I have a question for those amongst you who believe that the Noah's Ark story real..

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by GaLaTeA, May 3, 2013.

  1. antilluminati

    antilluminati Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,481
    An Introduction to Biblical Nonsense


    To me it seems like a fairytale. The only way this could actually happen is if God was interfering and actually working physical miracles. I'll stick to my original theory. An exaggerated story of a man who survived a flood by building a huge boat where he saved his family and farm. Why wouldn't the story be making the same point? Stories retold for thousands of years get spun dramatically, even kings of Norway were fighting dragons. The times and locations are somehow accurate, but I doubt any dragons were present. Taking this book literally to me is kind of remarkable and unbelievable, the point is rather to learn something good from the many fables in it, which mirrors fables told in many cultures, which also should be a giveaway.
    test
  2. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    Water, fire, air and dirt/
    Tectonic plates, how do they work?/
    test
  3. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Most intelligent post yet


    *also notice gala started the thread and has contributed nothing
    test
  4. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    My favorite part was when he said 'story.'
    test
  5. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    @reggie jax keep in mind that people had sailing ability, sea faring knowledge and civilizations being built up right after the flood era (and before). Man was not dumb back then, rather quite the opposite today. We are a dumb downed people today. It is evident in peoples belief in a theory built on nothing but rhetoric and idolatry and our corralled obedience to a limited authority. We are trained to appeal to authority over common sense. Truth. In fact our senses have been numbed out, by a thousand cuts of govern-ment (in the Greek meaning mind control) and the unified agenda against freedom.

    If you want to believe life came from soup go ahead. Just know that just believing in evolution (marco) you ignore 5 other evolutions that must have happened for life to come off the rock (cosmic, organic, chemical, stellar, planetary etc)...all of which have absolutely no evidence outside rhetoric and models in computer simulations and in text books. This is the only place the theory exists...in other words, it only exist in the imagination. In fact http://board.rapmusic.com/sanctuary/1308214-miller-experiment.html proves that life could not have possibly came to be from nothing. Read for yourself.

    Often what seems right to a man is incorrect. And majority opinion is not evidence, either is ignorance for anything being true.

    I'm still waiting for @AliceHouse to offer up evidence so we can talk.

    There are two sciences. One is a god where the term is used as a person. IE "science does not know yet." Or "Science has not proved it" Or "It is not known to Science" Almost as if it's a god. This is most peoples understanding of the shame known as modern "science". It has more to do with moving agenda along than honest inquiry. Believe that. It's unfortunate, but there is a reason why it's like this today. To understand means to humble down and seek it outside of your mainstream indoctrination. Obviously not all professors know or are an active part in this deception. They simply believe in their religion. That is all. It's the wickedness in very high places that set the pace in this world and it's kingdoms. Bet.

    Moving on, real science is a process. Whereby you demonstrate, measure and test theory. None of which can be done with the evolution model. It's a metaphysical humanist religion...(beyond your understanding probably. Not to sound like an hipster douche here).

    As far as animals getting to where they are...I suggest you read some of the information provided in this thread already. There is a lot so I would not expect you to do it over night or if at all. The ice age is answered in a post by me already. You have to read and keep on this discussion. Otherwise you are just showing an obvious bias toward your creator without a honest inquire.

    Much like how @GaLaTeA has done in creating this vain topic. She is not the least bit interested in growing and understanding the truth outside of mainstream bastardization of it...it's a heavy thing man. She is ignorant (not knowing) so this is nothing personal.

    Real research shows that it could have been entirely possible for animals to get where they have gone...The land mass has looked different. I will offer more on this later perhaps.

    The Indians did not come across no land bridge some 10,000 years ago. That is a myth. You're whole understanding is wrapped around euro-gentile understanding and its myths. You have to deprogram. It's all garbage bro. Not real science mind you, but the god science is deciving you.


    ONE LAST THING BRO

    You seem to be critical and ask really good questions about the logistics of the flood. Very good. Why can't you be this honest and open about the thoery of evolution and see what it is for what it is ? Apply your same method to the theory and it fails. You HAVE to belive in evolution, it don't come by facts. That is a certain.

    Every front used to string the thoery together fails.

    1 Geologic column/fossil record
    2 fossils
    3 morphological similarities/comparative anatomy
    4 DNA
    5 vestigial "artifacts"
    6 bacteria and mutations
    7 argon dating
    8 carbon dating

    And more.

    Wake up brother, there are no coincidences. Nothing is left to chance.
    @antilluminati
    test
  6. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    The failure isn't in the sciences, things that can be tested and verified. The failure is in your understanding.
    test
  7. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    a better question is why can't you answer a straight forward question about your own model in a straight forward manner, without going off on tangents and lecturing me about the deception of evolution when you know very well just how effective that is going to be.

    i have made it clear why i think evolution is true, and you've made it clear why you think it isn't. do we need to rehash that discussion every time we interact?

    i'm asking you a straight forward question about your own model, which you purport to be the actual truth. seemingly this would be an important topic to you. do you think you can try to stay on topic and stop distracting yourself with the lies of evolution?

    so the question is how did the americas and australia come to be populated after the flood, and so far your answer is that you don't know but that it definitely happened because those land masses are inhabited today. of course this answer does assume your model is correct and doesn't allow for the proposition that it can't account for the question and thus never really happened. so the question that actually remains is how is it possible?

    you seem to be suggesting a naval campaign is a likely scenario. for this to work, we need to presume that the natives who inhabited america prior to the european invasion had developed sophisticated nautical technology and knowledge, and had used this to not only cross the pacific once but many times. they would have had to have been crossing quite frequently to bring every animal, insect, and plant to the new world.

    logistically, they would have had quite a challenge in that their destination was apparently a desert wasteland and so they couldn't rely on it to feed them when they arrived, and would somehow have to turn that wasteland into arable soil.

    bizarrely enough, they would have brought over a completely unique array of plants and animals, that isn't quite like the ones found anywhere else in the world. and even more bizarrely, they would have neglected to bring the most useful animal that men in the old world has use for: horses.

    and to top it all off, once this naval campaign was complete and the continents were seated with life, they mysteriously lost their naval tradition and lived predominately as hunter gatherer tribes until the europeans show up a couple thousand years later.

    the question is important because you're proposing an alternative model to the modern scientific narrative. you need to be able to account for why the world is the way it is according to the flood scenario. if you can't give a plausible answer then your model isn't concurrent with reality.
    test
  8. antilluminati

    antilluminati Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,481
    True, I believe in synchronicity and meaning. Just not the entirity of the bible, it's promoters and institutionalized religion for most parts. I'm pretty sure I'd get along with Jesus and the G-man, and I believe my path does not consist of limiting my thinking to biblical interpretation. I believe the truth is already encrypted within and with every truth I recognize I only reflect what the universe reflects in me. I am woken, but always learning.
    test
  9. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    my friend Reggie, like I said in my earlier tangent (sorry, I tend to go off...I have a disorganized mind) the question has been adressed.

    And no we don't need to rehash the same question over and over concerning evolution and our beliefs. I agree. We need to move past that. i come to think of you as a friend and would like to learn more about you.

    About the Indians coming here...well I don't know exactly how. Either does the evolution model...this is outside of what we usually talk about...but it would be a great topic. Though I do have my own personal beliefs as to how biased on historic record and other writings of scholars in times past.

    And quite frankly I am not too educated or have done any research into it. As I come across new insights or information I will post up. Does this sound fair ?
    test
  10. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096

    @AliceHouse

    can you please explain to me in your own words how two of the following support evolution ?

    1 Geologic column/fossil record
    2 fossils
    3 morphological similarities/comparative anatomy
    4 DNA
    5 vestigial "artifacts"
    6 bacteria and mutations
    7 argon dating
    8 carbon dating
    test
  11. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    Hey bruh, good luck on your quest for truth. If you are seeking diligently you will be lead to the truth.

    not trying to sound condescending but encouraging rather.

    peace.
    test
  12. antilluminati

    antilluminati Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,481
    Thanks, I believe I'm on the path to it. Better than no path at all I suppose.
    test
  13. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    What's the point? You're just going to stick your fingers in your eyes while chanting "I'm right, you're wrong." You're not interested in a debate, you're not interested in the truth. You're only interested in spreading lies and deciet.

    Take fossils for example.

    If the creationist model were correct, we would hypothesize that we would find all manner of fossils within every layer of the sedimentary record. We would find humans alongside dinorsaurs and housecats along side giant sloths. So we test it out by checking the fossil records.

    What do we find instead? Stratigraphy. As it turns out, very specific species exist in very specific layers of the sedimentary record. Some, such as crocodiles, have lived for countless ages, true. But others die out and others show up seemingly out of nowhere.

    Based on this evidence, we can both agree at the very least that there was no GOD who created all manner of species all at once.

    [​IMG]
    test
  14. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    @AliceHouse Part one of two. Please read. This is not about vain personal glory...this is about learning and growing friend. I have no issue with you. I want you to learn. Your ignorance (not knowing) is not evidence that the creation created itself. There is no missing link. The whole chain is missing.

    Again, relax your ego and read in a calm thorough manner.

    Let's see who will put their fingers in their ears and stomp their feet, saying "evolution is true because that is what I was told"

    We do in fact find the same fossils in all layers of rock, all over the world. There is no such thing as a fossil record. We even see trees connecting many layers of strata, petrified in the rock...and these layers are all so posed to be millions of years different in age ? Not so. ( I got proof).

    You are wrong here. That fossil record, the layers only exist in complete form in texts books and images like the one you posted. The sedimentary "record" exist in no place on earth in compete form as taught.

    - HBJ Earth Science p. 326

    Did you know there is no geological column ? If there was it would be a 100 miles thick. It does not exist. All of evolution is baised on this lie. It's true the earth has layers that is not the question. How then did they get there ?

    But evolutionists tell the age by which index fossil is in the layer. They tell the age off the fossil by what layer they are in. That is circular reasoning. Strata are dated by the fossils then fossils are dated by the strata.


    -Rastall, R. H. Geology Encyclopedia Britannica. vol 10 p.168 (Rastall was a lecturer in economic geology, University of London.


    -Ager, Derck - Fossil Frustrations - New Scientist, vol. 100 p.425
    They don't date fossils by carbon dating, potassium dating etc... That is not how they do it.


    -O' Rourke, J.E.- Pragmatism Verses Materialism in Stratigraphy - American Journal of Science vol.276 p.54

    - Eldredge, Niles- Time Frames - Rethinking of Darwinian evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium p.57

    Circular reasoning is what E. Niles is getting at.

    -O'Rourke, J.E.

    Now that is brilliant. The cheese done fell out of his sand which. But still, the public has no right to question them,


    - American Journal of Science vol.276

    But it is all based on circular reasoning. Did you know that in still water sediment layers settle out the bottom layer first, then the second one, then the 3rd...that is correct. But in moving water you can get five or six or ten layers to form simultaneously. So it is possible to have a fossil on the bottom that is younger than the top. If it's moving water (flood).

    The geological column contains lime stone in quite a few places, in many layers. If I handed you a piece of lime stone, how would you know if it's hundreds of million years old Jurassic limestone or 600 million year old cambrian limestone ?

    Exactly what is the difference ? Evolutionists will say the only way to tell the difference is by the index fossils. Precisely my point. They date the layers by the fossils.
    test
  15. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    @AliceHouse part two

    Somebody found a human shoe print ( a human wearing a shoe) that had stepped on a smashed trilobite. Evolutionists teach that Trilobites fossils make good index fossils. If a trilobite such as this one is found in a rock layer, the rock layer was probably formed 500 to 600 million years ago according to the theory.

    Click the image to open in full size.
    Click the image to open in full size.


    ^Human shoe print w trilobite inside. Found by William Meister of Kearns Utah, June 1 1968. Photo from Readers digest Mysteries of the Unexplained. p.38 Dr. H.H Doelling of Utah's geological survey verified it was not a fake.

    Click the image to open in full size.

    Click the image to open in full size.


    how on Earth can a human step on a trilobite ? If trilobites lived 500 million years ago and man did not get here until 3 million years ago and they did not start wearing shoes until about 10 ten thousand years ago, how could a human step on a trilobite ? They only things atheist will say is that it's obvious aliens visited the planet 500 million years ago. Those aliens did it.

    Trilobite eyes have " The most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature" - Lisa Sawyer - Science News Feb 1972 - p.72

    "The eyes of early trilobites...have never been exceeded form complexity or acuity" -Stephen J. Gould- Natural History Feb. 1984 p.23. And this is one of the first creatures to evolve ? It already has the most complex eye ?

    Click the image to open in full size.


    No, Trilobites are not index fossils for anything. There are a lot of different types of trilobites and some are probably alive today. For example the Baltic Isopod is certainly. They are called different names, but many are still found. The textbooks say, "Graptolites are index fossils for 410 million year old rocks" -Earth magazine sept. 1993. Graptolites are still found today in the south pacific. So if you find one, you cannot use that as index fossils for any rock at all.

    They tell the kids that the lobe-finned fish are index fossils for 325-410 million year old rock. They say he has a little bit of leg and some fin. This is an index fossil for the Devonian era (when animals first went to dry land). They say that this proves the fish is evolving from a fin to a leg. Lie. The Lobed fish are still alive today. There swimming around in the Indian Ocean


    When they caught the first one in 1938 and when the scientists looked at it they were stunned. They just said they survived from 325 million years. lol It never dawns on them once to question the geological column. That thought never crossed their brain. You don't question the geological column. It is holy and sacred. They still used this as an index fossil today for 325 million year old rock when they know they are swimming in the ocean. How can they be that dumb ?

    A lady wrote a book about the lobed fish called "A Fish Caught In Time". In the book she said it's, "our own great-uncle forty million times removed".
    lmao.


    They teach the kids that fossils give evidence for evolution. No fossil counts as evidence for evolution. They teach evolution as a fact to the kids and say that the fossil record provides some of the strongest evidence that species evolved over time. There is no fossil record. You don't look 'back' in the fossil record, only you look at fossils. They put there interpretation on them. They don't find fossils with a date and a card telling how old it is. There is no such way to tell. How did we fall for such a dumb idea ?

    But they still teach today that fossils contribute to the understanding of evolution. Darwin said that if his theory be true that numberless intermediate variates must assuredly have existed. There must be a bunch out there then ? No. There ought to be billions. They teach that many links have been found. They are dummies. David Roup said,

    - Evolution and the Fossil Record - Science vol. 213 p.289

    Fantasy in the textbooks ? NOOOO WAYYYYY. You got to be kidding ? Nope. Evolution is all based on fantasy. There are no missing links. If you find a fossil in the dirt, all you know is that it died. You can't prove it had any kids and you sure can't prove it had different kids. Why would you think a bone in the dirt can do something animals alive today can't do ? The different fields: biology, geology, ecology, genealogy etc all the ologies, all say that the don't have the evidence, but the other Fields do.

    The British Museum of Natural History has the larges fossil collection in the world. When the senor paleontologist was asked why he did not show the missing links in his book he said,


    See, there is not any missing link. The whole chain is missing. So, they now have a new theory to explain why they are missing. Dr. Stephen J. Gould said,


    -Evolution Now -p.140- Marxist Professor at Harvard University in Boston.

    He knows there is no evidence so he brought up a new theory, that maybe the first bird hatched from a reptile egg. Huh ? He taught that if it happened so quickly that there is no evidence. That's smart. They don't have any proof so that proves it, that is what they are saying. It's called Punctuated equilibrium, wher evolution happens in leaps and big jumps. Try that logic in a court of law and see how far you get...

    They teach the kids that the fossil record shows that species evolved through may small steps...They ask the kids in the textbooks to think critically, by asking them how evolution happened: Gradually with slow changes like Darwin said or was it big leaps and jumps like Stephen Gould said ?

    In their minds there is only two choices: Evolution happened slowly or evolution happened quickly. The don't seem to be capable to think outside the box. It did not happen at all . God created the different kinds of animals.

    They say the Hippo is adapting to aquatic life because it likes to cool off in the pools. lmao really ? Every evolutionists think the evidence is in somebody else's field. It's like a shell game..wheres the ball ? The geologist thinks the biologists has the evidence. Botanists think th anthropologists have the evidence ...They all spread the blame, the only problem is there is no ball under the shell in this game. There is no evidence for evolution. None.

    There is more...it's in this tread I did already...
    http://board.rapmusic.com/sanctuary/1314719-re-evolution.html
    test
  16. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    :facepalm:

    I need a moment to compose myself, but I'll be with you shortly.
    test
  17. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    @AliceHouse

    Relax your ego...read carefully and consider what is being said out the mouths of evolution's finest.

    Just relax and read. I am interested in taking one point at a time. let's stay on the fossil "record" and "geological column"


    You said you will be with me shortly, as if what I am saying is beyond your or below you. Humble down and relax. You are not that sharp. Believe me.

    Take a few days, take your time.
    test
  18. reggie jax

    reggie jax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,351
    i don't think the question has been successfully addressed. you've said you don't know exactly how it happened, which is fair enough, but i'm asking for at least some plausible speculations into how it could have happened. i don't think any of the answers you gave were plausible.

    now to contrast this with the standard scientific narrative, there actually are plausible answers to these questions using that narrative. the continents were already inhabited by life prior to becoming isolated by continental drift, which would allow the life that became isolated there the appropriate amount of time to evolve and become distinct from the life in the old world. it allows for and even explains why there are many creatures that don't exist in the old world that do exist in the new world and vice versa.

    the idea that these creatures came directly from the old world as they are necessitates that all of the new world creatures which don't exist in the old world used to exist there but went extinct, and vice versa. this once again is not likely due to the simple fact that when we introduced non-native animals and plants to one world from the other, they often thrived even to the extent of displacing existing creatures in the ecosystem.

    the standard narrative also has a plausible answer for the indians. even if you insist it is a myth, it's at the very least a logistically plausible myth. it also makes sense that they would consist of hunter gatherer tribes, given the time period they are said to have made the journey. this is hard to account for if they made the trip as a relatively advanced civilization with a good grasp of naval technology.

    so i'm thinking that the standard scientific narrative (which includes the evolution model) offers better answers than the flood narrative, at least in regard to this particular question. does that make sense?
    test
  19. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    Part 1 of I'm not sure how many, full quotes are long:

    test
  20. AliceHouse

    AliceHouse The House Always Wins

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    Part 2 of 3?

    O'Rourke was a terrible writer. We can certainly agree there is cheese.

    But what was he actually trying to say?

    He's a terrible philosopher and rambles. But the point is very clear. The idea that you're trying to express, that there is no logic and that it's all circular reasoning is bupkiss. It's logical, it's methodical, it's testable, and it's real.

    No. They don't. You simply choose to ignore the facts in favor of lies and deceit.

    I beg your pardon, but this one is actually quite laughable. Let us take a look at this footprint since your link didn't work:

    [​IMG]

    Now, what can we actually deduce from this?

    Continued...
    test

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)