Why would someone be so bent on Noah's Ark when, realistically, it's just stupid.
Is there some underlieing reason?
Is there some underlieing reason?
The Durupinar Noah's Ark Site
- Thread starter SetiAlpha6
- Start date
Sure!
There are a number of underlying reasons!
You are free to throw it out the window if you wish to! No problem for me if you do.
I trust you are not against freedom of speech, thought, and inquiry?
I ask you simply to decide for yourself.
By the way, free will only exists in Theism, and is impossible both in Naturalism and Atheism, of course. I trust you know that.
In fact, real freedom of speech, thought, and inquiry are also impossible in both Naturalism and Atheism as well.
Well I guess you can always pretend you have them.
That appears to be what most Atheists do, just pretend they have freedom of thought, etc. Even though they know that is impossible.
So do that, if you wish.
Last edited:
This is the problem, as I see it, as well!
I don’t feel that Biological Scientists are actually dismissing their assumptions at all. They know it is impossible for tissue, blood cells, and proteins to last 68 million years. There seems to be no controversy on that topic at all, as far as I know.
But I certainly don’t know everything.
But also, if our “wealth of evidence” is based on 300 year old, possibly outdated facts and interpretations, why not challenge it with the latest scientific research and data?
Seems like a reasonable thing to do.
If the current old paradigm is unassailable no matter what new research shows, how can it ever be changed, or really even trusted?
It seems to almost corrupt the search for truth and knowledge.
If anything that points away from the current paradigm is actually and actively suppressed, then that paradigm and that community should not be trusted.
The Dinosaur Pictograph found in the Amazon, with 9 warriors attacking it, was suppressed for the same old paradigm reasons, as well.
Last edited:
Is it about "free will" and not Noah's Ark?
It would be misleading to start a topic on Noah's Ark when your intentions were to discuss free will all along.
Am I stupid in this process somehow?
No, sorry, it is primarily about Noah’s Ark.
That was just an aside.
We can certainly discuss free will another time, and place, and planet, as you wish.
You are certainly not “stupid” in this discussion at all!!! Sometimes I just run off on tangents. My bad!
Last edited:
You appear to have a very strong faith. That means this discussion can never convince you to change your mind; evidence no matter how compelling can never override faith since faith by definition is not based on evidence.
If you want to discuss Noah's Ark I'm sorry to have interjected.
No problem, thanks for keeping me on topic!
My faith, and the faith of many is squarely based on evidence. I did not create my faith out of thin air, without basis in history and evidence. I have examined and continue to examine the evidence, and find it to be worthy of my trust, or faith.
A belief in Naturalism, which perhaps you may have, is another faith, based on evidence. It is likewise both unprovable and unfalsifiable, which makes it only a faith, in perhaps a similar way.
I personally find Naturalism to be inadequate in explaining all of existence.
Believe in it if you wish. Or don’t. Up to you!
Last edited:
So three creationists claimed that before he died, Fasold recanted, but no one else heard him recant before he died.
Nope. Tens of millions. Typo on my part.
From AnswersInGenesis? That's like getting a "fact check" on race from the KKK.
An excellent observation. Yes, science is based on evidence; religion is based on blind belief. (And it has to be blind; if it's not, you get excommunicated or put to death.)
You could look up the explanations yourself.
As far as I know, fossilized evidence of soft tissues has been found. But it is very rare, not "all over the earth" as you claimed. And it has no effect on the dating.
And it has nothing to do with Noah's ark.
David Fasold’s comments should be considered and weighed like anyone else’s.
He is either telling the truth or he is lying to protect himself from oppressive mind controlling scientific elites. I don’t know which?
Maybe he just didn’t want to loose his job and Career?
Or maybe he spoke the truth while everyone else was lying. A shining example of a human being.
Looking just at his credentials, for a second, do you think he really has the scientific background to authoritatively make all the claims he made?
I actually really appreciate his criticism, and the criticism and comments of others as well, both fer and agin, take your pick, concerning the Site, because they are motivating a renewed, even more thorough scientific investigation of the Site, to see if it holds up.
Was that a run-on sentence? Not sure?
See...
https://www.noahsarkscans.com/#project
So we will hopefully see if it is Noah’s Ark or not, in the next few years. I think it is really exciting!
But, I have a wait and see approach to the Site.
I just think it should be investigated, partly because I am not blinded by the existing scientific paradigms.
I am free to think about the possibility that it just might be Noah’s Ark.
You likely are not free to consider that possibility.
Last edited:
It is certainly like that inside the Catholic Church, exactly as you described. That is why I greatly despise the Catholic Church.
Perhaps we agree on that point?
It'll only be a problem as and when it is shown that the assumption (that it is impossible for soft-tissue to be fossilised from 68 million years ago) is correct.
They don't know it is impossible. Those who hold that assumption are doing so as a matter of belief, not based on the evidence. Science is already exploring how such fossilised remains of soft-tissues can be found from such a long time ago.
Correct.
It is constantly being updated. That is what the scientific method does. That is why, if it was ever assumed, as you claim, that such fossilisation of soft tissue was impossible, it no longer is. Conclusions based on such impossibility get that much weaker as a result, if not overturned entirely, depending on how many other assumptions they still rely on.
Indeed. Which is why science does it.
Says the one seeming unable to grasp that the science has moved on, that the assumption you claim they have (that they know it is impossible, etc) has been challenged by the new data, and new understanding has developed. Go figure.
What is corrupt is to base conclusions on assumptions known to be faulty, and expect the conclusion to be taken seriously.
Nothing has been surpressed. The scientific community has pushed forward its understanding of fossilised soft tissue as a result of the evidence. All is good.
Obviously there may be some individuals, or even organisations, who have their own agenda, and who might be guilty of "bad science", but then your issue would be with them specifically and not science itself.
Yep. And they are: "A natural rock structure near Dogubayazit, Turkey, has been misidentified as Noah's Ark. Microscopic studies of a supposed iron bracket show that it is derived from weathered volcanic minerals. Supposed metal-braced walls are natural concentrations of limonite and magnetite in steeply inclined sedimentary layers in the limbs of a doubly plunging syncline. Supposed fossilized gopherwood bark is crinkled metamorphosed peridotite. Fossiliferous limestone, interpreted as cross cutting the syncline, preclude the structure from being Noah's Ark because these supposed "Flood" deposits are younger than the "Ark." Anchor stones at Kazan (Arzap) are derived from local andesite and not from Mesopotamia."
Fair enough, and glad to see you understand the truth that those rocks were not Noah's Ark.
Sure. No fewer than 12 "Noah's Arks" have been "discovered" over the years, going all the way back to Assyrian king Sennacherib in 690BC. All the locations have been different. It's exciting in the same way that all the predictions about how the Earth was about to end were exciting. An excuse for frat parties, definitely!
It is quite possible that someday we will discover the vessel that the legend from Noah's Ark was based on. It is likely a raft that saved a farmer and some of his animals during the Black Sea Deluge, which happened around 4100BC. Here's what happened:
At the end of the last ice age, the Black Sea was a lake, fed by glaciers. As the glaciers retreated, the oceans rose (due to melting glaciers) but the Black Sea shrank (since the glaciers were moving farther and farther away.)
One day the rising Mediterranean finally spilled over a rocky ridge at Bosporus. This flooded 39,000 sq mi of land and significantly expanded the Black Sea shoreline to the north and west. 10 cubic miles of seawater poured through a day, 200 times the flow of Niagra Falls. The violence of this flow would have been incredible, eating away tons of rock and spewing water miles in every direction. The Black Sea would have risen rapidly and violently. Once the Black Sea was filled (a process that took a month or so) the violence would slow and then stop; the Black Sea would become a still body of water again.
Today researchers have found settlements underwater along the old shoreline of the Black Sea, indicating that this is fairly likely.
From the perspective of a farmer living on the Black Sea near the Bosporous, they would have seen a day when a roaring noise began, and they would have started feeling the water being spewed by the falls falling as rain. Then the water level would start rising, and coming closer to the farmer. If the farmer had the resources to build a raft large enough to hold his family and some farm animals, that solution would have seemed obvious (and perhaps their only option for survival, especially if the rain washed out roads.) He would have been pushed by the current for a month or so before the sea stopped rising. Then, with luck, he would have drifted to shore with his family, able to start again with the animals he saved.
A great story. Amplify that by 6000 years of oral tradition, transcription, translation and re-translation, and you have the Noah's Ark story. It even matches the Biblical account pretty closely. (Note that in the Bible, the sea rose only ~23 feet - enough to submerge all the hills the farmer could see on the plains around the Black Sea.)
So it's quite possible that someday you may find that raft. But since it will look like every other raft used on the Black Sea, it won't be that notable.
?? The opposite is true if you believe God is omniscient. Google Heisenberg's Uncertainly Principle for more information.
I’m pretty sure you are just a collection of mindless chemical reactions, that all have to happen no matter what. Just a collection of atoms bouncing into each other and interacting in predetermined ways.
That is Naturalism. That is Scientific Biology.
If that is all you are, then free will would be impossible.
The best you can get is the illusion or delusion of free will.
The only way free will can be real is if it is not bound by the Naturalistic limitations and constraints of the physical universe.
In other words the “Super” Natural would have to exist in order for free will to exist and be real.
Last edited:
Nope. Again, Heisenberg explained that you CANNOT know some things ahead of time. Not just that it's hard. It's impossible.
Again, no. That is a strawman you have constructed because you do not understand physics.