Noah's Ark Craze

Reportedly, a grapevine was discovered at this site and the DNA of the grapes is the oldest ever discovered...
 
The difference between science and religion is that science starts with problems and looks for solutions, whereas religion starts with a solution (God), and seeks to fit that solution to every aspect of the unknown.
 
You can't honestly expect that site to be taken seriously.

Dinosaurs currently living in the Pacific, dragons alive and breathing fire, 20 foot giant remains, ancient nuclear bombs..

I'm starting to wonder whether The Visitor wrote that shite of a website. Especially given the utter nonsense statements presented all over the place, such as:

"evolution is in fact a religion itself"

The site presents evidence for giants by showing pictures of normal sized people that have six fingers or toes.

The entire site is complete and utter bollocks.
 
I am excited. Perhaps men will see that scripture has historical merit.
 
Lawdog said:
I am excited. Perhaps men will see that scripture has historical merit.
Click to expand...

They won't, because scripture is fiction. Old wood is just that, old wood. A tiny pile of poorly qualified 'evidence' does nothing to wipe out mountains of scientific evidence.
 
No, no, if not this discovery, Noahs ark will be found. Youll see.
 
Be honest. You are a sock puppet for a hard scientist. Your delusions are too proudly exhibited, and enthusiastically embraced to be genuine. It is all a wind up.
 
No no, this is not uncommon belief. Think of how many of Catholics there are...
 
There are just as many, perhaps more, unbelievers, so one could say the same about them...
 
Lawdog said:
No no, this is not uncommon belief. Think of how many of Catholics there are...
Click to expand...

Do all Catholics believe the OT is historical fact? I doubt it, only the morons believe it.
 
General_Paul said:
The legend of Noah is part of Hebrew beliefs, not world beliefs.
Click to expand...
Actually, I read somewhere about a group of islanders with a flood story about a guy called 'Noh'. That's where the similarity stops, though: 'Noh' landed on their island, not somewhere in the middle east :p Makes you wonder if the story isn't more ancient than people think, and the Hebrews just had the best known adaptation?
 
Oli said:
There is no historical evidence Jesus existed, so how could he believe in something?
Click to expand...
There is ample historical evidence he existed. You appear to be confusing evidence with proof.
 
I'm aware of that, indeed I avoid using the word "proof". As is said, proof is for alcohol and mathematicians.

There's still no 'ample historical evidence' to suggest that jesus ever existed.
 
I have to side against Ophiolite in one of the few times I can recall in two boards.. that is to say, *if* he's using "ample" in the sense that there is sufficient evidence for Jesus as an historical figure.

However, if he's using "ample" in the sense that there are copious and plentiful accounts of Jesus, then I agree.

Not to start another "historicity of Jesus" thread or anything, but the evidence for a single figure that represents the mythology of "Jesus Christ" as told in the New Testament is considerably lacking and one-sided. I'm not sure if I'd go down the slippery slope of saying there's "ample evidence" of him. I would, however, say that there's ample evidence that people believe in him to the point that there lives are affected (perhaps afflicted) by the very idea.
 
This newest nonsense about the so-called "ark" of the mythical Noah is just that: nonsense. To begin with, the Noachian flood myth is nearly identical in parts to the earlier epics and literature of the Sumerian culture (Gilgamesh, Atrahasis, the Deluge, etc). These stories were told as fiction, not as fact, and they appealed to the ancient Mesopotamians because of the region the lived: between the Tigris and Euphrates, which flooded regularly.

The geologic structures that the so-called expedition in the article claims to have located are natural rock formations. Basalt, foliated shale, etc. They speculate that the rocks are "petrified wood," failing to understand the process of petrification -there's almost no way wood can petrify at such desiccated altitudes. Wood needs to be removed of an O2 environment by being submerged in a peat bog, marsh or swamp and then mineralization can occur.

The features that look like "wood grains" are natural foliations of the rock itself.

In short, the claim is bunk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top