Has Noah's Ark been found?

[forkup]

-Open mind? What do you consider open mind? The way I read it, the only thing you are claiming is that somehow the Bible answers my questions asked. In order for your view of the world to make sense and give you your "open mind" I have to reject all what is known about science, in order to fit your biblical story that is in fact a derivative of the epic of Gilgamesh, not an early Jewish story.
Not for nothing that isn't an open mind, that is in fact the opposite. Rejecting all explanations that don't fit the religious account.
- I gave you frankly more respect then the article deserved. I sourced your article and I answered specific problems I have with the article. The only comeback you give is "read the Bible".

Sorry, but it is far more likely that the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh is a distortion of the factual oratory "tradition" if not a later story then the Genesis account itself. The Bible story is far more concise and plausible ------ without a lot of details that make no sense. I told you matter of factly that mountains such as are your concerned didn't exist but were a result of the FLOOD. The earth GOD created was a beautiful place without the dangers of cliffs and boulders and lack of oxygen.

The Pre-Flood World: What Was the Original Creation Like?

-Open mind? What do you consider open mind? The way I read it, the only thing you are claiming is that somehow the Bible answers my questions asked. In order for your view of the world to make sense and give you your "open mind" I have to reject all what is known about science, in order to fit your biblical story that is in fact a derivative of the epic of Gilgamesh, not an early Jewish story.
Not for nothing that isn't an open mind, that is in fact the opposite. Rejecting all explanations that don't fit the religious account.
- I gave you frankly more respect then the article deserved. I sourced your article and I answered specific problems I have with the article. The only comeback you give is "read the Bible".

Sorry, but it is far more likely that the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh is a distortion of the factual oratory "tradition" if not a later story then the Genesis account itself. The Bible story is far more concise and plausible ------ without a lot of details that make no sense. I told you matter of factly that mountains such as are your concerned didn't exist but were a result of the FLOOD. The earth GOD created was a beautiful place without the dangers of cliffs and boulders and lack of oxygen.

The Pre-Flood World: What Was the Original Creation Like?

Here we go again. Rejecting everything that doesn't fit your belief. I've given you a few pointed questions, all of which you ignore if favor of spouting completely unsubstantiated and frankly unbelievable claims. The Bible is more plausible?????? Parting the Red Sea, a flood that covers the entire planet, etc plausible??? The epic of Gilgamesh was written 2100 BC. the book of revelation was written 65 AD. The book of Genesis was written between 1440 and 1400 BC. Somehow though Gilgamesh took it's story from those books? Nipper your "open mind" isn't working for me. If you aren't interested in backing up anything you say, but are perfectly happy with talking utter nonsense there is no point in talking. So against my better judgement one more time.
- Who was involved in this expedition that is so prestigious that you are willing to disregard the fact that no actual peer reviewed article was published. That the evidence to back up the claim is spotty at best?
(fossilization twice as fast as has ever been seen before) and that you have no problem with the expedition claiming to have found evidence of technology that wasn't seen again until modern times.

Your "open mind doesn't believe in GOD. I suppose you don't believe Jesus came back from the dead ---- I rest my case!

What case are you referring to? "I believe in God so I don't have to back up what I say?" An open mind requires critical thinking. Critical thinking requires looking at evidence and come to conclusions based on that evidence. Me not believing in Jesus in no way absolves you from the responsibility to prove your conclusions. This is the difference between science and faith. Faith allows you to pick and choose what you accept. Science doesn't give me that luxury. I judged your article based on science, the place you choose to post it. If you ask me for an open mind, you have to give me actual verifiable facts. The Bible is not just unverified as a source, a lot of it flies in the face of actual stuff we can verify.

On the contrary, I accept the ENTIRE Bible and believe it to be in its entirety inspired by GOD. This is after looking at the evidence and realizing I'm a sinner and cannot work my way into GOD's good graces or become so well educated that HE will see me as some angel of light... I have witnessed real changes in people who have opened their hearts to Jesus. You have your science and will take it to the grave. It will avail you nothing. Science could not exist except for GOD, and yet you conspire to leave HIM out of it.
Funny, even wealthy Romans pagan possessed running water, heated baths, central heating and flushing toilets --- and yet for a thousand years afterward the rich often pooped in outhouses... And yet you cannot imagine that 6000 years ago people might have been as clever --- especially where GOD required it.

Science could not exist without God? Nipper, God is the one hypothesis in science that makes otherwise smart men give up. God is self explanatory, it gives no answers beyond itself, which is the anti-synthesis of science. Newton, maybe the smartest men ever to live, a man who invented an entire branch of mathematics couldn't account for the principles of all the orbits of the planets. So he accepted God as the explanation. It took about 100 years and someone who didn't accept God as the explanation to figure it out Pierre-Simon Laplace - Wikipedia. When God is accepted as an explanation, science stops. So not only do I reject that premise, but uttering it is a clear reminder why you should stick to religion and NOT science when trying to find validation for your beliefs. By following the bible, your God hypothesis is hopelessly limited. If you believe the Bible to be literally true, and you accept, I assume a 6000 year old earth. You need to disregard EVERY branch of science in order for that world view to work. Not for nothing, ignoring centuries of progress over a book that is so clearly ridiculous is by definition crazy.

 

[harmonica]

you still believe fairy tales??
there is no ark/etc ..never as

 

[bullwinkle]

Your "open mind doesn't believe in GOD. I suppose you don't believe Jesus came back from the dead ---- I rest my case!

What case are you referring to? "I believe in God so I don't have to back up what I say?" An open mind requires critical thinking. Critical thinking requires looking at evidence and come to conclusions based on that evidence. Me not believing in Jesus in no way absolves you from the responsibility to prove your conclusions. This is the difference between science and faith. Faith allows you to pick and choose what you accept. Science doesn't give me that luxury. I judged your article based on science, the place you choose to post it. If you ask me for an open mind, you have to give me actual verifiable facts. The Bible is not just unverified as a source, a lot of it flies in the face of actual stuff we can verify.

Forkup, I liked Stephen Colvert's assessment of the Bible. Trump said his book, "The Art of The Deal" sold more copies than the Bible, and Colbert pointed that isn't true, but he also noted that they were BOTH "ghost written".

Note to literal believers: I read the Bible daily for it's wisdom, but accept many of its stories as not literal...so stuff it!

If truth is not literal then it is not true and wisdom is not gleaned from lies.

Little Nipper, That comment does a complete fly-by past me. Bear with me... No , I don't believe the sun stood still for Joshua or that the walls of Jericho fell down. I don't believe that Satan was hanging around God's hall and made a deal with Him to strike Job with unbearable disasters. I don't believe the 7 days in Genesis were 24 hr cycles and I don't bother trying to figure out who Cain married. I do believe the laws borne by Moses were common sense laws for a wandering people trying to maintain ethnicity and not become assimilated in their day. Some of them were pretty nit-picky to us, but necessary for them as a cohesive measure. I love the parables of Jesus and have been able sometimes to apply them to everyday secular life too. An Example is how Jesus harped on the Pharisees for their emphasis on the Letter of the law while completely missing the MEANING of the law. I see that in people every day, including here. Remember that the Pharisees were the most moral people of their day, maybe in the then world. But they got off track and forgot the meaning, so Jesus condensed it for them...with the 'golden rule' which we also forget, just as we often forget to temper justice with mercy, in our condemnation of each other. Sorry if I bore you, but evidently your truth is not my truth (as Pilate pointed out) and I hope you understand why.

You don't believe in GOD ---- so what's your point? As for the meaning of the LAW, the reality is if you cannot keep the LAW, you will die and go to an eternal separation from GOD. The LAW is not a pick and choose. One cannot ignore that there have been no blood sacrifices for 2000 years. One cannot excuse that fact and say, "Oh well, GOD will forgive me because I believe HE will."

I'm covered under the blood of the Messiah. The LAW exists to point out our failure to be able to keep them; however, Jesus kept them perfectly and that is why HIS personal sacrifice counts.

Caiaphas kept the law perfectly too, as did all the rest of the Sanhedrin.

 

[LittleNipper]

Sorry, but it is far more likely that the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh is a distortion of the factual oratory "tradition" if not a later story then the Genesis account itself. The Bible story is far more concise and plausible ------ without a lot of details that make no sense. I told you matter of factly that mountains such as are your concerned didn't exist but were a result of the FLOOD. The earth GOD created was a beautiful place without the dangers of cliffs and boulders and lack of oxygen.

The Pre-Flood World: What Was the Original Creation Like?

Sorry, but it is far more likely that the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh is a distortion of the factual oratory "tradition" if not a later story then the Genesis account itself. The Bible story is far more concise and plausible ------ without a lot of details that make no sense. I told you matter of factly that mountains such as are your concerned didn't exist but were a result of the FLOOD. The earth GOD created was a beautiful place without the dangers of cliffs and boulders and lack of oxygen.

The Pre-Flood World: What Was the Original Creation Like?

Here we go again. Rejecting everything that doesn't fit your belief. I've given you a few pointed questions, all of which you ignore if favor of spouting completely unsubstantiated and frankly unbelievable claims. The Bible is more plausible?????? Parting the Red Sea, a flood that covers the entire planet, etc plausible??? The epic of Gilgamesh was written 2100 BC. the book of revelation was written 65 AD. The book of Genesis was written between 1440 and 1400 BC. Somehow though Gilgamesh took it's story from those books? Nipper your "open mind" isn't working for me. If you aren't interested in backing up anything you say, but are perfectly happy with talking utter nonsense there is no point in talking. So against my better judgement one more time.
- Who was involved in this expedition that is so prestigious that you are willing to disregard the fact that no actual peer reviewed article was published. That the evidence to back up the claim is spotty at best?
(fossilization twice as fast as has ever been seen before) and that you have no problem with the expedition claiming to have found evidence of technology that wasn't seen again until modern times.

Your "open mind doesn't believe in GOD. I suppose you don't believe Jesus came back from the dead ---- I rest my case!

What case are you referring to? "I believe in God so I don't have to back up what I say?" An open mind requires critical thinking. Critical thinking requires looking at evidence and come to conclusions based on that evidence. Me not believing in Jesus in no way absolves you from the responsibility to prove your conclusions. This is the difference between science and faith. Faith allows you to pick and choose what you accept. Science doesn't give me that luxury. I judged your article based on science, the place you choose to post it. If you ask me for an open mind, you have to give me actual verifiable facts. The Bible is not just unverified as a source, a lot of it flies in the face of actual stuff we can verify.

On the contrary, I accept the ENTIRE Bible and believe it to be in its entirety inspired by GOD. This is after looking at the evidence and realizing I'm a sinner and cannot work my way into GOD's good graces or become so well educated that HE will see me as some angel of light... I have witnessed real changes in people who have opened their hearts to Jesus. You have your science and will take it to the grave. It will avail you nothing. Science could not exist except for GOD, and yet you conspire to leave HIM out of it.
Funny, even wealthy Romans pagan possessed running water, heated baths, central heating and flushing toilets --- and yet for a thousand years afterward the rich often pooped in outhouses... And yet you cannot imagine that 6000 years ago people might have been as clever --- especially where GOD required it.

Science could not exist without God? Nipper, God is the one hypothesis in science that makes otherwise smart men give up. God is self explanatory, it gives no answers beyond itself, which is the anti-synthesis of science. Newton, maybe the smartest men ever to live, a man who invented an entire branch of mathematics couldn't account for the principles of all the orbits of the planets. So he accepted God as the explanation. It took about 100 years and someone who didn't accept God as the explanation to figure it out Pierre-Simon Laplace - Wikipedia. When God is accepted as an explanation, science stops. So not only do I reject that premise, but uttering it is a clear reminder why you should stick to religion and NOT science when trying to find validation for your beliefs. By following the bible, your God hypothesis is hopelessly limited. If you believe the Bible to be literally true, and you accept, I assume a 6000 year old earth. You need to disregard EVERY branch of science in order for that world view to work. Not for nothing, ignoring centuries of progress over a book that is so clearly ridiculous is by definition crazy.

Who do you think designed the very chemical makeup of everything that exists? Who stretched forth the stars and hung the sphere of the earth on nothing. Who planned for the planets everywhere to remain in their various courses. Who created the animals and made man like HIMSELF. Could the lightbulb, the phonograph, the computer, and the rocket all been designed without one thought for the theory of evolution? Yes! There is no connection between practical science and concocting stories as to were man came from. In fact, the study of recorded history and the Bible are far more important than Darwin's ponderings about the beaks of finches on the Galapagos Islands ----- but it does make for an interesting read ---- but I much rather have a refrigerator or a washing machine. Your limited to the here and now. I have all eternity to look forward to!

And you might say what about modern medicine? What about it! The study of microbes and bacteria and their effect on us and each other is honestly unrelated in the real sense to Darwinian theory. The field of medicine has always been a matter of experimentation and I might add PRAYER in regard to saving lives. Assuming that man evolved up rom the amoeba has never given us a cure for cancer or tuberculosis or an antidote for poison... That again is practical investigation of what presently exists and not the origin of species...

 

[forkup]

Here we go again. Rejecting everything that doesn't fit your belief. I've given you a few pointed questions, all of which you ignore if favor of spouting completely unsubstantiated and frankly unbelievable claims. The Bible is more plausible?????? Parting the Red Sea, a flood that covers the entire planet, etc plausible??? The epic of Gilgamesh was written 2100 BC. the book of revelation was written 65 AD. The book of Genesis was written between 1440 and 1400 BC. Somehow though Gilgamesh took it's story from those books? Nipper your "open mind" isn't working for me. If you aren't interested in backing up anything you say, but are perfectly happy with talking utter nonsense there is no point in talking. So against my better judgement one more time.
- Who was involved in this expedition that is so prestigious that you are willing to disregard the fact that no actual peer reviewed article was published. That the evidence to back up the claim is spotty at best?
(fossilization twice as fast as has ever been seen before) and that you have no problem with the expedition claiming to have found evidence of technology that wasn't seen again until modern times.

Your "open mind doesn't believe in GOD. I suppose you don't believe Jesus came back from the dead ---- I rest my case!

What case are you referring to? "I believe in God so I don't have to back up what I say?" An open mind requires critical thinking. Critical thinking requires looking at evidence and come to conclusions based on that evidence. Me not believing in Jesus in no way absolves you from the responsibility to prove your conclusions. This is the difference between science and faith. Faith allows you to pick and choose what you accept. Science doesn't give me that luxury. I judged your article based on science, the place you choose to post it. If you ask me for an open mind, you have to give me actual verifiable facts. The Bible is not just unverified as a source, a lot of it flies in the face of actual stuff we can verify.

On the contrary, I accept the ENTIRE Bible and believe it to be in its entirety inspired by GOD. This is after looking at the evidence and realizing I'm a sinner and cannot work my way into GOD's good graces or become so well educated that HE will see me as some angel of light... I have witnessed real changes in people who have opened their hearts to Jesus. You have your science and will take it to the grave. It will avail you nothing. Science could not exist except for GOD, and yet you conspire to leave HIM out of it.
Funny, even wealthy Romans pagan possessed running water, heated baths, central heating and flushing toilets --- and yet for a thousand years afterward the rich often pooped in outhouses... And yet you cannot imagine that 6000 years ago people might have been as clever --- especially where GOD required it.

Science could not exist without God? Nipper, God is the one hypothesis in science that makes otherwise smart men give up. God is self explanatory, it gives no answers beyond itself, which is the anti-synthesis of science. Newton, maybe the smartest men ever to live, a man who invented an entire branch of mathematics couldn't account for the principles of all the orbits of the planets. So he accepted God as the explanation. It took about 100 years and someone who didn't accept God as the explanation to figure it out Pierre-Simon Laplace - Wikipedia. When God is accepted as an explanation, science stops. So not only do I reject that premise, but uttering it is a clear reminder why you should stick to religion and NOT science when trying to find validation for your beliefs. By following the bible, your God hypothesis is hopelessly limited. If you believe the Bible to be literally true, and you accept, I assume a 6000 year old earth. You need to disregard EVERY branch of science in order for that world view to work. Not for nothing, ignoring centuries of progress over a book that is so clearly ridiculous is by definition crazy.

Who do you think designed the very chemical makeup of everything that exists? Who stretched forth the stars and hung the sphere of the earth on nothing. Who planned for the planets everywhere to remain in their various courses. Who created the animals and made man like HIMSELF. Could the lightbulb, the phonograph, the computer, and the rocket all been designed without one thought for the theory of evolution? Yes! There is no connection between practical science and concocting stories as to were man came from. In fact the study of recorded history and the Bible is far more important than Darwin's ponderings about the beaks of finches on the Galapagos Islands ----- but it does make for an interesting read ---- but I much rather have a refrigerator or a washing machine. Your limited to the here and now. I have all eternity to look forward to!

Who do you think designed the very chemical makeup of everything that exists?

Nobody.

Who stretched forth the stars and hung the sphere of the earth on nothing.

Gravity, the Big Bang and general relativity

Who planned for the planets everywhere to remain in their various courses

Nobody planned for it. It's just were the dust coalesced using gravity.

Who created the animals and made man like HIMSELF.

The theory of evolution, created the animals and humans. By the way if God created man in his image, He sure built in a lot of design flaws. The appendix, wisdom teeth, a tailbone, the inside corner of the eye. Did God make a bad copy or does he have redundant features to?

Could the lightbulb, the phonograph, the computer, and the rocket all been designed without one thought for the theory of evolution?

It isn't just the theory of evolution that wouldn't work in a 6000 year old universe. Astronomy and trigonometry show that there are plenty of stars outside 6000 light years. They would be invisible if a 6000 year old universe would be the case. Genetics, biology, chemistry, history, geology, astrophysics, nuclear physics, anthropology, etc.,etc. So No, none of these inventions would be able to exist in your world view.

 

[LittleNipper]

What case are you referring to? "I believe in God so I don't have to back up what I say?" An open mind requires critical thinking. Critical thinking requires looking at evidence and come to conclusions based on that evidence. Me not believing in Jesus in no way absolves you from the responsibility to prove your conclusions. This is the difference between science and faith. Faith allows you to pick and choose what you accept. Science doesn't give me that luxury. I judged your article based on science, the place you choose to post it. If you ask me for an open mind, you have to give me actual verifiable facts. The Bible is not just unverified as a source, a lot of it flies in the face of actual stuff we can verify.

Forkup, I liked Stephen Colvert's assessment of the Bible. Trump said his book, "The Art of The Deal" sold more copies than the Bible, and Colbert pointed that isn't true, but he also noted that they were BOTH "ghost written".

Note to literal believers: I read the Bible daily for it's wisdom, but accept many of its stories as not literal...so stuff it!

If truth is not literal then it is not true and wisdom is not gleaned from lies.

Little Nipper, That comment does a complete fly-by past me. Bear with me... No , I don't believe the sun stood still for Joshua or that the walls of Jericho fell down. I don't believe that Satan was hanging around God's hall and made a deal with Him to strike Job with unbearable disasters. I don't believe the 7 days in Genesis were 24 hr cycles and I don't bother trying to figure out who Cain married. I do believe the laws borne by Moses were common sense laws for a wandering people trying to maintain ethnicity and not become assimilated in their day. Some of them were pretty nit-picky to us, but necessary for them as a cohesive measure. I love the parables of Jesus and have been able sometimes to apply them to everyday secular life too. An Example is how Jesus harped on the Pharisees for their emphasis on the Letter of the law while completely missing the MEANING of the law. I see that in people every day, including here. Remember that the Pharisees were the most moral people of their day, maybe in the then world. But they got off track and forgot the meaning, so Jesus condensed it for them...with the 'golden rule' which we also forget, just as we often forget to temper justice with mercy, in our condemnation of each other. Sorry if I bore you, but evidently your truth is not my truth (as Pilate pointed out) and I hope you understand why.

You don't believe in GOD ---- so what's your point? As for the meaning of the LAW, the reality is if you cannot keep the LAW, you will die and go to an eternal separation from GOD. The LAW is not a pick and choose. One cannot ignore that there have been no blood sacrifices for 2000 years. One cannot excuse that fact and say, "Oh well, GOD will forgive me because I believe HE will."

I'm covered under the blood of the Messiah. The LAW exists to point out our failure to be able to keep them; however, Jesus kept them perfectly and that is why HIS personal sacrifice counts.

Caiaphas kept the law perfectly too, as did all the rest of the Sanhedrin.

NO they didn't or they wouldn't have feared entering the Holy of Holies. They would not have died, and they wouldn't have turned the Temple of GOD into a business market! And Jesus would not have been tied by them under the cloak of night... And they would not have lied and indicating that they had no laws by which they could execute Jesus. It never stopped them from stoning anyone else!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[bullwinkle]

Forkup, I liked Stephen Colvert's assessment of the Bible. Trump said his book, "The Art of The Deal" sold more copies than the Bible, and Colbert pointed that isn't true, but he also noted that they were BOTH "ghost written".

Note to literal believers: I read the Bible daily for it's wisdom, but accept many of its stories as not literal...so stuff it!

If truth is not literal then it is not true and wisdom is not gleaned from lies.

Little Nipper, That comment does a complete fly-by past me. Bear with me... No , I don't believe the sun stood still for Joshua or that the walls of Jericho fell down. I don't believe that Satan was hanging around God's hall and made a deal with Him to strike Job with unbearable disasters. I don't believe the 7 days in Genesis were 24 hr cycles and I don't bother trying to figure out who Cain married. I do believe the laws borne by Moses were common sense laws for a wandering people trying to maintain ethnicity and not become assimilated in their day. Some of them were pretty nit-picky to us, but necessary for them as a cohesive measure. I love the parables of Jesus and have been able sometimes to apply them to everyday secular life too. An Example is how Jesus harped on the Pharisees for their emphasis on the Letter of the law while completely missing the MEANING of the law. I see that in people every day, including here. Remember that the Pharisees were the most moral people of their day, maybe in the then world. But they got off track and forgot the meaning, so Jesus condensed it for them...with the 'golden rule' which we also forget, just as we often forget to temper justice with mercy, in our condemnation of each other. Sorry if I bore you, but evidently your truth is not my truth (as Pilate pointed out) and I hope you understand why.

You don't believe in GOD ---- so what's your point? As for the meaning of the LAW, the reality is if you cannot keep the LAW, you will die and go to an eternal separation from GOD. The LAW is not a pick and choose. One cannot ignore that there have been no blood sacrifices for 2000 years. One cannot excuse that fact and say, "Oh well, GOD will forgive me because I believe HE will."

I'm covered under the blood of the Messiah. The LAW exists to point out our failure to be able to keep them; however, Jesus kept them perfectly and that is why HIS personal sacrifice counts.

Caiaphas kept the law perfectly too, as did all the rest of the Sanhedrin.

NO they didn't or they wouldn't have feared entering the Holy of Holies. They would not have died, and they wouldn't have turned the Temple of GOD into a business market! And Jesus would not have been tied by them under the cloak of night... And they would not have lied and indicating that they had no laws by which they could execute Jesus. It never stopped them from stoning anyone else!!!!!!!!!!!!

But the Sanhedrin KEPT the laws. They just duped somebody else to do their dirty work so they could keep their hands clean. Remind you of any admins you know of today?

 

[LittleNipper]

Your "open mind doesn't believe in GOD. I suppose you don't believe Jesus came back from the dead ---- I rest my case!

What case are you referring to? "I believe in God so I don't have to back up what I say?" An open mind requires critical thinking. Critical thinking requires looking at evidence and come to conclusions based on that evidence. Me not believing in Jesus in no way absolves you from the responsibility to prove your conclusions. This is the difference between science and faith. Faith allows you to pick and choose what you accept. Science doesn't give me that luxury. I judged your article based on science, the place you choose to post it. If you ask me for an open mind, you have to give me actual verifiable facts. The Bible is not just unverified as a source, a lot of it flies in the face of actual stuff we can verify.

On the contrary, I accept the ENTIRE Bible and believe it to be in its entirety inspired by GOD. This is after looking at the evidence and realizing I'm a sinner and cannot work my way into GOD's good graces or become so well educated that HE will see me as some angel of light... I have witnessed real changes in people who have opened their hearts to Jesus. You have your science and will take it to the grave. It will avail you nothing. Science could not exist except for GOD, and yet you conspire to leave HIM out of it.
Funny, even wealthy Romans pagan possessed running water, heated baths, central heating and flushing toilets --- and yet for a thousand years afterward the rich often pooped in outhouses... And yet you cannot imagine that 6000 years ago people might have been as clever --- especially where GOD required it.

Science could not exist without God? Nipper, God is the one hypothesis in science that makes otherwise smart men give up. God is self explanatory, it gives no answers beyond itself, which is the anti-synthesis of science. Newton, maybe the smartest men ever to live, a man who invented an entire branch of mathematics couldn't account for the principles of all the orbits of the planets. So he accepted God as the explanation. It took about 100 years and someone who didn't accept God as the explanation to figure it out Pierre-Simon Laplace - Wikipedia. When God is accepted as an explanation, science stops. So not only do I reject that premise, but uttering it is a clear reminder why you should stick to religion and NOT science when trying to find validation for your beliefs. By following the bible, your God hypothesis is hopelessly limited. If you believe the Bible to be literally true, and you accept, I assume a 6000 year old earth. You need to disregard EVERY branch of science in order for that world view to work. Not for nothing, ignoring centuries of progress over a book that is so clearly ridiculous is by definition crazy.

Who do you think designed the very chemical makeup of everything that exists? Who stretched forth the stars and hung the sphere of the earth on nothing. Who planned for the planets everywhere to remain in their various courses. Who created the animals and made man like HIMSELF. Could the lightbulb, the phonograph, the computer, and the rocket all been designed without one thought for the theory of evolution? Yes! There is no connection between practical science and concocting stories as to were man came from. In fact the study of recorded history and the Bible is far more important than Darwin's ponderings about the beaks of finches on the Galapagos Islands ----- but it does make for an interesting read ---- but I much rather have a refrigerator or a washing machine. Your limited to the here and now. I have all eternity to look forward to!

Who do you think designed the very chemical makeup of everything that exists?

Nobody.

Who stretched forth the stars and hung the sphere of the earth on nothing.

Gravity and general relativity

Who planned for the planets everywhere to remain in their various courses

Nobody planned for it. It's just were the dust coalesced using gravity.

Who created the animals and made man like HIMSELF.

The theory of evolution, created the animals and humans. By the way if God created man in his image, He sure built in a lot of design flaws. The appendix, wisdom teeth, a tailbone, the inside corner of the eye. Did God make a bad copy or does he have redundant features to?

Could the lightbulb, the phonograph, the computer, and the rocket all been designed without one thought for the theory of evolution?

It isn't just the theory of evolution that wouldn't work in a 6000 year old universe. Astronomy and trigonometry show that there are plenty of stars outside 6000 light years. They would be invisible if a 6000 year old universe would be the case. Genetics, biology, chemistry, history, geology, astrophysics, nuclear physics, anthropology, etc.,etc. So No, none of these inventions would be able to exist in your world view.

Who created light? And is it constant? Absurd, to believe that the power of an Almighty GOD is limited by your scientific ponderings. And I find all the studies enlightening; but one needs not believe the universe is billions of years old in order to investigate any of them. Even Genetics is related to DNA observations and has nothing to do with ape men. In fact all the DNA research seems to be limited to roughly 6000 years of real time ------- oddly enough...

 

[LittleNipper]

If truth is not literal then it is not true and wisdom is not gleaned from lies.

Little Nipper, That comment does a complete fly-by past me. Bear with me... No , I don't believe the sun stood still for Joshua or that the walls of Jericho fell down. I don't believe that Satan was hanging around God's hall and made a deal with Him to strike Job with unbearable disasters. I don't believe the 7 days in Genesis were 24 hr cycles and I don't bother trying to figure out who Cain married. I do believe the laws borne by Moses were common sense laws for a wandering people trying to maintain ethnicity and not become assimilated in their day. Some of them were pretty nit-picky to us, but necessary for them as a cohesive measure. I love the parables of Jesus and have been able sometimes to apply them to everyday secular life too. An Example is how Jesus harped on the Pharisees for their emphasis on the Letter of the law while completely missing the MEANING of the law. I see that in people every day, including here. Remember that the Pharisees were the most moral people of their day, maybe in the then world. But they got off track and forgot the meaning, so Jesus condensed it for them...with the 'golden rule' which we also forget, just as we often forget to temper justice with mercy, in our condemnation of each other. Sorry if I bore you, but evidently your truth is not my truth (as Pilate pointed out) and I hope you understand why.

You don't believe in GOD ---- so what's your point? As for the meaning of the LAW, the reality is if you cannot keep the LAW, you will die and go to an eternal separation from GOD. The LAW is not a pick and choose. One cannot ignore that there have been no blood sacrifices for 2000 years. One cannot excuse that fact and say, "Oh well, GOD will forgive me because I believe HE will."

I'm covered under the blood of the Messiah. The LAW exists to point out our failure to be able to keep them; however, Jesus kept them perfectly and that is why HIS personal sacrifice counts.

Caiaphas kept the law perfectly too, as did all the rest of the Sanhedrin.

NO they didn't or they wouldn't have feared entering the Holy of Holies. They would not have died, and they wouldn't have turned the Temple of GOD into a business market! And Jesus would not have been tied by them under the cloak of night... And they would not have lied and indicating that they had no laws by which they could execute Jesus. It never stopped them from stoning anyone else!!!!!!!!!!!!

But the Sanhedrin KEPT the laws. They just duped somebody else to do their dirty work so they could keep their hands clean. Remind you of any admins you know of today?

So you are saying they LIED! Lying is a sin. And causing someone else to sin is also a sin...

 

[OldLady]

What harm is there in letting OP believe his story?
Or that the Ark has been found?

When the Flood (s) happened, afterward there was a lot of 'splainin to do, and the Ark is a pretty creative one, I think.

 

[forkup]

What case are you referring to? "I believe in God so I don't have to back up what I say?" An open mind requires critical thinking. Critical thinking requires looking at evidence and come to conclusions based on that evidence. Me not believing in Jesus in no way absolves you from the responsibility to prove your conclusions. This is the difference between science and faith. Faith allows you to pick and choose what you accept. Science doesn't give me that luxury. I judged your article based on science, the place you choose to post it. If you ask me for an open mind, you have to give me actual verifiable facts. The Bible is not just unverified as a source, a lot of it flies in the face of actual stuff we can verify.

On the contrary, I accept the ENTIRE Bible and believe it to be in its entirety inspired by GOD. This is after looking at the evidence and realizing I'm a sinner and cannot work my way into GOD's good graces or become so well educated that HE will see me as some angel of light... I have witnessed real changes in people who have opened their hearts to Jesus. You have your science and will take it to the grave. It will avail you nothing. Science could not exist except for GOD, and yet you conspire to leave HIM out of it.
Funny, even wealthy Romans pagan possessed running water, heated baths, central heating and flushing toilets --- and yet for a thousand years afterward the rich often pooped in outhouses... And yet you cannot imagine that 6000 years ago people might have been as clever --- especially where GOD required it.

Science could not exist without God? Nipper, God is the one hypothesis in science that makes otherwise smart men give up. God is self explanatory, it gives no answers beyond itself, which is the anti-synthesis of science. Newton, maybe the smartest men ever to live, a man who invented an entire branch of mathematics couldn't account for the principles of all the orbits of the planets. So he accepted God as the explanation. It took about 100 years and someone who didn't accept God as the explanation to figure it out Pierre-Simon Laplace - Wikipedia. When God is accepted as an explanation, science stops. So not only do I reject that premise, but uttering it is a clear reminder why you should stick to religion and NOT science when trying to find validation for your beliefs. By following the bible, your God hypothesis is hopelessly limited. If you believe the Bible to be literally true, and you accept, I assume a 6000 year old earth. You need to disregard EVERY branch of science in order for that world view to work. Not for nothing, ignoring centuries of progress over a book that is so clearly ridiculous is by definition crazy.

Who do you think designed the very chemical makeup of everything that exists? Who stretched forth the stars and hung the sphere of the earth on nothing. Who planned for the planets everywhere to remain in their various courses. Who created the animals and made man like HIMSELF. Could the lightbulb, the phonograph, the computer, and the rocket all been designed without one thought for the theory of evolution? Yes! There is no connection between practical science and concocting stories as to were man came from. In fact the study of recorded history and the Bible is far more important than Darwin's ponderings about the beaks of finches on the Galapagos Islands ----- but it does make for an interesting read ---- but I much rather have a refrigerator or a washing machine. Your limited to the here and now. I have all eternity to look forward to!

Who do you think designed the very chemical makeup of everything that exists?

Nobody.

Who stretched forth the stars and hung the sphere of the earth on nothing.

Gravity and general relativity

Who planned for the planets everywhere to remain in their various courses

Nobody planned for it. It's just were the dust coalesced using gravity.

Who created the animals and made man like HIMSELF.

The theory of evolution, created the animals and humans. By the way if God created man in his image, He sure built in a lot of design flaws. The appendix, wisdom teeth, a tailbone, the inside corner of the eye. Did God make a bad copy or does he have redundant features to?

Could the lightbulb, the phonograph, the computer, and the rocket all been designed without one thought for the theory of evolution?

It isn't just the theory of evolution that wouldn't work in a 6000 year old universe. Astronomy and trigonometry show that there are plenty of stars outside 6000 light years. They would be invisible if a 6000 year old universe would be the case. Genetics, biology, chemistry, history, geology, astrophysics, nuclear physics, anthropology, etc.,etc. So No, none of these inventions would be able to exist in your world view.

Who created light? And is it constant? Absurd, to believe that the power of an Almighty GOD is limited by your scientific ponderings. And I find all the studies enlightening; but one needs not believe the universe is billions of years old in order to investigate any of them. Even Genetics is related to DNA observations and has nothing to do with ape men. In fact all the DNA research seems to be limited to roughly 6000 years of real time ------- oddly enough...

Ok nipper I'm done. The world is limited by my scientific ponderings, inserting God whenever something doesn't mesh for you works for you, but it isn't science. The last sentence you uttered is such clear nonsense I don't think I need to reply. Keep on believing, but don't delude yourself by mistaking it for having ANY scientific validity.

 

[bullwinkle]

What harm is there in letting OP believe his story?
Or that the Ark has been found?

When the Flood (s) happened, afterward there was a lot of 'splainin to do, and the Ark is a pretty creative one, I think.

Old Lady, you are right. Your post makes me feel petty, and I thank you for opening my eyes to my meaningless effort.

 

[LittleNipper]

On the contrary, I accept the ENTIRE Bible and believe it to be in its entirety inspired by GOD. This is after looking at the evidence and realizing I'm a sinner and cannot work my way into GOD's good graces or become so well educated that HE will see me as some angel of light... I have witnessed real changes in people who have opened their hearts to Jesus. You have your science and will take it to the grave. It will avail you nothing. Science could not exist except for GOD, and yet you conspire to leave HIM out of it.
Funny, even wealthy Romans pagan possessed running water, heated baths, central heating and flushing toilets --- and yet for a thousand years afterward the rich often pooped in outhouses... And yet you cannot imagine that 6000 years ago people might have been as clever --- especially where GOD required it.

Science could not exist without God? Nipper, God is the one hypothesis in science that makes otherwise smart men give up. God is self explanatory, it gives no answers beyond itself, which is the anti-synthesis of science. Newton, maybe the smartest men ever to live, a man who invented an entire branch of mathematics couldn't account for the principles of all the orbits of the planets. So he accepted God as the explanation. It took about 100 years and someone who didn't accept God as the explanation to figure it out Pierre-Simon Laplace - Wikipedia. When God is accepted as an explanation, science stops. So not only do I reject that premise, but uttering it is a clear reminder why you should stick to religion and NOT science when trying to find validation for your beliefs. By following the bible, your God hypothesis is hopelessly limited. If you believe the Bible to be literally true, and you accept, I assume a 6000 year old earth. You need to disregard EVERY branch of science in order for that world view to work. Not for nothing, ignoring centuries of progress over a book that is so clearly ridiculous is by definition crazy.

Who do you think designed the very chemical makeup of everything that exists? Who stretched forth the stars and hung the sphere of the earth on nothing. Who planned for the planets everywhere to remain in their various courses. Who created the animals and made man like HIMSELF. Could the lightbulb, the phonograph, the computer, and the rocket all been designed without one thought for the theory of evolution? Yes! There is no connection between practical science and concocting stories as to were man came from. In fact the study of recorded history and the Bible is far more important than Darwin's ponderings about the beaks of finches on the Galapagos Islands ----- but it does make for an interesting read ---- but I much rather have a refrigerator or a washing machine. Your limited to the here and now. I have all eternity to look forward to!

Who do you think designed the very chemical makeup of everything that exists?

Nobody.

Who stretched forth the stars and hung the sphere of the earth on nothing.

Gravity and general relativity

Who planned for the planets everywhere to remain in their various courses

Nobody planned for it. It's just were the dust coalesced using gravity.

Who created the animals and made man like HIMSELF.

The theory of evolution, created the animals and humans. By the way if God created man in his image, He sure built in a lot of design flaws. The appendix, wisdom teeth, a tailbone, the inside corner of the eye. Did God make a bad copy or does he have redundant features to?

Could the lightbulb, the phonograph, the computer, and the rocket all been designed without one thought for the theory of evolution?

It isn't just the theory of evolution that wouldn't work in a 6000 year old universe. Astronomy and trigonometry show that there are plenty of stars outside 6000 light years. They would be invisible if a 6000 year old universe would be the case. Genetics, biology, chemistry, history, geology, astrophysics, nuclear physics, anthropology, etc.,etc. So No, none of these inventions would be able to exist in your world view.

Who created light? And is it constant? Absurd, to believe that the power of an Almighty GOD is limited by your scientific ponderings. And I find all the studies enlightening; but one needs not believe the universe is billions of years old in order to investigate any of them. Even Genetics is related to DNA observations and has nothing to do with ape men. In fact all the DNA research seems to be limited to roughly 6000 years of real time ------- oddly enough...

Ok nipper I'm done. The world is limited by my scientific ponderings, inserting God whenever something doesn't mesh for you works for you, but it isn't science. The last sentence you uttered is such clear nonsense I don't think I need to reply. Keep on believing, but don't delude yourself by mistaking it for having ANY scientific validity.

Excluding GOD never provided people the truth. I'm so sorry that your narrow mindedness of science has done more harm than good to society

On the contrary, I accept the ENTIRE Bible and believe it to be in its entirety inspired by GOD. This is after looking at the evidence and realizing I'm a sinner and cannot work my way into GOD's good graces or become so well educated that HE will see me as some angel of light... I have witnessed real changes in people who have opened their hearts to Jesus. You have your science and will take it to the grave. It will avail you nothing. Science could not exist except for GOD, and yet you conspire to leave HIM out of it.
Funny, even wealthy Romans pagan possessed running water, heated baths, central heating and flushing toilets --- and yet for a thousand years afterward the rich often pooped in outhouses... And yet you cannot imagine that 6000 years ago people might have been as clever --- especially where GOD required it.

Science could not exist without God? Nipper, God is the one hypothesis in science that makes otherwise smart men give up. God is self explanatory, it gives no answers beyond itself, which is the anti-synthesis of science. Newton, maybe the smartest men ever to live, a man who invented an entire branch of mathematics couldn't account for the principles of all the orbits of the planets. So he accepted God as the explanation. It took about 100 years and someone who didn't accept God as the explanation to figure it out Pierre-Simon Laplace - Wikipedia. When God is accepted as an explanation, science stops. So not only do I reject that premise, but uttering it is a clear reminder why you should stick to religion and NOT science when trying to find validation for your beliefs. By following the bible, your God hypothesis is hopelessly limited. If you believe the Bible to be literally true, and you accept, I assume a 6000 year old earth. You need to disregard EVERY branch of science in order for that world view to work. Not for nothing, ignoring centuries of progress over a book that is so clearly ridiculous is by definition crazy.

Who do you think designed the very chemical makeup of everything that exists? Who stretched forth the stars and hung the sphere of the earth on nothing. Who planned for the planets everywhere to remain in their various courses. Who created the animals and made man like HIMSELF. Could the lightbulb, the phonograph, the computer, and the rocket all been designed without one thought for the theory of evolution? Yes! There is no connection between practical science and concocting stories as to were man came from. In fact the study of recorded history and the Bible is far more important than Darwin's ponderings about the beaks of finches on the Galapagos Islands ----- but it does make for an interesting read ---- but I much rather have a refrigerator or a washing machine. Your limited to the here and now. I have all eternity to look forward to!

Who do you think designed the very chemical makeup of everything that exists?

Nobody.

Who stretched forth the stars and hung the sphere of the earth on nothing.

Gravity and general relativity

Who planned for the planets everywhere to remain in their various courses

Nobody planned for it. It's just were the dust coalesced using gravity.

Who created the animals and made man like HIMSELF.

The theory of evolution, created the animals and humans. By the way if God created man in his image, He sure built in a lot of design flaws. The appendix, wisdom teeth, a tailbone, the inside corner of the eye. Did God make a bad copy or does he have redundant features to?

Could the lightbulb, the phonograph, the computer, and the rocket all been designed without one thought for the theory of evolution?

It isn't just the theory of evolution that wouldn't work in a 6000 year old universe. Astronomy and trigonometry show that there are plenty of stars outside 6000 light years. They would be invisible if a 6000 year old universe would be the case. Genetics, biology, chemistry, history, geology, astrophysics, nuclear physics, anthropology, etc.,etc. So No, none of these inventions would be able to exist in your world view.

Who created light? And is it constant? Absurd, to believe that the power of an Almighty GOD is limited by your scientific ponderings. And I find all the studies enlightening; but one needs not believe the universe is billions of years old in order to investigate any of them. Even Genetics is related to DNA observations and has nothing to do with ape men. In fact all the DNA research seems to be limited to roughly 6000 years of real time ------- oddly enough...

Ok nipper I'm done. The world is limited by my scientific ponderings, inserting God whenever something doesn't mesh for you works for you, but it isn't science. The last sentence you uttered is such clear nonsense I don't think I need to reply. Keep on believing, but don't delude yourself by mistaking it for having ANY scientific validity.

Facts concerning DNA: DNA LIFESPAN: What is it? What happens as DNA degrades? Can it last millions of years?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They couldn't find many of the bodies of men lost at 9/11 any yet 100,000 year old flesh is probable?

Possible, actually. And, as it turns out, those animals did not die by the collapse of a skyscraper.

 

[LittleNipper]

They couldn't find many of the bodies of men lost at 9/11 any yet 100,000 year old flesh is probable?

Possible, actually. And, as it turns out, those animals did not die by the collapse of a skyscraper.

No, they were buried in mud the likely result of an asteroid strike or strikes that had the

They couldn't find many of the bodies of men lost at 9/11 any yet 100,000 year old flesh is probable?

Possible, actually. And, as it turns out, those animals did not die by the collapse of a skyscraper.

Well, according to secular scientists (and not Creationists at that) they have devised the following explanation:
The greatest show on earth: How the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs sparked a global firestorm and turned the sky bright red

• New model of disaster suggests asteroid's impact would have heated atmosphere to 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit
• Heat would have incinerated the world's forests and everything else not protected underground or underwater

By DAILY MAIL REPORTER

PUBLISHED: 16:19 EDT, 10 April 2013 | UPDATED: 02:44 EDT, 11 April 2013

[headerlinks
The impact of a six-mile long asteroid believed to have hit the earth and wiped out the dinosaurs 66 million years ago would have sparked a cataclysmic firestorm, scientists say.

Over the past three decades scientists have argued about what caused the extinction 66 million years ago - changes to climate, volcano activity or an asteroid.

Research has already shown that the prehistoric animals died out around the same time a six-mile long object hit the planet, and a new model of the disaster suggests the asteroid's impact would have sent vaporised particles of rock high above Earth's atmosphere which in turn would have turned the sky bright red as they heated the upper atmosphere to 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit on re-entry.

Cosmic explosion: An asteroid hitting the planet sounded the death knell of dinosaurs

A team from the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences have come up with a model of the disaster that shows how the asteroid's impact heated up the Earth's atmosphere to levels that would have incinerated anything not underground or underwater. (Impression of dinosaurs feeding)

'It's likely that the total amount of infrared heat was equal to a 1 megaton bomb exploding every four miles over the entire Earth,' study researcher Douglas Robertson, of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, or CIRES, said in a statement reported in LiveScience.com.

To put this into perspective, a 1-megaton hydrogen bomb is said to be the equivalent of 80 Hiroshima-type nuclear bombs.

The model, detailed this week in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Biogeosciences shows how the 'heat pulse' would have incinerated the world's forests and everything else not protected underground or underwater.

YET SOMEHOW WITHOUT GOD"S HELP SCIENTISTS SAY THAT DINOSAUR DNA survived 10's of MILLIONS of years after this supposed catastrophic event!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yet once again, they can't even find bodies of people who were trapped at the top of skyscrapers that bit the dust how long ago!!!!!! That seems odd to me and yet this is what you accept because it suits you. I guess that this is your FLOOD. You don't wish to believe GOD's version.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well, according to secular scientists (

I.e., scientists. Science is purely secular.

And I don't think you inderstand that they are not saying all the dinosaurs died immediately , when the meteor struck. You also seem not to understand that there were dinosaurs that lived and died millions of years before that event, and we find their fossils.

I mean...no offense, but....duh.

 

[LittleNipper]

Well, according to secular scientists (

I.e., scientists. Science is purely secular.

And I don't think you inderstand that they are not saying all the dinosaurs died immediately , when the meteor struck. You also seem not to understand that there were dinosaurs that lived and died millions of years before that event, and we find their fossils.

I mean...no offense, but....duh.

GLOBAL firestorm isn't global? And you're right, science isn't secular. Some scientist are atheists and some are Christian and some believe other things. Each group applies its own slant to prop up one's personal opinion. I guess that you want to redefine "global" because you NOW see that the whole DNA issue is questionable if not pathetically absurd under such circumstances---- I mean no offense...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

GLOBAL firestorm isn't global?

As you may notice, dinosaurs still exist. We call them "birds". So clearly, no, not all animals died in that event, or even all dinosaurs.

And you're right, science isn't secular.

Excuse you, I said science is purely secular. There is no deference to or consideration of the idea of magical gods in science. That's kind of the whole point.

No offense taken...you are saying ridiculous, false things and embarrassing yourself...

 

[Tax Man]

Some people say yes and some say no and some say it doesn't matter. Have the ones that say yes found anything? Have the ones that say no visited any sites? I see a real conflict of what should be factual information... Consider the following: Noah's Ark Has Been Found. Why Are They Keeping Us In The Dark?

Consider this, the vessel found is too small to hold all the animals that it is claimed to have.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Some people say yes and some say no and some say it doesn't matter. Have the ones that say yes found anything? Have the ones that say no visited any sites? I see a real conflict of what should be factual information... Consider the following: Noah's Ark Has Been Found. Why Are They Keeping Us In The Dark?

Consider this, the vessel found is too small to hold all the animals that it is claimed to have.

But self-evident truths like that hold no weight, when the solution is, "magic!!".