Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   About that Boat - Noah's Ark
Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 136 of 296 (89638)
03-01-2004 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by kendemyer
02-29-2004 11:44 PM


More Eyewitnesses Have Seen UFOs and been Alien Abducted
kendemyer wrote:
"Can I get a witness? Yes, and more than one!
re: accounts of ark sitings throughout history
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~arktracker/ark/Sightings.html"
Having at one time been interested in UFOS, the eyewitness accounts cited in the above web page reminded me exactly of the unsubstantiated and unverifiable types of eyewitness testimony that fill book after book about UFOs and alien abductions. A person can find many, many more eyewitnesses reports of people who report to have either visited alien spacecraft willingly or having been on board alien spacecraft as abductees than people who have reported to have personally visited the Ark on Mt. Arat. Given the number of people, who have allegedly either visited or saw the ark, there should exist hard evidence in the form of actual pieces and photos of that can be offered as collaborating evidence of its existence. However, as in case of the UFO eyewitnesses, we have a remarkable lack of any hard evidence despite a number of people claiming to actually visiting it. Even though they shoudl have been well aware of the quite obvious Earth shaking nature of what they were looking at, they somehow forgot to pick up a piece wood, either as evidence or souvenir of their visit.
The eyewitness accounts mention a number of photos and films alleged to have been made or seen of Noah's Ark. It is quite remarkable, as in case of the High School homework claim to have been eaten by a dog, something always happens to such evidence such that it convinently disappears before it can scrutinized by skeptics. I find unbelievable how people, i.e. William Todd, can be so careless with evidence, if actually real, that anyone would have understand to be important proof of one the most remarkable archaeological discoveries of the century. It is almost like if someone finding the Holy Grail and then leaving it in the back of their pickup truck.
In case of William Todd, if there really was "a whole squadron of six mapping planes was abuzz about Noah's Ark and everyday some plane "accidentally" went by Ararat to see it." and "You practically needed a control tower around Ararat that summer.", someone in one of these planes, and quite likely many people at many times, would have also taken pictures. It defies common sense to presume that all of these pictures would have been either lost by their owners or confiscated as part of some governmental conspiracy to suppress the discovery of the Ark. Some of these pictures should have survived, still exist, and have surfaced by now given the controversy. A person has to wonder if decades after the fact, fallible human memory has completely rewritten and obscured what actually happened and what actually was seen.
The way that some people have zealously claimed that an eroded syncline, a geologic structure, is Noah's Ark shows that even the most sincere eyewitness can be mistaken in what they identify as Noah's Ark. This is shown by "BOGUS "NOAH'S ARK FROM TURKEY EXPOSED AS A COMMON GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE," Lorence Gene Collins and David Franklin Fasold at:
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/bogus.html
Also, more details are provided in "The Durupinar or canoe-shaped / boat-shaped mound site" at:
Noah's Ark Search - Mount Ararat .
In the case discussed above, the eyewitnesses mistook a natural feature even though they were able to inspect it firsthand. It is possible that this structure in the past, as now, was responsible for many ancient Ark sightings. The possibility for error is magnified a thousand times when a person is looking at what they think might be the Ark from a long distance, as from an airplane or in an aerial photograph, where a person can't actually visit the feature in person and ground truth his interpretations.
Some of this so-called eyewitness testimony lacks any credibility, even for UFO books. In case of Lieutenant Colonel Walter Hunter's aerial photos, we have having him meeting two conveniently anonymous "guys" in possession of aerial photos of unknown origin of an unknown mountain. In his testimony, Lieutenant Colonel Hunter fails provide enough information for either any of his testimony to be verified or even know how, of what, and where that the photograph were taken. This is important because, if these photographs were of some mountain in Soviet Union, not Turkey, where spy photography would have taken, they would be useless as evidence of anything. Even more revealing is the note that the Lieutenant Hunter saw the aerial photos for only a few minutes. In that period of time, it would have been impossible for Lieutenant Colonel Hunter to have made a credible evaluation of what was on the photos.
As in case of tales of UFOs and Egyptian artifacts found in the Grand Canyon, a person also finds clich tales, straight from shows like the X-Files, of governmental conspiracy to suppress evidence as in case of Donald Duckworth's testimony. The premise of this testimony, that the FBI agents, would be concerned about a person claiming to have seen Noah's Ark while working for the Smithsonian Institute is so ridiculous as to be an indication that Donald Duckworth is selling real estate in the twilight zone. The talk about governmental agencies suppressing evidence is the standard conspiratorial fiction used by many fringe groups to explain the lack of hard evidence to support their theories. This sounds like the fictional end of the "Raiders of the Lost Ark" where the Ark of the Covanent is stored in an anonymous government warehouse instead of real world.
Presenting the story of person, who saw the "Ark in a 30 - 60 second newsreel in a movie theater in Jackson Tennessee" as real testimony is quite laughable. Given that thousands of other people also saw the same newsreel, hundreds, if not thousands of other people should have recognized the Ark also, if there was really something to it and there should many more witnesses. Given the lack of any collaborating evidence that this newsreel even existed outside of Charlie McCallen's imagination, his testimony is useless as evidence of anything. The same is true of the film seen by Ray Lubeck. If this film existed, many more people should have recognized the Ark and reported its occurrence in the film. It is quite possibly, that he misidentified something in the film for the Ark. Of course, because of the lack of specific information, this nothing more than an unverifiable story useless as evidence of anything.
There is lots of eyewitness testimony. Unfortunately, it is the same sort of unverifiable and unsubstantiated hearsay that a person finds with UFO, Big Foot, Loch Ness Monster, and other popular legends, for which no hard evidence has ever been produced. In fact, compared to what have been published for UFOs and alien abductions, they have far more substantial and voluminous testimony supporting them than the stories about Noah's Ark on the above web page, even though UFOs and Bigfoot likely exist only in people's imagination.
From what I have found, the state of evidence for Noah's Ark is corrected summarised in Noah'sArkSaerchCOM at:
Noah's Ark Search - Mount Ararat .
There it is stated:
"Though there have been many claims of a discovery
of Noah's Ark by alleged eyewitnesses and in recent
books/films, there is no scientific proof, public
photograph, or evidence of the survival or existence
of Noah's Ark."
and at Noah's Ark Search - Mount Ararat , it was stated:
"Given the extensive research which has taken place
on Mount Ararat, it seems fair to say that if Noah's Ark
ever survived into modern times and is somewhere on
Ararat, there are few places remaining on the mountain
to search. There have been many expeditions, accounts,
alleged sightings, anomalies, and claims of discovery
involving Mount Ararat. What is lacking is any scientific
evidence or photo that shows that Noah's Ark exists
today. ..."
At Noah's Ark Search - Mount Ararat , one of the FAQs stated:
"I saw a movie or read a book that stated or implied that
Noah's Ark has already been discovered.
Nothing in the research since the 1940's or the explorers'
hundred expeditions has proven "beyond a reasonable
doubt" that Noah's Ark or it's remains have been
discovered or that it has survived since the flood.
NoahsArkSearch.com attempts to look at the legitimate
claims and present them on this website but there is
no proof, photo, or science to support the ark's survival
thus far."
It also has been argued that Noah's Ark actually landed on either Mount Cudi, a mountain in Iran, or elsewhere as noted in Noah's Ark Search - Mount Ararat. That people seriously consider other locations as possible locations where Noah's Ark might be found strongly indicates that the eyewitness evidence is neither as solid nor convincing as your post claim it to be.
Yours,
Bill
[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 03-01-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by kendemyer, posted 02-29-2004 11:44 PM kendemyer has not replied

kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 296 (89683)
03-01-2004 10:21 PM


flood legends and Genesis
The world is flooded with flood accounts and many of them have striking similiarities to the Genesis account:
Flood Legends From Around the World
To: BILL
Here is something I heard on the radio concerning UFO's which I do not put much stock in as far as far as being "flying saucers" or "little green men":
This webpage will redirect you. Hit the button.
Page not found - Religion News Blog
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-01-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Bill Birkeland, posted 03-02-2004 9:39 AM kendemyer has not replied

Bill Birkeland
Member (Idle past 2531 days)
Posts: 165
From: Louisiana
Joined: 01-30-2003


Message 138 of 296 (89759)
03-02-2004 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by kendemyer
03-01-2004 10:21 PM


Re: flood legends and Genesis
kendemyer wrote;
"The world is flooded with flood accounts and many
of them have striking similiarities to the Genesis account:
Flood Legends From Around the World"
There are many flood legends in the world. This is not surprising because flooding caused by rivers, hurricanes, rain, and many other factors is a very common global factor in many people lives. However, the claim that "many of them have striking similiarities to the Genesis account" is nothing more than a Young Earth creationist falsehood fabricated by the selective presentation of only those legends that support this false claim. If a person looks the flood legends and myths, that supporters of this claim don't include in their web pages and puplications, a person finds that many of them differ in striking way from the Genesis account. Also, the person who wrote this web page forgets that myths and legends, like other cultural traits are traded between culturals and can,eventually diffuse over long distances, across and even between continents. Even the similarities, which exist between legends and myths, can be explained by other processes.
For a more comprehensive listing of flood legends and myths **not** deliberately selected to support a specific personal interpretation of Genesis and the claim that "many of them have striking similiarities to the Genesis account," a person can look at:
1. Flood Stories from Around the World by Mark Isaak
http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/floods.htm
2. Flood Stories From Around The World
http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/flood-myths.pdf
To: BILL
"Here is something I heard on the radio concerning UFO's which I do not put much stock in as far as far as being "flying saucers" or "little green men":"
After looking into flying sauciers and "Little Green Men", I also came to the conclusion that they existed only in the imaginations of the people who claimed to have seen them. They are powerful evidence of how intelligent and honest people can deluded themselves into believing in and testifying about seeing things that they didn't see and visiting locations that they didn't visit. That innumerable people can be so mistaken in their testimony about flying sauciers and "Little Green Men", which don't exist, is a powerful argument for people to be skeptical about eyewitness testimony about matters, i.e. Noah's Ark, for which hard evidence simply doesn't exist.
Yours
Bill
P.S. Look at "Problems with a Global Flood" Second Edition by Mark Isaak
Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by kendemyer, posted 03-01-2004 10:21 PM kendemyer has not replied

kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 296 (89850)
03-02-2004 4:53 PM


UFO aside
To: Bill
I did not express myself as clearly as I could have.
If memory serves, the scientists who have the UFO experiences which cannot be explained easily are very often engaged in the occult it seems.
This webpage will redirect you. Hit the button.
Page not found - Religion News Blog
Here is another link amd it is at the bottom and it is the very last link:
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/scientific.htm
Sincerely,
Ken
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-02-2004]

kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 296 (92973)
03-17-2004 5:17 PM


Noah's ark was seaworthy
TO: ALL
Noah's ark was seaworthy:
Here are two more links which make a few important points in regards to the ark and its seaworthiness which some may have not heard:
More answers regarding Noah's ark:
http://christian-thinktank.com/bigark.html
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/arksize.html
Sincerely,
Ken
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-17-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by AdminAsgara, posted 03-17-2004 5:35 PM kendemyer has not replied
 Message 142 by Randy, posted 03-17-2004 8:31 PM kendemyer has not replied

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 141 of 296 (92987)
03-17-2004 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by kendemyer
03-17-2004 5:17 PM


Re: Noah's ark was seaworthy
Hi Ken,
I have a question into Admin concerning just where you are allowed to post. There is some question as to whether or not Admin lifted my restriction of you to the FFA when he lifted your suspension. I would greatly appreciate if you would hold on posting out of your FFA threads until this has been made clear.

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by kendemyer, posted 03-17-2004 5:17 PM kendemyer has not replied

Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 142 of 296 (93023)
03-17-2004 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by kendemyer
03-17-2004 5:17 PM


Re: Noah's ark was seaworthy
One of your links says
quote:
Interestingly, British civil and mechanical engineer Isambard Kingdom Brunel built a steamship (the Great Britain) in 1843 that had almost the same proportions as the Ark, although it was smaller. This was regarded as a remarkable feat of Victorian and maritime engineering. The Great Britain was the first large vessel to be propelled by a screw propeller.
Making it seems like this was an similar to the wooden ark. However the Great Britain was an iron ship.
http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/enzyme/mgms/dinner.html
The ss Great Britain was the world's first wrought iron hulled, screw propellor-driven, steam-powered, ocean-going, passenger liner. At the time of her launch in 1843 she was also the world's largest ship, with twice the tonnage and 100ft longer than any previous vessels.
Don't you think that was just a bit deceptive? In any case it has no bearing on the seaworthyness of the wooden ark. It would have hogged and leaked like a sieve pitch or no pitch.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by kendemyer, posted 03-17-2004 5:17 PM kendemyer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2004 12:52 AM Randy has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 143 of 296 (93059)
03-18-2004 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Randy
03-17-2004 8:31 PM


Re: Noah's ark was seaworthy
I want to know where they kept the whales and giant squids and the termites that were needed to feed the ant-eaters and ....
A good step for creationists would be to do an actual scientific experiment: design and build a wooden ship using tools, methods and materials available when the OT was first set to parchment -- let you have the benefit of the doubt eh? --and then start loading it with every kind of life currently known to man with enough food for ... what is it? 600+ days start to finish? ... especially them termites ...
Enjoy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Randy, posted 03-17-2004 8:31 PM Randy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Trixie, posted 03-18-2004 3:43 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 146 by Melchior, posted 03-18-2004 5:23 PM RAZD has replied

Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 144 of 296 (93177)
03-18-2004 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by RAZD
03-18-2004 12:52 AM


Re: Noah's ark was seaworthy
Don't forget to load the woodworm, woodpeckers, Death Watch Beetles, dry rot, wet rot.....Bon Voyage!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2004 12:52 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2004 4:06 PM Trixie has not replied
 Message 148 by Randy, posted 03-18-2004 6:07 PM Trixie has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 145 of 296 (93183)
03-18-2004 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Trixie
03-18-2004 3:43 PM


Re: Noah's ark was seaworthy
ahahahahaaaa
and how do you preserve barnacles on the inside?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Trixie, posted 03-18-2004 3:43 PM Trixie has not replied

Melchior
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 296 (93197)
03-18-2004 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by RAZD
03-18-2004 12:52 AM


Re: Noah's ark was seaworthy
Most translations of the bible specifically leaves out seabound animals when counting the types of creatures to load on the ark.
However, in genesis 1, they are usually mentioned.
This would hint that God didn't want to kill off the sea-life.
It would be rather tough to keep a pair of whales alive on plancton, if you can only take two of each kind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2004 12:52 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2004 6:02 PM Melchior has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 147 of 296 (93208)
03-18-2004 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Melchior
03-18-2004 5:23 PM


Re: Noah's ark was seaworthy
I have also not seen a single translation that did not say "all outside the ark perished" (or words to that effect).
Given that statement, all current life ev[/i]ver must have been inside regardless of enumeration of the "saved" species (usually left undefined to allow future additions as necessary).
There needs to be a lot of krill for sure, but also do not forget the toothed whales ... including the blue whale that feeds on the giant squids, or killer whales ...
Then you have the problem with "free surface effect" for the tanks holding all the sea animals and separate tanks for fresh ... and brackish ... and we haven't even gotten to the deep sea species that explode from decompression at the surface ...
And then there is keeping the tanks free of contamination from the output of all the other animals.
There are also bird species that can stay out to sea for years on end (660 days? Or what) and do not keep well in captivity ... and they are not mentioned.
Now the YEC people have an additional problem: either every single life form on the earth today was on the ark, or they evolved from a "kind" ancestor in less time than scientific evolution calls for but which they have trouble visualizing. They need to set a date for the supposed flood event and then work backwards at scientifically reasonable speciation rates to determine what is their boatload was.
Like I say, it is time for anyone who thinks this to be a credible possibility to build a working model.
It should be entertaining. Perhaps Mel could do it ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Melchior, posted 03-18-2004 5:23 PM Melchior has not replied

Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 148 of 296 (93211)
03-18-2004 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Trixie
03-18-2004 3:43 PM


Re: Noah's ark was seaworthy
Don't forget to load the woodworm, woodpeckers, Death Watch Beetles, dry rot, wet rot.....Bon Voyage!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Trixie, posted 03-18-2004 3:43 PM Trixie has not replied

kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 149 of 296 (93385)
03-19-2004 4:05 PM


double post
deleted double post - The Queen
[This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 03-19-2004]

kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 150 of 296 (93386)
03-19-2004 4:05 PM


noah's ark: insects and sea creatures not invited
TO: ALL
It seems to me that the objectors of Noah's ark have lost the seaworthy debate and now have been reduced to petty objections. Below is why I think the petty objections fail:
Noah's ark, insects not invited: ADSL, ADSL2+, Broadband plans, Internet, Telephone, VOIP, SIM | Internet Service | Adam Australia | Internet Service | Adam Australia
Noah's ark, water dwelling creatures and other objections answered:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/noah.asp
Sincerely,
Ken

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by AdminAsgara, posted 03-19-2004 4:13 PM kendemyer has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024