Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New photo resparks 'Noah's Ark mania'
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | March 10, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern | Joe Kovacs

Posted on 03/09/2006 11:30:41 PM PST by Tim Long

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 321-323 next last
To: Tim Long

Many suspect that the Ark made landfall in the Zagros mountains of Iran, not Mt. Ararat in Turkey. An Iranian location for the Ark would fit the biblical record better (Just as Mt. Sinai is in Saudi Arabia, not the Sinai Peninsula...)


261 posted on 03/12/2006 5:55:06 PM PST by Old_Mil (http://www.constitutionparty.org - Forging a Rebirth of Freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
I'm a Catholic, not a Protestant fundementalist, and our perspective on these matters differs in a number of areas.

Unless I am mistaken, Catholics accept evolution and the old earth evidence. They do not teach as literal an interpretation of the bible as others do.

So, could not the flood described in the Bible have been the Black Sea event some 7,000 years ago (I don't remember the exact date). I know this would be a more localized event, but would this not be a possible interpretation?

262 posted on 03/12/2006 5:58:19 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
For starters, it is geology, not evolution, which describes the layering of the geologic column. This is worth straightening out because many of you will say something like, "I love science, I just don't accept evolution." Then it turns out the speaker does not accept geology, astronomy, cosmology, nuclear chemistry, or anything else in science that is used to support an old Earth or an old universe.

All of these sciences are lumped together because they are all presently being used to support evolutionist theories of 4 billion year old Earth, through various circular arguments. (The fossil must be old because it is so deep in those rocks which took x years to form.) None of this pre-historic stuff is truly scientific because it is unobservable and untestable. One cannot go back in time to observe the inland sea laying down layers of sediment over South Dakota and assure oneself this seas was not also elsewhere, and exactly how long it was over South Dakota. One must take it on faith that the explanation concocted to explain what is physically observable today is correct.

Frankly, I'd rather rely on faith on the Bible than on the disputes of anti-Christ geologists and biologists.

Geology says that sedimentary layers do not get deposited on preexisting mountains. There is no way to do this and not just because it is impractical to cover the mountain with water. Even if you somehow deposit something on the mountain, it will just erode away. That's what mountains do. They wear down.

And where did I say that sediments are deposited on mountains????

So you don't even understand what geology says about sediment layers on mountains. Well, sedimentary layers in mountains ARE the mountain. They used to lie flat and then they got warped.

I agree. Why are you arguing with me on this point? Our only disagreement is when these mountains (like Sideling Hill) were warped upwards. I say post flood. You do too. We just disagree one whether that flood was "millions of years ago" or just prior to the ice age.

There are mountains that aren't sedimentary in character. They're called "volcanoes." They have a different structure entirely and they don't have any fossiliferous sediments on them.

Let me bring back a response from my childhood. No duh!

Did I ever say otherwise? No, I didn't think so.

The sedimentary mountains are sediments to a great depth. When they were made, the layers crumpled both up AND DOWN. The lithosphere is thickened under mountains because the crushing displaces the warped crust in both directions. In fact, sort of like an iceberg, there's more below than above.

Again, I don't disagree here. So why are you bringing it up?

So you have two problems: 1) Your version is impossible, and 2) you have no understanding of the mainstream version.

You forgot to put in the operator: (/pedantic lecturing tone)

263 posted on 03/12/2006 6:11:02 PM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker; PatrickHenry
Frankly, I'd rather rely on faith on the Bible than on the disputes of anti-Christ geologists and biologists.

Hey, what about archaeologists? What are we, chopped liver?

264 posted on 03/12/2006 6:15:17 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
I think you are confusing flood sediments from a river, where there would obviously be current effects, with oceanic flooding, which would be much more like slow deposits.

(Took that out of order, I know.) River floodplains are made of lots of little flood layers and you can tell it wasn't all one big flood. While I'm not familiar with "oceanic flooding," I have never seen a credible account of how it produces the geologic column.

If you aren't familiar with this, please look up on Google "Western Inland Sea Late Cretaceous". Should being up lots of evolutionist sites explaining how a vast sea stretching over the Great Plains made all of that sedimentary rock we now see. For example:

http://www.priweb.org/ed/ICTHOL/ICTHOL04papers/63.htm

Quote: "Over 65 million years ago Kansas, including the whole Midwest Region of North America from the Arctic Circle to the Gulf of Mexico, was covered by the Sea. Due to the continental uplifts of the mountain ranges in North America during the Pangaea stage, the once shallow sea of Kansas became shut off from the sea-water flow and dried out to what we know it as today."

"Continental uplifts", "inland seas", etc. are all the same stuff required for a global flood and its aftermath, and are all used by evolutionists simply on a different timescale to explain the same strata. As I said, the evolution model also requires large scale flooding of land (or emergence of what is now land from having been underwater). It simply places it on a different timescale.

Again, since no one was there to observe it except Noah, I'd prefer to stick to his scientific account (shared by every tribe around the world), than to models created 10,000 years after the fact by atheists attempting to tell us there is no God and Christ never came.

The answers are in the Bible.

I don't see it as that kind of a book.

Obviously. You place your faith in geology and biology textbooks and scientific hypothesies pretending to "know" exactly what happened in the past, rather than the Incarnate Living God.

That's you choice, I just don't see why I must follow you over the cliff with all its logical consequences of making man nothing more than matter in motion.

265 posted on 03/12/2006 6:20:02 PM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Unless I am mistaken, Catholics accept evolution and the old earth evidence. They do not teach as literal an interpretation of the bible as others do.

Apparently you've never read the decrees of the Pontifical Bible Comission.

You might correctly say many heretics parading around as Catholics teach evolution and symbolic interpretations of Genesis, ignoring the clear rulings of the Popes on these matters.

So, could not the flood described in the Bible have been the Black Sea event some 7,000 years ago (I don't remember the exact date). I know this would be a more localized event, but would this not be a possible interpretation?

No. The Bible clearly states the flood was worldwide and wiped out all men. The symbolism of this reality is important because in the Allegorical interpretation of Geneis, the Church holds the flood and the ark were types of Baptism and the Church, so that the souls in the Ark were saved by water, and the Ark is a type of the Church, where everyone outside the Catholic Church is overwhelmed by the flood of their sins. (See 1 St. Peter 3.20-21).

Jesus Christ Himself also clearly took the flood as literal truth (e.g. St. Matthew 24.36-39), and unless we are to attribute gross ignorance to Christ, which would de-divinize Him and thus destroy Orthodox Christianity, this is further evidence that it did happen.

266 posted on 03/12/2006 6:29:37 PM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
All of these sciences are lumped together because they are all presently being used to support evolutionist theories of 4 billion year old Earth, through various circular arguments. (The fossil must be old because it is so deep in those rocks which took x years to form.)

This too is wrong. How is it I always get the ones who apparently have never discussed their silly ideas with anyone before? Where the dates come from.

Frankly, I'd rather rely on faith on the Bible than on the disputes of anti-Christ geologists and biologists.

Since that's obviously where all you "science" is coming from, I'll just skip ahead to one last question.

And where did I say that sediments are deposited on mountains????

It was a passage that looked like this:

The Evolution model requires various high lying areas like Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Africa, etc. (1 mile above sea level) to be covered in "shallow seas" in order to lay down the expansively enormous and deep sedementary layers that are readily apparent to the naked eye (Grand Canyon, Badlands, Great Rift Valley, Sideling Hill Cut, etc.).

If I read you wrong, it's hard to see how what I think I see there is any dumber than whatever you do think happened. It does not look like a good description of what mainstream geology thinks. It cannot be recognized as such.

Thus, I stand by my conclusion: 1) Your version is impossible, and 2) you have no understanding of the mainstream version.

267 posted on 03/12/2006 6:36:41 PM PST by VadeRetro (I have the updated "Your brain on creationism" on my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

Not at all the same thing. I would never see Jesus on a grilled cheese sandwich or a tortilla but I would love it if something as ancient as the Ark was found. The Ark is a man made God inspired object that really existed. Grilled cheese sandwiches and tortillas had not even been invented when Jesus was alive. ((((snort))))) ;)


268 posted on 03/12/2006 6:37:09 PM PST by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
If I read you wrong

Tell me about all those mountains on the plains of Africa or America that I was mentioning.

It does not look like a good description of what mainstream geology thinks. It cannot be recognized as such.

http://www.scn.org/~bh162/maas.html

"What do you see down there?" "Looks like an inland sea over areas now 4000+ ft. high, Jim."

269 posted on 03/12/2006 6:44:23 PM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
OK, various areas of the continent were undersea at times. That would include large areas of the the East Coast as well.

Not all of these areas were undersea at the same time. Your western region was Late Cretaceous. My Eastern region was last undersea in the Mississipian some 330 million years ago. Those two seas really won't work if you try to make them the residue of one flood. Nothing matches up.

270 posted on 03/12/2006 6:45:46 PM PST by VadeRetro (I have the updated "Your brain on creationism" on my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
I think the same people who see the ark on Ararat are prone to see Jesus on a grilled cheese sandwich.

Do not mock my grilled cheese religion

271 posted on 03/12/2006 6:47:05 PM PST by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Ditter

I would also love to see either Noah's ark or the Ark of the Covenant found. I'm pretty sure the former never existed and I'm not sure about the latter.

The discovery of either would be incredibly significant.


272 posted on 03/12/2006 6:52:58 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: woofie

Sorry!


273 posted on 03/12/2006 6:54:52 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
Creatures such as ammonites, clams, oysters, sharks and mosasaurs lived in this sea.

Mosasaurs? That western sea had MOSASAURS!!??

See what I mean?

274 posted on 03/12/2006 6:56:24 PM PST by VadeRetro (I have the updated "Your brain on creationism" on my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
OK, various areas of the continent were undersea at times. That would include large areas of the the East Coast as well.

Good we agree! There was widespread continental flooding in the past!

That wasn't so hard, was it? Now we can see our major disagreement is not the mechanism of widespread flooding (so lets not hear anymore about how its impossible for the world to be flooded), because we both believe that it happened, but at what time it occurred, and why.

Not all of these areas were undersea at the same time. Your western region was Late Cretaceous. My Eastern region was last undersea in the Mississipian some 330 million years ago. Those two seas really won't work if you try to make them the residue of one flood. Nothing matches up.

Of course not according to orthodox Geological models. If the whole world was flooded at once, we couldn't have animals evolving from ooze, and humans being born from monkeys, since they all would have then drown, and we'd have to start all back over again at the fish-crawling-onto-land stage, after numerous attempts to mutate fins into feet once again, and so simultaneously with mutating gills into lungs. How tedious.

Again, since no one was there according to the millions of years ago theory, I don't see how there is certainty that the flooding wasn't simultaneous, since you are certainly admitting that everywhere with large sedimentary rock layering was once underwater. The non-simultaneity is an interpetation of various radioactive dating methods with pre-conceived requirements of non-simultaneity. The simple observable fact is that all these places were once under a sea.

Still, this looks like pretty wide-spread continental flooding being asked for:

http://www.scotese.com/cretaceo.htm

275 posted on 03/12/2006 6:58:42 PM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
I'm going to go back to what you said earlier and close for the night.

All of these sciences [geology, astronomy, cosmology, nuclear chemistry, or anything else in science that is used to support an old Earth or an old universe] are lumped together [under the term "evolution"] because they are all presently being used to support evolutionist theories of 4 billion year old Earth, through various circular arguments.

As I pointed out earlier, this equivocation on the word "evolution" covers the YEC while making the disarming claim "I'm cool with science, I just don't accept evolution." The illusion that only Darwin's topic, biological evolution, is meant minimizes the actual damage. In fact, when you're done throwing out what doesn't work with a concrete-literal Genesis interpretation, you don't have much left of the last 150 years of science.

It's a sad little would-be "science" that has a mile-high list of knowledge that must be discredited somehow and nothing to replace it with.

You have the night shift.

276 posted on 03/12/2006 7:08:33 PM PST by VadeRetro (I have the updated "Your brain on creationism" on my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

"That is, the world looks old because IT IS old"

Why does the world look old?

"we don't see the sediments of a world-wide flood because there WASN'T one"

So massive horizontal worldwide sedimentation with essentially unidirectional paleocurrent indicators isn't indication of a world-wide flood?

"we find evidence for common descent of organisms because common descent IS the nature of the relationship"

Except that we usually don't. In cases where common descent is realistic, creationists agree (for example, Creationists agree with the common descent for basically all Canidae).


277 posted on 03/12/2006 7:26:38 PM PST by johnnyb_61820
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
If there was an ark, how did the koala eat after they landed, and how did it get back to Australia? What about the sloth? They can only live in trees. What did the carniverous animals eat? Etc. Etc. Etc. Noah's Ark was a FABLE And Creationism is a joke.

Um, okay....

278 posted on 03/12/2006 7:42:35 PM PST by It's me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
Care to tell me how all them cold blooded snakes found their way back to Africa? Did the pandas walk back to China? What did they eat? Did the tigers kill any of the other animals? Mighty cold at the top of that mountain. Like I said, Creationism is for empty headed luddites who feel threatened by any new thought or discovery.

Okay, if you say so...

279 posted on 03/12/2006 7:44:19 PM PST by It's me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Angus MacGregor

Hear, hear! Well said.


280 posted on 03/12/2006 7:46:08 PM PST by It's me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 321-323 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson