# Noah's ark found



## grumpywolfman (Mar 26, 2013)

[video=youtube_share;3PSZNYdfawQ]http://youtu.be/3PSZNYdfawQ[/video]

PeaceWithGod.net


----------



## grumpywolfman (Mar 27, 2013)

...


----------



## The Last Legionary (Mar 27, 2013)

Also see TOS about doing the thread bump thing.
Toodles.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 27, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> ...





> Jump to:					navigation, 					search
> *Ronald Eldon Wyatt* (1933  August 4, 1999) was an adventurer and former nurse anesthetist noted for advocating the Durup&#305;nar site as the site of Noah's Ark, among other Bible-related pseudoarchaeology. His claims were dismissed by scientists, historians, biblical scholars, and even by leaders in his own Seventh-day Adventist Church, but his work continued to have a following among some fundamentalists and evangelical Christians.


----------



## arnisador (Mar 27, 2013)

I'll await the results of peer review.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 27, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I'll await the results of peer review.


So you're waiting for a bunch of nurse anesthetists to review it? :lfao: In any case, I hope you're not holding your breath........:lfao:


----------



## arnisador (Mar 27, 2013)

No--treading water!


----------



## Drasken (Mar 27, 2013)

So many people have claimed to find Noah's ark. On top of other discoveries that would "Prove the bible correct"
Problem is they haven't proven it to be true archeological discoveries. If it were true, we would all know about it. It would be on the news everywhere. That would be a HUGE discovery.

I am in no way bashing Christianity for this. But I do think that these people are doing more harm than good by claiming to find things that are later proven to have nothing to do with the claimed subject matter or are so obviously fake that they are ignored completely.

I am fully willing to discuss the topic respectfully. And if anyone ever does find a groundbreaking archeological discovery that goes hand in hand with the bible I do believe that it would be very exciting from a historical point of view. But I hope you will excuse me for not being excited about the video posted in the OP.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 27, 2013)

This sort of "discovery" tends to be pseudo-science at best, outright fraud at worst (and more commonly).


----------



## celtic_crippler (Mar 28, 2013)

Ark or no(ah) arkheh one cant deny the existence of the Flood Mythology that is present in most cultures and religions (alive and dead.) 

It first appeared in humanitys earliest known text, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and reappears in others from Greek mythology to the Old Testament. 

A more productive and enlightening conversation might be to discuss whether the story is quite possibly based in fact due to its pervasiveness or simply allegory.


----------



## punisher73 (Mar 28, 2013)

celtic_crippler said:


> Ark or no(ah) ark&#8230;heh&#8230; one can&#8217;t deny the existence of the &#8220;Flood Mythology&#8221; that is present in most cultures and religions (alive and dead.)
> 
> It first appeared in humanity&#8217;s earliest known text, the &#8220;Epic of Gilgamesh&#8221;, and reappears in others from Greek mythology to the Old Testament.
> 
> A more productive and enlightening conversation might be to discuss whether the story is quite possibly based in fact due to its pervasiveness or simply allegory.



I'm in agreement with this statement.  Stories like Noah's Ark and the Great Flood should be the subject of serious study, NOT to "prove" the Bible/Torah right or wrong, but to see if ALL of the flood stories have a basis in fact from surviving people's that have been passed on and what may have caused a geological event like that.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 28, 2013)

What do you mean "found"..... Noah's ark is docked in Cologne, Germany.....


----------



## Carol (Mar 28, 2013)

It stands to reason that many cultures have stories about floods, as mankind, by necessity, lives next to water.  Storms are among the most violent acts of nature we know, and floods can be the most destructive. A thunderstorm may kill an animal or blow down a tree.  A major storm may destroy a season's crop.  However, a flood (and the associated erosion) can not only cause widespread loss of plant and animal life but can render an entire region unviable for any inhabitants that may have survived such an event.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 28, 2013)

Carol said:


> It stands to reason that many cultures have stories about floods, as mankind, by necessity, lives next to water. Storms are among the most violent acts of nature we know, and floods can be the most destructive. A thunderstorm may kill an animal or blow down a tree. A major storm may destroy a season's crop. However, a flood (and the associated erosion) can not only cause widespread loss of plant and animal life but can render an entire region unviable for any inhabitants that may have survived such an event.



A note on floods:

Floods are also sometimes necessary for survival. All along the Mohawk River there were and in some places still are corn fields and farms. This is because of the rich soil that uses to be placed there by the yearly floods. However a flood there today, and there have been a few, can be rather devastating due to the large number of houses and farms that sit on teh flood plain. Also flood levels are slightly predictable due to the flood records that have been kept the 100 year flood levels are based on this. However it is also possible that there are 500 year, 100 year all the way up to 1,000,000 year flood levels. However we have not been keeping records that long. It was discussed in a climatology class, I took many years ago, that based on the large number of flood myths in multiple civilizations it could be that it was something along the lines of a 10,000 year flood level or something like that. However whether it was something like that or not there simply is not enough water on the planet or in its atmosphere to flood the entire globe. However it was also discussed that if you are a person living in a rather large village someplace (well large for the time) towards the end of the last ice age and a glacial damn, holding back a sea of melt water, a few thousand miles fails completely it is possible that sea of water that appears out of nowhere and wipes your village (or settlement) off the face of the earth, and that person survives, well there is a good flood myth in the making right there


----------



## jezr74 (Mar 28, 2013)

Carol said:


> It stands to reason that many cultures have stories about floods, as mankind, by necessity, lives next to water.  Storms are among the most violent acts of nature we know, and floods can be the most destructive. A thunderstorm may kill an animal or blow down a tree.  A major storm may destroy a season's crop.  However, a flood (and the associated erosion) can not only cause widespread loss of plant and animal life but can render an entire region unviable for any inhabitants that may have survived such an event.



The Dream Time talks of great flooding, they grand canyon was a result of centuries of flooding and water ways. Recently nearly the whole of Queensland, Australia was flooded. That's a modern version, there may be a story of hope in years to come of the great Julia Gillard, who made the water recede with a levy she created from thin air. That brought all the state tribes together.



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## mook jong man (Mar 28, 2013)

My dear old dad used to call these things , Noah's Arks.
When we used to go to the beach , he'd say "Watch out for the Noah's".
Bit of Aussie rhyming slang for you there.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 28, 2013)

mook jong man said:


> My dear old dad used to call these things , Noah's Arks.
> When we used to go to the beach , he'd say "Watch out for the Noah's".
> Bit of Aussie rhyming slang for you there.



Sure that wasn't _Jonahs?_


----------



## mook jong man (Mar 28, 2013)

elder999 said:


> Sure that wasn't _Jonahs?_



No , in Australia the old blokes call them Noah's.
Jonah , he was something to do with a whale wasn't he ? , if I remember correctly from my old primary school scripture class.


----------



## Carol (Mar 28, 2013)

Yup, Jonah was a whale.  

Noah's Arks=Sharks, that rhyming slang throws me every time...LOL


----------



## elder999 (Mar 28, 2013)

Carol said:


> Yup, Jonah was a whale.  [
> 
> Noah's Arks=Sharks, that rhyming slang throws me every time...LOL



Actually, the verse reads _great fish_....never did get the rhyming thing...seems a bit of parapharetic to me


----------



## jezr74 (Mar 28, 2013)

mook jong man said:


> My dear old dad used to call these things , Noah's Arks.
> When we used to go to the beach , he'd say "Watch out for the Noah's".
> Bit of Aussie rhyming slang for you there.



I remember being out on the reef and they would use this as a reference to sharks between boats. The tourists would be none the wiser.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 28, 2013)

Somewhere on a dusty vhs I have a detailed look at the Noah's Ark mythos, which traced it back through stories from other regional cultures, right back to some Sumarian or Babylonian tale of a sheep trader who got swept down river and out to sea by the spring floods, who when he got back to shore was 100 miles or so from where he started and began anew. If I find it when I'm digging through the archives I'll post the name.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Mar 29, 2013)

I think that the main argument for people comes back down to a Creation Vs. Evolution debate, before they are even willing to accept the possibility that this is indeed a genuine archeological discovery. I uploaded a video that I hope that you all will make the time to watch. It's a presentation by Dr. Hovind at the University of West Florida with question and answer exchanges as the anthropology class was shown the creation view of history. Please forward the video to *.40* to to fast forward past the Youtube subscriber's introduction. The subjects of creation, evolution, and dinosaurs are discussed. Please watch the video in its entirety before leaving comments ~ thank you.

[video=youtube_share;G97LNX5KVcI]http://youtu.be/G97LNX5KVcI[/video]


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 29, 2013)

No, sorry, I'm not going to watch a 3 hour video on the already completely debunked creation myths.

Try a simple question: how did Noah fit a breeding pair of a few million different species in his little wooden boat?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 29, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> Try a simple question: how did Noah fit a breeding pair of a few million different species in his little wooden boat?



It was really...*Really*...... *REALLY*....*BIG
*
You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it was... that and he forgot the unicorns


----------



## elder999 (Mar 29, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> I think that the main argument for people comes back down to a Creation Vs. Evolution debate, before they are even willing to accept the possibility that this is indeed a genuine archeological discovery.



No. Flood is one thing, Creation v. Evolution another....though dinosaurs missing the boat fits kind of well with the whole "young earth" idiocy.



grumpywolfman said:


> I uploaded a video that I hope that you all will make the time to watch. It's a presentation by Dr. Hovind at the University of West Florida with question and answer exchanges as the anthropology class was shown the creation view of history. Please forward the video to *.40* to to fast forward past the Youtube subscriber's introduction. The subjects of creation, evolution, and dinosaurs are discussed. Please watch the video in its entirety before leaving comments ~ thank you.[/QUOTE[
> 
> No.
> 
> ...


----------



## arnisador (Mar 29, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> Dr. Hovind



Kent Hovind is a well-known scientific crank. Completely debunked. His alleged Ph.D. was by correspondence from an unaccredited diploma mill. Citing him shows a complete ignorance of the basic tenets of scientific inquiry.


----------



## arnisador (Mar 29, 2013)

Xue Sheng said:


> It was really...*Really*...... *REALLY*....*BIG
> *
> You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it was...



Well, it was certainly powered by improbability, that's for sure.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 29, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Well, it was certainly powered by improbability, that's for sure.



The first time the Ark ever crossed the Ocean the massive improbability field it generated caused two-hundred-and-thirty-nine thousand lightly-fried eggs to materialize in a large, wobbly heap on the famine-struck lands of the Montes of Mars. The whole Martian people had just died out from famine, except for one man who died of cholesterol-poisoning some weeks later.

Noah: Here I am, brain the size of a planet and he asks me to ferry a bunch of fur balls around. Call that job satisfaction? 'Cos I don't."


----------



## K-man (Mar 29, 2013)

Actually, the Noah's Ark story confirms evolution. Through one family we got all the different races of the world, and all the different skin colours. Black, brown, white, yellow, red etc.  or am I just being cynical?   By the way, the story of this fantastic discovery didn't make it to our news services. I wonder why?


----------



## seasoned (Mar 29, 2013)

"Reality" always has a way of knocking that "by faith" thing all to ****. Oh well.


----------



## Jon-Bhoy (Mar 29, 2013)




----------



## grumpywolfman (Mar 29, 2013)

Jon-Bhoy I was courteous enough to watch your video before I posted my comment, I hope that you would be "evolved" enough to do the same for me?


----------



## Jon-Bhoy (Mar 29, 2013)

I see what you did there. "evolved", thats humor. Yes I watched it.

*Edit- Ive seen it before, And Ive seen the same gentleman on another series about Noah's ark,


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 29, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> Jon-Bhoy I was courteous enough to watch your video before I posted my comment, I hope that you would be "evolved" enough to do the same for me?



Do you really think that watching a 1:40 comedy clip is comparable to sitting through a 3 HOUR video of a criminal with bogus academic credentials blathering about totally debunked creation myths?


----------



## grumpywolfman (Mar 29, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> No, sorry, I'm not going to watch a 3 hour video on the already completely debunked creation myths.
> 
> Try a simple question: how did Noah fit a breeding pair of a few million different species in his little wooden boat?



Simple answer: watch the videos before posting your questions


----------



## grumpywolfman (Mar 29, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> Do you really think that watching a 1:40 comedy clip is comparable to sitting through a 3 HOUR video of a criminal with bogus academic credentials blathering about totally debunked creation myths?




You are trying to attack me instead of taking the time and watch the videos and then make a comment.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Mar 29, 2013)

Jon-Bhoy said:


> I see what you did there. "evolved", thats humor. Yes I watched it.
> 
> *Edit- Ive seen it before, And Ive seen the same gentleman on another series about Noah's ark,



Have you watched Ron Wyatt's excavation that I originally posted?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 29, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> Simple answer: watch the videos before posting your questions



Don't have an answer, eh?

Again, I'm not wasting three hours of my life watching a video of a criminal with bogus academic credentials blather on about totally debunked creation myths.



grumpywolfman said:


> You are trying to attack me instead of taking the time and watch the videos and then make a comment.



Nonsense. If you can find anyplace where I have attacked you, please hit the Report to Moderator button. It's the triangle shaped button in the lower left corner.

I've already seen more than enough *credible* research that debunks the creation myths your criminal source tries pass off as truth. I am not wasting another three hours. Unless I need a nap, of course.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 29, 2013)

Wiki:



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark#Historicity[h=2]Historicity[/h] [h=3]Ark's geometrics[/h]In Europe, the Renaissance  saw much speculation on the nature of the ark that might have seemed  familiar to early theologians such as Origen and Augustine. At the same  time, however, a new class of scholarship arose, one which, while never  questioning the literal truth of the Ark story, began to speculate on  the practical workings of Noah's vessel from within a purely  naturalistic framework. In the 15th century, Alfonso Tostada gave a  detailed account of the logistics of the ark, down to arrangements for  the disposal of dung and the circulation of fresh air. The 16th-century geometrician  Johannes Buteo calculated the ship's internal dimensions, allowing room  for Noah's grinding mills and smokeless ovens, a model widely adopted  by other commentators.[SUP][15][/SUP]
> Various editions of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_  reflect the collapse of belief in the historicity of the ark in the  face of advancing scientific knowledge. Its 1771 edition offered the  following as scientific evidence for the ark's size and capacity:  "...Buteo and Kircher have proved geometrically, that, taking the common cubit  as a foot and a half, the ark was abundantly sufficient for all the  animals supposed to be lodged in it...the number of species of animals  will be found much less than is generally imagined, not amounting to a  hundred species of quadrupeds".  By the eighth edition (1853&#8211;1860), the encyclopedia said of the Noah  story, "The insuperable difficulties connected with the belief that all  other existing species of animals were provided for in the ark are  obviated by adopting the suggestion of Bishop Stillingfleet, approved by Matthew Poole...and  others, that the Deluge did not extend beyond the region of the Earth  then inhabited". By the ninth edition, in 1875, no attempt was made to  reconcile the Noah story with scientific fact, and it was presented  without comment. In the 1960 edition, the article on the ark stated that  "Before the days of 'higher criticism' and the rise of the modern scientific views as to the origin of the species,  there was much discussion among the learned, and many ingenious and  curious theories were advanced, as to the number of animals on the ark".[SUP][24][/SUP]
> [h=3]Species distribution[/h] By the 17th century, it was becoming necessary to reconcile the exploration of the New World and increased awareness of the global distribution of species with the older belief that all life had sprung from a single point of origin on the slopes of Mount Ararat. The obvious answer was that man had spread over the continents following the destruction of the Tower of Babel and taken animals with him, yet some of the results seemed peculiar. In 1646, Sir Thomas Browne wondered why the natives of North America had taken rattlesnakes with them, but not horses:  "How America abounded with Beasts of prey and noxious Animals, yet  contained not in that necessary Creature, a Horse, is very strange".[SUP][15][/SUP]
> Browne, who was among the first to question the notion of spontaneous generation,  was a medical doctor and amateur scientist making this observation in  passing. However, biblical scholars of the time, such as Justus Lipsius (1547&#8211;1606) and Athanasius Kircher  (c.1601&#8211;80), were also beginning to subject the Ark story to rigorous  scrutiny as they attempted to harmonize the biblical account with the  growing body of natural historical  knowledge. The resulting hypotheses were an important impetus to the  study of the geographical distribution of plants and animals, and  indirectly spurred the emergence of biogeography  in the 18th century. Natural historians began to draw connections  between climates and the animals and plants adapted to them. One  influential theory held that the biblical Ararat was striped with  varying climatic zones, and as climate changed, the associated animals  moved as well, eventually spreading to repopulate the globe.
> There was also the problem of an ever-expanding number of known species:  for Kircher and earlier natural historians, there was little problem  finding room for all known animal species in the ark. Less than a  century later, discoveries of new species made it increasingly difficult  to justify a literal interpretation for the Ark story.[SUP][25][/SUP] By the middle of the 18th century only a few natural historians accepted a literal interpretation of the narrative.[SUP][26][/SUP]


----------



## arnisador (Mar 29, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> Do you really think that watching a 1:40 comedy clip is comparable to sitting through a 3 HOUR video of a criminal with bogus academic credentials blathering about totally debunked creation myths?



Well, the intellectual content is certainly comparable.


----------



## arnisador (Mar 29, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> You are trying to attack me instead of taking the time and watch the videos and then make a comment.



Once again: That's a THREE HOUR investment (creationism) in what has been fully established as nonsense that you're asking for, and nearly 40 min. for Noah's ark. Maybe pick a single point and try that.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Apr 1, 2013)

elder999 said:


> No. Flood is one thing, Creation v. Evolution another....though dinosaurs missing the boat fits kind of well with the whole "young earth" idiocy.
> 
> Try harder.



There is no evidence of macro-evolution. I remember my *community college* biology teacher telling me that humans simply do not mutate that fast - germs yes, insects - maybe, but NOT humans. I learned about earth science, geology, biology, chemistry, and astronomy all from public schools and community college. There was always gaps and leaps of faith to make the theory of evolution work. For example the "missing links" and "living fossils." The evidence for a world-wide flood is overwhelming if your only willing to look at the information from an unbiased perspective. I know this video below is very long, but please try to make the time to watch this impressive presentation of a theory that is solidly based on science; don't let people who aren't willing to learn something new, be cheerleaders for ignorance by posting negative comments without even taking the time to watch.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Apr 1, 2013)

seasoned said:


> "Reality" always has a way of knocking that "by faith" thing all to ****. Oh well.



Please watch the video that I posted about Noah's Ark being found. You'll see archaeological evidence which has been verified scientifically, and acknowledged by the government of Turkey for its authenticity. Please don't be influenced by individuals who post negative comments on this thread without even taking the time to watch first; you may just come away with a different perspective on what faith really means to you ~ thank you.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 1, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> There is no evidence of macro-evolution. I remember my *community college* biology teacher telling me that humans simply do not mutate that fast - germs yes, insects - maybe, but NOT humans.


"Modern Man" can be said to be 350000 years old, and we've domesticated animals for about 10000 years, give or take. Likewise, adult manufacture of lactase, the enzyme required to digest lactose-present in infants, but only in certain adult populations, developed about 9500 years ago. The Sherpa enzymatic adaptation for high-altitude hemoglobin manufacture probably occurred less than 8000 years ago. Your *community college* biology teacher was wrong. Try harder.


----------



## jezr74 (Apr 1, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> There is no evidence of macro-evolution. I remember my *community college* biology teacher telling me that humans simply do not mutate that fast - germs yes, insects - maybe, but NOT humans. I learned about earth science, geology, biology, chemistry, and astronomy all from public schools and community college. There was always gaps and leaps of faith to make the theory of evolution work. For example the "missing links" and "living fossils." The evidence for a world-wide flood is overwhelming if your only willing to look at the information from an unbiased perspective. I know this video below is very long, but please try to make the time to watch this impressive presentation of a theory that is solidly based on science; don't let people who aren't willing to learn something new, be cheerleaders for ignorance by posting negative comments without even taking the time to watch.



You'll find the "leaps of faith" are what is compelling evidence with parts missing lending itself to the next discovery... then they are found. This is what we are talking about when we mention the term god of the gaps... we find a line of evolution, and to a creationist, they now see two gaps... the gaps are closed with the next discovery... and they see two more gaps etc etc..

There are many many examples of micro-evolution, remember that macro is about the time it takes. But you can easily Google the studies and evidence that many scientists have found, with better explanations from accredited professors.

I'll try and watch your video linked tonight. it's blocked for me at present. I've read a lot, and watched a lot of the creationist material in the past, so I'm interested if they are trying a new path, the last buzz word used was intelligent design, but that was more around trying to break into the school system by dominating school boards etc.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 1, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> There is no evidence of macro-evolution.



None? Not even a little bit? Not a single piece of evidence for it?


----------



## arnisador (Apr 1, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> Please watch the video that I posted about Noah's Ark being found. You'll see archaeological evidence which has been verified scientifically



Start citing journal articles, then, rather than  a YouTube video.


----------



## jezr74 (Apr 1, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> There is no evidence of macro-evolution. I remember my *community college* biology teacher telling me that humans simply do not mutate that fast - germs yes, insects - maybe, but NOT humans. I learned about earth science, geology, biology, chemistry, and astronomy all from public schools and community college. There was always gaps and leaps of faith to make the theory of evolution work. For example the "missing links" and "living fossils." The evidence for a world-wide flood is overwhelming if your only willing to look at the information from an unbiased perspective. I know this video below is very long, but please try to make the time to watch this impressive presentation of a theory that is solidly based on science; don't let people who aren't willing to learn something new, be cheerleaders for ignorance by posting negative comments without even taking the time to watch.



Sorry. So many fantastical claims. The problem we have with people like this guy and like Walt Brown. Is during debate, they say so much drivel, you can't argue because they go from one ridiculous claim to the other.



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## arnisador (Apr 1, 2013)

jezr74 said:


> Sorry. So many fantastical claims. The problem we have with people like this guy and like Walt Brown. Is during debate, they say so much drivel, you can't argue because they go from one ridiculous claim to the other.



It's like the Creationists hold the license for that particular form of fallacious argument--"argument from SQUIRREL!!!".


----------



## The Last Legionary (Apr 1, 2013)

Can you cite someone credible? Even the Creationist's thinks he's a quack. As to his doctorates, I have 12. Well, 11. #12 is still printing from my deskjet. But as a certified (soon as the ink dries) Doctor of CreationFreakology I can guarentee that he's nucking futts and my qualifications are just as valid as his are. I guarantee it. Except I'm not a tax cheat who's in jail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind



> Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and some of his ideas have also been criticized by young Earth creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis.





> He holds three degrees in Christian education (1974, 1988, 1991) from unaccredited institutions.





> From 1972 to 1974, Hovind attended the non-accredited Midwestern Baptist College and received a Bachelor of Religious Education.[SUP][2][/SUP]





> In 1988 and 1991 respectively, Hovind was awarded a master's degree and doctorate in Christian Education through correspondence from the non-accredited Patriot University in Colorado Springs, Colorado (now Patriot Bible University in Del Norte, Colorado, which no longer offers this program).[SUP][9][/SUP]





> Other critics of Hovind have pointed out that Patriot Bible University is a diploma mill, as it has unreasonably low graduation requirements, lack of sufficient faculty or educational standards, and a suspicious tuition scheme.[SUP][12][/SUP][SUP][13][/SUP] The school's current policies allow students to attain bachelor's degrees, master's degrees, and even "Doctor of Ministry" degrees in months, rather than years, for as little as $25 per month. Currently Patriot offers a monthly fee, unlike most universities, which only charge per-credit fees.[SUP][14][/SUP]





> [h=2]Criticism[/h][h=3]From creationists[/h]Hovind has been criticized by other creationists, including young Earth creationists and old Earth creationists, who believe that many of his arguments are invalid and, consequently, undermine their causes. Disagreements over how to respond to Hovind's claims have themselves contributed to acrimony between creationist organizations. The Australian and U.S. arms of Answers in Genesis (AiG) were critical of Hovind[SUP][77][/SUP] after he had criticized[SUP][78][/SUP] a position document from Creation Ministries International, "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use".[SUP][79][/SUP] In particular AiG criticized Hovind for "persistently us[ing] discredited or false arguments"[SUP][76][/SUP] and said Hovind's claims are "self-refuting".[SUP][80][/SUP]
> The U.S. arm of AiG, led by Ken Ham, had an acrimonious split with its Australian parent in 2005. The Australian organization then split itself entirely off from its parent group, now styling itself Creation Ministries International. Material critical of Hovind was no longer available on the U.S. Answers In Genesis website, whereas the Australian CMI website retained the critical material.[SUP][81][/SUP] In the 2002 article and a 2006 update, written by Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati stated that the claims made by Hovind are "fraudulent" and contain "mistakes in facts and logic which do the creationist cause no good."[SUP][77][/SUP][SUP][82][/SUP] CMI also criticized Hovind for using "fraudulent claims" made by Ron Wyatt in his claims.[SUP][77][/SUP] In August 2009, the Australian CMI website has since published an article praising Creation Science Evangelism for removing some faulty arguments, but decided against deleting its article altogether because "there are lots of 'free-to-copy' DVDs of Kent Hovind&#8217;s old talks circulating widely around the world and it will be some time before they disappear from circulation.[SUP][82][/SUP]
> Creationist astronomer Hugh Ross, of _Reasons To Believe_, debated Hovind on the age of the Earth during the John Ankerberg Show, televised nationally on the Inspiration Network in September through October 2000.[SUP][83][/SUP][SUP][84][/SUP] Ross said Hovind was "misrepresenting the field" of different sciences,[SUP][85][/SUP] and Ross told Hovind: "Astronomers view the credibility of the 'Young Earth' as being much weaker than that for a flat Earth."[SUP][86][/SUP] Hovind and Ross previously debated in July 1999 on the Steve Brown Show.[SUP][87][/SUP]
> Hovind has stated that carbon dating &#8211; a method used by scientists to estimate the age of various objects and events &#8211; is unreliable.[SUP][88][/SUP] He has been criticized by Greg Neyman of Answers in Creation (an old Earth creationist group), who says that in Hovind's statements "Hovind goes on to show that he knows absolutely nothing about the science of Carbon Dating."[SUP][89][/SUP] Neyman says that Hovind's claim that "scientists assume the amount of carbon-14 is constant" is wrong, and Neyman writes "there are many periods of decreasing C-14, which disproves his theory that the Earth is young based on C-14 equilibrium."[SUP][89][/SUP]
> ...


----------



## jezr74 (Apr 1, 2013)

arnisador said:


> It's like the Creationists hold the license for that particular form of fallacious argument--"argument from SQUIRREL!!!".



With time you can actually break down each statement and point out the false claims. He's used allot of big words, with clearly no real science background. But then again he only has to spot this stuff to true believers, and they wont know it, or fact check anyway.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## jezr74 (Apr 1, 2013)

The Last Legionary said:


> Can you cite someone credible? Even the Creationist's thinks he's a quack. As to his doctorates, I have 12. Well, 11. #12 is still printing from my deskjet. But as a certified (soon as the ink dries) Doctor of CreationFreakology I can guarentee that he's nucking futts and my qualifications are just as valid as his are. I guarantee it. Except I'm not a tax cheat who's in jail.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind



It really is a shame these con's give legitimate people of faith a bad name.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## arnisador (Apr 1, 2013)

> Currently Patriot offers a monthly fee, unlike most universities, which only charge per-credit fees.



This, actually, is slowly in the process of changing, and one prominent new-but-legit institution is now doing something sort of like this, but the point still stands--charging other than by credit has traditionally been the domain of diploma bills. If you can join the "Ph.D. Club" like the "Black Belt Club" for one fixed price, odds are they want to get you that credential ASAP so they can start charging you again or focus their attention on new payers. His academic degrees carry no weight, and he must be well aware of that.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Apr 2, 2013)

Many Christians do not agree with me, but I don't believe Noah's ark has been found, or ever will be.  Mind you, it is my belief only, and I can't point anyone to a verse in the Bible that says we will never find Noah's ark.  

My belief is based on the fact that we don't know for sure where Jesus was born, where He died, or was buried.  We don't have any confirmed parts of the cross Jesus was crucified on.  There are places that tradition holds as His birth or burial place.  We also don't know the burial place of Moses. 

Those pieces of wood that are thought to be from His cross; they are articles of worship to many people.  Other artifacts that are thought to be associated with Jesus Christ are also worshipped.  They become like idols, and their worship, idolatry, a practice specifically forbiden in the Bible.  The same would probably be true of the place of burial of Moses, if we knew where that was.  If we had Noah's ark, the same would be likely to occur.

That is my reason for my belief.  No one else is required to agree or believe as I do.  But my belief makes the whole discussion above rather pointless for me.


----------



## Scott T (Apr 2, 2013)

Xue Sheng said:


> What do you mean "found"..... Noah's ark is docked in Cologne, Germany.....


Unless Noah's Ark utilizes TARDIS technology, it looks a little small to carry a male and female sample of each land animal. No wonder the unicorn didn't get to join the 'green alligators and long-neck geese, the humpy-back camels and the chimpanzees...'


----------



## arnisador (Apr 2, 2013)

Scott T said:


> Unless Noah's Ark utilizes TARDIS technology, it looks a little small to carry a male and female sample of each land animal.



It was seven pairs for each type of "clean" animal, wasn't it?


----------



## grumpywolfman (Apr 9, 2013)

Xue Sheng said:


> It was really...*Really*...... *REALLY*....*BIG
> *
> You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it was... that and he forgot the unicorns



300 Royal Egyptian cubits = 515 feet long


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 9, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> 300 Royal Egyptian cubits = 515 feet long



How long was the original cubit



> The length of a cubit was based on the distance from the elbow to the fingertips



Hebrew (short) 17.5in (44.5cm) 
Egyptian 17.6in (44.7cm) 
Common (short) 18in (45.7cm) 
Babylonian (long) 19.8in (50.3cm) 
Hebrew (long) 20.4in (51.8cm) 
Egyptian (long) 20.6in (52.3cm) 



> But when Noah came off the Ark, only one cubit measurement existed&#8212;the one he had used to construct the Ark. Unfortunately, the exact length of this cubit is unknown. After the nations were divided, years later at the Tower of Babel, different cultures (people groups) adopted different cubits. So it requires some logical guesswork to reconstruct the most likely length of the original cubit.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Apr 9, 2013)

Xue Sheng said:


> How long was the original cubit
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Royal Egyptian cubit (20.6in)

300 Royal Egyptian cubits = 515 feet.  The unit of measurement that Moses, who wrote the Book of Genesis, would have been familiar with was the Royal Egyptian Cubit.  This is the same unit of measurement used in the construction of the Great Pyramid in Egypt.  This cubit was employed until at least the time of King Solomon as gates constructed by him, in Israel, are based on this unit of measurement


----------



## crushing (Apr 9, 2013)

What makes Noah's feat more impressive is that unlike Deucalion, Noah didn't get help from Prometheus to build his ark.   Noah's ark didn't need to carry all the animals as Utnapishtim was also saving animals during the great flood.  That's teamwork!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 9, 2013)

But there were 1,200+ years between the Flood (before 3000 BC) and the Exodus (1200 BC).  At the time of the flood, there was no Egypt. So how could Egyptian measurements be used?
http://bibletimeline.info/

The Egyptian royal cubit's -earliest- evidence is 2700BC, though most references I find are from Khufu (2589&#8211;2566 BC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubit

Royal Cubit = 1 royal cubit = 7 palms = 28 fingers  = c. 52.5 cm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_units_of_measurement

I see a disconnect maybe?


----------



## CanuckMA (Apr 9, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> Royal Egyptian cubit (20.6in)
> 
> 300 Royal Egyptian cubits = 515 feet.  The unit of measurement that Moses, who wrote the Book of Genesis, would have been familiar with was the Royal Egyptian Cubit.  This is the same unit of measurement used in the construction of the Great Pyramid in Egypt.  This cubit was employed until at least the time of King Solomon as gates constructed by him, in Israel, are based on this unit of measurement




Moses did not write Torah. It was dictated to him by G-d. The cubit used by Noah might be the Hebrew short. The one by Solomon as well. Scholars of Torah don't have an exact measuremnt for the cubit. Usually estimated to be between 12 and 18 inches.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Apr 9, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> But there were 1,200+ years between the Flood (before 3000 BC) and the Exodus (1200 BC).  At the time of the flood, there was no Egypt. So how could Egyptian measurements be used?
> http://bibletimeline.info/
> 
> The Egyptian royal cubit's -earliest- evidence is 2700BC, though most references I find are from Khufu (2589&#8211;2566 BC)
> ...



Remember by the time of the Exodus, these people had lived in Egypt a long time, it makes sense that they would have passed down the story in a measurement that they were currently using (for example I wanted to know how many feet does 300 cubits equal, so I could tell my children the story in a measurement that they could understand). 

Since Moses was the author of the book of Genesis,  my guess is that he probably decided to use the most established form of measurement that he personally knew of. Since he was raised in Egypt, it would make sense that he used this one. I know that in some Bible translations they have converted the Ark's measurement to feet, but I think they used the Hebrew cubit in error, not taking into the consideration of Moses's educational background. The boat that they found measured to the Egyptian cubit exactly. Since I posted the first video, I have managed to find the original video that was narrated by Mrs. Wyatt who goes into much more detail of the testing analysis. PLEASE watch this next video - honestly, I just can't see how it could be anything else other than Noah's Ark; the evidence that was found is overwhelming. The Turkey government decided to officially acknowledge the site as the remains of Noah's Ark.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 9, 2013)

BY your own admission then, Noah got two of every kind of animal, and several pairs of the "clean" animals, into a boat that was a mere 518 ft. long.....


----------



## grumpywolfman (Apr 9, 2013)

CanuckMA said:


> Moses did not write Torah. It was dictated to him by G-d.



I apologize, but I think you know what I meant.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 9, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> Since Moses was the author of the book of Genesis



That isn't believed by any major group of which I'm aware--some hold to it in theory but give when pressed.



> honestly, I just can't see how it could be anything else



This is a classic beginning to many tales of Bad Science.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Apr 9, 2013)

elder999 said:


> BY your own admission then, Noah got two of every kind of animal, and several pairs of the "clean" animals, into a boat that was a mere 518 ft. long.....



Keep in mind it wasn't of every species and sub-species - it was of every KIND (he wouldn't have to have 400 species of dogs for example). Also (in my own personal opinion), it would make sense to bring younger animals than of adults for many reasons such as: they would eat less, take less space, sleep more, and live longer for breeding afterwards.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 9, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> Remember by the time of the Exodus, these people had lived in Egypt a long time, it makes sense that they would have passed down the story in a measurement that they were currently using (for example I wanted to know how many feet does 300 cubits equal, so I could tell my children the story in a measurement that they could understand).
> 
> Since Moses was the author of the book of Genesis,  my guess is that he probably decided to use the most established form of measurement that he personally knew of. Since he was raised in Egypt, it would make sense that he used this one. I know that in some Bible translations they have converted the Ark's measurement to feet, but I think they used the Hebrew cubit in error, not taking into the consideration of Moses's educational background. The boat that they found measured to the Egyptian cubit exactly. Since I posted the first video, I have managed to find the original video that was narrated by Mrs. Wyatt who goes into much more detail of the testing analysis. PLEASE watch this next video - honestly, I just can't see how it could be anything else other than Noah's Ark; the evidence that was found is overwhelming. The Turkey government decided to officially acknowledge the site as the remains of Noah's Ark.



Sorry, but no. Ron Wyatt's been shown to be a fraud. 


> *Ronald Eldon Wyatt* (1933 &#8211; August 4, 1999) was an adventurer and former nurse anesthetist noted for advocating the Durup&#305;nar site as the site of Noah's Ark, among other Bible-related archaeology. His claims were dismissed by scientists, historians, biblical scholars, and even by leaders in his own Seventh-day Adventist Church, but his work continued to have a following among some fundamentalists and evangelical Christians.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyatt


As to the rest, what you just said was this: "Moses didn't really know how big it was, so he used the measurement in use at the time to guess,".
So, it's on par with how "1 gallon" is different depending on if one is in the US, or England.

I've seen several different locations for what was supposed to be Noah's Ark. The images from Mt. Ararat from 20 years ago show something, that on modern enhancement were revealed to be just shadow and stone. Later investigation shows nothing there.

I'll take the opinions of a respected scientist like Robert Ballard.


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Ballard*Robert Duane Ballard* (born June 30, 1942) is a former United States Navy officer and a professor of oceanography at the University of Rhode Island who is most noted for his work in underwater archaeology: maritime archaeology and archaeology of shipwrecks. He is most known for the discoveries of the wrecks of the RMS _Titanic_ in 1985, the battleship _Bismarck_ in 1989, and the aircraft carrier USS _Yorktown_ in 1998. He discovered the wreck of John F. Kennedy's PT-109 in 2002 and visited Biuku Gasa and Eroni Kumana, who saved its crew. Ballard leads ocean exploration on E/V Nautilus.[SUP][1][/SUP]


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...t-ballard-archeologist-titanic_n_2273143.html



> Many have claimed to have discovered evidence of Noah's Ark,  the huge ship that Noah filled with two of each creature to repopulate  the planet following God's devastating flood. But in the 1990s,  geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman gathered compelling evidence  that showed a flood--if not an ark--may have occurred in the Middle East region about 7,500 years ago, PBS reports.
> The theory, the Guardian reports, is that a rising Mediterranean Sea pushed a channel through what is now the Bosphorus, submerging the original shoreline of the Black Sea in a deluge flowing at about 200 times the volume of Niagara Falls and extending out for 100,000 square miles.
> Ballard has been exploring this theory for  more than a decade, National Geographic reports, first discovering  evidence of a  submerged ancient shoreline in 1999. At that point,  Ballard was still not convinced this was a biblical flood, according to  the Guardian. Last year, his team found a vessel and one of its crew  members in the Black Sea, according to ABC.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Apr 9, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Bad Science.



You can find my opinion of the Theory of Evolution in the thread titled "The Dangers of Evolution."

Thanks for reading though, but honestly, I doubt you spent the time to watch the video before posting your criticisms.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Apr 9, 2013)

*Bob Hubbard*,

You forgot this one:

"Don't watch any of the videos that grumpywolfman posts! He's trolling you guys!!" ~ *SATAN*


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 9, 2013)

We aren't going to waste hours of our time watching videos by debunked frauds which are presented as proofs.  It's as bad as my saying "Here, watch DUNE and you'll see that _Muad_'_Dib_ is the Messiah".


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 9, 2013)

I don't think Noah's Ark existed. I doubt that Noah himself as presented existed. I doubt there was a global flood.
If anything, it's a retelling of a retelling of a retelling of a retelling of a parable.

As to Moses, he was the -blood- son of Ramses, led an uprising against his father, lost, and was run out of the country.  All record of him was erased from Egyptian history, and what was written by the 'exiles', was, "embellished" a "little bit".  There's no proof other than the Bible that Hebrews were slaves in Egypt. They might have been there, I've seen significant evidence (right down to Joseph's Signet Ring) that they were there, but as slaves? No.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 9, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> Keep in mind it wasn't of every species and sub-species - it was of every KIND (he wouldn't have to have 400 species of dogs for example).



I wasn't aware there was more than one species of dog--indeed, 'dog' arguably refers to one or two subspecies of a certain type of wolf.




> Also (in my own personal opinion), it would make sense to bring younger animals than of adults for many reasons such as: they would eat less, take less space, sleep more, and live longer for breeding afterwards.



OK, but I still don't think you get how really many types of animals there were. Two of every type of dinosaur would sink that ark.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 10, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> You can find my opinion of the Theory of Evolution in the thread titled "The Dangers of Evolution."



Inarguably, that theory is great science--even if it somehow should turn out to be wrong (in a sense similar to how _F_=_ma_ is an approximation of relativity at low speeds and quantum physics for large systems). It's a paradigm of solid scientific work.



> Thanks for reading though, but honestly, I doubt you spent the time to watch the video before posting your criticisms.



True. There are much more basic plausibility questions to be answered before investing time in yet another "I found the ark!" theo-documentary would be warranted.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 10, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> "Don't watch any of the videos that grumpywolfman posts! He's trolling you guys!!" ~ *SATAN*



Oh boy.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Apr 10, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I don't think Noah's Ark existed. I doubt that Noah himself as presented existed. I doubt there was a global flood.
> If anything, it's a retelling of a retelling of a retelling of a retelling of a parable.
> 
> As to Moses, he was the -blood- son of Ramses, led an uprising against his father, lost, and was run out of the country.  All record of him was erased from Egyptian history, and what was written by the 'exiles', was, "embellished" a "little bit".  There's no proof other than the Bible that Hebrews were slaves in Egypt. They might have been there, I've seen significant evidence (right down to Joseph's Signet Ring) that they were there, but as slaves? No.



Bob,

The majority of the Earth's surface is covered by sedimentary rocks (70%+). There is no denying the presence of the "object" that is sitting at the location recorded in the Biblical account. The "object" was proven to be the ancient remains of a sophisticated boat meeting the description of Noah's Ark. Isn't the possibility that mankind wasn't an accident worth looking into?


----------



## arnisador (Apr 10, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> proven



You're using that word in a very different sense than we do. Where are the peer-reviewed articles in respected academic journals?


----------



## grumpywolfman (Apr 10, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Oh boy.



lol


----------



## Carol (Apr 10, 2013)

70%+ of earth's surface is covered by water.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 10, 2013)

Carol said:


> 70%+ of earth's surface is covered by water.



Also, 70%+ of my fries are covered with ketchup.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Apr 10, 2013)

arnisador said:


> You're using that word in a very different sense than we do. Where are the peer-reviewed articles in respected academic journals?



There has been coverage on this before. I hope that you'll consider that if God is real, then that means His enemy is too and that we are the battleground. Please take a look at the evidence for yourself. This is not about a point to prove, but a love to share; I'm not out to make enemies guys, I hope that someday you'll see that.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 10, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> Bob,
> 
> The majority of the Earth's surface is covered by sedimentary rocks (70%+). There is no denying the presence of the "object" that is sitting at the location recorded in the Biblical account. The "object" was proven to be the ancient remains of a sophisticated boat meeting the description of Noah's Ark. Isn't the possibility that mankind wasn't an accident worth looking into?



Most of the Earth surface, about 70%, is covered with water. Of the remaining 30%, sedimentary rock makes up 8% of the Earths crust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedimentary_rock
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth#Surface

The Earths also 4.5B years old. If you dispute that, then how can you accept the composition numbers? You can no more cherry pick here than you can when going through Leviticus. Just saying.


The locations of the ark are as varied as snowflakes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searches_for_Noah's_Ark
Including several other "discoveries" since Wyatt's debunked one.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Apr 10, 2013)

Carol said:


> 70%+ of earth's surface is covered by water.



I meant of the exposed land (that surface) smarty-pants.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 10, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> There has been coverage on this before. I hope that you'll consider that if God is real, then that means His enemy is too and that we are the battleground.



The Trickster is a devious foe, but fear not--he is always outsmarted in the end by Thor.



> Please take a look at the evidence for yourself. This is not about a point to prove, but a love to share; I'm not out to make enemies guys, I hope that someday you'll see that.



Fair enough. You can't expect people to start with a multi-hour video about a fringe theory. I suggest picking off a smaller piece of it and starting to wedge your way in there. The obvious issue of how all the animals could fit on the ark is something that stops many of us from worrying about where this bigger-on-the-inside ark may have ended up. It fails to make sense from the get-go.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 10, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> There has been coverage on this before. I hope that you'll consider that if God is real, then that means His enemy is too and that we are the battleground. Please take a look at the evidence for yourself. This is not about a point to prove, but a love to share; I'm not out to make enemies guys, I hope that someday you'll see that.



I accept Shiva, and Kali, Isis and Horus, Apollo....and Capt. Jack Harkness. (We're just friends)
All equally real as any other deity of name or no name. I'm ordained clergy, with full benefits of such including marriage, baptism and funeral rite. (and special parking at hospitals)

You believe. That is fine. You want an in depth discussion on these, that's fine too. I for one am -very- interested in detailed in depth scholastic looks at Egyptian, Roman and Greek history. (Don't ask Arni about my take on US history. It makes him cranky and he refuses to include wings in the pizza order, the meanyhead. :wavey

But, you're not going to get anywhere continuing to cite sources that are at best questionable, and at worst debunked.  
You've cited bad science, bad research, and so far haven't been able to point to peer reviewed research.
We're not going to watch the videos because they aren't worth it having been shown to be wrong.

Show us something else, and we can discuss.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 10, 2013)

arnisador said:


> bigger-on-the-inside ark


----------



## grumpywolfman (Apr 10, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Fair enough. You can't expect people to start with a multi-hour video about a fringe theory. I suggest picking off a smaller piece of it and starting to wedge your way in there. The obvious issue of how all the animals could fit on the ark is something that stops many of us from worrying about where this bigger-on-the-inside ark may have ended up. It fails to make sense from the get-go.



 I know that this is difficult, but what more can I do then to try and put the actual evidence in people's hands?


----------



## grumpywolfman (Apr 10, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I accept Shiva, and Kali, Isis and Horus, Apollo....and Capt. Jack Harkness. (We're just friends)
> All equally real as any other deity of name or no name. I'm ordained clergy, with full benefits of such including marriage, baptism and funeral rite. (and special parking at hospitals)
> 
> You believe. That is fine. You want an in depth discussion on these, that's fine too. I for one am -very- interested in detailed in depth scholastic looks at Egyptian, Roman and Greek history. (Don't ask Arni about my take on US history. It makes him cranky and he refuses to include wings in the pizza order, the meanyhead. :wavey
> ...



If your not willing to look at the evidence then what else is there to show. It would be like being on trial with a jury that refuses to look at the evidence presented by the defense, and will only listen to the witnesses that are presented by the prosecutor.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 10, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> If your not willing to look at the evidence then what else is there to show. It would be like being on trial with a jury that refuses to look at the evidence presented by the defense, and will only listen to the witnesses that are presented by the prosecutor.



But you are not presenting evidence. You are posting theories, from people who have already been shown to be wrong.

Kent Hovid was shown to be a fraud : http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/108760-Noah-s-ark-found?p=1565217#post1565217
Ron Wyatt as well: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/108760-Noah-s-ark-found?p=1567821#post1567821

Who else you got?


----------



## grumpywolfman (Apr 10, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> But you are not presenting evidence. You are posting theories, from people who have already been shown to be wrong.
> 
> Kent Hovid was shown to be a fraud : http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/108760-Noah-s-ark-found?p=1565217#post1565217
> Ron Wyatt as well: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/108760-Noah-s-ark-found?p=1567821#post1567821
> ...



You Bob, I got you - if your only willing to use your eyes and watch the darn thing!


----------



## TimoS (Apr 10, 2013)

arnisador said:


> obvious issue of how all the animals could fit on the ark is something that stops many of us from worrying about where this bigger-on-the-inside ark may have ended up.



No, you see, it was magical. A bit like the library at the Unseen University in Discworld books by Terry Pratchett


----------



## crushing (Apr 10, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> *Bob Hubbard*,
> 
> You forgot this one:
> 
> "Don't watch any of the videos that grumpywolfman posts! He's trolling you guys!!" ~ *SATAN*



What possessed you to post a quote in the name of Satan?

[yt]62Qfbrc1jdo[/yt]


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 10, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> View attachment 17830



Now it makes perfect sense....it was Time Lord Technology


----------



## CanuckMA (Apr 10, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Also, 70%+ of my fries are covered with ketchup.



Heathen.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 10, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> You Bob, I got you - if your only willing to use your eyes and watch the darn thing!



So, you're saying that IF I waste 2 hours of my time to watch a video that I'll accept the debunked theory by a discredited individual, over the other 20 or so ones, many by actual credibly people who have confirmed discoveries and peer reviewed and passed documentation?

Will you watch this 2 hour video I have that proves that Jesus never existed and Christianity is really a practical joke by Constantine to tease his wife?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 10, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> So, you're saying that IF I waste 2 hours of my time to watch a video that I'll accept the debunked theory by a discredited individual, over the other 20 or so ones, many by actual credibly people who have confirmed discoveries and peer reviewed and passed documentation?
> 
> Will you watch this 2 hour video I have that proves that Jesus never existed and Christianity is really a practical joke by Constantine to tease his wife?



OK....I was with you up until here...now could you please explain to me what Keanu Reeves has to do with any of this...:uhyeah:


----------



## arnisador (Apr 10, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> I know that this is difficult, but what more can I do then to try and put the actual evidence in people's hands?



We disagree about what is 'evidence' here, but I'd try with a smaller, shorter, text-based opening, in your own words. People here don't believe you could get all those animals on an ark. Begin there. If no such ark could have existed, your video maker didn't find it.


----------



## CanuckMA (Apr 10, 2013)

arnisador said:


> We disagree about what is 'evidence' here, but I'd try with a smaller, shorter, text-based opening, in your own words. People here don't believe you could get all those animals on an ark. Begin there. If no such ark could have existed, your video maker didn't find it.



It's deeper than that. I accept the Ark story. I'm still not going to waste all that time to watch bad mockumentaries.

Show me evidence by credible scientists, then I'll listen.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Apr 11, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> So, you're saying that IF I waste 2 hours of my time to watch a video that I'll accept the debunked theory by a discredited individual, over the other 20 or so ones, many by actual credibly people who have confirmed discoveries and peer reviewed and passed documentation?
> 
> Will you watch this 2 hour video I have that proves that Jesus never existed and Christianity is really a practical joke by Constantine to tease his wife?



To put it into perspective, if you opened a thread with a video, and I watched the whole thing before I posted a single comment, I will have shown you eleven times more respect to you than what you have shown to me in this thread. Also, if I DON'T like the subject matter of the video you post in the new thread created, and I don't post a comment - I still will have shown you eleven times more respect (and probably still counting after you read this one  ).


----------



## CanuckMA (Apr 11, 2013)

You can't expect to come in here and like to a few hours long video by discredited individuals as proof of a claim and not be taken to task. Show us videos and/or papers by peer reviewed archeologists, then we'll talk.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 11, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> To put it into perspective, if you opened a thread with a video, and I watched the whole thing before I posted a single comment, I will have shown you eleven times more respect to you than what you have shown to me in this thread. Also, if I DON'T like the subject matter of the video you post in the new thread created, and I don't post a comment - I still will have shown you eleven times more respect (and probably still counting after you read this one  ).



You video is crap "science" from a fake "scientist". It's a waste of time to waste 1-2 hours watching it, when the contents have already been shown to be -WRONG-. It has nothing to do with not liking the subject matter. Personally, I find the flood myth to be an interesting one to look at, especially when you compare the Hebrew one to the original Babylonian.



CanuckMA said:


> You can't expect to come in here and like to a  few hours long video by discredited individuals as proof of a claim and  not be taken to task. Show us videos and/or papers by peer reviewed  archeologists, then we'll talk.



What he said.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 11, 2013)

Anything "Ron Wyatt" is suspect, at best.



> *I* have telephone *interviewed                    most of the people on WAR's Noah's Ark video. Not one single                    person I spoke with on that video presently believes that Ron                    Wyatt's site is Noah's Ark.* Some are outraged that Wyatt is                    still using film clips which make them look like they are substantiating                    Wyatt's claims when, in fact, the opposite is the case. Listed                    below are some of the individuals who appear on the video. Compare                    the story WAR continues to sell with the actual words written                    by the scientists after doing extensive research on the site.                    They no longer believe it is Noah's Ark. They believe it is                    a natural geological formation. As to the so-called discoveries                    on Ron Wyatt's video entitled "Presentation of Discoveries,"                    those interviewed whom Ron Wyatt presented with his "facts"                    put little or no archaeological value on any of the material. *                   "Fraud" was the word most often used when discussing these so-called                    discoveries.* Read the letters from archaeologists within Ron                    Wyatt's own denomination, Seventh Day Adventist, and you will                    see that even those who would have an interest in substantiating                    Ron Wyatt's claims find little or no scientific evidence to                    support any of these discoveries.


http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/

Wyatt is so bad that other creationist and Christian groups have put up webpages debunking his work. Here are three major ones: Tentmaker, Christian Information Ministries and Answers in Genesis.

When CHRISTIANS say he's a fraud....


----------



## Instructor (Apr 11, 2013)

Faith is about believing in somethign we don't see or have evidence of.  I grow weary of all these people trying to prove the unprovable.  I believe, I don't need evidence to do so.


----------



## CanuckMA (Apr 11, 2013)

Instructor said:


> Faith is about believing in somethign we don't see or have evidence of.  I grow weary of all these people trying to prove the unprovable.  I believe, I don't need evidence to do so.



I have faith in both the flood story and the Exodus. I don't need them proven, I believe in them. So I won't grasp at straws to have proof they happened. If a peer reviewed paper would come out with proof, that would be great. In the meantime, I'm in DC next week. I'll see if I can find the warehouse and see the Ark.


----------



## punisher73 (Apr 11, 2013)

CanuckMA said:


> I have faith in both the flood story and the Exodus. I don't need them proven, I believe in them. So I won't grasp at straws to have proof they happened. If a peer reviewed paper would come out with proof, that would be great. In the meantime, I'm in DC next week. I'll see if I can find the warehouse and see the Ark.



Which Ark?  The lost Ark of the Covenant or Noah's Ark?  I know after I watched the documentary by Dr. Jones that the US government is hiding the Ark of the Covenant in the Smithsonian.  It was a good documentary called "Raiders of the Lost Ark".  It's been out for awhile.  Dr. Jones also did a follow up documentary on when he found the Holy Grail.


----------



## CanuckMA (Apr 11, 2013)

punisher73 said:


> Which Ark?  The lost Ark of the Covenant or Noah's Ark?  I know after I watched the documentary by Dr. Jones that the US government is hiding the Ark of the Covenant in the Smithsonian.  It was a good documentary called "Raiders of the Lost Ark".  It's been out for awhile.  Dr. Jones also did a follow up documentary on when he found the Holy Grail.



Ark of the Covenant of course. Hard to get more compelling documentaries than those of Dr. jones.


----------



## Gnarlie (Apr 11, 2013)

CanuckMA said:


> Ark of the Covenant of course. Hard to get more compelling documentaries than those of Dr. jones.



Quite. Use of a bullwhip automatically negates the need for peer review.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 11, 2013)

Gnarlie said:


> Quite. Use of a bullwhip automatically negates the need for peer review.



*Makes note to have bullwhip present when next discussing US Civil War with Arni*  :wavey:


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 11, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> *Makes note to have bullwhip present when next discussing US Civil War with Arni* :wavey:



Whatever you guys are into. Consenting adults and all that.
We ain't judging...


----------



## grumpywolfman (Apr 11, 2013)

Up to fourteen Bob  and Dirty Dog is still trying to find a sparring partner lol


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 11, 2013)

Here's #15.
Your posting videos of a discredited hack's fantasies. This section, The Study, is for serious discussion.  Those videos, aren't worth watching. As I and others have posted, the guy behind them is not credible.

You also didn't answer my question. If I posted a 2 hour expose on the fiction that is Christianity, would you watch it? Yes or No.

You might as well put me down for 16-20 because I'll have more comments later.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 11, 2013)

*"Wyatt found anchors from the ark"*

Seems that was debunked.
http://www.fni.com/cim/reports/wyatt.txt


> 7.   One of the more interesting lines of evidence that Wyatt has      put forth for the formation being the Ark is his alleged      discovery of giant anchor stones that Noah used to steer the      ship and keep it facing the wind (see photo #5).  Fasold has      researched this and contributed quite a bit to this argument      as well as Dr. William Shea.         Ten of these stones have been found in the same general      vicinity near the village of Kazan about 14 miles from the      site of the "ship".  Since some of these megaliths have 8      crosses carved on them it is assumed this is a reference to      Noah and his family.  The stones all have a hole carved on      one end in which Noah supposedly secured them with ropes.       We have several reasons for disagreement with the idea that      these were anchor or drogue stones used on the Ark:       a.  Our impression from Scripture is that Noah had no kind          of mechanism to steer the ship; he could not even close          the door himself.  When he and his family were inside          the Ark they were at the total mercy of God, Who was          providing for their safety from the flood waters.             I feel fairly certain that the design of the ship was          such that it was kept from going around in endless          circles as result of the wind and currents.             When I asked Wyatt why the anchor stones were found so          far away from the site, his reply was that one day when          Noah was looking out the window he discovered that the          Ark was heading in the direction of dry land so he cut          the anchor stones.  But this means Noah had something to          do with the destiny and direction of the Ark!       b.  We feel there is a far better explanation for these          giant stones.  After studying these stones, it seemed          obvious that the crosses carved on them were from the          previous Armenian inhabitants.  So, we decided to          consult with Dr. Abraham Terian, of Andrews University.           Dr. Terian is recognized as an authority on classical          Armenian studies.             He was readily interested in this project and offered          that these stones are not unique to that specific          location.  The crosses carved on the stones are known as          Armenian "khatchkars" and they were probably carved          between 301 A.D. and 406 A.D.             These dates are significant in that the former is the          date the Armenian nation was converted to Christianity.           The later date is when the Armenian language was first          put down in written form.             Dr. Terian is fairly certain that these stones were          originally pre-christian Armenian "stelae" containing          pagan inscriptions.  Armenian historians note that          immediately after their conversion, in there zeal for          Christ, they removed all remnants of paganism from such          "stelae" and replaced them with crosses.             According to those who have examined these "stelae"          closely there is evidence of an earlier defacement.  Dr.          Terian believes that this was done before 406 because          after that they probably would have written something in          their new alphabet.           The holes in these "stelae" was put there by the pre-          christian Armenians according to Terian, and had          occultic significance, possibly as the "eye of the          dragon".        c.  The theory that these are Armenian "stelae" is also          supported by the fact that the stones are located in an          ancient Armenian graveyard.       d.  If these were "drogue" stones as Wyatt says, the holes          were carved too near the edge of the rock and the ropes          would have easily become broken off.  There is also no          sign of wear which one would expect if ropes had been          tied through them to drag in the water for one year.       e.  It has been stated that these stones are not indigenous          to the area.  In fact, Wyatt in one news report, said          they were cut out of precambrian rock.  This is false.           To our knowledge  these are huge chunks of basalt which          are found in abundance in the area.       f.  The number of crosses on these rocks number anywhere          from 3 to 20.  The number eight has been vastly          overplayed.




Then there is this:


> Ron also knows exactly where the Israelites crossed the Red Sea and has even located chariot parts from Pharaoh's army.  He claims he found a chariot wheel one and a half miles out in the Gulf of Aqaba and in two hundred feet of water!  Professional skin divers say this would be quite a feat to dive that far down and impossible to photograph without sophisticated lighting equipment.



So, no. You've posted hours and hours of video from a discredited wanna be, for what reason we can only speculate.  We can easily Google his name, theory and the conclusions of people better trained to interpret the evidence than us. The overwhelming consensus is, he is wrong.

"Both former "friends" as well as professional archaeologists in his own denomination (Seventh- Day Adventist) have published detailed refutations of all of his "discoveries.""
http://ldolphin.org/wyatt.html



> Wyatt has never submitted verifiable evidence for his claims to competent authorities


No peer review, no proof, no credibility.

Sorry, no discussion.

Oh, that's #16.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 11, 2013)

Well then can we get back to the point I was trying to make&#8230;the ark was a tardis


----------



## K-man (Apr 11, 2013)

My attitude to religion has changed over the years. When I was much younger I wanted to make the Bible 'real'.  If you are going to quote texts from the Bible as being a true and reliable event, then all that is written within it needs to be true also. Otherwise what you are doing is being selective. "This is real but that bit is just a story."  I lost that fight with myself.


The Bible to me is a collection of writings from somewhere around 2000 to 2800 years ago that represent the beliefs of the authors as the understood the world at that time. Now depending on what date you want to use for the flood, it occured sometime between 4000 and 6000 years before it was written down. Now oral history is fine but a lot of Chinese Whispers can occur over 5000 years, especially in a primitive civilisation. 

Some of the writings in the Bible are as radical as the worst excesses of Islam, and there was very little 'analytical' science at that time. There was belief in astronomy and astrology, and multiple gods to explain the inexplicable. In two thousand years time people will look back on the 'Age of Silicon' and marvel at how primitive we were, just as we can look back and see how humankind has evolved over the past four million years or so.


There is a huge difference between being 'closed mind' and being willing to listen and decide.  I like to think that I can listen to someone who has a counter view to me and if the argument is compelling I would change my position. Some of us do that each time we have an election and some of us wouldn't change no matter how bad a government had been. In the case of religion there is no proof of the existence of any god.  Just the same, no one can prove there is no god. If your belief in God makes you a better person and the world a better place, go for it. But trying to prove myths are fact with discredited evidence from discredited people, against current scientific evidence, makes you look stupid at best and does a total disservice to the religion you profess.    :asian:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 11, 2013)

I'm more than happy to look at history.  I've got a small collection of dvd's including "Digging for the Truth", "Cities of the Underworld", as well as numerous VHS tapes of "In Search Of", and a gazillion History Channel specials.  I seriously considered majoring in history when I first looked at colleges, sticking instead with computer science.  I've long held an interest in Egyptian history, in fact Egyptian history's #3 behind US Civil War and World War 2 for the 50-200 books a month I'd check out and devour from our libraries.  I've looked at a number of Noah's Ark / Flood theories over the years, though nothing much in the past decade. So I'm a bit rusty on things.  

As to videos, there's a ton of them out there.
Here's 1 from 2005 The History Chanel.





Then there's the Sumerians...





National Geographic 2009





etc.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 11, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Then there is this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, a 200 foot dive is not all that difficult if you're properly trained, although it is beyond the 130 foot maximum depth recommended for recreational divers (i.e. those not trained in decompression and mixed gas diving). Nor would it be particularly difficult to shoot photos or video at that depth. My dive camera and lights, for example, are rated to 600 feet, and I'm certainly not in possession of professional gear. Hell, the housing for my iPhone is rated to 195 feet...

However, good luck finding any remnants of a wooden chariot. Do you know what you mostly find at shipwreck sites from that long ago? Amphorae and things of that sort. 

If this "discovery" were real, it would be not in the least difficult to document. 

The fact that it's not documented speaks volumes...


----------



## K-man (Apr 11, 2013)

Thanks Bob. That provides a plausible reason for so many different cultures having the tradition of a flood in their history. 
:asian:


----------



## K-man (Apr 11, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> Actually, a 200 foot dive is not all that difficult if you're properly trained, although it is beyond the 130 foot maximum depth recommended for recreational divers (i.e. those not trained in decompression and mixed gas diving). Nor would it be particularly difficult to shoot photos or video at that depth. My dive camera and lights, for example, are rated to 600 feet, and I'm certainly not in possession of professional gear. Hell, the housing for my iPhone is rated to 195 feet...
> 
> However, good luck finding any remnants of a wooden chariot. Do you know what you mostly find at shipwreck sites from that long ago? Amphorae and things of that sort.
> 
> ...


When I learnt to dive in the 70s we were taught not to go below 300 feet. That is the depth at which the pressure is 10 atmospheres and the oxygen becomes toxic. I used regularly i(e weekly) dive to 55 to 60 metres. That became more safe with the advent of dive computers. Before that we had to use the US dive tables to calculate the time we could stay at each level. Without decompressing 200 feet is about the deepest you can go as you only have about 30 seconds or so bottom time. (That's actually about the depth at the stern of the President Cooildge in Vanuatu.) Why they only dive shallow depths recreationally is more to do with nitrogen narcosis which is difficult to predict in people until they have completed different depth dives. Something fortunately I have not experienced. And, do *DD *said, my camera is rated way below that depth.
:asian:


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 12, 2013)

K-man said:


> When I learnt to dive in the 70s we were taught not to go below 300 feet. That is the depth at which the pressure is 10 atmospheres and the oxygen becomes toxic. I used regularly i(e weekly) dive to 55 to 60 metres. That became more safe with the advent of dive computers. Before that we had to use the US dive tables to calculate the time we could stay at each level. Without decompressing 200 feet is about the deepest you can go as you only have about 30 seconds or so bottom time. (That's actually about the depth at the stern of the President Cooildge in Vanuatu.) Why they only dive shallow depths recreationally is more to do with nitrogen narcosis which is difficult to predict in people until they have completed different depth dives. Something fortunately I have not experienced. And, do *DD *said, my camera is rated way below that depth.
> :asian:



Oxygen is toxic at much less than 300 feet. And frankly, you won't find anybody but a few fools still doing deep dives on air anyway. Trimix is the way to go, and hypoxic trimix is THE thing for deep diving, if you're not rich enough to dive heliox.
Bounce dives are also pretty foolish, which is one reason why the recreational limit is 130 feet. That depth gives a short but reasonable bottom time while staying within the no stop requirement of rec diving. It's also a function of the near-universal adoption of the AL80 (an aluminum cylinder carrying 80 CF of air) as the default tank. Even 130 feet on a single AL80 with an average SAC (Surface Air Consumption) rate is pushing it, since you probably will NOT have enough air in your tank at the end of your bottom time to bring you AND your buddy to the surface without bending (or breaking) the ascent rates.
Nitrogen narcosis is a misnomer. Pretty much all gases cause narcosis to greater or lesser degrees when under pressure, so it's called gas narcosis now. While narcosis CAN be an issue on shallow dives, it's most commonly encountered below 100feet. And there are plenty of people who don't experience it until even deeper. We routinely do mental testing with puzzles (math problems on a slate, opening a combination lock, that sort of thing). I've gone to 155 feet on air (in a no current freshwater cave in Mexico) without being measurably affected. I wouldn't have done THAT dive on air, had it been in cold water or a current. And I'm not one of those fools who is going to do deep diving on air anyway. With the right gas mix, narcosis can be virtually eliminated on much deeper dives, and decompression obligations drastically reduced.

But this is pretty much off topic. The point is that it is not at all difficult to document a claimed 2000 year old find in 200 feet of water. Since it's not documented, I think it's safe to say it doesn't exist.


----------



## K-man (Apr 12, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> Oxygen is toxic at much less than 300 feet. And frankly, you won't find anybody but a few fools still doing deep dives on air anyway. Trimix is the way to go, and hypoxic trimix is THE thing for deep diving, if you're not rich enough to dive heliox.
> Bounce dives are also pretty foolish, which is one reason why the recreational limit is 130 feet. That depth gives a short but reasonable bottom time while staying within the no stop requirement of rec diving. It's also a function of the near-universal adoption of the AL80 (an aluminum cylinder carrying 80 CF of air) as the default tank. Even 130 feet on a single AL80 with an average SAC (Surface Air Consumption) rate is pushing it, since you probably will NOT have enough air in your tank at the end of your bottom time to bring you AND your buddy to the surface without bending (or breaking) the ascent rates.
> Nitrogen narcosis is a misnomer. Pretty much all gases cause narcosis to greater or lesser degrees when under pressure, so it's called gas narcosis now. While narcosis CAN be an issue on shallow dives, it's most commonly encountered below 100feet. And there are plenty of people who don't experience it until even deeper. We routinely do mental testing with puzzles (math problems on a slate, opening a combination lock, that sort of thing). I've gone to 155 feet on air (in a no current freshwater cave in Mexico) without being measurably affected. I wouldn't have done THAT dive on air, had it been in cold water or a current. And I'm not one of those fools who is going to do deep diving on air anyway. With the right gas mix, narcosis can be virtually eliminated on much deeper dives, and decompression obligations drastically reduced.
> 
> But this is pretty much off topic. The point is that it is not at all difficult to document a claimed 2000 year old find in 200 feet of water. Since it's not documented, I think it's safe to say it doesn't exist.


All I am saying is what they were teaching 40 odd years ago when I got my ticket. What we were taught then was based on the US navy dive tables. If only fools dived to 200' with air, so be it. We obviously were all fools and we (all my friends and associates) all survived the experience. Just because dive recommendations have changed over the past 40 years doesn't change history and the way diving was taught. And, for what it's worth in the early days we didn't have BCDs.  Cheers


----------



## CanuckMA (Apr 12, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> . The point is that it is not at all difficult to document a claimed 2000 year old find in 200 feet of water. Since it's not documented, I think it's safe to say it doesn't exist.



It's not so much about the proof. I don't doubt he found what he says he found. He also found the Solomon columns. What he found is a port dating to King Solomon's time, about 500 years after the Exodus. And it's accepted that the parting occurred right at the start of the Exodus, in the North East of Egypt, essentially crossing from Egypt to the Sinai peninsula.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 12, 2013)

K-man said:


> All I am saying is what they were teaching 40 odd years ago when I got my ticket. What we were taught then was based on the US navy dive tables. If only fools dived to 200' with air, so be it. We obviously were all fools and we (all my friends and associates) all survived the experience. Just because dive recommendations have changed over the past 40 years doesn't change history and the way diving was taught. And, for what it's worth in the early days we didn't have BCDs. Cheers



I did say dived, I said dive. Present tense. Once upon a time, we drove cars with no seatbelts, no crush zones and no air bags. Doing so now is stupid. Risks exist. Unnecessary risks are foolish.
Same thing with diving.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 12, 2013)

CanuckMA said:


> It's not so much about the proof. I don't doubt he found what he says he found. He also found the Solomon columns. What he found is a port dating to King Solomon's time, about 500 years after the Exodus. And it's accepted that the parting occurred right at the start of the Exodus, in the North East of Egypt, essentially crossing from Egypt to the Sinai peninsula.



Yes, it IS about the proof. If you claim to have found something, it's up to you to prove that you've done so.
And no, it most certainly is not accepted. I don't accept that it happened at all, let alone at the time and place claimed.


----------



## harlan (Apr 12, 2013)

I only bothered to check this thread because I enjoy DD's posts (always learn something). But my old knees aren't up to wading through the muck to find the answer to this question.

Can someone fill me in, if it's been addressed already: how does this thread not violate the forum rules regarding religious agenda?

Thank you.


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 12, 2013)

I believe that (and the multitude of others) might be being discussed somewhere quiet and warm...


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 12, 2013)

harlan said:


> I only bothered to check this thread because I enjoy DD's posts (always learn something). But I don't want to wade through the muck to find the answer to this question.
> 
> Can someone fill me in, if it's been addressed already: how does this thread not violate the forum rules regarding religious agenda?
> 
> Thank you.



Thanks for the opening...

The site Rules discuss religious posting in Section 6, which I'm quoting here in its entirety.



> *Section 6 : MartialTalk Policy on Religious Tolerance
> *
> 
> Religion is an important part of the  lives of many of our members, and we believe it is important that  people be given the opportunity to express their religious and spiritual  beliefs in their online lives. This goes for all faiths, equally.
> ...



This thread has been reviewed, and is currently within tolerance, pretty much as long as it stays a discussion about the potential proof.  If it crosses the line into proselytizing, appropriate action will be taken.  If any member is concerned, they're encouraged to report it using the RTM button.


jks9199
MT Assistant Administrator


----------



## harlan (Apr 12, 2013)

I consider myself to be a tolerant Christian, an educated 'believer' if you will, and yet...I can't help but consider that the multiple postings from a source that informs it's readers that critics are Satan's workers and not to be listened to leans towards 'religious agenda'. 

But thank you for the reply.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 12, 2013)

harlan said:


> a source that informs it's readers that critics are Satan's workers



I'm just hoping this all ends soon so I can go back to burying dinosaur bones to confuse people.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Apr 12, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I'm just hoping this all ends soon so I can go back to burying dinosaur bones to confuse people.



Wrap the skulls with tin foil to **** with future conspiracy theorists.

:roflmao:


----------

