And since the Ark was just discovered in recent times, your technical reports will be coming. As you well know Noah's Ark Ministeries International is now picking the next group to climb Mt. Ararat to further explore the Ark.
Why did they ignore my offer? They are considering my friend's offer, and (s)he claims to be a devout Christian, and also offered to provide some funding from her church. She doesn't even have any post-grad education or experience! But that funding thing oughta do it, huh?
They have invited those with the technical knowhow to consider the find, and they will reveal to all what was found up there.
Not likely, actually. I predict they'll have no-one of any credibility. We'll see. They also will not give out any information on their mission, goals, methods, funding or team members picked out. How unusual for a group claiming to seek scientific credibility.
The link below gives you an example of what we are talking about here. This is not some ancients summer cabin.
As I have stated more than once now. I do not have all the answers. And I will not try to fabricate answers. If the Bible had such details I would pass them along. Yet such details were not given. The Bible tells us where the Ark landed. And now we can see the Ark, both in still shots and video. From afar, and from inside. And soon, even more pictures will be coming are way by others who will be going to the top of Mt. Ararat to view Noahs Ark.
You regularly try to use logic. why not try to answer these simple questions? your beloved NAM expedition is going to try to claim scientific, logical credibility, and yet you go and poke your head in the sand? Well no sale, Tom.
Just answer the questions. Even an educated guess would be good. You yourself recnetly claimed there was only 1600 animals on the Ark. Explain please, against the known 30+M species. and then there['s that requirement for two of each of many of them. Answer that one. you can just tell us how, logically, such a situation was resolved by Noah. No links required! Easy!
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar
Once again, and true to form, you waltz off into stray, unrelated corners to avoid the questions. It's not about WW2 or evolution. It's about the recent claims about Noah's Ark. Remember?
So there have been numerous eyewitness accounts of the Ark being on Mt. Ararat. So what? There have been numerous eyewitness accounts about UFOs, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness Monster, and yet, nary a bolt, hair, or scale has been produced.
Quite so, only their better video and still picture coverage of all of those claims.
About the image link ... It's an artist's illustration for pete's sake. You're basing your believe about the current claims because of a drawing?
You say, "We now have pictures of the Ark from afar and from inside of it."
See GORE™
Yet, not a single one of them are conclusive of anything.
Oh come ON, NB! Such a doubter!
You have stated, "For me to suggest I have all the answers would be foolish." But that's exactly what you are doing.
That's quite a stretch of blind faith my friend.
I'm not holding my breath that any technical reports will be coming any time soon
You got it!
The hand-picking of "scientists" sounds mighty dodgy. I suspect it will be limited to those who already agree or whose qualifications amount to being the janitor of a research lab. And if any real scientists are selected, and conclude that it's NOT an Ark after all, do you think their professional findings will be included in the reports? Or will they be dismissed as flawed studies by jealous and biased by people who aren't "real" Christians because they just don't want to believe it?
The previous team geologist tech, identified as the Team's "Credible Archeologist", was later summarily dismissed and denigrated when he blew the whistle. Who, exactly, of any real credibility, would now join such a scurvy "team"?
Again, thanks for completely avoiding the points and questions raised, and for the link of an honest-to-goodness drawing of the inside scale of the Ark as convincing proof.
I do think we should take a vote on Tom's insistence that he not even try to answer the logical disconnects in my questions (post #558). In a true debate, it's called Conceding the Point(s).
But since he does concede these four points, he's also conceding the Ark never floated.
1) They show no signs of having been in the ground exposed to the effects of the soil at all.Clay things buried for hundreds or thousands of years do not look like newly made items,yet these do.
2) There was no dirt packed into the crevices of the figurines as there would have been had they truly been exposed to soil for thousands of years.The "centuries old" figurines were remarkably clean.
3)On new digs witnessed by experts for more figurines,the soil strata the figures were found in was jumbled and mixed up instead of the clearly defined soil stratification of undisturbed areas around the site.This shows that the soil had been dug up and the figurines buried and then re-covered with the now mixed up dirt.
4) The found figurines were in impossibly good shape.Most were unbroken,which is unheard of in true archeological digs.Of the few broken ones,there were no missing pieces,another archeological improbability.There were no sherds,as broken pottery is called,found.Zero.Which is mathematically impossible when dealing with 32,000 figurines.All archeological pottery finds are sherds.
Yes, and everything you have just mentioned here came from one mans opinion from 1953, Charles C. Dipeso. And even thought numerous others have explained away his comments, and his opinions. Today those who do not want to believe in the El Toro figurines, still quote this one mans account from the 1950s. When Dipeso was in Mexico he confirmed the figurines were ancient, yet changed his story as soon as he landed back in the states. Numerous figurines were discovered under the foundation of a home that had been built on that site from 35 years before. Who would do that? And one of the labs that confirmed the figurines were ancient also changed their findings as soon as they discovered they had tested the El Toro figurines. Later labs confirmed that the first labs finding was correct.
When you have people who have to keep changing their minds about their findings, you really have to question why they do that. Full story link below. World Site of Dinosaur Figurines of Mexico: evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted!
Those who have discovered the Ark on Mt. Ararat have not changed their story at all. And as the link below states. The belief by some that the Hong Kong team were victims of a hoax is getting harder to sustain. And the CMI staff have been in close contact with this team for years, and can vouch for their intergrity.
Yes, and everything you have just mentioned here came from one mans opinion from 1953, Charles C. Dipeso. And even thought numerous others have explained away his comments, and his opinions. Today those who do not want to believe in the El Toro figurines, still quote this one mans account from the 1950s. When Dipeso was in Mexico he confirmed the figurines were ancient, yet changed his story as soon as he landed back in the states. Numerous figurines were discovered under the foundation of a home that had been built on that site from 35 years before. Who would do that? And one of the labs that confirmed the figurines were ancient also changed their findings as soon as they discovered they had tested the El Toro figurines. Later labs confirmed that the first labs finding was correct.
When you have people who have to keep changing their minds about their findings, you really have to question why they do that. Full story link below. World Site of Dinosaur Figurines of Mexico: evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted!
Those who have discovered the Ark on Mt. Ararat have not changed their story at all. And as the link below states. The belief by some that the Hong Kong team were victims of a hoax is getting harder to sustain. And the CMI staff have been in close contact with this team for years, and can vouch for their intergrity.
So what if it was just one man,if in fact it was?The figurines are clearly visible in pictures as being too pristine.You have not disproven a single one of the points I made,choosing instead to try and make it seem that they cannot be true because they are the results of one man's investigation.
And you are wrong about the dating.Later tests have proven the figurines are recent.But then the pro figurine people just claim that these are being falsified because people don't want the true dating known.LOL!
People like you choose to believe and nothing much will convince you different.It is all quite laughable,and shows the completely unscholarly and unscientific mindset of those who choose to so readily accept such hoaxes.
Ica Stones,Delk track footprints,El Toro figurines.What's next,Santa Claus,the Easter Bunny,and the Tooth Fairy somehow prove the existence of Noah's Ark?
You regularly try to use logic. why not try to answer these simple questions? your beloved NAM expedition is going to try to claim scientific, logical credibility, and yet you go and poke your head in the sand? Well no sale, Tom.
Just answer the questions. Even an educated guess would be good. You yourself recnetly claimed there was only 1600 animals on the Ark. Explain please, against the known 30+M species. and then there['s that requirement for two of each of many of them. Answer that one. you can just tell us how, logically, such a situation was resolved by Noah. No links required! Easy!
I do think we should take a vote on Tom's insistence that he not even try to answer the logical disconnects in my questions (post #558). In a true debate, it's called Conceding the Point(s).
But since he does concede these four points, he's also conceding the Ark never floated.
So be it. Thx, Tom.
I would say, the pictures they took of the inside of the Ark appear very clear. And as the link below states all the pictures were taken at the site were the Ark was discovered. So it appears, Dr. Price did not know what he was talking about when he floated his false belief. And the link below also tells us that the belief that the Hong Kong Team were victims of a hoax is getting harder to sustain. The CMI staff stated that they have been in close contact with this group for years now, and they can vouch for their integrity.
Your questions are not simple, and as I have stated I am not here to guess my way to the truth. If I have hard evidence I will share it. I hate to make assumptions, and try to avoid that as much as I can. Not knowing somthing is not the same as saying it would be impossible. Do you know how the universe came into existance? If you can't fully answer that question. Then do you concede that the universe never existed? Two can play that game rifleman.LOL
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Sunday Funnies, brought to you by Tom.
A remark, obviously, intended to inflame. Evolution's obvious evidence has far more than out-of-focus pics. Frankly, you should be reported, but then again, we'd lose the pure entertainment value. Utter nonsense of course. go on though ,Tom. Prove our points with some more!
