Noahs' Ark- Better than New?

i agree there have been floods all over, they still occur and if you're where one occurs you'd think it a great flood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory is probably the one that is the genesis of the great flood

 

Niagara Falls...

Niagara Falls is a perfect display...This is from Mr. Kent Hovind

"This textbook shows a picture of Niagara Falls, and how Niagara Falls is eroding. All waterfalls eat away at the bank and it slowly erodes back. The Canadians built a concrete wall on the far side to make sure it erodes American soil instead of Canadian soil. This textbook says, “Niagara Falls has been eroding for nearly 9,900 years.” Now how do they know that? Well, the rocks are breaking off the edge, that is pretty obvious you can stand there and watch it. As it breaks rocks off the edge, the waterfall is moving south. It is moving, according to the museum guide, 4.7 feet a year. Nearly 5 feet a year. Now, in 1930's they di verted most of the water for hydroelectric power, so the erosion rate has cut way back. They can actually dry up Niagara Falls by diverting all the water if they want. So the erosion rate is not much today, but up until 1930's, about 4 to 5 feet a year. Well, now hold it! Niagara Falls has only moved 7 miles. All the textbooks agree, Niagara Falls has moved about 7 miles; this one says, 7 1/2 miles. Well, at 4 or 5 feet a year, that would be 9900 years, that is correct! But I have a question, Niagara Falls is right there right now, it used to be up here, it has moved south 7 miles. If the earth is billions of years old, why has it not moved all the way to Lake Erie by now or clear to Florida for that matter? Why is Niagara Falls right there? Well, I have a theory about that! Here is my theory; I believe about 6,000 years ago, God created the heaven and the earth, 4,400 years ago there was a Flood that destroyed the world. As the Flood water was running off, about half of that creek washed out the first 15 minutes because they had lots of water moving through soft mud. Today it is just a trickle and it is over solid rock so erosion rate is pretty slow. But, man that first 15 minutes was bad! See, they forgot the Flood, that is why they look at it and think it took 9,900 years-4,400 plus one Flood. "

 

that's a great theory, when do you publish your research?

 

the great lakes are the result of relatively recent glaciation events, the Niagara river is only as old as the latest manifestation of the lakes drainage system which is about 10,000~12,000 years old or since the end of the Wisconsin glaciation. Thus the there is no discrepancy in the estimated rate of movement of the Niagara river due to deterioration in the escarpment rock. I did read an interesting assessment of the movement of the falls a while back which essentially showed some pretty fast erosion scenarios followed by periods of less erosion. In either case (consistent erosion or inconsistent ) there is little doubt about the rational behind modern geology.

 

I wonder if you would be willing to address a singe one of the many points made in the following

I cant help but notice how selective you are in what you are willing to respond to and what not. Kinda makes me wonder if your just pulling out leg or something cause there is ample evidence to the contrary that this sample is wood at all but instead basalt

 

Good job, Capt. Bill! I'm thinking ... and slowly but surely it came to me. You're an internet troll! You had me going!

 

The most effective trolls are the ones who believe what they're spouting.

 

For me its the lack of coherent answers to any of the questions concerning the validity of the claim. Simply moving on and making new claims or expounding on the spiritual experience is hardly engaging in a reasonable discussion.

I'm leaning towards agreeing with you guys but I'd kinda like to give ole Bill another shot at actually discussing the issue instead of this monologue we seem to be getting

 

I must point out that it was you guys bringing all the religion into the equation. I merely showed an old,old boat, and it is indeed a boat. Way too much evidence of it being a boat. Mounds of evidence...I would say so much evidence that to deny all the facts, takes more blind faith than to believe otherwise.

If you won't recieve all the evidence, and not honestly observe the data which is right there in the pictures alone, then I don't know what else to say.

But I don't mind plugging away.

 

Good luck engaging them Boston. The first rule of fundamentalism is not to think for yourself, so they can never engage you sensibly and address the issues raised.

They have to adopt the group belief without question, which also means accepting someone else's view as the official view.

Christian fundamentalism evolves and changes, their beliefs have evolved and changed over the years as various assertions became obviously idiotic and fell out of favor. The irony is that they can't see any problem with having contradictory sets of absolute beliefs every few decades, while advocating that they are always right and they must not doubt.

There's the little clues to the real nature of the flood tale, like rainbows. We know now that they aren't put there by any god, but the Biblical tale says they are made by the murderous god as a goodwill sign that he wouldn't do it again..........the oops sorry rainbow. They didn't happen before that.

I'd like to know why they can sidestep all the errors, ( even the grand contradictions on the nature of God) and still cling to the grand fallacy as some immutable truth...until the group decides to change it's collective mind and evolve or maybe devolve further into the mire.

Individually the memberships of the hard core Biblical Fundametalists is in flux, members pass through, adopting and later discarding these beliefs. But while they are believing it, they are right and no sensible discussion will sway them.

A close friend of mine now says "I'm shocked that I used to believe that stuff" but while he was a believer he was brainwashed, it's just human nature to be credulous particulalry with charismatic proclaimers of 'the truth'.

 

ya it was kinda hard not to notice a complete lack of any form of point by point refutation of the facts as presented concerning the assumption this thing is an ark. Not a shred of corroborated evidence in support however multiple sites and experts have come out and said things like "there is no fossilized wood present" "what is being presented as fossil wood is just basalt" "it is clearly a geological feature" and so on and on.

I'm sure if there were actually substantial evidence to support the ark contention it would have been trotted out a right off the bat, as it is we are just hearing the same old song and dance over and over.

oh well
I was hoping to have a far more interesting conversation than one based in dogma.

cheers

I"m out

 

But you aren't presenting anything except some fanciful interpretation.

There's some pictures, there's a document somebody wrote pre-supposing a fallacy that you call a survey. Then there's a whole raft of compounding deception lies and deceit that you buy into like your gopher wood above.

Do you really doubt that the people who provide you with such material are often fraudulent,deceptive and dishonest. Do you understand why they do it? These are the deeper questions you should be addressing.

They play to a usually uneducated gullible easily conned belief group soaking up Abraham's alter or Noah's Ark.

I'm sure deep within your psyche you know that you are being conned, and that the gopher wood will turn out to be just another misrepresented rock. Why was there no proper analysis ?

 

I was in the Johnson County Flood in 1957. I knew it wasn't THE DELUGE even then. A maroon might have.

 

dam your old ;-)

 

and they don't think they have changed, what's true for them today is what was always been true in their malfunctioning minds