# '99.9pc certainty' of Noah's Ark discovery on Mount Ararat



## ghstwrld (Apr 27, 2010)

> CHINESE and Turkish evangelical explorers believe they may have found Noah's Ark - 4000m up a mountain in Turkey.
> 
> The team said it had recovered wooden specimens from a structure on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey that carbon dating proved was 4800 years old, around the same time the ark is said to have been afloat.
> 
> ...


----------



## Enclave (Apr 27, 2010)

Just like all the other times they've discovered Noah's Ark I'm sure.


----------



## Tkae (Apr 27, 2010)

I'd heard that they found it there earlier, but that they couldn't get the money to launch a climb up to find it. Supposedly fighter jets caught it on video during a training flight or something.

Anyways, in before athiests claim it's proof of evolution.


----------



## Nodonn (Apr 27, 2010)

In other news: The flying car from Harry Potter has been found in a forest in the United Kingdom. We're not 100% sure it's the same car, but we're about 99.9% sure that it is.


----------



## Coteaz (Apr 27, 2010)

Sounds like they're projecting their desires onto a probably unrelated artifact.



Tkae said:


> Anyways, in before athiests claim it's proof of evolution.


Wait what


----------



## makeoutparadise (Apr 27, 2010)

pics or it didn't happen


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Apr 27, 2010)

HAVEN'T HEARD THIS ONE BEFORE!!!


----------



## Dark Uchiha (Apr 27, 2010)

holy shit... does this mean... god actually exist.

Gotta rethink my life now... this whole 5 percenter... Buddhism, Islam and othe religion will be proven false...

now its only Christianity or Judaism..


----------



## Hachidaime (Apr 27, 2010)

99.9 per cent according to Noah's Ark Ministries International...


----------



## Fran (Apr 27, 2010)

Nodonn said:


> In other news: The flying car from Harry Potter has been found in a forest in the United Kingdom. We're not 100% sure it's the same car, but we're about 99.9% sure that it is.



Ahahahaha!


----------



## Emasculation Storm (Apr 27, 2010)

Haven't heard this story before, oh wait


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Apr 27, 2010)

Enclave said:


> Just like all the other times they've discovered Noah's Ark I'm sure.


 What he said.

How many arks have they found now? 4? 5? Shit's ridiculous.


----------



## M?gas Strategos (Apr 27, 2010)

The story of Noah's Ark is in Islam.


----------



## Tkae (Apr 27, 2010)

Coteaz said:


> Wait what



Exactly 



makeoutparadise said:


> pics or it didn't happen



These are the pics I remember seeing in a video that I watched two or three years ago:


*Spoiler*: __ 














OH! Now I remember.

They found it a really long time ago when fighter jets back in the 90s saw it, but 80% of it was covered in snow and they couldn't get to it. Then two or three years ago the ice melted enough for a huge chunk of glacier to collapse, and it exposed it. And they've been trying to get the money to get a dig team up there to explore it.

I doubt they can get good pictures of it up close without it looking like wood, but can't get it from far away without it looking like... you know, a pile of dirt.

The important thing is look at the shape of the edges. Supposedly that's the decayed shell of it, with the roof having collapsed on it in the center, and the tail and nose parts still kind of in tact.

So...


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 27, 2010)

They've found a lot of big boats, considering that the region might have flooded, it makes sense that there might have been other big ass boats around. It proves nor disproves nothing.


----------



## Dark Uchiha (Apr 27, 2010)

Mégas Strategos said:


> The story of Noah's Ark is in Islam.



Really.... 

then shit, Islam still in the running.

Islam, Judaism or Christianity


----------



## Chee (Apr 27, 2010)

Are there shit load of dead animal skeletons in there?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 27, 2010)

Chee said:


> Are there shit load of dead animal skeletons in there?



Animals didn't die in Noah's Ark, they were only in there a month and ten days


----------



## Tkae (Apr 27, 2010)

Chee said:


> Are there shit load of dead animal skeletons in there?



No 

All the animals got out when Noah resettled the Earth.

Read your Bible 


*Spoiler*: __ 



That right there is why people who don't know the Bible shouldn't try to use the Bible as evidence about the Bible not being true


----------



## T4R0K (Apr 27, 2010)

This is old... Mt Ararat has been mentionned as a possible ark landing location for years.

Call me when they discover boiling water.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 27, 2010)

The thing is the Bible isn't the only old book with a big boat story. There could be more than one big boat.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Apr 27, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The thing is the Bible isn't the only old book with a big boat story. There could be more than one big boat.


 It's the only true one though.


----------



## Dark Uchiha (Apr 27, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The thing is the Bible isn't the only old book with a big boat story. There could be more than one big boat.



noooooooooooooo where back to square one then.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 27, 2010)

CrazyMoronX said:


> It's the only true one though.


How do you know? The thing about myths is that some of them are so common, so widespread and between groups that never met...that there must be something to them.


----------



## Bleach (Apr 27, 2010)

That's extremely old lol.


----------



## T4R0K (Apr 27, 2010)

And Noah's story is inspired by much older stories from a flood. Read Gilgamesh, and when he met an old man with the secret of immortality, and that make an ark too (his name is not Noah, but it could be the character inspiring it)

I still take the old testament "history" as a record of oral traditions that encountered some modification through time, but still retain elements of validity.


----------



## Tkae (Apr 27, 2010)

Dark Uchiha said:


> noooooooooooooo where back to square one then.



No, we've successfully proved athiests wrong 

And I personally think that all religions are regional offshoots of the same story.

Most religions are the same. There's a son who sacrifices himself, a father, a flood, a spirit, a battle at the end of the world, the son being killed by an evil antagonist, evil falling at the end, lakes of fire, etc, etc, etc.

I think that it's a lot like how species have evolved over time. Little by little they've changed, until they look really different at first glance. But there's still the same cells that are structured the same, and the same basic functions of life.

I believe that _something_ happened, and that somewhere between all of the translations there's the truth. It just depends on if you want to call the truth God, Yahweh, Jesus, Baldr, Loki, Set, Satan, and then all of the Indian names that I'm not even gonna try to remember.


----------



## Mio (Apr 27, 2010)

lol, I'm watching an italian program right now that's just talking about this same subject and discovery on tv.


----------



## Chee (Apr 27, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Animals didn't die in Noah's Ark, they were only in there a month and ten days



Oh come, you're telling me those lions didn't kill them zebras?


----------



## Tkae (Apr 27, 2010)

Chee said:


> Oh come, you're telling me those lions didn't kill them zebras?



The lions didn't know the unicorns weren't on board, and were used to not killing zebras for fear of unicorn wrath. It was only after it was discovered that the unicorns had died -- after they'd unloaded -- that the lions began to take revenge on the zebras for the all the years of oppression.


----------



## @lk3mizt (Apr 27, 2010)

no pics??

thread is fail


----------



## Chee (Apr 27, 2010)

Tkae said:


> The lions didn't know the unicorns weren't on board, and were used to not killing zebras for fear of unicorn wrath. It was only after it was discovered that the unicorns had died -- after they'd unloaded -- that the lions began to take revenge on the zebras for the all the years of oppression.



So the unicorns died on board? WHERE'S THE DEAD UNICORN SKELETONS?


----------



## Bleach (Apr 27, 2010)

/all posts in this thread are fail.

Except this 1.


----------



## αce (Apr 27, 2010)

Enclave said:


> Just like all the other times they've discovered Noah's Ark I'm sure.



End discussion.


I've heard this a million times.


----------



## Tkae (Apr 27, 2010)

Chee said:


> So the unicorns died on board? WHERE'S THE DEAD UNICORN SKELETONS?



No no no, the unicorns never made it on board. They drowned out in the flood. 

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J60LNkqsxz8[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Bleach (Apr 27, 2010)

Tkae said:


> No no no, the unicorns never made it on board. They drowned out in the flood.
> 
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J60LNkqsxz8[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Zhariel (Apr 27, 2010)

.01% has never sounded so powerful.


----------



## αce (Apr 27, 2010)

Speaking of religion. Lol exodus.


I'm sure people have read this before but still. Lol. Even Israeli's agree.



> Scholars doubt truth of Exodus
> 
> Some say story of Moses is more legend than truth
> 
> ...


----------



## Tkae (Apr 27, 2010)

And that has absolutely anything to do with the the ruins of the arc on Mount Aratat _how_?

You're doing it wrong.

GTFO


----------



## Juno (Apr 27, 2010)

Evangelical explorers trying to justify the existence of their job title.


----------



## Bleach (Apr 27, 2010)

It's too bad the Bible's been changed so much over the years.


----------



## αce (Apr 27, 2010)

It's too bad the bible isn't real.


I'm craving those unicorns.


----------



## DragonJ (Apr 27, 2010)

Tkae said:


> No, we've successfully proved athiests wrong



God's a boat?


----------



## Bleach (Apr 27, 2010)

♠Ace♠ said:


> It's too bad the bible isn't real.
> 
> 
> I'm craving those unicorns.



Obviously it's real. It a tangible item. The question is not whether it is real or not but how many times its been "changed" to meet the standards of the "church".


----------



## αce (Apr 27, 2010)

@Bleach

You know what I fucking meant


----------



## Bleach (Apr 27, 2010)

Unfortunately, yes


----------



## Tkae (Apr 27, 2010)

DragonJ said:


> God's a boat?



No, not _all_ of the "stories" in the Bible are stupid children's stories that have no truth. We've found _one_ that's true, which will require them to find a new phrase, since "all but one" will constantly remind them about their one failure on a major front.

It will probably end up that they'll count the stories, subtract one, and we've won again because we've forced them to read the Bible. Or at least touch it. I like to think that touching a Bible instills God in you.

Or at least it shuts them up when it hit them across the face with it


----------



## Enclave (Apr 27, 2010)

Tkae said:


> No, not _all_ of the "stories" in the Bible are stupid children's stories that have no truth. We've found _one_ that's true, which will require them to find a new phrase, since "all but one" will constantly remind them about their one failure on a major front.
> 
> It will probably end up that they'll count the stories, subtract one, and we've won again because we've forced them to read the Bible. Or at least touch it. I like to think that touching a Bible instills God in you.
> 
> Or at least it shuts them up when it hit them across the face with it



Wait, so you actually think that they found Noah's Ark?


----------



## αce (Apr 27, 2010)

Lol, biblical stories.


----------



## DragonJ (Apr 27, 2010)

Tkae said:


> No, not _all_ of the "stories" in the Bible are stupid children's stories that have no truth. We've found _one_ that's true, which will require them to find a new phrase, since "all but one" will constantly remind them about their one failure on a major front.
> 
> It will probably end up that they'll count the stories, subtract one, and we've won again because we've forced them to read the Bible. Or at least touch it. I like to think that touching a Bible instills God in you.
> 
> Or at least it shuts them up when it hit them across the face with it



Perhaps you should rename your thread title to "99.9% certainty of large boatlike object discovery on Mount Ararat."

Given that, you know, thing that looks like a boat -> Noah's Ark is a non sequitur.

If true, the only thing this proves is that there's a boat on top of a mountain.


----------



## Bleach (Apr 27, 2010)

Enclave said:


> Wait, so you actually think that they found Noah's Ark?



Wait, so you actually think that in the beginning there was nothing and then it exploded?


----------



## Cygnus45 (Apr 27, 2010)

Tkae said:


> I'd heard that they found it there earlier, but that they *couldn't get the money to launch a climb up to find it*. Supposedly fighter jets caught it on video during a training flight or something.



Bull. If they really glanced down and said "holy crap--is that--," they would have BEEN found it.

And this isn't the first time I've heard of it. Even if this report is true, this is like the 3rd expedition.


----------



## Tkae (Apr 27, 2010)

DragonJ said:


> Perhaps you should rename your thread title to "99.9% certainty of large boatlike object discovery on Mount Ararat."
> 
> Given that, you know, thing that looks like a boat -> Noah's Ark is a non sequitur.



Any kind of a boat that's on top of a *MOUNTAIN* tends to be a likely candidate for being Noah's Ark.

You know, since it's a _*MOUNTAIN*_.

It's not molehill. And it's not a very large clump of dirt.


*Spoiler*: __ 



*IT'S A MOTHERFUCKING MOUNTAIN! *


----------



## DragonJ (Apr 27, 2010)

Bleach said:


> Wait, so you actually think that in the beginning there was nothing and then it exploded?



Definitely more probable than "this guy made everything, lol."


----------



## Enclave (Apr 27, 2010)

Bleach said:


> Wait, so you actually think that in the beginning there was nothing and then it exploded?





Creationists


----------



## αce (Apr 27, 2010)

> Wait, so you actually think that in the beginning there was nothing and then it exploded?




This is ironic because that's exactly what creationists believe.


----------



## T.D.A (Apr 27, 2010)

Hachidaime said:


> 99.9 per cent according to Noah's Ark Ministries International...



stupid logic by you btw, thats the same as saying scientific evidence found by Science institutes should be discounted.


----------



## DragonJ (Apr 27, 2010)

Tkae said:


> Any kind of a boat that's on top of a *MOUNTAIN* tends to be a likely candidate for being Noah's Ark.
> 
> You know, since it's a _*MOUNTAIN*_.
> 
> ...



And what evidence do you have to make that connection?

Some story?

As I said, non sequitur.


----------



## Kinzey (Apr 27, 2010)

Tkae said:


> I believe that _something_ happened, and that somewhere between all of the translations there's the truth. It just depends on if you want to call the truth God, Yahweh, Jesus, Baldr, Loki, Set, Satan, and then all of the Indian names that I'm not even gonna try to remember.



Don't forget the flying spaghetti monster of pastafarianism! 



> No no no, the unicorns never made it on board. They drowned out in the flood.



Ahem.  actually, the unicorns (along with the dragons, cyclopses, merpeople and minotours) were told the wrong time that the boat was leaving. To quote Noah "God hates freaks".


----------



## αce (Apr 27, 2010)

Dear god I hope no one here is actually a literal creationist.


----------



## Tkae (Apr 27, 2010)

Cygnus45 said:


> Bull. If they really glanced down and said "holy crap--is that--," they would have BEEN found it.
> 
> And this isn't the first time I've heard of it. Even if this report is true, this is like the 3rd expedition.



I'm sorry, when was the last time you successfully climbed a mountain while carrying proper excavation equipment?

What's that? Never? 

Satellite pictures of big hills and camera photos that could be photoshopped tend to *not* get people ready to spend millions of dollars. You know, just a little.


----------



## DragonJ (Apr 27, 2010)

T.D.A said:


> stupid logic by you btw, thats the same as saying scientific evidence found by Science institutes should be discounted.



Stupid logic by you btw, you obviously don't understand the difference between a religious institute and scientific institute.

Religion starts with the conclusion and finds evidence based on that conclusion. Thus religious "evidence" naturally suffers from confirmation bias.

Science starts with the evidence and builds a conclusion based on the evidence.


----------



## αce (Apr 27, 2010)

I fucking hope Tkae is trolling here, because I'm tempted to neg him.


----------



## DragonJ (Apr 27, 2010)

Tkae said:


> I'm sorry, when was the last time you successfully climbed a mountain while carrying proper excavation equipment?
> 
> What's that? Never?
> 
> Satellite pictures of big hills and camera photos that could be photoshopped tend to *not* get people ready to spend millions of dollars. You know, just a little.



I'm sorry, when was the last time you independently verified the claims of people who climbed a mountain while carrying proper excavation equipment?

What's that? Never?


----------



## T.D.A (Apr 27, 2010)

DragonJ said:


> Stupid logic by you btw, you obviously don't understand the difference between a religious institute and scientific institute.
> 
> Religion starts with the conclusion and finds evidence based on that conclusion. Thus religious "evidence" naturally suffers from confirmation bias.
> 
> *Science starts with the evidence and builds a conclusion based on the evidence.*



 you obviously not familiar with physics.

*cough* gravitons *cough* dark matter *cough* dark flow *cough* to name a few.


----------



## Tkae (Apr 27, 2010)

♠Ace♠ said:


> I fucking hope Tkae is trolling here, because I'm tempted to neg him.



You might want to green him instead, because he had his rep flipped. Though it really won't do much good, since people have been greening him anyways since apparently they don't think he deserves red rep and are trying to get it green, and so his rep is pretty inaccurate. 

But yes.

There's a high likelihood that Tkae's posts are completely serious, but exaggerated for gits and shiggles 

You can generally tell when's made the switch between being serious and being serious in a totally frivolous tone about the time he posts youtube videos of Irishmen singing songs about unicorns


----------



## αce (Apr 27, 2010)

@T.D.A.-

He was right. Most of the time science bases it's theories around actual evidence.

There are some exceptions, but with religion it's completely opposite.


----------



## DragonJ (Apr 27, 2010)

T.D.A said:


> you obviously not familiar with physics.
> 
> *cough* gravitons *cough* dark matter *cough* dark flow *cough* to name a few.



You're obviously not familiar with the vast majority of the applications of the scientific method.


----------



## Tkae (Apr 27, 2010)

DragonJ said:


> I'm sorry, when was the last time you independently verified the claims of people who climbed a mountain while carrying proper excavation equipment?
> 
> What's that? Never?



It's not my job to verify claims. 

That's what reputable news sources like Fox are for. 

It's only my job to remind people that it is, in fact, very difficult to carry large pieces of equipment up to the top of mountains in order find big boats


----------



## Tkae (Apr 27, 2010)

DragonJ said:


> Science starts with the evidence and builds a conclusion based on the evidence.


----------



## αce (Apr 27, 2010)

Lol Tkae is awesome.

Never fucking mind.


----------



## Mider T (Apr 27, 2010)

The wood hasn't decomposed?


----------



## T.D.A (Apr 27, 2010)

DragonJ said:


> You're obviously not familiar with the vast majority of the applications of the scientific method.



I never said all science was based off theory then evidence. I'm not that stupid to say Science starts with theory then evidence. IIRC its your ambitious comment;



> Science starts with the evidence and builds a conclusion based on the evidence.



that shows you ignorrance towards science.


----------



## T4R0K (Apr 27, 2010)

Mider T said:


> The wood hasn't decomposed?



That "special" wood. And there's only one person able to make it :


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 27, 2010)

Shouldn't we find tons and tons of fish bones in the ground from around the time of the flood?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 27, 2010)

T.D.A said:


> you obviously not familiar with physics.
> 
> *cough* gravitons *cough* dark matter *cough* dark flow *cough* to name a few.



None of these are theories as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Tkae (Apr 27, 2010)

Mider T said:


> The wood hasn't decomposed?



Okay, but being serious for a moment lol

I wouldn't exactly call 



"composed".

But yeah. Supposedly it was made of a special kind of wood and slathered with a really strong kind of tarring agent.

Ummm...



> So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. 14 *So make yourself an ark of cypress [c] wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out*. 15 This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. [d] 16 Make a roof for it and finish [e] the ark to within 18 inches [f] of the top. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks.
> 
> *Genesis 6:14 The meaning of the Hebrew for this word is uncertain.*



I remember it as being wormwood or something, but I could be wrong.

Anyways, I just needed to share that


*Spoiler*: __ 



so that the having to learn it actually had a purpose


----------



## Tkae (Apr 27, 2010)

Saufsoldat said:


> Shouldn't we find tons and tons of fish bones in the ground from around the time of the flood?


----------



## Cygnus45 (Apr 27, 2010)

Tkae said:


> I'm sorry, when was the last time you successfully climbed a mountain while carrying proper excavation equipment?
> 
> What's that? Never?
> 
> Satellite pictures of big hills and camera photos that could be photoshopped tend to *not* get people ready to spend millions of dollars. You know, just a little.



NO. 

If they _really_ thought they found NOAH'S ARK they'd be more than willing to spend millions, even tens of millions to excavate it.


----------



## Gooba (Apr 27, 2010)

Why are Christians trying to prove their God is far, far worse than Hitler?


----------



## Tkae (Apr 27, 2010)

Cygnus45 said:


> NO.
> 
> If they _really_ thought they found NOAH'S ARK they'd be more than willing to spend millions, even tens of millions to excavate it.



Oh, sorry.

I thought you were from Earth.

How is it on a planet that's not bankrupt and short on resources?


----------



## Tkae (Apr 27, 2010)

Gooba said:


> Why are Christians trying to prove their God is far, far worse than Hitler?



Hitler ordered the building of a big boat?


----------



## DragonJ (Apr 27, 2010)

T.D.A said:


> I never said all science was based off theory then evidence. I'm not that stupid to say Science starts with theory then evidence. IIRC its your ambitious comment;
> 
> 
> 
> that shows you ignorrance towards science.


----------



## αce (Apr 27, 2010)

Not only that, but he ordered the jews to get on it and tried to get it to fly over the edge of the Earth.


----------



## Le Pirate (Apr 27, 2010)

If they think that just because they found some boat people are going to convert, they're wrong.


----------



## DragonJ (Apr 27, 2010)

Tkae said:


> Oh, sorry.
> 
> I thought you were from Earth.
> 
> How is it on a planet that's not bankrupt and short on resources?


How much money does the Catholic Church have now?


----------



## Cygnus45 (Apr 27, 2010)

Tkae said:


> Oh, sorry.
> 
> I thought you were from Earth.
> 
> How is it on a planet that's not bankrupt and short on resources?



Sweet irony! 

This planet "short on resources" spends billions on pure entertainment and junk food on a yearly basis. What planet are _you_ from???


----------



## ScreenXSurfer (Apr 27, 2010)

Tkae said:


> Hitler ordered the building of a big boat?



Nah, Hitler started WWII which resulted in tens of millions of people dying. God just flooded the Earth and killed everything and everyone on it. Even the babies.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 27, 2010)

Tkae said:


>



Not fish and predates the bible by a few hundred million years. Nice try, though.



Tkae said:


> Hitler ordered the building of a big boat?



No and that's why he was more benevolent than the god of the bible. Hitler only targeted a small fraction of the population, god murdered the entire population of earth except for Noah and his family.


----------



## Jagon Fox (Apr 27, 2010)

Nodonn said:


> In other news: The flying car from Harry Potter has been found in a forest in the United Kingdom. We're not 100% sure it's the same car, but we're about 99.9% sure that it is.





well let's see, when it comes to escaping a world wide flood...i'll take the flying car any day! is more stylish!


----------



## Sarutobi sasuke (Apr 27, 2010)

> The group of evangelical archaeologists ruled out an established human settlement on the grounds that one had never been found above 3500m in the vicinity, Mr Yeung said.



That's pretty piss poor grounds. I could always rule out the possibility it's a boat because one has never been found that far up in the vicinity.

Do we have any actual evidence that it is a boat?


----------



## ScreenXSurfer (Apr 27, 2010)

I rule out the possibility of a god because one has never been found.  It's funny how people with different beliefs think alike sometimes.


----------



## Xyfar (Apr 27, 2010)

Tkae said:


> No, we've successfully proved athiests wrong



You've done nothing by discovering an old big boat.




> And I personally think that all religions are regional offshoots of the same story.
> 
> Most religions are the same. There's a son who sacrifices himself, a father, a flood, a spirit, a battle at the end of the world, the son being killed by an evil antagonist, evil falling at the end, lakes of fire, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> ...



This is just a bandwagon fallacy. "Most people believe in this or similar, so it must be right."


----------



## Altron (Apr 27, 2010)

Meh who gives a shit? The only real news will be when they actually climb the mountain and dig out the object at the top. Until then this is just speculation.


----------



## Juice (Apr 27, 2010)

Tkae said:


> No, we've successfully proved athiests wrong



You are an idiot. Neither side has solid proof of whether there is a higher power or not. Comments like this just fuel the battle between atheists and religious folks. The discovery of that boat is nothing more then a boat at the time being. It does not prove anything to atheist besides the fact that people will jump over anything labeled, "old" as being religious. 

Also for the record I am a Christian, in case you call me an atheist.


----------



## mister_manji (Apr 27, 2010)

Next thing, they will find out its an alien artifact, and ARCAM will be on it like shit on velcro


----------



## Pilaf (Apr 27, 2010)

Wouldn't Noah's Ark have had to have been the size of the state of Texas or something to hold two of all the billions of species of animals on the planet?

And how in the hell would just two of every species repopulate the earth? Can you say second generation i*c*st? It's the same reason the Adam and Eve story is highly unlikely.


----------



## TDM (Apr 27, 2010)

Pilaf said:


> Wouldn't Noah's Ark have had to have been the size of the state of Texas or something to hold two of all the billions of species of animals on the planet?
> 
> And how in the hell would just two of every species repopulate the earth? Can you say second generation i*c*st? It's the same reason the Adam and Eve story is highly unlikely.


I'm surprised it took three pages for this to be noted.


----------



## Pilaf (Apr 27, 2010)

The Bible promotes i*c*st twice - with Adam and Eve and with Noah. The Bible is a sick book of i*c*st. Think about it...Adam fucked Eve...who is pretty much his female clone...and then they had kids..who somehow populated the Earth...

By...


Fucking....

each other, presumably.


----------



## Enclave (Apr 27, 2010)

Pilaf said:


> Wouldn't Noah's Ark have had to have been the size of the state of Texas or something to hold two of all the billions of species of animals on the planet?
> 
> And how in the hell would just two of every species repopulate the earth? Can you say second generation i*c*st? It's the same reason the Adam and Eve story is highly unlikely.



Actually it'd probably have to be even larger.



> Genesis 7:
> The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. *2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate*, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, *3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female*, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.


----------



## Pilaf (Apr 27, 2010)

That's still problematic from a genetic standpoint. Scientific tests have shown that if any species falls below a certain threshold, sometimes as high as a thousand, the species is doomed within 100 years due to lack of genetic diversity.


And if there were SEVEN, then the damn thing would have had to have been HUGE.


----------



## Enclave (Apr 27, 2010)

Pilaf said:


> That's still problematic from a genetic standpoint. Scientific tests have shown that if any species falls below a certain threshold, sometimes as high as a thousand, the species is doomed within 100 years due to lack of genetic diversity.
> 
> 
> And if there were SEVEN, then the damn thing would have had to have been HUGE.



Well, not seven of EVERY animal.  For instance, pigs are unclean so there would only be 2 of em.  Though I think it could also be read where a male and a female count as 1.  So there would be 4 pigs.  2 males and 2 females.


----------



## Bleach (Apr 27, 2010)

DragonJ said:


> Definitely more probable than "this guy made everything, lol."


lol no


Enclave said:


> Creationists


lol no


♠Ace♠ said:


> This is ironic because that's exactly what creationists believe.



lol no


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Apr 27, 2010)

JIPPERS!!!!  I NEVER HEARD OF THIS BEFORE !!!!





I wonder if there is some leftover hay and animal doo doo !!!!


----------



## Butō Rengoob (Apr 27, 2010)

Ahh, religous fruits trying their best to equate the fiction called the bible to real life.


----------



## Taco (Apr 27, 2010)

Noah's Ark landed in Armenia. True story.


----------



## Hand Banana (Apr 27, 2010)

I read an article once that they found it on the moon.  how the fuck it get back down to Earth so fast?


----------



## Elim Rawne (Apr 27, 2010)

Forbidden Truth said:


> Noah's Ark landed in Armenia. True story.



And then,the genocide happened.I guess it was gods will after all


----------



## Momoka (Apr 27, 2010)

Well this is certainly interesting


----------



## Ruby Tuesday (Apr 27, 2010)

So much fail in one thread it's giving me a migraine.


----------



## Ennoea (Apr 27, 2010)

People actually believe their was an arc and it had two of every speicies? Really? REALLY?!!! SERIOUSLY?!!!! 



> It's the same reason the Adam and Eve story is highly unlikely.



Yeah that and the fact they has pre-marital sex. They're probably burning in hell right now.


----------



## Butō Rengoob (Apr 27, 2010)

Ennoea said:


> People actually believe their was an arc and it had two of every speicies? Really? REALLY?!!! SERIOUSLY?!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that and the fact they has pre-marital sex. They're probably burning in hell right now.


Oh lordy know, we all know that can't be true, religon being all self-righteous and self-serving. 

I'm sorry but if you take fact and overlap it with truth you kinda get to the conclusion this isn't the Ark and religion is wrong!


----------



## Shibo (Apr 27, 2010)

Tkae said:


> *I'd heard that they found it there earlier, but that they couldn't get the money to launch a climb up to find it. Supposedly fighter jets caught it on video during a training flight or something.*
> 
> Anyways, in before athiests claim it's proof of evolution.



This. Ive seen this on National Geapgraphic or discovery or w/e a few years ago, it turned out to be not so interesting though.


----------



## arc (Apr 27, 2010)

...but wood rots. i've seen it rot.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Apr 27, 2010)

unless they find animal fiber from every species of animal in the world on this said ark then I won't believe them


----------



## Pilaf (Apr 27, 2010)

Ennoea said:


> People actually believe their was an arc and it had two of every speicies? Really? REALLY?!!! SERIOUSLY?!!!!



I worked with people who believed that, and who believed that the tower of babel is where all the languages and races came from.

People are really that profoundly, willfully ignorant.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Apr 27, 2010)

Wow. Some people *really* embarrassed themselves in this thread!


----------



## Orochibuto (Apr 27, 2010)

Noah's arc not really, Gilgamesh's arc maybe


----------



## xHinataFan (Apr 27, 2010)

Its a bunch of evangelical crazies. I don't believe them until somebody reputable says its true. I am an atheist but if somebody REPUTABLE says its true I will believe them. I don't argue with FACTS but until that happens, which I doubt will, I still call BULLSHIT!


----------



## Pilaf (Apr 27, 2010)

xHinataFan said:


> Its a bunch of evangelical crazies. I don't believe them until somebody reputable says its true. I am an atheist but if somebody REPUTABLE says its true I will believe them. I don't argue with FACTS but until that happens, which I doubt will, I still call BULLSHIT!



There's no possible way it could ever be true. It's an ignorant bronze age superstition that's only believable by people in loin cloths who've never heard of electricity - or the modern day drones with the same IQ level as those people in loin cloths.


----------



## Taco (Apr 27, 2010)

xHinataFan said:


> Its a bunch of evangelical crazies. I don't believe them until somebody reputable says its true. I am an atheist but if somebody REPUTABLE says its true I will believe them. I don't argue with FACTS but until that happens, which I doubt will, I still call BULLSHIT!



I like how you think only atheists are reputable, when they're just as biased as religious folk.



@Diceman, reported to Armenian government. They be comin' in their Benz now to get you.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Apr 27, 2010)

Forbidden Truth said:


> I like how you think only atheists are reputable, when they're just as biased as religious folk.
> 
> 
> 
> @Diceman, reported to Armenian government. They be comin' in their Benz now to get you.



That's not what he said at all.But continue to project your insecurities on to him/her


----------



## Zugzwang (Apr 28, 2010)

Forbidden Truth said:


> I like how you think only atheists are reputable, when they're just as biased as religious folk.
> 
> 
> 
> @Diceman, reported to Armenian government. They be comin' in their Benz now to get you.



Well as Diceman has already said that's not exactly what he said. But even more importantly you do realize that this is not the first time people have claimed to find the ark and that all the previous times turned out to be hoaxes. So putting more faith in the opinion of those who stand to gain nothing by falsifying a highly unlikely discovery doesn't seem like a bad move.


----------



## Psycho (Apr 28, 2010)

Dark Uchiha said:


> Really....
> 
> then shit, Islam still in the running.
> 
> Islam, Judaism or Christianity



actually it doesn't disprove anything, noah's ark might've happened and the holy books and similars in other religions just didn't mention it


----------



## Yasha (Apr 28, 2010)

Chee said:


> Are there shit load of animal skeletons droppings in there?



Fixed.


----------



## SxR (Apr 28, 2010)

But what about Noah, why didnt he take two of his own species? :S


----------



## Bungee Gum (Apr 28, 2010)

SxR said:


> But what about Noah, why didnt he take two of his own species? :S



He did, go to school.

I believe this could be noah's ark, i mean, i care not if some bible shit pointed out a huge flood happened back then, it could just be stating facts and using it to say god flooded the world, which is pretty bullshit, but some i dont doubt that it happened and that shit looked real, pretty exciting, i want something valid to perfectly disprove the bible or prove it, one or the other, this not knowing shit is annoying.


----------



## Nodonn (Apr 28, 2010)

SuperNovaLogia said:


> He did, go to school.
> 
> I believe this could be noah's ark, i mean, i care not if some bible shit pointed out a huge flood happened back then, it could just be stating facts and using it to say god flooded the world, which is pretty bullshit, but some i dont doubt that it happened and that shit looked real, pretty exciting, i want something valid to perfectly disprove the bible or prove it, one or the other, this not knowing shit is annoying.



I know the feeling.
I hate not knowing wether pink drunken rapist unicorns exist.
I hope we'll be getting some evidence soon since this is pissing me off.


----------



## Enclave (Apr 28, 2010)

Why are people still saying 2 of every animal after I posted the very verse from the bible?


----------



## Sarutobi sasuke (Apr 28, 2010)

> Web sites are buzzing over claims that remains from Noah’s Ark may have been found on Turkey’s Mount Ararat. The finders, led by an evangelical group, say they are "99.9 percent" that a wooden structure found on the mountainside was part of a ship that housed the Biblical Noah, his family and a menagerie of creatures during a giant flood 4,800 years ago.
> 
> But researchers who have spent decades studying the region – and fending off past claims of ark discoveries – caution that a boatload of skepticism is in order.
> 
> ...




TLDR summary:

Other archeologists think this is bullshit


----------



## SxR (Apr 28, 2010)

Other acheologists are usually right


----------



## Tkae (Apr 28, 2010)

Xyfar said:


> You've done nothing by discovering an old big boat.



I've discovered nothing.

The Chinese discovered the boat 

Pay attention, or GTFO 



> This is just a bandwagon fallacy. "Most people believe in this or similar, so it must be right."



Actually, it's not.

I'm in a minority by believing religions to be related, thereby contraindicating my possibility of being on any sort of bandwagon.

What you _mean_ is, "This is just a theory derived from ."

If you're going to throw out impressive terms, at least know what they mean. Or at the very least check it against wikipedia to save yourself this totally unnecessary "you're a dumbass" moment.

But knowing what you're talking about by actually studying rhetoric is always the superior course of action 



Juice said:


> You are an idiot. Neither side has solid proof of whether there is a higher power or not. Comments like this just fuel the battle between atheists and religious folks. The discovery of that boat is nothing more then a boat at the time being. It does not prove anything to atheist besides the fact that people will jump over anything labeled, "old" as being religious.
> 
> Also for the record I am a Christian, in case you call me an atheist.



You _are_ an athiest, because if you were a Christian, you'd agree with me 



TDM said:


> I'm surprised it took three pages for this to be noted.



Really?

I mean, I _did_ hijack the thread for a good 4 pages. 

You shortchange me on the credit I deserve, sir 



Pilaf said:


> Wouldn't Noah's Ark have had to have been the size of the state of Texas or something to hold two of all the billions of species of animals on the planet?



Nope, I already posted the exact size of Noah's Ark, per the Bible.

If you'd like, I can also go back and find the un-translated version, which uses the old units of measurement instead of kindly converting it to inches and feet for you.

But no. It's much smaller than Texas.



> And how in the hell would just two of every species repopulate the earth? Can you say second generation i*c*st? It's the same reason the Adam and Eve story is highly unlikely.



Well, first you have the boy animals, and then you have the girl animals, and the pen0r goes in the vajayjay and then yadda yadda yadda you have little babies running around knocking each other up.

Biology fail


----------



## Nodonn (Apr 28, 2010)

> If you'd like, I can also go back and find the un-translated version, which uses the old units of measurement instead of kindly converting it to inches and feet for you.



What world do we live in where the ''old'' measurements get converted into that much more ''understandable'' retarded rollercoaster of measurements.


----------



## Adagio (Apr 28, 2010)

It took this long to get funds to go up there? I remember hearing about this on Discovery Channel at least five years ago.. I guess most people are skeptical


----------



## Tkae (Apr 28, 2010)

Nodonn said:


> What world do we live in where the ''old'' measurements get converted into that much more ''understandable'' retarded rollercoaster of measurements.





> This is how you are to build it: *The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high*. *[d]* 16 Make a roof for it and finish [e] the ark to *within 18 inches **[f]* of the top. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks. 17
> 
> *d: Genesis 6:15 Hebrew  300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high  (about 140 meters long, 23 meters wide and 13.5 meters high) *
> 
> *f: Genesis 6:16 Hebrew  a cubit  (about 0.5 meter) *



Converted to your metric pleasure


----------



## Petenshi (Apr 28, 2010)

Having an ark really doesn't prove anything...it improves likelihood but still proof of anything significant eludes our eyes.


----------



## Zaru (Apr 28, 2010)

Tkae said:


> Well, first you have the boy animals, and then you have the girl animals, and the pen0r goes in the vajayjay and then yadda yadda yadda you have little babies running around knocking each other up.
> 
> Biology fail


Until the bible can explain how two of each animal race managed to get from somewhere up a mountain in nowhereland to America and Australia, I'm not buying this story


----------



## abcd (Apr 28, 2010)

Zaru said:


> Until the bible can explain how two of each animal race managed to get from somewhere up a mountain in nowhereland to America and Australia, I'm not buying this story



The funny part is that the story of a huge flood is there in many different civilizations .. So it might have been true ... with the ark being the source of escape for middle eastern ppl and other ways for others...


----------



## Tkae (Apr 28, 2010)

Zaru said:


> Until the bible can explain how two of each animal race managed to get from somewhere up a mountain in nowhereland to America and Australia, I'm not buying this story





When it's migration, you're not happy.
When it's God, you're not happy.
When it's continental drift, you're not happy.

Is "athiest" just another word for people who are never happy?

I bet if I said Chuck Norris put them there, you wouldn't be happy!


----------



## Zaru (Apr 28, 2010)

abcd said:


> The funny part is that the story of a huge flood is there in many different civilizations .. So it might have been true ... with the ark being the source of escape for middle eastern ppl and other ways for others...


You'd think worldwide mass death of humans and animals (we're talking about billions of lifeforms here) would leave some kind of... trace

If we can still find dinosaurs from 65+ million years ago then where are all the dead bodies drowned in the flood a couple k's ago? 



Tkae said:


> When it's migration, you're not happy.
> When it's God, you're not happy.
> When it's continental drift, you're not happy.
> 
> ...


Migration/Continental drift in a couple thousand years? :godryoma


----------



## Tkae (Apr 28, 2010)

Zaru said:


> Migration/Continental drift in a couple thousand years? :godryoma



There you go!

Not happy!


----------



## Zaru (Apr 28, 2010)

Tkae said:


> There you go!
> 
> Not happy!



Me requiring an explanation that makes me happy requires for me to believe the whole big flood/ark thing in the first place

Which I don't

I'm very happy, thanks


----------



## Petenshi (Apr 28, 2010)

Tkae said:


> There you go!
> 
> Not happy!



The point is, if we conclude that there is an ark with animals in it. It does not prove anything else about the bible true.


----------



## abcd (Apr 28, 2010)

Zaru said:


> You'd think worldwide mass death of humans and animals (we're talking about billions of lifeforms here) would leave some kind of... trace
> 
> If we can still find dinosaurs from 65+ million years ago then where are all the dead bodies drowned in the flood a couple k's ago?



I would assume all that to be an exaggeration of events... There would have been a rise in sea level causing major floods across the world and people escaped from it... Then the stories develop on their own in different countries that suit their beliefs...


----------



## Tkae (Apr 28, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> The point is, if we conclude that there is an ark with animals in it. It does not prove anything else about the bible true.



We've already explained why there won't be animals in it 

Seriously.

That was the second page. At least LOOK like you're trying, PLEASE! 

(It's not directed at you specifically, but to all the people who've said that exact same thing in the last 2 pages)


----------



## Petenshi (Apr 28, 2010)

Tkae said:


> We've already explained why there won't be animals in it
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> ...



My post wasn't about the animals, I thought thats what you thought and I just posted it. It was that, no matter what we find there it doesn't mean anything about anything. It increases the likelihood of perhaps this great flood, but nothing else. So, if thats true why do you care so much that it be true?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 28, 2010)

Tkae said:


> Well, first you have the boy animals, and then you have the girl animals, and the pen0r goes in the vajayjay and then yadda yadda yadda you have little babies running around knocking each other up.
> 
> Biology fail


----------



## Tkae (Apr 28, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> My post wasn't about the animals, I thought thats what you thought and I just posted it. It was that, no matter what we find there it doesn't mean anything about anything. It increases the likelihood of perhaps this great flood, but nothing else. So, if thats true *why do you care so much that it be true?*



Okay, work with me here.

I want you to visualize something.

This _isn't_ Noah's Ark.

What happens? 

I'll tell you what happens. These evangelists who have spent millions climbing a big ass mountain to explore this big ass boat will be depressed. Some of them will commit suicide, and then that will cover the news headlines for weeks, maybe months. And the others, after a few days, will reaffirm their efforts to find the missing Ark! 

And that's _another_ few million dollars spent on this Ark hunt. It's _another_ big ass mountain to climb and _another_ possible discovery for people to waste their time speculating about for a decade.

Nobody wants that 

Nobody wants another group of Russian Jewish rabbis trying to kill themselves when the world didn't end on the day they said it would. We don't want crazy boat-hunting, mountain-climbing, screws-loose Chinese evangelists to cause us any more disruption in our lives than there needs to be.

And plus, it'll be funny as hell if they actually have something to throw back at militant athiests like Richard Dawkins.

"God doesn't exist."

"Really? Then what about the big ass boat up on the big ass mountain in the middle of the big ass desert? Go suck on Darwin's ass for _that_ answer, Dawkins!"

So I have a very active interest in seeing this come to fruition, because it saves me the trouble of another few months of news reports about depressed Avatar fans boat-hunters trying to off themselves, and because it makes the mind-numbing arguments between hardcore athiests and evangelicals 10x funnier.


----------



## Butō Rengoob (Apr 28, 2010)

Tkae said:


> Well, first you have the boy animals, and then you have the girl animals, and the pen0r goes in the vajayjay and then yadda yadda yadda you have little babies running around knocking each other up.
> 
> Biology fail


Religous nuts...Skirting around the issue since forever. That's not even remotely close to what Pilaf fucking said, the matter of fact is that even if it's seven animals or two, there's not NEARLY enough genetic code in that many animals to allow for repopulation. I believe it was said that anything under 1,000 of a species and that species is doomed to failure.


----------



## Trent (Apr 28, 2010)

kinzey said:


> Ahem.  actually, the unicorns (along with the dragons, cyclopses, merpeople and minotours) were told the wrong time that the boat was leaving. To quote Noah "God hates freaks".



But shouldn't the merpeople population have _multiplied _during the Flood? 

I mean, they're supposed to live underwater and with most people drowning, there would be unlimited access to food.

I know! 

Merpeople weren't killed by the Flood but by _indigestion and heart attacks _from snacking on too much fat sinners!



Zaru said:


> Migration/Continental drift in a couple thousand years? :godryoma



Continents didn't mess about at that time. 

If they wanted to move somewhere, they fucking got there sharpish.


----------



## Juno (Apr 28, 2010)

I don't believe you guys are even humouring this. People who believe the story of Noah's ark actually happened are either trolling or just high functioning lunatics. Either way, this doesn't even deserve a response. Just laugh at the funny people who still believe in fairytales and move on.


----------



## Bleach (Apr 28, 2010)

Atheists.


----------



## ScreenXSurfer (Apr 28, 2010)

Bleach said:


> Atheists.



Creationist.



Stupider than this guy:


----------



## Bleach (Apr 28, 2010)

ScreenXSurfer said:


> Creationist.
> 
> 
> 
> Stupider than this guy:



Says the guy who is using family guy to depict someone

lol.

Atheists.


----------



## Pilaf (Apr 28, 2010)

So Bleach...when Noah had to fuck his own daughters after the flood because all the other people were dead, do you think he fucked them doggy style or in the missionary position as God intended?


----------



## Bleach (Apr 28, 2010)

Pilaf said:


> So Bleach...when Noah had to fuck his own daughters after the flood because all the other people were dead, do you think he fucked them doggy style or in the missionary position as God intended?



I think that your information is extremely incorrect and therefore feel sorry for you . If you are going off the bible, then that's your first mistake. 

I wonder if atheists think about that though? hmm..


----------



## Juno (Apr 28, 2010)

Bleach said:


> Atheists.



Do you have a point to make besides trolling with pictures from anti-atheist sites? Or don't you realise that Christians are not required to take every story in the bible literally in order to get into heaven?


----------



## Pilaf (Apr 28, 2010)

Bleach said:


> I think that your information is extremely incorrect and therefore feel sorry for you . If you are going off the bible, then that's your first mistake.
> 
> I wonder if atheists think about that though? hmm..



I'm just humoring your game. You seem to be defending the biblical story of Noah's Ark a little too fervently for someone who is now telling me he doesn't believe in the Bible.

If you don't believe the Bible, then why would you defend the flood story, which only appears in religion and no other historical source?


----------



## Ennoea (Apr 28, 2010)

> So Bleach...when Noah had to fuck his own daughters after the flood because all the other people were dead, do you think he fucked them doggy style or in the missionary position as God intended?



Silly Pilaf. He was too busy flying the Kangaroos back to Austrailia, and getting the Panda's to mate. 

Seriously forget arguing with the deranged morons, rational thought goes flying out the window the second someone buys the Noah's ark story.


----------



## ScreenXSurfer (Apr 28, 2010)

Bleach said:


> Says the guy who is using family guy to depict someone



Says the guy who is using fiction to guide his entire life and philosophy, despite how barbaric it is.



Pilaf said:


> So Bleach...when Noah had to fuck his own daughters after the flood because all the other people were dead, do you think he fucked them doggy style or in the missionary position as God intended?



Good question. I wonder if Lot, the righteous man of God, was wondering the same thing when he offered the city to gang rape his daughters.


----------



## Pilaf (Apr 28, 2010)

ScreenXSurfer said:


> Good question. I wonder if Lot, the righteous man of God, was wondering the same thing when he offered the city to gang rape his daughters.



Nobody loves rape and i*c*st quite as much as the God of the bible.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Apr 28, 2010)

*I like sex. *


----------



## Pilaf (Apr 28, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *I like sex. *



Who doesn't?

All rape and i*c*st are sex, but not all sex is rape or i*c*st.


----------



## Bleach (Apr 28, 2010)

Pilaf said:


> I'm just humoring your game. You seem to be defending the biblical story of Noah's Ark a little too fervently for someone who is now telling me he doesn't believe in the Bible.
> 
> If you don't believe the Bible, then why would you defend the flood story, which only appears in religion and no other historical source?



Because I don't believe in the bible that has been changed over the centuries. And of course we don't have a record of what was in the original. But I'm defending the Islamic story. Just the basic skeleton of the story though.

But I will agree that there isn't much historical evidence except I suppose that ark (which I don't know is real or not). There are just accounts of people seeing "ark" like things in the mountains in that area so maybe it was still there back then but idk and I don't need facts to help me support my religion.

And yea, Islam doesn't have that whole Lot rape story


----------



## Ennoea (Apr 28, 2010)

> Good question. I wonder if Lot, the righteous man of God, was wondering the same thing when he offered the city to gang rape his daughters.



Didn't he have a M?nage ? trois with his own daughters eventually?


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Apr 28, 2010)

Pilaf said:


> Who doesn't?
> 
> All rape and i*c*st are sex, but not all sex is rape or i*c*st.



*You just turned my whole world upside down you did. *


----------



## Pilaf (Apr 28, 2010)

Bleach said:


> Because I don't believe in the bible that has been changed over the centuries. And of course we don't have a record of what was in the original. But I'm defending the Islamic story. Just the basic skeleton of the story though.
> 
> But I will agree that there isn't much historical evidence except I suppose that ark (which I don't know is real or not). There are just accounts of people seeing "ark" like things in the mountains in that area so maybe it was still there back then but idk and *I don't need facts to help me support my religion.*



Of course you don't.  "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Benjamin Franklin



Pimp of Pimps said:


> *You just turned my whole world upside down you did. *




Lawd almighty we ahh free at last!


----------



## Bleach (Apr 28, 2010)

Religion isn't there to explain why the sky is blue or how electricity works.

And that quote sucks since there of course is reason .

Leave it to a puritan 

Or w/e he was. It was fail.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Apr 28, 2010)

Pilaf said:


> Of course you don't.  "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Benjamin Franklin



*Ol' Benny must have been have a couple drinks when he said that. 

Since if done properly faith and reason should go hand in hand. Sure, faith may be a belief that is not based on proof, but that does not mean it's a belief that can't be based by proof. If you find something that directly contradicts your beliefs, then the only two logical stances you can tae is that either your faith is wrong or that your faith is right but there is information you are missing. 

In any event, I'm going eat some noodles now good day. *


----------



## Ennoea (Apr 28, 2010)

> Religion isn't there to explain why the sky is blue or how electricity works.



Noone said it was, but if your gonna condemn someone to eternal hell for liking sex then you damn better have evidence to back that shit up bitch.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Apr 28, 2010)

Ennoea said:


> noone said it was but if your gonna condemn someone to eternal hell for liking sex then you damn better have evidence to back that shit up bitch.



*Lol you fucktard sex is a myth.

It don't exist. *


----------



## Ennoea (Apr 28, 2010)

> If you find something that directly contradicts your beliefs, then the only two logical stances you can tae is that either your faith is wrong or that your faith is right but there is information you are missing.



Its called denial. I've seen it many times, where people just ignore evidence because it doesn't fit in to their perfect world.


----------



## abcd (Apr 28, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *Lol you fucktard sex is a myth.
> 
> It don't exist. *



 When I was 7  I went to the sex temples in India


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Apr 28, 2010)

Ennoea said:


> Its called denial. I've seen it many times, where people just ignore evidence because it doesn't fit in to their perfect world.



*It's called following your gut you amphibian. 

Denial is not always a bad thing. And there is a clear difference between admitting there is no solid proof of your beliefs but continuing to believe something anyway thinking there is messing information that may back up your beliefs later on as opposed to just saying everyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong. 

Not like there's completely solid proof either way so let's just stop the fucking and eat. Neither side looks particularly smart here anyway. 
*


----------



## Bleach (Apr 28, 2010)

Ennoea said:


> Noone said it was, but if your gonna condemn someone to eternal hell for liking sex then you damn better have evidence to back that shit up bitch.



No one is forcing you to stop fucking. It's your choice to believe what you want but when someone starts fucking with you don't say "Help me God" or "O God". Instead say "Help me Woody Allen!" or "O Bill Gates save me from this rapist who wants to sodomize me".

I r outnumbered. On this thread anyway. Probably the forum.

My Balrog will handle this.


----------



## ScreenXSurfer (Apr 28, 2010)

Bleach said:


> I r outnumbered. On this thread anyway. Probably the forum.



That's because each generation is moving further and further away from tribal superstitions and towards rationality and empiricism.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Apr 28, 2010)

Bleach said:


> No one is forcing you to stop fucking. It's your choice to believe what you want but when someone starts fucking with you don't say "Help me God" or "O God". Instead say "Help me Woody Allen!" or "O Bill Gates save me from this rapist who wants to sodomize me".
> 
> * I r outnumbered. On this thread anyway. Probably the forum.*
> 
> My Balrog will handle this.



 




ScreenXSurfer said:


> That's because each generation is moving further and further away from tribal superstitions and towards rationality and empiricism.



*Yeah right. Most of us are still as retarded as we always were.*


----------



## Ennoea (Apr 28, 2010)

> No one is forcing you to stop fucking. It's your choice to believe what you want but when someone starts fucking with you don't say "Help me God" or "O God". Instead say "Help me Woody Allen!" or "O Bill Gates save me from this rapist who wants to sodomize me".



You're just going on some crazy tangent now.


----------



## Pilaf (Apr 28, 2010)

Bleach said:


> No one is forcing you to stop fucking. It's your choice to believe what you want but when someone starts fucking with you don't say "Help me God" or "O God". Instead say "Help me Woody Allen!" or "O Bill Gates save me from this rapist who wants to sodomize me".



You are truly delusional.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Apr 28, 2010)

*NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO STOP FUCKING. *


----------



## Bleach (Apr 28, 2010)

Pilaf said:


> You are truly delusional.



Right back at ya.

Ok now I'm truly done


----------



## Pilaf (Apr 28, 2010)

Bleach said:


> Right back at ya.
> 
> Ok now I'm truly done



Hahahaha....what a weak little bitch retaliation.

Atheists win this thread. Atheists win again. We can't fucking lose.


----------



## dr.psycho (Apr 28, 2010)

What next? Big Foot and the Loch Ness monster?


----------



## Verdius (Apr 28, 2010)

Pilaf said:


> Hahahaha....what a weak little bitch retaliation.
> 
> Atheists win this thread. Atheists win again. We can't fucking lose.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Apr 28, 2010)

dr.psycho said:


> What next? Big Foot and the Loch Ness monster?



But...I actually believe in the possible existence of the Sasquatch...


----------



## Tkae (Apr 28, 2010)

Cabbage Cabrera said:


> Religous nuts...Skirting around the issue since forever. That's not even remotely close to what Pilaf fucking said, the matter of fact is that even if it's seven animals or two, there's not NEARLY enough genetic code in that many animals to allow for repopulation. I believe it was said that anything under 1,000 of a species and that species is doomed to failure.



That's a made-up number used by conservationists to get funding to keep animal populations above an arbitrary limit. It's not like they're going to say, "Oh, it's okay, we still have a thousand out there, we'll be fine!"

Geez 

And it _was_ what Pilaf said. They asked how animals could repopulate the planet. I explained the process. Pay attention more


----------



## Hwon (Apr 28, 2010)

Also notice to the left of the Ark is the outline of a huge lobster.


----------



## abcd (Apr 28, 2010)

Hwon said:


> Also notice to the left of the Ark is the outline of a huge lobster.



That looks like a peacock to me :/


----------



## Ennoea (Apr 28, 2010)

> That's a made-up number used by conservationists to get funding to keep animal populations above an arbitrary limit. It's not like they're going to say, "Oh, it's okay, we still have a thousand out there, we'll be fine!"
> 
> Geez
> 
> And it was what Pilaf said. They asked how animals could repopulate the planet. I explained the process. Pay attention more



Wow. You really should read before spouting so much nonesense. Do you realise how many factors effect repopulation of an animal? Sorry but 2 or 4 animals of each could never repopulate, they would die out quickly. What do you think the carnivores would do? Eat grass?


----------



## Ninjitsu Ninja (Apr 28, 2010)

Never has .01% seemed so likely.


----------



## TDM (Apr 28, 2010)

There seems to be hair draped over the face - GOD IS A WOMAN!


----------



## ScreenXSurfer (Apr 28, 2010)

Ennoea said:


> Wow. You really should read before spouting so much nonesense. Do you realise how many factors effect repopulation of an animal? Sorry but 2 or 4 animals of each could never repopulate, they would die out quickly. What do you think the carnivores would do? Eat grass?



Don't bother, Tkae is the archetype of the book burning religious fundie. Everything you say to him will bounce off his wall of ignorance.

Read this for an explanation as of why:


----------



## abcd (Apr 28, 2010)

Ennoea said:


> Wow. You really should read before spouting so much nonesense. Do you realise how many factors effect repopulation of an animal? Sorry but 2 or 4 animals of each could never repopulate, they would die out quickly. What do you think the carnivores would do? Eat grass?



Wasting ur energy eh ?


----------



## Vanthebaron (Apr 28, 2010)

It's a fucking boat assholes.


----------



## Butō Rengoob (Apr 28, 2010)

Tkae said:


> That's a made-up number used by conservationists to get funding to keep animal populations above an arbitrary limit. It's not like they're going to say, "Oh, it's okay, we still have a thousand out there, we'll be fine!"
> 
> Geez
> 
> And it _was_ what Pilaf said. They asked how animals could repopulate the planet. I explained the process. Pay attention more


He asked how seven animals could repopulate, dumbfuck and dude seriously? No one comes up with a fucking number just to continue conservation funding, i hope you know the loss of one or two animal species could ruin an entire eco-system and as hard as it is to believe i assure you, if even under 1,000 animals survived of a single species the genetic material used for making them would run out, to the point the species would be fouled up by disease, retardation and genetic defects. It's called Inbreeding, look it up.


----------



## Roy (Apr 28, 2010)

I saw this on Good Morning America today. They had pictures. Who knows if this is true or not, but it'd be cool if they did prove it to be Noah's Ark.

Also I don't think they should be searching for a big ass boat. I mean..after the flood I'm sure there were no trees readily available, so I'm guessing that they had to strip the Ark to make their houses and stuff.


----------



## Pilaf (Apr 28, 2010)

Roy said:


> I saw this on Good Morning America today. They had pictures. Who knows if this is true or not, but it'd be cool if they did prove it to be Noah's Ark.
> 
> Also I don't think they should be searching for a big ass boat. I mean..after the flood I'm sure there were no trees readily available, so I'm guessing that they had to strip the Ark to make their houses and stuff.



It would be "cool"?

Seriously?

It would prove your god is a FUCKING DICK.

Think about it..just fucking think about the story..it's a story of absolute genocide.

God destroyed the entire world and killed almost everyone INCLUDING BABIES because a handful of human beings - GASP -had sex with angels. 

It's a story about an insane dictator who is so vehemently anti pleasure that he'd destroy almost every living thing to promote his puritanical ideology.

It's a horrible story with no morally redeeming value, and any evidence proving it true would only be evidence that if God exists, he's the biggest douche fuck in the universe.


Seriously, why are you people trying so hard to prove your God is evil and disgusting?


----------



## Roy (Apr 28, 2010)

Pilaf said:


> It would be "cool"?
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> ...



Because then he'd be real?  

A handful? No, The Bible says all of Earth was corrupt. Remember that Earth back then wasn't 6 billion+ so it's not like the population back then would even compare to now. Noah was "a righteous man" thus he was chosen to be saved.

those babies were probably fapping when no one was looking. 

If he'd be a dick wouldn't he say something like "alright now. don't fuck this up again or else i'll make another flood" Instead he promised never to destroy the world by flood.

Genesis 9:11, 13 says so.


----------



## Butō Rengoob (Apr 28, 2010)

Roy said:


> Because then he'd be real?
> 
> A handful? No, The Bible says all of Earth was corrupt. Remember that Earth back then wasn't 6 billion+ so it's not like the population back then would even compare to now. Noah was "a righteous man" thus he was chosen to be saved.
> 
> ...


So basically they were corrupt like we are now? So i guess we all deserve to be slaughtered? Promising never to do that again is a pretty piss poor way of saying "sorry for the Genocide", I don't think it's nearly enough to make up for the fact. Why don't i go out, buy a Nuke, and then set it off in New York, kill millions and then say "I won't do that again", and have everyone say "Aw, it's ok, we still like you". Hey maybe that's the key for the terrorists, they'll just patch it up like it's a boo-boo.


----------



## Terra Branford (Apr 28, 2010)

I think its possible that its the Ark, but at the same time, I think it would be someplace else...

How many other giant boats like that exist? :c

(No really, I wanna know lol)


----------



## Pilaf (Apr 28, 2010)

Emma Bradley said:


> I think its possible that its the Ark, but at the same time, I think it would be someplace else...
> 
> How many other giant boats like that exist? :c
> 
> (No really, I wanna know lol)



You're actually sitting here, in 2010, telling me that you think the Ark as depicted in the Bible could have actually existed. No bullshit? You don't see any logical holes in that story at all?


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Apr 28, 2010)

*I have this theory. 

We all came from Mars many ages ago. There was a flood on Mars encompassing most, if not all the world, and because of that and some other unknown reason we fled to Earth on a space ark along with many of our animals. 

So, Noah's Ark is a spaceship. 

*


----------



## Pilaf (Apr 28, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *I have this theory.
> 
> We all came from Mars many ages ago. There was a flood on Mars encompassing most, if not all the world, and because of that and some other unknown reason we fled to Earth on a space ark along with many of our animals.
> 
> ...



It's no more ridiculous than anything from the Bible.


----------



## Petenshi (Apr 28, 2010)

Pilaf said:


> It's no more ridiculous than anything from the Bible.



Except sex, rape, and genocide that stuff happens all the time .


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Apr 28, 2010)

*There actually was a pretty nasty flood on Mars. I recall reading in a book that the water released in the flood was basically the equivalent of five times the water in the Great Lakes, maybe more, at one point. Don't quote me on that though. 

So, yeah, we're from Mars nigguh. *


----------



## Petenshi (Apr 28, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *There actually was a pretty nasty flood on Mars. I recall reading in a book that the water released in the flood was basically the equivalent of five times the water in the Great Lakes, maybe more, at one point. Don't quote me on that though.
> 
> So, yeah, we're from Mars nigguh. *



See?! Optimus Prime is related to us! VOTE NOW!

Anyways, if we were really from mars, you would think we would find ancestors with different body compositions no? At least a little bit.


----------



## TDM (Apr 28, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *I recall reading in a book that the water released in the flood was basically the equivalent of five times the water in the Great Lakes, maybe more, at one point. Don't quote me on that though.  *


That is very little water.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Apr 28, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> See?! Optimus Prime is related to us! VOTE NOW!
> 
> Anyways, if we were really from mars, you would think we would find ancestors with different body compositions no? At least a little bit.



*Maybe all the world's animals come from space? m 

This thread is now about Mars everyone. No exceptions. 
*


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Apr 28, 2010)

TDM said:


> That is very little water.


*
For a global flood, yes it is. Which is why I said don't quote me on this you ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) whore money. 

Also:   *


----------



## Petenshi (Apr 28, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *Maybe all the world's animals come from space? m
> 
> This thread is now about Mars everyone. No exceptions.
> *



Okay, so how much velocity does a wooden ark need to escape mars orbit?


----------



## TDM (Apr 28, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Okay, so how much velocity does a wooden ark need to escape mars orbit?


How much, uh, space is required on a wooden ark for food for all the animals for the trip? How is it distributed?


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Apr 28, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Okay, so how much velocity does a wooden ark need to escape mars orbit?



*It wouldn't be wooden. As I said, it's a spaceship son. *


----------



## Petenshi (Apr 28, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *It wouldn't be wooden. As I said, it's a spaceship son. *



If I want my Space ark to be wooden Goddammit, its going to be wooden.


----------



## Pimp of Pimps (Apr 28, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> If I want my Space ark to be wooden Goddammit, its going to be wooden.


*
Perhaps it looks wooden? 

Or our great ancestors engineered trees as hard as steel? *


----------



## Petenshi (Apr 28, 2010)

Pimp of Pimps said:


> *
> Perhaps it looks wooden?
> 
> Or our great ancestors engineered trees as hard as steel? *



Yeah! Tree Steel, it was made by the Walmart Corps of Mars.


----------



## Terra Branford (Apr 28, 2010)

Pilaf said:


> You're actually sitting here, in 2010, telling me that you think the Ark as depicted in the Bible could have actually existed. No bullshit? You don't see any logical holes in that story at all?



Yes, I am sitting here in 2010 saying that I believe the Ark is real, whether or not this one is, is a different case.

(I don't see why people get so upset when a someone believes in the Bible and God.  You don't like it, good for you. You don't have to be all uppity in peoples faces, trying to force them to believe what you believe.)


----------



## Ennoea (Apr 28, 2010)

> There is good reason to believe that the Earth in Noah's day did not have the high mountains or deep ocean trenches of today. These features formed during or since the Flood of Noah's day. In fact, Psalm 104 seems to indicate how God ended the Flood—He raised the mountains and lowered the ocean basins (possibly associated with continental break up—plate tectonics), so the water ran off the Earth to form the present oceans.



Wow just wow


----------



## Roy (Apr 28, 2010)

Ennoea said:


> Wow just wow





> Peter declares in 2 Peter 3:5 concerning the Creation, Flood, and coming Judgment that people in the last days will scoff at these things, and that they will be 'willingly ignorant.'



          .


----------



## Petenshi (Apr 28, 2010)

Emma Bradley said:


> Yes, I am sitting here in 2010 saying that I believe the Ark is real, whether or not this one is, is a different case.
> 
> (I don't see why people get so upset when a someone believes in the Bible and God.  You don't like it, good for you. You don't have to be all uppity in peoples faces, trying to force them to believe what you believe.)



Yeah, but just because you believe in god doesn't mean you have to take everything in the bible as 100% truth. When a scientist says, "Hey guys, mars is actually made of cheese." No matter how much evidence I have I am going to do research myself. I don't just believe things because it fits some silly label I gave myself or...someone gave me.

If you believe in the ark, then there are so many logical things you should also not believe in because they don't add up. If not, its obvious you are doing the exact thing I described above.


----------



## Terra Branford (Apr 28, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Yeah, but just because you believe in god doesn't mean you have to take everything in the bible as 100% truth. When a scientist says, "Hey guys, mars is actually made of cheese." No matter how much evidence I have I am going to do research myself. I don't just believe things because it fits some silly label I gave myself or...someone gave me.
> 
> If you believe in the ark, then there are so many logical things you should also not believe in because they don't add up. If not, its obvious you are doing the exact thing I described above.



I don't see anything in the Bible that I think isn't logical. Only those who don't believe in it do.

I believe a flood happened, I believe a giant boat was built to save people. We have giant boats now, don't we? Also, I bet you wouldn't believe that a Native American tribe discovered how to record things way before the 19th century, huh? Well, they did. Anything is possible and I think this is.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Apr 28, 2010)

Oh my god...


----------



## Roy (Apr 28, 2010)

Emma Bradley said:


> I don't see anything in the Bible that I think isn't logical. Only those who don't believe in it do.
> 
> I believe a flood happened, I believe a giant boat was built to save people. We have giant boats now, don't we? Also, I bet you wouldn't believe that a Native American tribe discovered how to record things way before the 19th century, huh? Well, they did. Anything is possible and I think this is.



The boat might seem large to us, but to them it could have just been a medium-semi-large boat.  It's mentioned in Gen. 6:4 that "there were giants in the earth in those days...". The average height for a human back then could have been taller than us today. Anybody that is 600 years old like Noah was when the Flood came, knew that you don't need to bring in the biggest animals you can find. He could have brought in babies which are smaller, weigh less, eat less, and sleep longer.


----------



## BAD BD (Apr 28, 2010)

Roy said:


> The boat might seem large to us, but to them it could have just been a medium-semi-large boat.  It's mentioned in Gen. 6:4 that "there were giants in the earth in those days...". The average height for a human back then could have been taller than us today. Anybody that is 600 years old like Noah was when the Flood came, knew that you don't need to bring in the biggest animals you can find. He could have brought in babies which are smaller, weigh less, eat less, and sleep longer.



Proooooove it!


----------



## Petenshi (Apr 28, 2010)

Emma Bradley said:


> I don't see anything in the Bible that I think isn't logical. Only those who don't believe in it do.
> 
> I believe a flood happened, I believe a giant boat was built to save people. We have giant boats now, don't we? Also, I bet you wouldn't believe that a Native American tribe discovered how to record things way before the 19th century, huh? Well, they did. Anything is possible and I think this is.



Okay, so you then you also have to logically admit that anything I say after this is with the same openness and possibility of truth if I find a book that says it is so, correct? If I found an old book written in greek that said People are actually related to moles you would HAVE to agree by your own logic that it is just as possible. If you do that, I am fine with your belief. If your openly willing to admit how your mind works, thats perfectly fine, I can't say how mine works is any better. However, its when you say it works for one thing and not another thing when all the variables are the same where it doesn't. You can't hold you book has any more or any less evidence than the other religions. And thus, you can't use evidence to justify your belief only your perceptions of what makes sense. Which is fine, but you just can't talk about truth.


----------



## Terra Branford (Apr 28, 2010)

I'm just saying, if I believe in it, leave me be. I don't need people jamming their thoughts and beliefs down my throat by mocking me.



> Okay, so you then you also have to logically admit that anything I say after this is with the same openness and possibility of truth if I find a book that says it is so, correct? If I found an old book written in greek that said People are actually related to moles you would HAVE to agree by your own logic that it is just as possible. If you do that, I am fine with your belief. If your openly willing to admit how your mind works, thats perfectly fine, I can't say how mine works is any better. However, its when you say it works for one thing and not another thing when all the variables are the same where it doesn't.


What?  :amazed

That has nothing to do with this nor what I was saying. Its not logically to think a boat that big couldn't have been forged. But whatever, just leave me be. You don't have to start anything with every Christian you find.


----------



## Ennoea (Apr 28, 2010)

> Peter declares in 2 Peter 3:5 concerning the Creation, Flood, and coming Judgment that people in the last days will scoff at these things, and that they will be 'willingly ignorant.'



Peter can go ahead and kiss my ass. 



> I don't see anything in the Bible that I think isn't logical. Only those who don't believe in it do.



You've been reading the wrong book.


----------



## Terra Branford (Apr 28, 2010)

Ennoea said:


> You've been reading the wrong book.



Hm, really? Because you say so? I'll take that into account...oh wait.


----------



## Roy (Apr 28, 2010)

BAD BD said:


> Proooooove it!





> Anybody that is 600 years old like Noah was when the Flood came, knew that you don't need to bring in the biggest animals you can find. He could have brought in babies which are smaller, weigh less, eat less, and sleep longer.


Common sense.


----------



## Ennoea (Apr 28, 2010)

> Common sense.



I think that went out of the window a couple pages back.



> The boat might seem large to us, but to them it could have just been a medium-semi-large boat. It's mentioned in Gen. 6:4 that "there were giants in the earth in those days...". The average height for a human back then could have been taller than us today.



Theres overwhelming evidence that points to people not being giants, ever.


----------



## BAD BD (Apr 28, 2010)

Roy said:


> Common sense.



A statement about historical facts requires historical evidence. There is not evidence for any aspect of the Noah's Arc story.



Emma Bradley said:


> I'm just saying, if I believe in it, leave me be. I don't need people jamming their thoughts and beliefs down my throat by mocking me.



Your beliefs have no legitimate foundations. No rational being is required to take them seriously.


----------



## SilverCross (Apr 28, 2010)

i see no reason to try and "prove" this or anything else to be true when no one here can prove its not.

if you dont believe, then good for you, leave those who do alone about it. you gain nothing from harassing people about what they choose to believe..


----------



## Roy (Apr 28, 2010)

Ennoea said:


> Peter can go ahead and kiss my ass.



My point exactly. 



Ennoea said:


> Theres overwhelming evidence that points to people not being giants, ever.



I'm not talking about big-ass 15ft people here. I'm just stating that their average height could have been bigger.


----------



## Ennoea (Apr 28, 2010)

> if you dont believe, then good for you, leave those who do alone about it. you gain nothing from harassing people about what they choose to believe..



The issue is when they bend logic so they can make their fairytales in to fact.

Roy please just stop, you're just making stuff up at this point. And don't even get me started on your theory of the animals being babies because Animal planet really proves you wrong.


----------



## Petenshi (Apr 28, 2010)

Emma Bradley said:


> I'm just saying, if I believe in it, leave me be. I don't need people jamming their thoughts and beliefs down my throat by mocking me.
> 
> 
> What?  :amazed
> ...



Its not about your belief, its about your credibility in the conversation. All of you perceive it as an attack. My point is, you can believe what you want and I hope you stand for what you believe in. However, logic rules the reality we are in and if you do think illogically I cannot value what you say above any other illogical value. Its just principle of reality from our mortal experience things mentioned in the bible haven't happened. The same as you probably wouldn't trust anything from a deranged mental patient in court. Though, I am not comparing you to that at all only in the sense of circumstance.


----------



## Roy (Apr 28, 2010)

BAD BD said:


> A statement about historical facts requires historical evidence. There is not evidence for any aspect of the Noah's Arc story.



the seashells that were found petrified even on top of Mt. Everest is a clear proof that that mountain was once under the water.


----------



## BAD BD (Apr 28, 2010)

Roy said:


> the seashells that were found petrified even on top of Mt. Everest is a clear proof that that mountain was once under the water.



Well yes, but this explains that little fact rather nicely and more completely.

*Spoiler*: __


----------



## Roy (Apr 28, 2010)

Ennoea said:


> The issue is when they bend logic so they can make their fairytales in to fact.
> 
> Roy please just stop, you're just making stuff up at this point. And don't even get me started on your theory of the animals being babies because Animal planet really proves you wrong.



I'm using The Bible as a reference to the past..last I knew the Bible is really the only veritable key to the past

I don't have cable/can't watch Animal Planet


----------



## Ennoea (Apr 28, 2010)

> the seashells that were found petrified even on top of Mt. Everest is a clear proof that that mountain was once under the water.



You do know how the Himalayas were formed right?


----------



## Terra Branford (Apr 28, 2010)

BAD BD said:


> A statement about historical facts requires historical evidence. There is not evidence for any aspect of the Noah's Arc story.
> 
> Your beliefs have no legitimate foundations. No rational being is required to take them seriously.



And your "fallow the crowd" line of thought is very, how do I say it? Narrow. 



SilverCross said:


> i see no reason to try and "prove" this or anything else to be true when no one here can prove its not.
> 
> if you dont believe, then good for you, leave those who do alone about it. you gain nothing from harassing people about what they choose to believe..



You probably don't believe in God, but thank you for saying this.


> the seashells that were found petrified even on top of Mt. Everest is a clear proof that that mountain was once under the water.



Really? 



> Its not about your belief, its about your credibility in the conversation. All of you perceive it as an attack. My point is, you can believe what you want and I hope you stand for what you believe in. However, logic rules the reality we are in and if you do think illogically I cannot value what you say above any other illogical value. Its just principle of reality from our mortal experience things mentioned in the bible haven't happened. The same as you probably wouldn't trust anything from a deranged mental patient in court. Though, I am not comparing you to that at all only in the sense of circumstance.



You can't possible know what's logically or not, so don't try and use it here. No one can say what's logically or not. People, especially Scientists, said they would never find water on the moon. And now, what do we have?


----------



## BAD BD (Apr 28, 2010)

If it was normal rain water that flooded the earth, then the salinity of the ocean would decrease by a factor large enough to kill most ocean life.



Emma Bradley said:


> And your "fallow the crowd" line of thought is very, how do I say it? Narrow.



I'm about as far from a "fallow the crowd" thinker as one can be.


----------



## Roy (Apr 28, 2010)

BAD BD said:


> If it was normal rain water that flooded the earth, then the salinity of the ocean would decrease by a factor large enough to kill most ocean life.



the Bible clearly teaches in Gen. 7:11 "...the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." Most of the water came from under ground chambers and not from rain like skeptics believe.


----------



## Petenshi (Apr 28, 2010)

Emma Bradley said:


> You can't possible know what's logically or not, so don't try and use it here. No one can say what's logically or not. People, especially Scientists, said they would never find water on the moon. And now, what do we have?



Yes I can, its dictated by society. You don't think unicorns are logical do you? None of us have seen one or any physical remnants. Like I said it isn't about our belief, its about credibility. The proof of our world, the way our society works, is physical worldly first hand evidence based of others. It doesn't matter how it should be thats how it is. Right, and then we changed our view of logic to fit the new knowledge. Its funny how you think I am trying to cram beliefs into you, when you don't even know what I believe. You should always question yourself and your beliefs, always. I never let up my questions, I don't become complacent for ignorance sprouts when you do.

As for Roy, the bible is written in almost poetic form it almost has no meaning in todays society. The mistranslations we are missing could me so much and we don't even know it. Great fountains could be anything.


----------



## Ennoea (Apr 28, 2010)

Thats it Im off to the imaginary world in my closet. All you motherfuckers who deny it are just followers of the crowd. Yes that right theres Narnia in my closet.


----------



## BAD BD (Apr 28, 2010)

Roy said:


> the Bible clearly teaches in Gen. 7:11 "...the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." Most of the water came from under ground chambers and not from rain like skeptics believe.



IIRC heaven is up.


----------



## Roy (Apr 28, 2010)

Ennoea said:


> Thats it Im off to the imaginary world in my closet. All you motherfuckers who deny it are just followers of the crowd. Yes that right theres Narnia in my closet.


Narnia sucks, bro. Go to Middle Earth.


----------



## Ennoea (Apr 28, 2010)

> Most of the water came from under ground chambers and not from rain like skeptics believe.



Heaven doesn't equate ground chamber otherwise I doubt anyone would want to go there.



> Narnia sucks, bro. Go to Middle Earth.



Middle earth would be nice but Sauron keeps annoying me ever since I found his ex-wife's ring in a cave.


----------



## Terra Branford (Apr 28, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Yes I can, its dictated by society. You don't think unicorns are logical do you? None of us have seen one or any physical remnants. Like I said it isn't about our belief, its about credibility. The proof of our world, the way our society works, is physical worldly first hand evidence based of others. It doesn't matter how it should be thats how it is. Right, and then we changed our view of logic to fit the new knowledge. Its funny how you think I am trying to cram beliefs into you, when you don't even know what I believe. *You should always question yourself and your beliefs, always. I never let up my questions, I don't become complacent for ignorance sprouts when you do.*



I shouldn't question my beliefs because someone on the internet tells me too. If you don't like what I believe in, get over it. I don't see how me believing in it matters so much to you or anyone else.

Its ridiculous. 

And you're right, I don't know what you belief and I don't mind what you believe in. I won't try to shift your thought/beliefs or try to make it sound illogical. 

But you said we changed to fit logic. How can we tell what logic is if we get it wrong and then change it when we find out we were wrong? That seems pretty retarded to me. Logic failed and then changed to show how illogical it was at the moment. 



> I'm about as far from a "fallow the crowd" thinker as one can be.


Uh huh. Then leave my beliefs alone and stop trying to prove how "illogical" it is.


----------



## Roy (Apr 28, 2010)

BAD BD said:


> IIRC heaven is up.



I think you read it wrong..

It's saying that water came below


> the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up,



and from the top


> and the windows of heaven were opened


aka it rained. 



			
				Ennoea said:
			
		

> Middle earth would be nice but Sauron keeps annoying me ever since I found his ex-wife's ring in a cave.


ahh I see. maybe if you return it he'll give you a reward?


----------



## ☆ (Apr 28, 2010)

If they have no other evidence than the age, they're delusional. At least get some solid evidence, before being 99.9% sure that it is it.


----------



## Velocity (Apr 28, 2010)

Roy said:


> Peter declares in 2 Peter 3:5 concerning the Creation, Flood, and coming  Judgment that people in the last days will scoff at these things, and  that they will be 'willingly ignorant.'



Of course they'd say that. How do I put this? The Bible is like this book that tells you to act in a certain way, giving you stories that provide examples of the author's message. You're told of this guy called Jesus who lived life as you're told to. He goes around telling people stories of people who didn't live life as you are told to and how - lest they repent - they get sent to Hell and burn for all eternity for it. Then they bring in this all-powerful being known simply as Yahweh, who is both vengeful yet benevolent. 

A being so beyond our comprehension that even trying to imagine or understand the concept of such a being existed is looked down upon and scorned with the oft-repeated phrase "You're not omniscient, you could never understand him". Those who try to question the motives of this Yahweh are also automatically shunned and silenced, for they are told they are simply human and thus cannot understand "His" ways. Then the writers enforce this belief that anyone who doesn't believe in God - whether by believing in their own God(s) or simply the desire to believe in more Earthly things - is automatically going to Hell, simply for being ignorant and blind. But, of course, there's conveniently always the option for redemption for those who seek it.

In short, they enforce proper behaviour through fear. Fear of doing wrong, fear of not believing, fear of trying to comprehend something, fear of voicing your opinion. Constantly living in fear for so long that you even begin to confuse fear for adoration. You worship this Yahweh so strongly because of your fear of him that you actually begin to think you truly love him when the mere idea of loving something that you've never seen or touched before is crazy. But of course, anyone who says that is also automatically silenced and shunned with the phrase - what was it? - "only fools need to see with their own eyes before they believe with their hearts".

I think the guys who wrote the Bible would probably laugh their arses off if they saw people's belief in their book, the book they wrote simply to promote their own ideals so they could live comfortable lives, had actually grown to incorruptable zealotry in two thousand years instead of dwindled to nothing but a fairytale like any other story. 

Hell, if I were God, I'd be ashamed of humanity. He leaves you alone for thousands of years, letting you get on with your lives while he gets on with his, and all you do is pester him endlessly all the time for stupid petty shit like "Oh, help me pass my exams" or "Why didn't you save those people from the Earthquake", without ever thinking for one second that perhaps he did stop a fucking earthquake last week but because it never happened, you never found out about it. Humans are so reliant already on this God of yours, so how do you think things would be if he actually ever did show up? You wouldn't wipe your own arse for want of him to do it for you.

If there's one thing I applaud Atheists for, it's the determination to do things themselves than rely on a being that may or may not exist.


----------



## Ennoea (Apr 28, 2010)

> It's saying that water came below



Bible says alot of ridiculous shit with no evidence whatsoever to back it up.


----------



## BAD BD (Apr 28, 2010)

Emma Bradley said:


> Uh huh. Then leave my beliefs alone and stop trying to prove how "illogical" it is.



I follow principles, not people.



> I think you read it wrong..
> 
> It's saying that water came below the same day were all the fountains of the and from the top aka it rained.



Well, that does make more sense, but the claim still lacks evidence.


----------



## Roy (Apr 28, 2010)

Glowpop said:


> If they have no other evidence than the age, they're delusional. At least get some solid evidence, before being 99.9% sure that it is it.



I think the guys that found it were Christian scientists/archaeologists or something, so that number probably isn't completely right. Theres just been too many of these stories before. And even then I don't think they'll find a big boat because of one of my previous post stating that trees would be scarce after the flood so they most likely stripped the ark to make their houses or some shit.

I'd like independent scientists/archaeologists give their opinion on it before I believe on what they say they found.


----------



## Terra Branford (Apr 28, 2010)

Lyra said:


> In short, they enforce proper behaviour through fear. Fear of doing wrong, fear of not believing, fear of trying to comprehend something, fear of voicing your opinion. Constantly living in fear for so long that you even begin to confuse fear for adoration. You worship this Allah so strongly because of your fear of him that you actually begin to think you truly love him when the mere idea of loving something that you've never seen or touched before is crazy. But of course, anyone who says that is also automatically silenced and shunned with the phrase - what was it? - "only fools need to see with their own eyes before they believe with their hearts".
> .



I think you need to be quiet because you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

We act the we act because we aren't monsters who do wrong and *still* expect everything to be *handed* to us. We love and respect people not because we are "afraid" of God or Jesus, because we to see how wrong killing people and everything else mentioned in the bible, is.

We believe because we believe in a brighter future where there aren't people who murder or sin. We aren't afraid of _anything_ or _anyone_. So stop acting as if you know what you are talking about, its really stupid to read that kind of post from someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.

I hate when I see people making such shitty claims about something they can't comprehend. People who feel like they have to insult a religion, is a weak person at heart and needs to take it on on someone or something, just to make themselves feel better about whatever it is they need comfort on. 



> I follow principles, not people.



You follow principles that *constantly contradicts* itself? How comfortable is that, hm?

I mean, if science tells you will die in thirty days from Cancer and you pull through, what will science be in your eyes? I'm not saying science is wrong all the time, but you can't trust it...yet. It isn't near its level of being trusted when it constantly changes its views.

Now, this particular boat may not be the Ark, but you have no freakin' way of knowing. Unless, of course, people  back then just built massive sized boats for fun.


----------



## Ennoea (Apr 28, 2010)

> We love and respect people not because we are "afraid" of God or Jesus, because we to see how wrong killing people and everything else mentioned in the bible, is.



Do you even realise how violent Christian history is?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Apr 28, 2010)

Emma Bradley said:


> I'm just saying, if I believe in it, leave me be. I don't need people jamming their thoughts and beliefs down my throat by mocking me.
> 
> 
> What?  :amazed
> ...



If you openly express a belief or opinion, especially on the internet, don't start whining when people call you out on it. Especially when you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible in this day and age. The stories like the ones in the Bible are myths and were in part just an attempt at primitive society to explain the workings of the world before scientific method came into the picture.

You expressed a belief in the story of Noah and a literal interpretation of the Bible, yet why not believe in other religions and their stories if that's the case? They all have just as much evidence supporting their claims as Christianity does.


----------



## BAD BD (Apr 28, 2010)

Emma Bradley said:


> You follow principles that *constantly contradicts* itself? How comfortable is that, hm?
> 
> I mean, if science tells you will die in thirty days from Cancer and you pull through, what will science be in your eyes? I'm not saying science is wrong all the time, but you can't trust it...yet. It isn't near its level of being trusted when it constantly changes its views.
> 
> Now, this particular boat may not be the Ark, but you have no freakin' way of knowing. Unless, of course, people  back then just built massive sized boats for fun.



Science is a methodology used to gain knowledge  of that which can be empirically verified. Anyone with a slight understanding of what science is knows that the theories of science are "probably statements." No scientist claims absolute knowledge of anything scientific. Contradictions are welcome in science; if one is found, we come one step closer to truth.

The scientific method has provided us with the best understanding of how the world works. That is where it finds merit and that's why I consider it the best way to discover empirical truths.


----------



## Velocity (Apr 28, 2010)

Emma Bradley said:


> I think you need to be quiet because you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.



Maybe I do know what I'm talking about yet you choose to believe I don't because you don't like what I have to say.



> We act the we act because we aren't monsters who do wrong and *still* expect everything to be *handed* to us. We love and respect people not because we are "afraid" of God or Jesus, because we to see how wrong killing people and everything else mentioned in the bible, is.



Those things would be wrong, with or without the Bible telling you it. If the Bible didn't exist, you'd be no different to how you are now. You'd not be any more a monster, or a murderer, than you are now. The only difference is that you wouldn't be sat there, praying to God to solve your problems instead of doing them yourself. You wouldn't be actively oppressing other people and other beliefs just because they don't agree with yours. You wouldn't be waging wars on others because your God demands it.

You'd do what you do for your own good and the good of your people, not for some unknown entity or the promise of retreating to a paradise when you die.



> We believe because we believe in a brighter future where there aren't people who murder or sin. We aren't afraid of _anything_ or _anyone_. So stop acting as if you know what you are talking about, its really stupid to read that kind of post from someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.


My point exactly. It's almost like stockholm syndrome on a global scale. You're told the consequences of certain actions and it scares you. You're told you will die one day and it scares you. You're told there's a way out, a way that you conveniently won't know exists until after you're dead and it won't matter any more. You would choose a poisoned loaf over a crumb, if it kept you alive longer. You're so scared you won't even admit it, or can't admit, or don't even realise how truly scared you are of your own mortality. I'll admit it, I don't want to die. I never want to die. But what choice do I have? God isn't going to stop me from dying and, from what practically every religious person has ever told me, I will go to Hell and burn forever for my "sins" when I do - even if that sin is only putting myself in shoes I'm told are far too big for me. Nobody tells me my limitations. Not you, not some 2'000 year old book and certainly not some bearded guy that may or may not exist.

Maybe if you had a stronger will, you'd see the situation differently instead of having such a narrow view of things. You claim I don't know what I'm talking about, when as far as I can tell I'm just saying what you're too scared to admit.



> I hate when I see people making such shitty claims about something they can't comprehend. People who feel like they have to insult a religion, is a weak person at heart and needs to take it on on someone or something, just to make themselves feel better about whatever it is they need comfort on.


Just as I hate it when people make such shitty claims about something they can't understand. Why tell me I'm ignorant for choosing not to care whether God exists? Why call me blind, or tell me I'm to be condemned to Hell for an eternity because I choose not to believe either way? Why say my heart is weak when it so clearly isn't? I'd fight for people and do things you couldn't even begin to grasp, things you couldn't even dream of.

I have no problem with the concept of God, or the idea of this flood thing. My problem is with this inane belief that you must believe in God, otherwise you're either willfully ignorant or you're damned to eternal torture. So much for "you can believe in what you want", right?


----------



## Terra Branford (Apr 28, 2010)

> If you openly express a belief or opinion, especially on the internet, don't start whining when people call you out on it. Especially when you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible in this day and age. The stories like the ones in the *Bible are myths and were in part just an attempt at primitive society to explain the workings of the world before scientific method came into the picture.*
> 
> *You expressed a belief in the story of Noah and a literal interpretation of the Bible, yet why not believe in other religions and their stories if that's the case? They all have just as much evidence supporting their claims as Christianity does.*



Why can't the people who cry about religion keep their noses out of people's business, hm? I'm not whining, just wondering why you have to feel so obligated to intervene on someone's beliefs because you "just don't find it logically".

No, that's not what the bible was. Jesus was real and so was the Ark, but I can respectfully take note of what you believe and not try to drag it into the mud like you've been doing, because I'm the bigger person and can respect people's beliefs without having to force my own on them.

You either have no life and wish to force *your* lifestyle on someone, or you really are a nosy person.

And I do believe in some others things not related to the Bible. I believe the Greek gods were real, as well as the Native American spirits/gods.

I just believe in God, Jesus and the Ark, despite people trying to convince me otherwise and my view on it will *never* (ever) change.



> My point exactly. It's almost like stockholm syndrome on a global scale. You're told the consequences of certain actions and it scares you. You're told you will die one day and it scares you. You're told there's a way out, a way that you conveniently won't know exists until after you're dead and it won't matter any more. You would choose a poisoned loaf over a crumb, if it kept you alive longer. You're so scared you won't even admit it, or can't admit, or don't even *realise* (its realize) how truly scared you are of your own mortality. I'll admit it, I don't want to die. I never want to die. But what choice do I have? *God isn't going to stop me from dying and, from what practically every religious person has ever told me, I will go to Hell and burn forever for my "sins" when I do - even if that sin is only putting myself in shoes I'm told are far too big for me. Nobody tells me my limitations. Not you, not some 2'000 year old book and certainly not some bearded guy that may or may not exist.*



No, I'm pretty sure you have no idea what you are talking about, I can see it clearly. 

Again, I'm not afraid of God or Jesus. I don't have to fear him or have him scare me into believing in not hurting and whatnot, because I as a human and Christian, I already know its *wrong*.

I'm not afraid of death, I'm already afraid of leaving those I love behind, so they won't be sad. I was afraid of death when I was 5, but not anymore. Just because you are afraid of death, doesn't mean everyone else is. You may not welcome what is natural for our bodies, but I'm not afraid. The only afraid person in this thread, is you. So stop playing the "Me against the world" card to me, because I'm hundred percent positive no one is forcing you to believe in anything or to not be afraid of death.

*Good, I'm not telling you your limitations and neither is the Bible. You don't want to believe, that's okay, I don't mind. You are crying about something I never said, which is kinda strange. I don't ever remember telling you you have limitations, but if it makes you happy, then I guess I said it. *

Now I have to step out and write. If you feel like messaging me or commenting on my profile, go ahead. But as I've said, my view will never change.  Its my believe and, to some I guess, my opinion. I am a person, a human with my own mind. I will choose what I think is logical or not.

Goodnight everyone.


----------



## Ennoea (Apr 28, 2010)

> I believe the Greek gods were real, as well as the Native American spirits/gods.



That about sums it up.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Apr 28, 2010)

Emma Bradley said:


> Why can't the people who cry about religion keep their noses out of people's business, hm? I'm not whining, just wondering why you have to feel so obligated to intervene on someone's beliefs because you "just don't find it logically".



You came into this thread and asserted your belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible as being true, once you did so, it was open season for anyone and everyone to scrutinize your claim. Stop whining because people put into practice one of the main functions of a forum.



> No, that's not what the bible was. Jesus was real and so was the Ark, but I can respectfully take note of what you believe and not try to drag it into the mud like you've been doing, because I'm the bigger person and can respect people's beliefs without having to force my own on them.



Jesus, Yeshua, w/e as a person whom started a new sect of Judaism which would become Christianity and was later executed by the Romans MIGHT have been real or influenced by a real person or people, but that's about as far as it goes. The claims of his divinity are a matter of faith.

If you're going to make a claim like that, I expect you to have proof to back it up. There is so much that goes against there being a flood on the scale as described in Noah's story, and the size of Noah's Ark even being able to hold the animals within, even moreso the food needed to feed these animals. Even moreso, that small number of these animals wouldn't have been enough to replenish their numbers after the flood. 





> You either have no life and wish to force *your* lifestyle on someone, or you really are a nosy person.



Wah, wah, wah. You asserted something was true without anything at all to back it up, and I am calling you out on it.



> And I do believe in some others things not related to the Bible. I believe the Greek gods were real, as well as the Native American spirits/gods.
> 
> I just believe in God, Jesus and the Ark, despite people trying to convince me otherwise and my view on it will *never* (ever) change.



Your belief in those Gods and your belief in Christianity come into conflict with one another, but you probably don't even know that.


----------



## Petenshi (Apr 28, 2010)

Emma Bradley said:


> I shouldn't question my beliefs because someone on the internet tells me too. If you don't like what I believe in, get over it. I don't see how me believing in it matters so much to you or anyone else.
> 
> Its ridiculous.
> 
> ...



*Sigh* Fine, go ahead and live in your world of passive intolerance. You won't try to shift my beliefs but you will passively deny them having any validity. It is pretty much the same thing. Just because I question you faith, does not mean I want to bash it. It means I want to understand it, if you can not explain it to me, how do you explain it to yourself? I am a truth seeker, it isn't about God its about truth. This whole thing I am talking about has nothing to do with God, period. I can see that because of your prior and at the moment dealings with people who you believe are antagonizing you can't accurately give me what I seek. Thank you for your time at least, and I hope later we can have a decent conversation.

Also, as most people have said here. If you are on a forum simply because you want to voice your opinion without discussing then you shouldn't be here. The discourse of a forum is invaluable, and negating what others bring to the table simply because your opinions are deeply rooted is really not useful to any sort of intellectual progress.


----------



## flamewolf (Apr 28, 2010)

I personally believe that there was a flood but I have no problem with people who don't. To each their own. I just wanted to say it is really interesting to me that in a lot of creation myths for different cultures, there was some type of giant flood or something similar.


----------



## Terra Branford (Apr 29, 2010)

I can only make a sort reply to those who I was talking with because its late. So here we go:

@Seto Kaiba:
No, by saying this:


Emma Bradley said:


> I think its possible that its the Ark, but at the same time, I think it would be someplace else...
> How many other giant boats like that exist? :c
> (No really, I wanna know lol)



Did not mean that I invited upset people to come in and start a debate war. I expressed that I thought it was possible that it was the Ark. Once again, I did not assert anything, Seto, I said the above. So this:


> asserted your belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible as being true


 was just really silly of you. I said "I think its possible that its the Ark...." and bam! Set off a load of people, didn't it? A bit touchy of the subject, if I may say so. 


> Wah, wah, wah. You asserted something was true without anything at all to back it up, and I am calling you out on it.


Again, I didn't assert myself as if I was starting to argue with you guys at first post, it twas you thought for such words. I don't think you know the meaning of "asserted". --


> Confidently stated to be so but without proof; alleged: the asserted value of a painting.



I just said I thought it was a possibility. I don't see how you thought I was "asserting" myself as if I had something to prove. If you recall, I've been the one asking for you guys to drop it, because whatever you said, wouldn't shift my beliefs, in any way. Plus, I said I thought it was true. Wasn't an open invite for people think I was "asserting" that he was real. Whoopie-doo-deee! You guys don't believe, I don't give a rat's ass. I care about what I believe, despite people acting like children and trying to get me to see their "point" of view in life.

There's no point in talking with you, I think I remember a similar situation with you before, Seto. 

@Ennoea:
You weren't paying attention, were you?

@Petenshi: I didn't deny anything about what you believe. I think I'm made myself clear that I didn't care what you believed in and that I wished for you guys to stop the endless attacks on my religion and belief. 

Also, I never wanted to express why I believed in my opinion, I just said something and you guys took it and ran with it. Barking off your reasons why I *shouldn't* believe in it, because it isn't "_logical_" to you guys. 

I never came in this thread to be _harassed_ by people because I said this:


Emma Bradley said:


> I think its possible that its the Ark, but at the same time, I think it would be someplace else...
> How many other giant boats like that exist? :c
> (No really, I wanna know lol)



If I had know it was going to upset so many people, I wouldn't have said it. 

I can see how thin-skinned people can get about these things and need to quench their thirst of harassing believers of Christianity.

@flamewolf:
They aren't going to leave you alone. You have to go into full fledged debate mode so you can have your beliefs, otherwise, they'll keep on attacking it, right guys?

Now I must log out. See you all later...well, if I see you in other threads of course.


----------



## Nick Soapdish (Apr 29, 2010)

Seto Kaiba said:


> If you're going to make a claim like that, I expect you to have proof to back it up. There is so much that goes against there being a flood on the scale as described in Noah's story, and the size of Noah's Ark even being able to hold the animals within, even moreso the food needed to feed these animals. Even moreso, that small number of these animals wouldn't have been enough to replenish their numbers after the flood.



The Ark was actually a TARDIS and Noah was a Timelord. The story just got garbled in the retelling because extradimensional spaces weren't understood back then.


----------



## g_core18 (Apr 29, 2010)

These christians are getting desperate.


----------



## Nick Soapdish (Apr 29, 2010)

Emma Bradley said:


> Why can't the people who cry about religion keep their noses out of people's business, hm? I'm not whining, just wondering why you have to feel so obligated to intervene on someone's beliefs because you "just don't find it logically".



I've wondered the same thing about religious people since I was about twelve. Why do so many of them insist that everybody else live by the standards of *their* faith?

It isn't fair when it goes the other way either. I'm coming into the thread a bit late and haven't read everything so I may be out of line here. Mocking beliefs is a bit much. Believing in the Bible and believing in a literal translation of the Bible are two separate things. But both should be discussed without mockery. I'm not saying that I could follow that on my own, but it's the only way that any kind of constructive discussion will result.


----------



## Bleach (Apr 29, 2010)

Damn this is the most replies that a somewhat religious news story has gotten....


----------



## Xyfar (Apr 29, 2010)

> I can see how thin-skinned people can get about these things and need to quench their thirst of harassing believers of Christianity.



Right, because believers of Christianity haven't shunned/harrassed/killed people who don't share their beliefs for the past few thousand years.


----------



## Amra (Apr 29, 2010)

not again...


----------



## MartialHorror (Apr 29, 2010)

lol, I do find it amusing how so many Atheists are now turning to the "God is a dick" argument, when in fact, something like the ark being found would give the Bible more credibility than they ever have before.

With that said, I'll believe it when I see proof. Taking peoples (likely biased) views on a subject that could get them a lot of fame just like that is pretty nonsensical.


----------



## Taco (Apr 29, 2010)

g_core18 said:


> These christians are getting desperate.



I think the way you see things is pathetic, really.

If a Christian doctor told you you have cancer, you wouldn't believe him/her and would call the pix and proof BS.

Stop jumping to conclusions and ruling shit out because of the parties involved. That goes out to everyone here.



Pilaf said:


> You're actually sitting here, in 2010, telling me that you think the Ark as depicted in the Bible could have actually existed. No bullshit? You don't see any logical holes in that story at all?



The right to freedom of belief has been around way before 2010. Didn't you pay attention in World History?


----------



## MartialHorror (Apr 29, 2010)

The problem, and this is both sides, is that most people dont want to change their beliefs.

If the ark was found, Atheists would still try to find a way of disproving it.

If the whole mountain was combed and no ark was found, it would be the same for Christians.

Really, these debates are useless and only end in flame wars.


----------



## Pilaf (Apr 29, 2010)

Forbidden Truth said:


> The right to freedom of belief has been around way before 2010. Didn't you pay attention in World History?




Yes..and it didn't say a goddamn thing about any flood or giant boat or incestuous guy named Noah.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 29, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> If the ark was found, Atheists would still try to find a way of disproving it.



Already have. If the arc found is bigger than the one described in the bible, the bible is wrong. If it has the size of the one in the bible, there's still no way for all the species in the world to fit on it. Not to mention the impossibility of two animals of one species creating a new population that survives for more than a few years.


----------



## Zaru (Apr 29, 2010)

Saufsoldat said:


> Already have. If the arc found is bigger than the one described in the bible, the bible is wrong. If it has the size of the one in the bible, there's still no way for all the species in the world to fit on it. Not to mention the impossibility of two animals of one species creating a new population that survives for more than a few years.



That's still not even accounting for how there's no way large animals got to other continents across oceans.


----------



## Zarathoustr4 (Apr 29, 2010)

I stopped reading at this point :



> CHINESE and Turkish *evangelical explorers* believe they may have found  Noah's Ark - 4000m up a mountain in Turkey.



I mean, SERIOUSLY?


----------



## Nodonn (Apr 29, 2010)

> If the ark was found, Atheists would still try to find a way of disproving it.



If everyone was like you we would still be living in the dark ages.


----------



## Pilaf (Apr 29, 2010)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The story of the Ark grossly defies almost everything modern people know about geography, biology, boat making and weather. Finding a few pieces of rotten wood on top of a mountain now and then proves this ridiculous story in the same way finding a piece of gold in a river proves Leprechauns, meaning it doesn't prove a damn thing. It's not the job of the atheist to DISPROVE anything because that's an impossible task anyway. I can't disprove that there's an invisible werewolf behind me right now, but I see no evidence to support that belief and it's a reasonable assumption that there isn't one. 

If you people don't want people to mock or question or debate your beliefs, then try believing in something less retarded.


----------



## Tkae (Apr 29, 2010)

Cabbage Cabrera said:


> It's called Inbreeding, look it up.



Don't need to, I'm looking at it 



ScreenXSurfer said:


> Don't bother, Tkae is the archetype of the book burning religious fundie. Everything you say to him will bounce off his wall of ignorance.
> 
> Read this for an explanation as of why:



God will smite you and all of the other nonbelievers in this thread, who have conveniently gathered in this one place like flies to fly paper 



Pilaf said:


> You're actually sitting here, in 2010, telling me that you think the Ark as depicted in the Bible could have actually existed. No bullshit? *You don't see any logical holes in that story at all?*



Nope.

And if you do, you're an idiot.


*Spoiler*: __ 



Since it would be like finding holes in Swiss cheese where there is no Swiss cheese. It's a sign that you're either mentally retarded or schizophrenic, and need to consult a psychiatrist


----------



## Tkae (Apr 29, 2010)

Nodonn said:


> If everyone was like you we would still be living in the dark ages.



Someone needs to leave the house more


----------



## siyrean (Apr 29, 2010)

God damn it. Isn't it pretty obvious that there was a huge ass natural disaster involving a flood in that area thousands of years ago. From what I recall, a tone of religions from that area/time period all include a flood myth. So obviously shit went down and, well who wouldn't want a boat at that point? I don't see how this relates to christianity since Noahs flood is very likely a borrowed story from some other religion. 

It still bogles me how some Christians believe Christmas was his real birthday,  so I guess this shouldn't surprise me. Makes the rest of us look like idiots.


----------



## ScreenXSurfer (Apr 29, 2010)

Tkae said:


> God will smite you and all of the other nonbelievers


Is that you, Fred Phelps?


----------



## Al-Yasa (Apr 29, 2010)

if it is, it is

if it isn't, it isn't


----------



## Elim Rawne (Apr 29, 2010)

Zaru said:


> That's still not even accounting for how there's no way large animals got to other continents across oceans.



Or how a senior citizen managed to do the whole thing


----------



## Tkae (Apr 29, 2010)

Diceman said:


> Or how a senior citizen managed to do the whole thing



Actually, he wasn't that old when he started. He was just really old when he finished. And best I remember, his family helped him towards the end. At first they were like, "Grandpa Noah's hearing the voices again," but when he started getting that big ass boat halfway built, that's when they realized God was giving him strength. 

And then they were like, "Oh shit, better start helping him before he realizes we were assholes and decides to leave us behind."

Also -- popular misconception -- there was no i*c*st. His children already had spouses before they got on the boat


----------



## Tkae (Apr 29, 2010)

ScreenXSurfer said:


> Is that you, Fred Phelps *Pat Robertson*?



Fixed 

Since, you know, I'm the very thing Fred Phelps preaches against?


----------



## Zaru (Apr 29, 2010)

Tkae said:


> Also -- popular misconception -- there was no i*c*st. His children already had spouses before they got on the boat



And who did the children of his children have sex with?

Still i*c*st, although only between cousins


----------



## Tkae (Apr 29, 2010)

Zaru said:


> And who did the children of his children have sex with?
> 
> Still i*c*st, although only between cousins



Nope, once it leaves the parent and sibling realm, it stops being "close family", and therefor leaves the realm of i*c*st.

All you can really argue is that it sits on the border. Most countries don't consider it i*c*st, and the United States... well, it's the US. That "third cousin" law was instituted after the Civil War to get revenge on the South.

Since the South made black people illegal, the North decided to throw a cheap shot and made the entire state of Alabama illegal 

And since then people have just forgotten the context


----------



## Butō Rengoob (Apr 29, 2010)

Tkae said:


> Don't need to, I'm looking at it


Hmm...i see, so instead of arguing your point now your gonna try to make me feel bad? Because i'm a step ahead of you logically, mentally, etc. If you can't keep your posts relevant to the issue i strongly suggest you don't post. I know you don't have anything else to add so i'm guessing you're admiting defeat, Kthnxbai.




Saufsoldat said:


> Already have. If the arc found is bigger than the one described in the bible, the bible is wrong. If it has the size of the one in the bible, there's still no way for all the species in the world to fit on it. *Not to mention the impossibility of two animals of one species creating a new population that survives for more than a few years.*


I love how no one's trying to refute this at this point, though i know someone will be like, "uh-uh, it was seven animals so you're comletely wrong and i'm right". Matter of pure unadulterated fact is that once a species hits a certain point there's no fucking way in hell, heaven or the Multi-verse, that they can continue as a species. In a matter of a few years to even decades the species would literally die out because of genetic defects. That included human i might add.

*So here and now i want to call out to all religous peoples, if you can find a loophole that discredits this one little fact then i strongly suggest you bring it forth because no other piece of evidence, no other claim, no other fact is going to make the Ark and by association, the whole fucking bible, believeable!!!!!!!*


----------



## Watchman (Apr 29, 2010)

I have to say, Tkae is doing it _right_. Most entertaining troll I've seen in the cafe for ages.

On the actual ark, it's pretty obvious such a thing could never have happened - a boat the size of the one in the Bible could not hold 2 of every unclean animal and seven of every clean animal on Earth and those populations are not enough to save species from existence due to genetic diversity.


----------



## Zaru (Apr 29, 2010)

Watchman said:


> I have to say, Tkae is doing it _right_. Most entertaining troll I've seen in the cafe for ages.
> 
> On the actual ark, it's pretty obvious such a thing could never have happened - a boat the size of the one in the Bible could not hold 2 of every unclean animal and seven of every clean animal on Earth and those populations are not enough to save species from existence due to genetic diversity.



THEY ARE IF GOD GUIDED THEIR REPRODUCTION WITH HIS DIVINE POWERS!!!!11


----------



## Adagio (Apr 29, 2010)

People still interpret the Bible literally?


----------



## Jessica (Apr 29, 2010)

At least we still have that 0.1%.


----------



## Petenshi (Apr 29, 2010)

Jessica said:


> At least we still have that 0.*0*1%.



To be clear. People might get up in arms over that .


----------



## Nick Soapdish (Apr 29, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> The problem, and this is both sides, is that most people dont want to change their beliefs.
> 
> If the ark was found, Atheists would still try to find a way of disproving it.
> 
> ...



It's easy enough to call into doubt. Aside from the issues brought up in the last couple pages, Noah's Ark isn't the first story about a catastrophic flood that was only survived by a few in a boat. It's pretty common, suggesting to me that something happened to generate the story. Probably several somethings in fact - like an especially severe seasonal flood. Most of the early agriculture was in the floodplains of rivers.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Apr 29, 2010)

siyrean said:


> God damn it. Isn't it pretty obvious that there was a huge ass natural disaster involving a flood in that area thousands of years ago. From what I recall, a tone of religions from that area/time period all include a flood myth. So obviously shit went down and, well who wouldn't want a boat at that point? I don't see how this relates to christianity since Noahs flood is very likely a borrowed story from some other religion.
> 
> It still bogles me how some Christians believe Christmas was his real birthday,  so I guess this shouldn't surprise me. Makes the rest of us look like idiots.



Well, I know of three guesses on the flood myth origins. Back then, people found many shells and fossilized remains of marine life inland and on mountain ranges, yet had no way to explain how they got there other than that at one time that land area must've been underwater and like everything back then, it was related to the supernatural. 

Also, many civilizations centered themselves around large rivers which often flooded over (Yangtze, Tigris and Euphrates, Ganges, the Nile, etc.) so maybe that had a hand in influencing the flood myths of different areas. I think the third thing, especially with Biblical stories, is that they were taken from or strongly influenced by myths of older civilizations of that region as well as those of other societies like Egypt, Greece, etc. Basically the stories already existed but were adapted for their society.


----------



## Onihikage (Apr 29, 2010)

I'm Christian, but even I don't really care. If it's fake (as expected) then business as usual. If it's real, all that means for me is I'll finally find out what Gopher wood is.


----------



## Colors (Apr 29, 2010)

*Noah's Ark Discovery - ORLY?*

While everyone is doing the usual and having fun on the merry-go-round, I think I'll bring this stuff up.



> Here's why I'm skeptical:
> 
> 1. They claim that radiocarbon dates the wood to 4800 years before present, but the Ark was constructed of pre-Flood wood, which would mean that the carbon dating should be much, much older.
> 
> ...



 (a blog by a creationist)



> After having been so rude to these Chinese chaps, here is a proposition which you can pass along to them from me:
> 
> 1. If the structure is indeed carbon-14-dated to around 4,800 years ago, that would put it at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age, from which I have a number of tree-ring chronologies already developed.
> 
> ...



Cornell archaeologist Peter Ian Kuniholm ()



> Kurdish workers carted wood up Mt. Ararat in order to fake the discovery of Noah?s Ark, an archeologist who worked on the dig says.
> 
> The claim was greeted with immediate skepticism, which seems increasingly well founded.
> 
> ...







> I also got an email today from one of Randall Price?s students. The email contains a message from Dr. Price about this expedition. (Dr. Price, as some of you may recall, has been doing a lot of searching for the ark lately.) Here is an excerpt from his message:
> 
> 
> 
> ...







> The wood shown appears to be relatively recently milled and joined. The planks and beams do not exhibit the type of drying and shrinkage that occurs to wood over time, regardless of being in a deep freeze.
> 
> The surface of the wood doesn't show the different shrinkage rates of hard and soft grain. Most noticeably the joint lines cannot be millennia old and still be as close as the photos show.
> 
> If I were to examine woodwork of similar appearance and technique I would guess that it might be as much as two, maybe three, centuries old if it were in a dry, moderate climate. While wood will age (decay) much slower in a dry, sub-freezing climate due to reduced rates of biological causes, I see no way that the ark could have pristine looking wood and tight joints.



Apparently, .


----------



## Terra Branford (Apr 29, 2010)

Nick Soapdish said:


> I've wondered the same thing about religious people since I was about twelve. Why do so many of them insist that everybody else live by the standards of *their* faith?
> 
> It isn't fair when it goes the other way either. I'm coming into the thread a bit late and haven't read everything so I may be out of line here. Mocking beliefs is a bit much. Believing in the Bible and believing in a literal translation of the Bible are two separate things. But both should be discussed without mockery. I'm not saying that I could follow that on my own, but it's the only way that any kind of constructive discussion will result.



I've never seen another Christian force their beliefs on anyone, maybe you just met the wrong ones. They don't insist on anything, they would like it there were more Christians. 

If you are implying I've mocked any thing, I haven't. But if that's not what you meant....

(Is tired. Was up all night listening to hunters shooting wild coyotes.)


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 29, 2010)

The boat that the OP posted...have any of you stopped your silly bickering to look at the size of it. Why isn't anyone asking how anyone built a fucking cruise liner back then?


----------



## ZeroBlack (Apr 29, 2010)

So...is this ark more real than the other reported ones?


----------



## Terra Branford (Apr 29, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The boat that the OP posted...have any of you stopped your silly bickering to look at the size of it. Why isn't anyone asking how anyone built a fucking cruise liner back then?



I did ask, three times. ^.^


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Apr 29, 2010)

It seems like every few years or so, someone goes in that same area and makes the same claim with "evidence" only for both to be blown out of the water and later revealed to have been fake. I remember reading stories in the past where people would take wood from abandoned tracks and old structures and put them together claiming they had found the ark. I would not be surprised in the slightest if this too turned out to be another farce.


----------



## Bleach (Apr 29, 2010)

Tkae for president.


----------



## GrimaH (Apr 30, 2010)

Bleach said:


> Tkae for president.



He'd win the election hands down.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 30, 2010)

No one has bothered to address how this boat got so fucking huge


----------



## Darth (Apr 30, 2010)

Dark Uchiha said:


> holy shit... does this mean... god actually exist.
> 
> Gotta rethink my life now... this whole 5 percenter... Buddhism, Islam and othe religion will be proven false...
> 
> now its only Christianity or Judaism..



You do know that Islam holds the record of Noah's Ark as well right?


----------



## SxR (Apr 30, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No one has bothered to address how this boat got so fucking huge



Yeah 4500 years ago this boat must have set the world record


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 30, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No one has bothered to address how this boat got so fucking huge



Nobody even knows if this is a ship. Even the "archeologist" concedes that it could simply be a human settlement:



> The group of evangelical archaeologists ruled out an established human settlement on the grounds that one had never been found above 3500m in the vicinity, Mr Yeung said.


----------



## sadated_peon (Apr 30, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The boat that the OP posted...have any of you stopped your silly bickering to look at the size of it. Why isn't anyone asking how anyone built a fucking cruise liner back then?



What boat?


----------



## Nick Soapdish (Apr 30, 2010)

Emma Bradley said:


> I've never seen another Christian force their beliefs on anyone, maybe you just met the wrong ones. They don't insist on anything, they would like it there were more Christians.



In the United States, they've been trying to legislate their beliefs - particularly over the last thirty years. (It's not the only reason for those beliefs, but it's a big one.) And there are a few particularly evangelical denominations around such as the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. So yes, they would like it very much if there were more Christians and they'll settle for people acting like what they think Christians should act like.



Emma Bradley said:


> If you are implying I've mocked any thing, I haven't. But if that's not what you meant....
> 
> (Is tired. Was up all night listening to hunters shooting wild coyotes.)



Nope. I was referring to you as the target. I don't agree with you, but I think the type of criticism that you've been getting is out of line.


----------



## Tandaradei (Apr 30, 2010)

my opinion:

screen or didnt happen


----------



## abcd (Apr 30, 2010)

Emma Bradley said:


> *I've never seen another Christian force their beliefs on anyone*, maybe you just met the wrong ones. They don't insist on anything, they would like it there were more Christians.
> 
> If you are implying I've mocked any thing, I haven't. But if that's not what you meant....
> 
> (Is tired. Was up all night listening to hunters shooting wild coyotes.)



U have no idea what u are talking about :/ ... I get a new one everyweek in my doorstep ..

Infact one day I felt so bored at home that I actually invited her and spent n hour to kill my boredom


----------



## MartialHorror (Apr 30, 2010)

Nodonn said:


> If everyone was like you we would still be living in the dark ages.



I don't see how, as I pretty much state that Christians would do the same thing. Way to manipulate my words!



> It's easy enough to call into doubt. Aside from the issues brought up in the last couple pages, Noah's Ark isn't the first story about a catastrophic flood that was only survived by a few in a boat. It's pretty common, suggesting to me that something happened to generate the story. Probably several somethings in fact - like an especially severe seasonal flood. Most of the early agriculture was in the floodplains of rivers.



lol, Nick, dear, if I recall, at one point you said you were a Christian so this should be easy to explain.

It's called prophecy. The Atheist V Christian belief for example, in when the gospels were written are often based on since the destruction of the temple is mentioned, it must've taken place after. Thats the atheist belief, but Christians believe it to be prophecy.

With that said, Im not making a big argument of it, because it's quite the stretch. At the same time, if it was dated near the same time that the Bible lists it, not the time of Gilgamesh, then my point would still stand.

The similarities would either be a coincidense, or prophecy.

The point, and my problem with this thread, is everyone just wants to argue their agenda. No one is actually interested in the truth. Atheists have made up their minds, Christians have made up their minds, all this leads to is fighting.

But regardless, it looks as if its a hoax.


----------



## The Boss (Apr 30, 2010)

GOD WILLS IT.


----------



## Pilaf (Apr 30, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The boat that the OP posted...have any of you stopped your silly bickering to look at the size of it. Why isn't anyone asking how anyone built a fucking cruise liner back then?



Since that other thread I posted has one of the guys who pulled off the hoax admitting to pulling various pieces of wood from old settlements around the Dead Sea up the mountain over the course of several months, that could certainly account for the illusion of a very large boat.


edit: Wait..those pics the OP posted on page one don't even correspond to this story..those were the "Ark" from 2005 or something..one of the previous "Arks".

Will the read Ark please stand up?


----------



## Arya Stark (Apr 30, 2010)

LOL,I live in Turkey and I ain't buy it as for now.It's really an old story and without proofs it's getting tired.

Ugh.


----------



## Akimichi Farley (May 1, 2010)

Seeing as how the other thread has gone into obscurity I'll post this here. 

I am interested in seeing the arguments put forth to adress the following points assuming a literal interpretation of the great flood: 

1) It doesn't seem possible to contain one/seven (depending on 'clean' or 'unclean') of each animal in the space the ark was supposed to be according to scripture (roughly a football field's size and three stories high) and that is without taking into account the supplies needed to sustain them. Either there was more than one ark, or it was bigger than the scriptures say (it would have to be the biggest manmade structure to date) or Noah didn't take a complete sample of the animal population. 

2) Picture the scenario that must have occured after all was said and done. So now we have two lions and two antelope. How was it possible for the lions not to exhaust the antelope population and consequently perish themselves? This of course goes for all the herbivore and carnivores. 

I won't list any other points (of which there are many) but my gist is this: A literal account of the great flood is impossible to reconcile with our current understanding of the world. 

In closing, I would be surprised to see any arguments to the contrary which do not basically boil down to God altering the laws of physics and making it happen.


----------



## MartialHorror (May 1, 2010)

Akimichi Farley said:


> Seeing as how the other thread has gone into obscurity I'll post this here.
> 
> I am interested in seeing the arguments put forth to adress the following points assuming a literal interpretation of the great flood:
> 
> ...



Well, the whole "God can do anything" bit is usually what Christians fall back on(if they take the story literally), but there is one explanation that I heard of. Its been awhile since I was really that interested in it, so I might be wrong, but it's possible that 2 of each animal meant general species(example, maybe 2 of each of the cat species, not just every single kind of within the species).

As for how come the lions didn't eat other, animals, etc. Once again, you can resort to the "God can do anything". But it's also possible, although I'm not sure if the Bible makes this clear, did it ever state that the animals ever ate meat? I only ask because God forbade humans to do so until after the flood.

I do agree that making a case for the flood is pretty difficult. Even I'm not sure if the story is meant to be taken literally, as I'm sure even the author would have had to have known that 2 of every kind of animal would not fit in a boat of any size.

But remember that Jesus was able to feed a massive group of people with a very little amount of food, so according to the Bible, it is something God could probably do.


----------



## Saufsoldat (May 2, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> Well, the whole "God can do anything" bit is usually what Christians fall back on(if they take the story literally), but there is one explanation that I heard of. Its been awhile since I was really that interested in it, so I might be wrong, but it's possible that 2 of each animal meant general species(example, maybe 2 of each of the cat species, not just every single kind of within the species).
> 
> As for how come the lions didn't eat other, animals, etc. Once again, you can resort to the "God can do anything". But it's also possible, although I'm not sure if the Bible makes this clear, did it ever state that the animals ever ate meat? I only ask because God forbade humans to do so until after the flood.
> 
> ...



I would really recommend resorting to the "god did it, lol" argument, as anything else is set to fail. By the way, how did skin colors of humans evolve over only a few thousand years?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 2, 2010)

God did it.


----------



## dummy plug (May 2, 2010)

lol that 99.9% thing reminds me of a soap advertisement 

anyway, no biggie for me


----------



## San Juan Wolf (May 2, 2010)

Congratulations . You've discovered an old boat . Maybe .

You can die now , as your name is permanently engraved in history


----------



## Dr. Obvious (May 2, 2010)

Hahahahahahaha!

And we can definitely not look up in the sky with a big telescope and see galaxies as they existed billions of years ago. There's a 99.9% chance that it's all a hoax made by scientists of SATAN!


----------



## Miss Fortune (May 2, 2010)

This has nothing to do with human evolution.

Damn religious fairytales.


----------



## Nick Soapdish (May 2, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> lol, Nick, dear, if I recall, at one point you said you were a Christian so this should be easy to explain.
> 
> It's called prophecy. The Atheist V Christian belief for example, in when the gospels were written are often based on since the destruction of the temple is mentioned, it must've taken place after. Thats the atheist belief, but Christians believe it to be prophecy.
> 
> ...



Still am and decidedly *not* a Biblical literalist.

I'm confused about your example. The Gospel *was* written after the events. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John weren't prophesying; they were recounting events after they happened.

Ther predictions are in the OT and in Revelations.



MartialHorror said:


> Well, the whole "God can do anything" bit is usually what Christians fall back on(if they take the story literally), but there is one explanation that I heard of. Its been awhile since I was really that interested in it, so I might be wrong, but it's possible that 2 of each animal meant general species(example, maybe 2 of each of the cat species, not just every single kind of within the species).
> 
> As for how come the lions didn't eat other, animals, etc. Once again, you can resort to the "God can do anything". But it's also possible, although I'm not sure if the Bible makes this clear, did it ever state that the animals ever ate meat? I only ask because God forbade humans to do so until after the flood.
> 
> ...



If you're going to introduce the "God can do anything" argument on the genetic question and the food storage issue, you're invalidating the whole reason to build the Ark to begin with. 'Sides, it's a bit odd to leave out the miracles of how they survived their journey. Are we assuming that the survivors didn't want to give credit to God for His contributions?

Incidentally, there was a genetic bottleneck about 10,000 years ago - but just for the cheetah. They were reduced to extremely low numbers - perhaps as few as seven. All of the other species of cheetah went extinct and the remaining species is extremely vulnerable to disease and any change. Which may have something to do with why it's endangered.

The Florida panther is having a similar problem right now. Their numbers dropped to less than thirty and all of the panthers now have a crook in their tail as evidence of their inbreeding.


----------



## Akimichi Farley (May 2, 2010)

Miss Fortune said:


> This has nothing to do with human evolution.
> 
> Damn religious fairytales.



Not directly, but it does raise questions that touch upon evolutionary theory, such as the previously mentioned dillema of how the varieties of human skin could have come about in such a short time. For that matter, if we concede that it wasn't possible to fit 2 of every animal in the explicitly stated space alloted and suggest that it was two of every "type" and arguments along those lines, how did the thousands of variants of said types have enough time to come about? 

In any case, you can't subscribe to evolutionary theory anyways if you are a Bible literalist since it contradicts the Genesis account.


----------



## MartialHorror (May 2, 2010)

> Still am and decidedly *not* a Biblical literalist.



-Ah.



> I'm confused about your example. The Gospel *was* written after the events. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John weren't prophesying; they were recounting events after they happened.



This is the subject of lots of debate. Mathew, for example, usually is dated between 60AD and 110AD. Some have even argued 40AD for some of the gospels. Because the temple is mentioned, general scholars presume it was written around that time(I believe it was destroyed 70AD). However, it is written as if Jesus was making a prophecy. 




> If you're going to introduce the "God can do anything" argument on the genetic question and the food storage issue, you're invalidating the whole reason to build the Ark to begin with. 'Sides, it's a bit odd to leave out the miracles of how they survived their journey. Are we assuming that the survivors didn't want to give credit to God for His contributions?



A key point of Christiany, and ESPECIALLY Judaism, is that humans often have to work for salvation. Hence, the ark. Hell, the ark is used in the NT to represent Jesus in general.

I believe most of these stories, whether fictional or not, always mean something. If God did everything for us, then we'd never learn anything except "God will take care of it".


----------



## kazuri (May 2, 2010)

> dillema of how the varieties of human skin could have come about in such a short time



That is not a dilemma at all. Evolution isn't always as slow as people try to make you believe. ESPECIALLY things like color. Mutations with color take almost no mutation at all. Mutations like adding a new limb takes considerably more...

All it takes is one lucky mutation, and people willing to breed with the person who has it. The only 'time' involved is how long it takes for it to spread(and how long it takes for the mutation to happen, but that could be in your first generation, or your billionth, its all luck). But once the mutation happens once, its there, its 'done', so long as people will mate with them.


----------

