|
|
|
|
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/12/2008 2:07:24 PM | So you have a geologist whose EVERY cited publication is noted NOT for scientific value or validity, but for the fact that it's used to support creationism. If those publications were truly of scientific value, they would not appear in journals with a pre-established agenda. Any books are fairly meaningless, since there is no peer review process for books. Peer review of creationist literature must be viewed as questionable at best, since the "peers" in this case, are not determined by their scientific qualifications, but by their established beliefs in creationism. As unbiased science, it is neither science, nor unbiased.
Then we have a long off-topic argumentum ad nauseum about evolution and the fossil record. This has been thoroughly refuted and debunked in several other threads, repeatedly. Repeating it here is another attempt to "declare victory and go home". No validity to the arguments is established by repeating them over and over.
ON topic, we have the idiocy of Noah's Ark claims. Idiocy is the right word. There are six or eight other noachian threads already. Debunked repeatedly. At the most basic level, bits of wood do not establish a man-made structure, they don't show that a structure is a boat, they don't show that a boat was used to transport animals, they don't show that such a boat was built by a person named Noah, and they don't show that this Noah is the one mentioned in the Bible. Notwithstanding that the only "researcher" making these claims is a quack who hasn't been able to do more than the most superficial study, the claims are not and cannot be supported by the evidence. Non sequitur. On the contrary, all the claims required to support the literal interpretation of the Noah's Ark myth require the complete dismissal of a HUGE amount of basic physics, chemistry and biology...things which work perfectly predictably now and in all history...except during the Noachian flood. Occam's razor applies. If all laws apply now and in the past, and the story is contrary to the evidence unless you discard all those laws, then the story is false.
I'm not a big fan of copy-and-paste, but the fact is, all the evidence is available to those willing to see it. The fact that some are quite prepared to ignore all such evidence, and then advance their views here as if they're actually supportable, is more than enough reason to slap them in the face with a pasted bit of rationality. Honestly, I normally gloss over Raven's pastes. They're long, and I am usually more than familiar with their content. But they're accurate. The argument that it's all taken on faith just doesn't wash. It's not possible for all evidence to be observed and tested by all people. Unless shown otherwise, it is reasonable to accept as true, conclusions which are based upon the scientific method and pre-established evidence, facts, and theories. Both sides accept a number of basic precepts as being true. Raven and myself accept scientific precepts. By and large, these have not been proven wrong, although they have often been dismissed or ignored. How is this somehow inferior to the opposing claims which are all utterly dependant upon a lack of evidence, multiple logical fallacies, and "scientists" whose conclusions are NOT published in journals for their respective fields, but in journals entirely dedicated to presumptive conclusions?
On the other side, we have claims made which are based upon a book which is compiled from writings 4500 years old, or older. Those writings have been translated and retranslated, yet somehow the current English language version is considered to most correct. That's despite the fact that it has been repeatedly shown that versions which have been less translated actually disagree. That's despite the fact that clear links with even earlier stories have been shown. That's despite the fact that a historical basis can be shown for the stories, but that historical basis is FAR from identical. That's despite the fact that we all know that rumors and stories grow in the retelling, and Scorpiomover has specifically pointed out that this is a factor in ancient Hebrew writing. That's despite the fact that all the "prophecies" of this book are non sequitur revisionist history [it MUST be nuclear weapons? it MUST be helicopters? Show us WHY it "must"]. That's despite the fact that there are many other writings of faith which cannot be shown to have any greater or lesser value...yet I am not hearing anyone claim that we are literally living on the back of a giant turtle. Absurd? Yes. Funny, that.
It's
just
not
believable.
It requires that all we know and experience to be predictable on a day to day basis, was completely unpredictable for a brief time in the past. No evidence supports that conclusion, and no amount of arguing in its favor will do that. Biblical literalism is the road to eradication of your faith. It necessitates claims which contradict reality. The consequence of that will be that it is harder and harder to find people gullible enough to believe...except in the most third world of theocracies. It's easy to have faith in the unseen and unprovable. It's very hard to have faith in the unseen and unprovable when it contradicts what's right in front of your face. Kudos if you can do it, but you're a dying breed, and one which I won't miss in the least. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/12/2008 2:29:09 PM |
You'd get a slight raise over a very long area, but never a mountain range.
The five miles of Everest IS slight, when you consider the thickness of the plates beneath it.
I would expect it would melt anything in the mountain that was not solid rock, such as organic fossils.
Considering the millions of years involved, the heat has more than ample opportunity to dissipate.
See that doesn't make sense to me. Fossils would fall downwards.
Fossils? No. Fossils are part of the rock they're in, and composed of more or less the same minerals. They're not falling anywhere. Wiwaxia and Opabinia were buried by the mud and silt they lived upon. Now it's ALL shale, the mud and all the life trapped within it.
So surely you would only expect to find fish fossils on areas that had previously been covered by water, wouldn't you?
Yes, they would be found where once there was water. And they are. Terrestrial, marine, and freshwater fossils may all be found layered above each other, both in mountains and lowlands. Alternating layers is a rather prominent disagreement with a single Noachian flood. You'll find no ammonites or trilobites from a benthic marine environment freely intermixed with a freshwater/terrestrial Triadobatrachus or Andrias. Sediments will also NOT be deposited in any great amount on mountain tops. Gravity would carry the bodies and the covering mud or sand downhill until friction stops it. The fine layers of the sediments will show whether those sediments were deposited ON a slope, or in the flats at the bottom of a slope. That which dies at the top of a mountain would likely not be fossilized there, most especially if it died in the very turbulent waters of a cataclysmic flood - moving waters would remove bodies and sediments from such an exposed position.
Surely that would suggest that the Earth was entirely covered by water a long time before the flood, so there was a precedent, wouldn't it?
Not unless there was a fairly consistant intermixing of species from all habitats in a single layer. That's far from being the case. There are layers piled miles thick, and there are many cases where there will be completely marine fossils, including fossilized reefs and burrows, followed by layers which contain fossilized beach wrack and ripples in the sand, followed by fossilized dunes, followed by marshes complete with all the plants and animals expected of a marsh, followed by fossilized leaves, logs, insects, pollens, etc of a forest. The exact order, number and content of the layers will vary from place to place, but the fact they exist at all is clearly contradictory of a single global flood. What is further contradictory is that there are many cases of completely terrestrial fossilization, in the form of volcanic ash or desert sand. Yet another example is single layers which reflect a change in habitat, as from water to shore to completely terrestrial. For a "global" flood, this would require a high degree of selectively local effects. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/12/2008 2:56:25 PM |
The real joke is that Science is supposed to be about the search for truth, but that if anyone questions it, they are called ignorant...
Being called ignorant regarding a certain area of knowledge is not an insult. Everyone is ignorant of many, many things. With acknowledgment of ignorance comes the willingness to learn. The real offense is refusing to acknowledge one's own ignorance.
If this is your main indictment of Science, it still comes out smelling like a rose, IMO.
another really unsubtle dig, because you are really afraid that the Bible might be true.
To me, it seems that Taurus was just trying to add some actual historical context to the origin of the flood story. If that seems like an unsubtle dig, then... brace yourself to be digged a lot! I've seen no fear of the Bible possibly being literally true on here. Quite the opposite, really. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/12/2008 3:35:35 PM | Well can I just say "bulcrappy' as it sure looked to me like you were jumpin on the 'ol band wagon of Bible critics. As in:
"It all comes down to "God did it". --by Ravenstar66 quote unquote...lol
Now c'mon Gus... I can’t turn a blind eye. Raven is a sweet lady, deserving of respect!
You and I are friends...
And for the attention of others...
Think on it... we all deserve to be addressed the way we want to be, right? :) | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/12/2008 3:42:24 PM | I'll never understand why fundamentalists decide to believe this.
It's so obviously untrue that it is comical that they would call factual disproof "opinion", as if their pontifications were pure fact right out of the Almighty (if anything, it'd be out of His Holy Rear)
I can only sigh at the sheer hypocrisy and fear that drives such belief.
It won't end until these people decide that maybe they should ask questions instead of eating their b.s. like good little children.
I'm sorry if I offended you, but it's your own fault for being in a position where the frustrated rant of a rational person is offensive to your delicate sensibilities.
~ David | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/12/2008 5:27:54 PM | I do believe I am guilty of an inability.. or maybe it is laziness (?) to properly paraphrase and essay my knowledge, research and beliefs. Yes, it is pure laziness.
My posts sometimes come from frustration.. I definitely do not mean to denigrate anyone's beliefs. I have my own beliefs which I can not rationalize in an objective manner so I must allow the same to everyone else. But has been stated truly and many times on this forum, "belief" can not be debated. Fact and fallacy can. And will...
Frogo (and many others) have an ability to summarize very eloquently scientific concepts I neither have the language nor the education base to. I am in debt to them for their clarification of things I can only grasp on a shallow if holistic level. I learn more here on this forum about science, linguistics, scriptural scholarship, and many others things than I have learned anywhere else (in one place anyway). If only because I am forced to look things up for myself... and frequently by the very questions asked in the threads...and by the variety of viewpoints and knowledge presented. No one can say we are preaching to the choir here.
Peace, and respectful debate!
Ravenstar | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/12/2008 6:17:02 PM |
Peace, and respectful debate!
 Agreed, doll...now where were we? *this would be both faster and funner in person over coffee..or maybe a beer?
I would have done the research and science myself (if I was able to..I am not that educated)... but why bother if others already have done it? I have learned in my life that simply accepting what I'm told (even if by those who have been crowned as "best in their field) in both my education and religious pursuit has proved to be costly and disappointing. ~Do not allow anyone to tell you what to believe or think, doll. 
I am not stating an opinion as truth, as so many others do I think you might have meant me due to that particular statement has had my name on it more than once here the forums, so I ask you to forgive me if I have come across that way. It is not my intent, I simply forget to word my 2 pennies as opinion. (the teacher in me is a "know-it-all" monster.  ) I'll try harder to state opinion as such to not offend you. K?
And it would be really COOL if someone DID come up with a new theory or answer for these questions Well the theories that Ive studied have not been debunked, so "if it aint broke, why fix it", I always say.
Now c'mon Gus... I can’t turn a blind eye. Raven is a sweet lady, deserving of respect!
You and I are friends...
And for the attention of others...
Think on it... we all deserve to be addressed the way we want to be, right? :)
 Ever the true loving guy, he always attempts to bring love and peace into the most heated ring. 10 ninja points for you, Sky.
Oh, and Frog man.. Beat it! You intellectually bully, Im trying to look smart and full of edicate and cannot if you're pie hole is runnin'! Just kidding, ya know I aint got nothin' but love for ya. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/12/2008 6:17:43 PM | Whenever I see the Flood trotted out as history I feel I need to post this little gem:
The Flood? Well, here's how it could never happen.
Marty Leipzig...geologist...gives us the 'why's' of why the Flood could not happen.
First- the global flood supposedly (Scripturally) covered the planet, and Mount Everest is 8,848 meters tall. The diameter of the earth at the equator, on the other hand, is 12,756.8 km. All we have to do is calculate the volume of water to fill a sphere with a radius of the Earth + Mount Everest; then we subtract the volume of a sphere with a radius of the Earth. Now, I know this won't yield a perfect result, because the Earth isn't a perfect sphere, but it will serve to give a general idea about the amounts involved.
So, here are the calculations:
First, Everest
V= 4/3 * pi * r cubed
= 4/3 * pi * 6387.248 km cubed
= 1.09151 x 10 to the 12 cubic kilometres (1.09151x102 km3)
Now, the Earth at sea level
V = 4/3 * pi * r cubed
= 4/3 * pi * 6378.4 km cubed
= 1.08698 x 10 to the 12 cubic kilometres (1.08698x1012 km3)
The difference between these two figures is the amount of water needed to just cover the Earth:
4.525 x 10 to the ninth cubic kilometres (4.525x1009 km3) Or, to put into a more sensible number, 4,525,000,000,000 cubic kilometres
This is one helluva lot of water.
For those who think it might come from the polar ice caps, please don't forget that water is more dense than ice, and thus that the volume of ice present in those ice caps would have to be more than the volume of water necessary.
Some interesting physical effects of all that water, too. How much weight do you think that is? Well, water at STP weighs in at 1 gram/cubic centimetre (by definition)...so,
4.252x1009 km3 of water,
X 106 (= cubic meters),
X 106 (= cubic centimetres),
X 1 g/cm3 (= grams),
X 10-3 (= kilograms),
(turn the crank)
equals 4.525E+21 kg.
Ever wonder what the effects of that much weight would be? Well, many times in the near past (i.e., the Pleistocene), continental ice sheets covered many of the northern states and most all of Canada. For the sake of argument, let's call the area covered by the Wisconsinian advance (the latest and greatest) was 10,000,000,000 (ten million) km2, by an average thickness of 1 km of ice (a good estimate...it was thicker in some areas [the zones of accumulation] and much thinner elsewhere [at the ablating edges]). Now, 1.00x1007 km2 X 1 km thickness equals 1.00E+07 km3 of ice.
Now, remember earlier that we noted that it would take 4.525x1009 km3 of water for the flood? Well, looking at the Wisconsinian glaciation, all that ice (which is frozen water, remember?) would be precisely 0.222% [...do the math](that's zero decimal two hundred twenty two thousandths) percent of the water needed for the flood.
Well, the Wisconsinian glacial stade ended about 25,000 YBP (years before present), as compared for the approximately supposedly 4,000 YBP flood event.
Due to these late Pleistocene glaciations (some 21,000 years preceding the supposed flood), the mass of the ice has actually depressed the crust of the Earth. That crust, now that the ice is gone, is slowly rising (called glacial rebound); and this rebound can be measured, in places (like northern Wisconsin), in centimetres/year. Sea level was also lowered some 10's of meters due to the very finite amount of water in the Earth's hydrosphere being locked up in glacial ice sheets (geologists call this glacioeustacy).
Now, glacial rebound can only be measured, obviously, in glaciated terranes, i.e., the Sahara is not rebounding as it was not glaciated during the Pleistocene. This lack of rebound is noted by laser ranged interferometery and satellite geodesy [so there], as well as by geomorphology. Glacial striae on bedrock, eskers, tills, moraines, rouche moutenees, drumlins, kame and kettle topography, fjords, deranged fluvial drainage and erratic blocks all betray a glacier's passage. Needless to say, these geomorphological expressions are not found everywhere on Earth (for instance, like the Sahara). Therefore, although extensive, the glaciers were a local (not global) is scale. Yet, at only 0.222% the size of the supposed flood, they have had a PROFOUND and EASILY recognisable and measurable effects on the lands.
Yet, the supposed flood of Noah, supposedly global in extent, supposedly much more recent, and supposedly orders of magnitude larger in scale; has exactly zero measurable effects and zero evidence for it's occurrence.
Golly, Wally. I wonder why that may be...?
Further, Mount Everest extends through 2/3 of the Earth's atmosphere. Since two forms of matter can't occupy the same space, we have an additional problem with the atmosphere. Its current boundary marks the point at which gasses of the atmosphere can escape the Earth's gravitational field. Even allowing for partial dissolving of the atmosphere into our huge ocean, we'd lose the vast majority of our atmosphere as it is raised some 5.155 km higher by the rising flood waters; and it boils off into space.
Yet, we still have a quite thick and nicely breathable atmosphere. In fact, ice cores from Antarctica (as well as deep-sea sediment cores) which can be geochemically tested for paleoatmospheric constituents and relative gas ratios; and these records extend well back into the Pleistocene, far more than the supposed 4,000 YBP flood event. Strange that this major loss of atmosphere, atmospheric fractionation (lighter gasses (oxygen, nitrogen, fluorine, neon, etc.) would have boiled off first in the flood-water rising scenario, enriching what remained with heavier gasses (argon, krypton, xenon, radon, etc.)), and massive extinctions from such global upheavals are totally unevidenced in these cores.
Even further, let us take a realistic and dispassionate look at the other claims relating to global flooding and other such biblical nonsense.
Particularly, in order to flood the Earth to the Genesis requisite depth of 10 cubits (~15' or 5 m.) above the summit of Mt. Ararat (16,900' or 5,151 m AMSL), it would obviously require a water depth of 16,915' (5,155.7 m), or over three miles above mean sea level. In order to accomplish this little task, it would require the previously noted additional 4.525 x 109 km3 of water to flood the Earth to this depth. The Earth's present hydrosphere (the sum total of all waters in, on and above the Earth) totals only 1.37 x 109 km3. Where would this additional 4.525 x 109 km3 of water come from? It cannot come from water vapour (i.e., clouds) because the atmospheric pressure would be 840 times greater than standard pressure of the atmosphere today. Further, the latent heat released when the vapour condenses into liquid water would be enough to raise the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere to approximately 3,570 C (6,460 F).
Someone, who shall properly remain anonymous, suggested that all the water needed to flood the Earth existed as liquid water surrounding the globe (i.e., a "vapour canopy"). This, of course, it staggeringly stupid. What is keeping that much water from falling to the Earth? There is a little property called gravity that would cause it to fall.
Let's look into that from a physical standpoint. To flood the Earth, we have already seen that it would require 4.252 x 109 km3 of water with a mass of 4.525 x 1021 kg. When this amount of water is floating about the Earth's surface, it stored an enormous amount of potential energy, which is converted to kinetic energy when it falls, which, in turn, is converted to heat upon impact with the Earth. The amount of heat released is immense:
Potential energy: E=M*g*H, where
M = mass of water,
g = gravitational constant and,
H = height of water above surface.
Now, going with the Genesis version of the Noachian Deluge as lasting 40 days and nights, the amount of mass falling to Earth each day is 4.525 x 1021 kg/40 24 hr. periods. This equals 1.10675 x 1020 kilograms daily. Using H as 10 miles (16,000 meters), the energy released each day is 1.73584 x 1025 joules. The amount of energy the Earth would have to radiate per m2/sec is energy divided by surface area of the Earth times number of seconds in one day. That is: e = 1.735384 x 1025/(4*3.14159* ((6386)2*86,400)) = 391,935.0958 j/m2/s.
Currently, the Earth radiates energy at the rate of approximately 215 joules/m2/sec and the average temperature is 280 K. Using the Stefan- Boltzman 4'th power law to calculate the increase in temperature:
E (increase)/E (normal) = T (increase)/T4 (normal)
E (normal) = 215 E (increase) = 391,935.0958 T (normal) = 280.
Turn the crank, and T (increase) equals 1800 K.
The temperature would thusly rise 1800 K, or 1,526.84 C (that's 2,780.33 F...lead melts at 880 F...ed note). It would be highly unlikely that anything short of fused quartz would survive such an onslaught. Also, the water level would have to rise at an average rate of 5.5 inches/min; and in 13 minutes would be in excess of 6' deep.
Finally, at 1800 K water would not exist as liquid.
It is quite clear that a Biblical Flood is and was quite impossible. Only fools and those shackled by dogma would insist otherwise.
| |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/12/2008 6:29:52 PM |
My point is that there is NOT that kind of proof. If anything the science actually makes this particular story pretty much impossible. It IS NOT an opinion of mine... it is scientific fact, which is open to revision in the light of new knowledge. I am asking for new knowledge, or even a really neat personal hypothesis that is original.
I feel that the reason for this is that most have already made up their minds that such a cataclysm could not possibly have occurred. You know, I have not analyzed this particular topic much myself. I don't usually like to post on threads that I have not had the chance to research. Perhaps I should hold off until I get more updated with the information. But I am also not going to stand by and watch a bunch of overgrown men, woman, whomever-- launch personal attacks on both the Bible and the One Christian poster standing up for such a belief. Furthermore--all I said was blah (well three times)..and I get nuked for it. Overall--NOT NICE. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/12/2008 7:00:21 PM |
You know, I have not analyzed this particular topic much myself. Me neither, bro. Crash courses seem to be a favored style of teaching with God, huh? Bummer, that.
I don't usually like to post on threads that I have not had the chance to research. Perhaps I should hold off until I get more updated with the information. Amen. He does tell us to "not worry about what to say or how you should say it, you will be given the correct words at the correct time",
though...we just hate the fear of sounding a fool. Faith, doll, faith.
But I am also not going to stand by and watch a bunch of overgrown men, woman, whomever-- launch personal attacks on both the Bible and the One Christian poster standing up for such a belief.
Siblings have such a sweet protective love for one another that often leaves me speechless...anywho, I so thank you , doll, for "havin' my back", I Forrest Gump my way through most of this stuff, but God? He constantly reminds me, "Baby Gurl, I, the Creator of Heaven and Earth and everything in them" can kick it with any mob and need no defense, even by My appointed defenders.. .
Still trying to get that one down. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/12/2008 7:03:52 PM | I find this thread interesting. Though I am a devout follower of Christ, I have never bought the Ark tale - even as a child. There are just sooooooo many gaps. To acknowledge the faith side is to acknowledge the scientific side of things that Christians just won't allow themselves to believe.
In this thread/topic, science wins. It just does. Until God proves me wrong. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/12/2008 7:09:06 PM | I find this thread interesting. Though I am a devout follower of Christ, I have never bought the Ark tale - even as a child. There are just sooooooo many gaps. To acknowledge the faith side is to acknowledge the scientific side of things that Christians just won't allow themselves to believe.
In this thread/topic, science wins. It just does. Until God proves me wrong.
Eeeooouuu, you are so gonna sit at the work table this month!!
Ya just flew open a door, beggin to be refined. and
Oh, and go buy some band aids, it is a wee bit "rocky" | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/12/2008 7:11:26 PM | "Eeeooouuu, you are so gonna sit at the work table this month!!
Ya just flew open a door, beggin to be refined"
I stay at the work table; and I have been begging for refinement for years. I am progressing quite well. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/12/2008 7:26:26 PM | Thanks to all on both sides of the issue for the well thought out and researched answers.Quite fascinating stuff,regardless of which belief you happen to espouse.
What I'm seeing here brings me to this conclusion.There are two types people.Those who's hearts lead their heads and those who's heads lead their hearts.Perhaps some of the latter group have both parts of their psyches so closely intertwined ,they use both to make their belief systems.
I'm one of those cold analytical SOB's when it comes to my beliefs.Let me give you an idea of how my mind works and always had,even when I was a little kid.When I was a kid,no one had to tell me that Santa Clause didn't literally exist.I figured it out around age 7 as it was quite obvious that reindeer simply can't fly and it was just impossible for a man to circumnavigate the globe and deliver toys to every good kid on the planet.And who's standards was he gonna use to determine which kid was "good"?My parents standards who would beat my ass for talking back to them,or my neighbor's standards who allowed the kids to virtually run the show?So by third grade I knew it was all fantasy,so what?I still got toys,Christmas was still cool and it was the "spirit" of Santa that mattered.The idea that it WAS better to give than to recieve and all that cool stuff.
Religion with me,though,had to be dealt with on another level.If your parents were local TV celebrities in the deep south who sang gospel music,rest assured,you WERE carried to Sunday School,you DID KNOW your Bible and at some point you DID walk a church isle ,get saved,get dunked in the water,the whole schtick.The impetus in my upbringing was to believe,so I wanted to believe.By the time I was 12,I was pretty much a closet agnostic,just couldn't buy it,and since I'm one of those "heart follows the head" people, I couldn't accept what I was taught as anything but fantasy.At various periods in my life,I tried to revisit my Southern Baptist upbringing,even took a few seminary courses,but still I came back to square one.I couldn't square it with my head,so it wouldn't lodge in my heart.
I am,though,intimately familiar with the other camp.My parents were "heart" people.It was obvious when they sang as their music clearly came from their hearts.In many ways I envied them,their simplicity to accept things as I could see it gave them peace and contentment.The Biblical "literalist camps"(I refrain from using the dreaded "F" word as it brings up images of redneck televangelist crooks)are clearly heart people.They have been saved,washed in the Blood,Jesus is real because they FEEL Him.This is their heart's reality,so their heads must justify it by interpreting scientific data to suit their emotional and spiritual needs.
In my own world,I have my own logic tight compartments,based on what my heart tells me.I am a photographer/cinematographer by trade.I fell in love with craft at age 12 and have been pursuing it ever since.Since I came up in the era before digital and video,I still love film.My head tells me that it's too expensive and time consuming and software is able to "virtually" duplicate the look of any of my favorite film stocks,but when I look at the images,my heart still tells me film looks better.I am currently working on a project now,a promotional video for the drive in theater/flea market I manage.I recently shot some test footage on a more than 30 year old super 8 film camera with stock that cost 35 bucks for 2 and half minutes of shooting time.Yet when the footage came back from the lab,I became convinced that no electronic aquasition medium would give me the same "feel" for my vision. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/12/2008 7:37:32 PM | "At various periods in my life,I tried to revisit my Southern Baptist upbringing,even took a few seminary courses,but still I came back to square one.I couldn't square it with my head,so it wouldn't lodge in my heart."
Good post taurus. Very lucid and articulate. But there is a measure of faith in everyone of us. I know God did some serious work on me and appealed to me intellectually. THAT compelled me to kneel. There is a point in your life where your analysis will bring you to a crossroads; and I pray that your heart will then work in proxy with your head.
God bless. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/12/2008 7:49:46 PM | Necrotizing fasciitis. Flesh eating bacteria.
You're also assuming that Jesus means literal flesh. Jesus used symbolic imagery when he told his followers to eat his body and drink his blood. His parables were also symbolic. There's no reason to think Jesus meant literal flesh, rather than say, people.
Jesus spoke about his body as a temple. Jesus told his disciples also to feed a great multitude and they did it. They used bread...and fish. Jesus spoke about future coming events and knew what He was talking about. Whether multiplying food in the future or the final days of mankind's rule on the earth, He had the foreknowledge to do so. When He speaks of the fact that.."all flesh could be destroyed," He knew what He was saying.
Mat 24:22 And2532 except1508 those1565 days2250 should be shortened,2856 there should no3756 flesh4561 be saved:4982, 302 but1161 for the elect's sake1223, 3588, 1588 those1565 days2250 shall be shortened.2856
flesh:
sa´??
sarx
sarx
Probably from the base of G4563; flesh (as stripped of the skin), that is, (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul (or spirit), or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred, or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties (physically or morally) and passions), or (specifically) a human being (as such): - carnal (-ly, + -ly minded), flesh ([-ly]).
Interesting thing is though--Jesus spoke about Noah and Jonah as well as literal men and literal events...I'm quite sure not too many here believe that Jonah took a ride inside a large fish either. But Jesus did. I agree with what the Lord believed. Jesus spoke plainly.
The ability of man to destroy all flesh on the earth became a real possibility for the first time in the history of the world during the second half of the 20th century with the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Believe what you will.
She's got conjecture, special pleading, a holy book written by ignorant sheepherders, and as many miracles as needed to explain away all contrary evidence.
yeah a bunch of ignorant fisherman, AND sheepherders who all turned the civilized world upside down. Sounds like a pretty good 'power-point presentation.' | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/12/2008 8:00:57 PM | Thanks,Thoughtful76,I appreciate your insight.Meanwhile here's a good article on the" practical" version of the story:
The first book about Noah's flood that makes sense
Noah's Ark and the Ziusudra Epic: Sumerian Origins of the Myth is a book that takes a fresh look at six versions of the Ancient Near East flood myth, demythologizes them, and combines the various story elements like pieces of a jigsaw picture puzzle into one coherent story. There actually was an archaeologically confirmed flood about 2900 BC on which the ark stories were based, but it was a local river flood, not a global deluge. The original ark stories were about a small commercial river barge that was hauling a few hundred cattle, sheep, and goats, but there were no kangaroos, lions, apes, elephants, or giraffes on that cattle barge.
The emphasis in this book is on what was physically possible, technologically practical, and consistent wth archaeological facts in ancient Sumer, now southern Iraq. The result of this synthesis is a reconstruction of a lost legend about a Sumerian king named Ziusudra who was chief executive of the city-state Shuruppak at the end of the Jemdet Nasr period about 2900 BC. A six-day thunderstorm caused the Euphrates River to rise 15 cubits, overflow the levees, and flood Shuruppak and a few other cities in Sumer. A few feet of yellow sediment deposited by this river flood is archaeologically attested and artifacts at about this sediment level have been radiocarbon dated.
When the levees overflowed, Ziusudra (Noah) boarded a commercial river barge that had been hauling grain, beer, and other cargo on the Euphrates River. The barge floated down the river into the Persian (Arabian) Gulf where it grounded in an estuary at the mouth of the river. Ziusudra (Noah) then offered a sacrifice on an altar at the top of a nearby hill which storytellers mistranslated as mountain. This led them to falsely assume that the nearby barge had grounded on top of a mountain. Actually it never came close to a mountain.
Skeptics are correct when they say Noah's flood (as it is commonly understood) could not have happened, because many of the story elements, such as grounding of the ark in the mountains of Ararat, would have been physically impossible. This book uncovers how the mountains of Ararat got involved in the story (Noah did not go there) and locates the precise spot (within a few meters) of where Noah offered his sacrifice. This is a historical site (not on a mountain) that has already been excavated by archaeologists.
After the ark grounded, Noah met other survivors of the flood and some of the things they discussed are mentioned in the myth that priests and storytellers told about the flood. Noah's family separated and Noah had to flee into exile, because of conflicts between Noah and other survivors of the flood. The place where Noah lived until his death is identified in this book. Noah's sons traveled northwest on foot along the Tigris River and settled at a place identified in this book.
The incredible numbers in Genesis 5 were the result of an ancient scribe mistranslating some archaic pre-cuneiform numbers into cuneiform sexagesimal numbers. The incredible numbers in the Sumerian King List were also mistranslated by another ancient scribe. This book successfully matches the Genesis 5 numbers to the Sumerian King List numbers.
| |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/12/2008 8:05:44 PM |
so when Christ, who speaks of nuclear proliferation within the pages of the Bible in Matthew 24:21-22
OK. Don't own a bible so if you wouldn't mind copy and pasting the words "nuclear proliferation" as spoken by christ ? within the pages of the bible anywhere I'm sure you will have made an intriguing point. You have a chance to really peak my interest here. Or to further confirm to me that the bible like all religious works is nothing but drivel that the faithful interpret in any what necessary to espouse what I consider to be their delusional beliefs. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/12/2008 8:15:36 PM | | Where's that Consig guy when ya need him. It is quite possible that the whole of the Noah story is allegorical and not to be meant to be taken in a literal sense. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/12/2008 8:35:26 PM | ^^^^lol you're killin me..
Biblical literalism is the road to eradication of your faith. It necessitates claims which contradict reality. The consequence of that will be that it is harder and harder to find people gullible enough to believe...except in the most third world of theocracies. It's easy to have faith in the unseen and unprovable. It's very hard to have faith in the unseen and unprovable when it contradicts what's right in front of your face. Kudos if you can do it, but you're a dying breed, and one which I won't miss in the least.
ahhh --spoken like a true Atheist...somebody give him the 'Karl Marx' award for excellence in a topical forum. I'm fine where I'm at in my belief system..but thanks for the kudos...and thanks for the send-off too. Unbelief is truly a sad thing.
OK. Don't own a bible so if you wouldn't mind copy and pasting the words "nuclear proliferation" as spoken by christ ? within the pages of the bible anywhere I'm sure you will have made an intriguing point. You have a chance to really peak my interest here. Or to further confirm to me that the bible like all religious works is nothing but drivel that the faithful interpret in any what necessary to espouse what I consider to be their delusional beliefs.
listen smart guy..obviously you know the exact words are not found there...but you get the 'Word' picture don't ya? I shouldn't have to 'drivel' the point home to ya.
You do get the 'Karl Marx' medalion though for supporting cast. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/12/2008 9:02:16 PM | Actually, I'm NOT an atheist...although the more theistic arguments I see, the more strongly I lean that way. Faced with a choice between facts and logical conclusions on one hand, and irrational faithful conclusions which contradict facts and logic, I will choose the former. The latter, however, only serve to undermine the faith they puport to support. Why would anyone follow a faith which requires ignorance or belief in things which are actually contradicted by reality? It IS damaging to the faith, and to all similar faiths. The Catholic church sees this, many old-earth/ID creationists see this. You needn't be an atheist to see the problem.
and thanks for the send-off too
I wanted to point this out to begin with, but it really had no decent place in my comments. I have no love for the "breed", but I DO value individuals. The former has only the stereotypes or definitions as a common trait, and I find those particulars to be fairly valueless. Individuals have traits beyond those of the "breed". Those traits establish individual value. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt, regardless of their beliefs. Just because I find those beliefs...lacking, does not mean the individual doesn't have other strengths.
Unbelief is truly a sad thing
I have plenty of belief. I believe in that which is supported. The more Christian arguments I see in these forums, the more I find Christianity to be unsupportable, beyond some basic tenets of "living like Christ" [which very few professed Christians seem to do]. This is not unique. I have yet to see ANY faith which has any support. It makes no sense to believe in an undefined, unsupported deity, which does things in contradiction with well-supported laws and theories, and yet not only leaves NO evidence of these actions, but leaves completely contradictory evidence instead! For some reason someone called this a rational, logical God in another thread. That pretty much flushes any definition of rational or logical.
obviously you know the exact words are not found there... I shouldn't have to 'drivel' the point home to ya
Actually, you pretty much just made HIS point for him. You have assumptions built upon assumption, built upon assumptions, built upon a complete lack of evidence. Throw in a hefty dose of bad translation, fill in the blanks with any prophecy you care to use and any interpretation you wish to put on it...and all you have is a house of cards on a San Francisco beachfront. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/12/2008 9:49:36 PM | ..and irrational faithful conclusions which contradict facts and logic, I will choose the former. The latter, however, only serve to undermine the faith they puport to support. Why would anyone follow a faith which requires ignorance or belief in things which are actually contradicted by reality?
disagree. Obviously you haven't faced the reality of a transformed life or a miracle have you? You haven't met that particular individual or been confronted with that 'changed' person who went from basically 'unbelief' in an unseen God to One who exists. That person who when reaching a point that they had lost control after a certain failure in their life chose to take the road of drugs and alcohol as a buffer. And when that person reaches the point that they know what they will have to do to procure the money they will need to survive, they prefer to die. And the drugs have reached their point that she is dying and in much pain. And the pain is too much and she cries out to an unseen God who HEARS her..and He responds by healing her pain instantly and she thanks Jesus though she never knew Him before she just met Him in that instant. And she receives a transformed life by what? Nothing according to you. Something that truly contradicted reality. But she did. And she thanks Him for saving Her life and subsequently her spirit. And she gives up all her life to follow after Him who saved her. Obviously you haven't met THAT 'living' witness.
But I did..and it was just yesterday. And I saw once again the power of God at work here on earth. I saw it by the many confirmations that she gave as I sat and listened for 2 and a half hours inside her small Christian book store which she dedicates to God and Christ.
What was more startling to me was that she ministered to me as well and didn't even know it at the time. As she related to me of a man who recently entered her store the same day...and gave her his testimony. She stated he had never believed in God. He stated he was just driving and as he drove he would notice a book at the side of the road with pages flippin in the wind. He drove on and would see the same scenario--a book with pages flippin. This repeated itself several times as he drove on. Finally, he said he had to stop and see what this book was exactly. He found a New Testament Bible. It was weathered. He figured he'll drive on and pick up a better one. He didn't see it again however.
She didn't know it at the time and Cathy had no idea..but I told her that I had also found my Bible on the side of the road. She didn't know it either but that evening as I stood in her store, was also my birthday. THAT is the power of God. And THAT is what I believe in. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/12/2008 10:06:43 PM |
Obviously you haven't faced the reality of a transformed life or a miracle have you? You haven't met that particular individual or been confronted with that 'changed' person who went from basically 'unbelief' in an unseen God to One who exists. That person who when reaching a point that they had lost control after a certain failure in their life chose to take the road of drugs and alcohol as a buffer. And when that person reaches the point that they know what they will have to do to procure the money they will need to survive, they prefer to die. And the drugs have reached their point that she is dying and in much pain. And the pain is too much and she cries out to an unseen God who HEARS her..and He responds by healing her pain instantly and she thanks Jesus though she never knew Him before she just met Him in that instant. And she receives a transformed life by what? Nothing according to you. Something that truly contradicted reality. But she did. And she thanks Him for saving Her life and subsequently her spirit. And she gives up all her life to follow after Him who saved her. Obviously you haven't met THAT 'living' witness.
Wow, you make Frog0's point for him.
I have met lots of people who have been so "transformed" and they all shared the same thing in common - temporary disconnect to their rational faculties in exchange for the fix of the ecstatic "rapture" of being saved. It wears off...sometimes it takes longer. Some go back for another fix...some weekly.
But the post hoc fallacy of "believe in something because I have anecdotally seen it change people's lives" can be applied to any faith, a variety of therapeutic treatments, recreational sports and clubs, etc. all with similar rates of success in "personal transformation" and recitivism.
Just because you emphatically believe in something doesn't make it so. And continuing to heap irrationality on irrationality isn't making it better...
And worse still, when people question your approach, having the temerity to suggest that because they disagree with "your" approach it is an attack on religion, or specifically an attack on Christianity as if your version of events is the sole voice of Christianity is more than a touch disigenuous. Not all Christians accept the Flood story as an historical literal narrative. In fact I would surmise that this group is becoming a minority. | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/12/2008 11:07:48 PM | OK. Don't own a bible so if you wouldn't mind copy and pasting the words "nuclear proliferation" as spoken by christ ?
Since you have not a Bible in your possession, you'll hardly be the one to debunk Noah's account if you have never studied the material or compared the facts in it to what you know..hardly a thorough conclusion on your behalf.
You have a chance to really peak my interest here. Sincerely?
Or to further confirm to me that the bible like all religious works is nothing but drivel that the faithful interpret in any what necessary to espouse what I consider to be their delusional beliefs. Even if I overnight you a copy of Gods Word, you will remain blind to Its wisdom, by solely seeking confirmation to discredit It. It is not a memo, read by simple reading skills but also needs to be read with eyes open, that will be, if you seek It with sincerity, not mocking Its Author, therfore you willfully remain incapable of sight..
Where's that Consig guy when ya need him. You mean Csonka? More than likely on a mission trip of another kind.
Not all Christians accept the Flood story as an historical literal narrative. In fact I would surmise that this group is becoming a minority.
*coughs while spilling coffee* What? Are you serious? Where did you get that from? Vogue Magazine? | |
|
| The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/12/2008 11:10:54 PM |
listen smart guy..obviously you know the exact words are not found there...but you get the 'Word' picture don't ya?
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnno. Hmmmmm. What a way to make a point. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
