# Lifestyles & Discussion > Science & Technology >  Noah's Ark Open For the World to See

## Theocrat

Finally, there is an full-scaled exhibit detailing the historical and scientific explanations of the Genesis' account of the global flood. It's called the "Ark Encounter," and it's part of the Creation Museum in Williamstown, KY.

----------


## Zippyjuan

It includes dinosaurs too which weren't around at the time. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/us...-ham.html?_r=0




> *A Noah’s Ark in Kentucky, Dinosaurs Included*
> 
> WILLIAMSTOWN, Ky. — In the beginning, Ken Ham made the Creation Museum in northern Kentucky. And he saw that it was good at spreading his belief that the Bible is a book of history, the universe is only 6,000 years old, and evolution is wrong and is leading to our moral downfall.
> 
> And Mr. Ham said, let us build a gargantuan Noah’s ark only 45 minutes away to draw millions more visitors. And let it be constructed by Amish woodworkers, and financed with donations, junk bonds and tax rebates from the state of Kentucky. And let it hold an animatronic Noah and lifelike models of some of the creatures that came on board two-by-two, such as bears, short-necked giraffes — and juvenile Tyrannosaurus rexes.
> 
> And it was so.
> 
> Mr. Ham’s “Ark Encounter,” built at a *cost of more than $102 million*, is scheduled to open on July 7 in Williamstown, Ky. Mr. Ham and his crew have succeeded in erecting a colossal landmark and an ambitious promotional vehicle for their particular brand of Christian fundamentalism, known as “young earth” or “young universe” creationism.
> ...


Over 1000 people worked on it for overa year and used over three million boardfeet of hardwoods using modern tools, cranes, and equipment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_Encounter

Wonder how long it took Noah and his son to build his boat- hand cutting, shaping, and lifting into place.  Decades?

----------


## The Northbreather

Doesn't seem seaworthy

----------


## TheTexan

Most of the scientific evidence points to the earth being between 5000 and 7000 years old, so I guess 6000 years does make sense

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

I'll probably visit it while I still live in Kentucky.

----------


## erowe1

> It includes dinosaurs too which weren't around at the time.


Were you there?




> Over 1000 people worked on it for overa year and used over three million boardfeet of hardwoods using modern tools, cranes, and equipment. 
> 
> Wonder how long it took Noah and his son to build his boat- hand cutting, shaping, and lifting into place.  Decades?


The Bible says 120 years.

----------


## Suzanimal

I would like to see it. Although I believe the earth is older (and an oblate spheroid - thanks again, AF) and I don't think dinos were around then, I still believe there's a lot of truth in the story and, according to a documentary I saw, there is geological evidence of a great flood around the time of Noah.

----------


## torchbearer

*Ea leaks the secret plan[edit]*Utnapishtim tells Gilgamesh a secret story that begins in the old city of Shuruppak on the banks of the Euphrates River.The "great gods" Anu, Enlil, Ninurta, Ennugi, and Ea were sworn to secrecy about their plan to cause the flood.But the god Ea (Sumerian god Enki) repeated the plan to Utnapishtim through a reed wall in a reed house.Ea commanded Utnapishtim to demolish his house and build a boat, regardless of the cost, to keep living beings alive.The boat must have equal dimensions with corresponding width and length and be covered over like Apsu boats.Utnapishtim promised to do what Ea commanded.He asked Ea what he should say to the city elders and the population.Ea tells him to say that Enlil has rejected him and he can no longer reside in the city or set foot in Enlil's territory.He should also say that he will go down to the Apsu "to live with my lord Ea".Note: 'Apsu' can refer to a fresh water marsh near the temple of Ea/Enki at the city of Eridu.[9]Ea will provide abundant rain, a profusion of fowl and fish, and a wealthy harvest of wheat and bread.
*Building and launching the boat[edit]*Carpenters, reed workers, and other people assembled one morning.[missing lines]Five days later, Utnapishtim laid out the exterior walls of the boat of 120 cubits.The sides of the superstructure had equal lengths of 120 cubits. He also made a drawing of the interior structure.The boat had six decks [?] divided into seven and nine compartments.Water plugs were driven into the middle part.Punting poles and other necessary things were laid in.Three times 3,600 units of raw bitumen were melted in a kiln and three times 3,600 units of oil were used in addition to two times 3,600 units of oil that were stored in the boat.Oxen and sheep were slaughtered and ale, beer, oil, and wine were distributed to the workmen, like at a new year's festival.When the boat was finished, the launching was very difficult. A runway of poles was used to slide the boat into the water.Two-thirds of the boat was in the water.Utnapishtim loaded his silver and gold into the boat.He loaded "all the living beings that I had."His relatives and craftsmen, and "all the beasts and animals of the field" boarded the boat.The time arrived, as stated by the god Shamash, to seal the entry door.
*The storm[edit]*Early in the morning at dawn a black cloud arose from the horizon.The weather was frightful.Utnapishtim boarded the boat and entrusted the boat and its contents to his boatmaster Puzurammurri who sealed the entry.The thunder god Adad rumbled in the cloud and storm gods Shullar and Hanish went over mountains and land.Erragal pulled out the mooring poles and the dikes overflowed.The Annunnaki gods lit up the land with their lightning.There was stunned shock at Adad's deeds which turned everything to blackness. The land was shattered like a pot.All day long the south wind blew rapidly and the water overwhelmed the people like an attack.No one could see his fellows. They could not recognize each other in the torrent.The gods were frightened by the flood, and retreated up to the Anu heaven. They cowered like dogs lying by the outer wall.Ishtar shrieked like a woman in childbirth.The Mistress of the Gods wailed that the old days had turned to clay because "I said evil things in the Assembly of the Gods, ordering a catastrophe to destroy my people who fill the sea like fish."The other gods were weeping with her and sat sobbing with grief, their lips burning, parched with thirst.The flood and wind lasted six days and six nights, flattening the land.On the seventh day, the storm was pounding [intermittently?] like a woman in labor.
*Calm after the storm[edit]*The sea calmed and the whirlwind and flood stopped. All day long there was quiet. All humans had turned to clay.The terrain was as flat as a roof top. Utnapishtim opened a window and felt fresh air on his face.He fell to his knees and sat weeping, tears streaming down his face. He looked for coastlines at the horizon and saw a region of land.The boat lodged firmly on mount Nimush which held the boat for several days, allowing no swaying.On the seventh day he released a dove which flew away, but came back to him. He released a swallow, but it also came back to him.He released a raven which was able to eat and scratch, and did not circle back to the boat.He then sent his livestock out in various directions.
*The sacrifice[edit]*He sacrificed a sheep and offered incense at a mountainous ziggurat where he placed 14 sacrificial vessels and poured reeds, cedar, and myrtle into the fire.The gods smelled the sweet odor of the sacrificial animal and gathered like flies over the sacrifice.Then the great goddess arrived, lifted up her flies (beads), and said"Ye gods, as surely as I shall not forget this lapis lazuli [amulet] around my neck, I shall be mindful of these days and never forget them! The gods may come to the sacrificial offering. But Enlil may not come, because he brought about the flood and annihilated my people without considering [the consequences]."When Enlil arrived, he saw the boat and became furious at the Igigi gods. He said "Where did a living being escape? No man was to survive the annihilation!"Ninurta spoke to Enlil saying "Who else but Ea could do such a thing? It is Ea who knew all of our plans."Ea spoke to Enlil saying "It was you, the Sage of the Gods. How could _you_ bring about a flood without consideration?"Ea then accuses Enlil of sending a disproportionate punishment, and reminds him of the need for compassion.Ea denies leaking the god's secret plan to Atrahasis (= Utnapishtim), admitting only sending him a dream and deflecting Enlil's attention to the flood hero.
*The flood hero and his wife are granted immortality and transported far away[edit]*He then boards a boat and grasping Utnapishtim's hand, helps him and his wife aboard where they kneel. Standing between Utnapishtim and his wife, he touches their foreheads and blesses them. "Formerly Utnapishtim was a human being, but now he and his wife have become gods like us. Let Utnapishtim reside far away, at the mouth of the rivers."Utnapishtim and his wife are transported and settled at the "mouth of the rivers".

----------


## Zippyjuan

This author comes up with a different figure (and assumes that people like Noah could live for 600 years).  https://answersingenesis.org/bible-t...build-the-ark/




> Some confuse God’s statement in Genesis 6:3 as describing the time it took Noah to build the Ark. It says:
> 
> Genesis 6:3
> And the Lord said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."
> However, these 120 years are a countdown to the Flood.1 In other words, mankind’s violence had reached its peak and God declared that 120 years was the “drop dead” date for mankind who is a mortal being (Genesis 6:3-7 ). From a quick look, these 120 years would seem to be the absolute maximum for the time given to build the Ark, but the Scriptures reveal much more allowing us to be more accurate.
> 
> For example, Noah was 500 years old when Japheth, the first of his sons, was born (Genesis 5:32 ). And yet, Noah’s second son, Shem, had his first son two years after the Flood, when he was 100 ( Genesis 11:10).2 This means that Shem was 98 years old when the Flood came and it also means that Shem was born when Noah was 502 years old. So, for Noah to begin having children at 500 means that Japheth was indeed the older brother, as per Genesis 10:21, being born when Noah was 500. Ham is mentioned as the youngest of Noah (Genesis 9:24).
> 
> When God finally gave Noah instructions to build the Ark, it was not at the beginning of the 120 year countdown. God told Noah that he, his wife, and his three sons and their wives (Genesis 6:14–18)3 would go aboard the Ark at this same time.
> ...





> We would end up with a tentative range of about 55 to 75 years for a reasonable maximum time to build the Ark. Of course, it could be less than this depending on the age that Noah’s sons took wives.
> 
> Consider that the Ark was completed prior to loading the animals that the Lord brought to Noah (Genesis 7:1-4) and that they had to take time to gather food and store it aboard the Ark (Genesis 6:21). So carefully considering the text, we can conclude that the construction of the Ark did not involve the 120 years mentioned in Genesis 6:3 but 75 years at the most.


If Noah lived for 600 years and the earth is only 6,000 years old according to some believers, then Noah lived for ten percent of the time that the Earth even existed.  I think there are some translation issues as far as time in the Bible goes.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Is there an abnormally heavy rainstorm in the weather forecast?

----------


## Suzanimal

> Is there an abnormally heavy rainstorm in the weather forecast?


Didn't you see _Evan Almighty_? It could be a dam.

----------


## specsaregood

> I would like to see it. Although I believe the earth is older (and an oblate spheroid - thanks again, AF) and I don't think dinos were around then, I still believe there's a lot of truth in the story and, according to a documentary I saw, there is geological evidence of a great flood around the time of Noah.


It'd be a lot cooler if they had made it into an actual Zoo.  That'd i'd go see.

----------


## Suzanimal

> It'd be a lot cooler if they had made it into an actual Zoo.  That'd i'd go see.


That would be cool but the stuffed dinos would look pretty silly standing next to the live animals.

----------


## specsaregood

> That would be cool but the stuffed dinos would look pretty silly standing next to the live animals.


I've seen some pretty convincing animatronic dinos in the past couple years.

----------


## Suzanimal

> I've seen some pretty convincing animatronic dinos in the past couple years.


Oh, that would be cool. They needed you in the planning stages of this thing.

----------


## Theocrat

> I would like to see it. Although I believe the earth is older (and an oblate spheroid - thanks again, AF) and I don't think dinos were around then, I still believe there's a lot of truth in the story and, according to a documentary I saw, there is geological evidence of a great flood around the time of Noah.


Here's an explanation of how dinosaurs fit in with the account of "Noah's Ark":

----------


## TheTexan

> Here's an explanation of how dinosaurs fit in with the account of "Noah's Ark":


With a name like Dr Dino, he probably knows what he's talking about

----------


## Theocrat

> With a name like Dr Dino, he probably knows what he's talking about


Watch his seminar, and see for yourself.

----------


## TheTexan

> Watch his seminar, and see for yourself.


Yes, I'm watching it now.  I've reserved the next couple hours to finish part 3 of 7.  May stay up late and watch part 4 also.  Or part 2.  Havent decided yet.

----------


## Danke

> It includes dinosaurs too which weren't around at the time.


Neither was air conditioning...

----------


## Suzanimal

> Here's an explanation of how dinosaurs fit in with the account of "Noah's Ark":


I'll watch it when TheTexan's finished.

----------


## Theocrat

> Doesn't seem seaworthy





> Neither was air conditioning...


The purpose of the Ark Encounter is not to rebuild Noah's Ark so that it can be taken out to sea; it's craftily designed in order to show what the Ark may have looked like, given the Biblical dimensions described in Genesis. You're missing the main point of the exhibit's creation.

----------


## Theocrat

> It'd be a lot cooler if they had made it into an actual Zoo.  That'd i'd go see.


There is an actual zoo there. It's called "Ararat Ridge Zoo."

----------


## Danke

How did gays survive the great flood?  Didn't Noah bar them from his ship?

----------


## specsaregood

> There is an actual zoo there. It's called "Ararat Ridge Zoo."


That is not quite what I meant; but cool that they have that anyways.  That might get me to check it out on my next cross country trip, I'm a sucker for zoos.

----------


## Suzanimal

> That is not quite what I meant; but cool that they have that anyways.  That might get me to check it out on my next cross country trip, I'm a sucker for zoos.


The Atlanta Zoo is pretty good. I saw giraffes have sex there, once. Gigantic...

----------


## Danke

> The Atlanta Zoo is pretty good. I saw giraffes have sex there, once. Gigantic...


Isn't it past your bedtime?

----------


## Suzanimal

> Isn't it past your bedtime?


I think I took pictures. I'll show them to you when you come to Atlanta.

----------


## specsaregood

> The Atlanta Zoo is pretty good. I saw giraffes have sex there, once. Gigantic...


been there.   I saw a rhino pooping at the philly zoo once from about 10ft away, ass pointed right as me.  Gigantic.  it was life-altering.  imagine bunny berries, but watermelon sized.  I felt like I was looking at whatever the opposite of a black hole is, or maybe from the viewpoint from inside a blackhole.

----------


## Danke

> been there.   I saw a rhino pooping at the philly zoo once from about 10ft away, ass pointed right as me.  Gigantic.  it was life-altering.  imagine bunny berries, but watermelon sized.  I felt like I was looking at whatever the opposite of a black hole is, or maybe from the viewpoint from inside a blackhole.


Isn't it past your bedtime?

----------


## specsaregood

> Isn't it past your bedtime?


nope.  I sent DW away for the night to bring home the bacon.

----------


## Suzanimal

> been there.   I saw a rhino pooping at the philly zoo once from about 10ft away, ass pointed right as me.  Gigantic.  it was life-altering.  imagine bunny berries, but watermelon sized.  I felt like I was looking at whatever the opposite of a black hole is, or maybe from the viewpoint from inside a blackhole.


That's awesome! Were you too awestruck to take pics?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> How did gays survive the great flood?  Didn't Noah bar them from his ship?


Dayumn. You really can bring ghey into ANY thread.  Are you related to Scott Thompson?

----------


## Danke

> Dayumn. You really can bring ghey into ANY thread.  Are you related to Scott Thompson?


Just thinking of you my friend, and how your kind made it.

----------


## specsaregood

> That's awesome! Were you too awestruck to take pics?


It was like a UFO sighting, I was simply unprepared for it.

----------


## Suzanimal

> been there.   I saw a rhino pooping at the philly zoo once from about 10ft away, ass pointed right as me.  Gigantic.  it was life-altering.  imagine bunny berries, but watermelon sized.  I felt like I was looking at whatever the opposite of a black hole is, or maybe from the viewpoint from inside a blackhole.


Have you ever seen a sloth poop? It's crazy. I watched a youtube video on it. Seriously, look it up.

----------


## Dr.3D

* sniffs for elephants *

----------


## Suzanimal

> It was like a UFO sighting, I was simply unprepared for it.


 I lucked out when the giraffes started going at it. I had been taking pics of my kids when I noticed the lovemaking going on so I was ready.

----------


## specsaregood

> Have you ever seen a sloth poop? It's crazy. I watched a youtube video on it. Seriously, look it up.


ok, I just got tricked into watching 3 videos of sloths pooping.  the only things I took from the experience are:
1. wtf don't you just poop from the trees!?  I know I would
2. they need a squatty potty.

also to keep this on topic, cleaning the stalls on the arc would have been a pretty big job.

----------


## Suzanimal

> ok, I just got tricked into watching 3 videos of sloths pooping.  the only things I took from the experience is:
> 1. wtf don't you just poop from the trees!?  I know I would
> 2. they need a squatty potty.


 What about the part that it could kill them to poop? Was that not in your video?

----------


## specsaregood

> What about the part that it could kill them to poop? Was that not in your video?


I generally watch videos with the volume off.    but i just read about it.

----------


## Suzanimal

> I generally watch videos with the volume off.    but i just read about it.


Ah, sloth pooping isn't very exciting unless you're aware it's a life or death situation. I had to watch to make sure he lived.

----------


## Theocrat

> How did gays survive the great flood?  Didn't Noah bar them from his ship?


Obviously, gays would not have survived the Flood because they would have been drowned with the rest of the wicked. Of course, after a few generations, the hearts of men would turn away from God again and back towards their own lusts.

----------


## Danke

> Obviously, gays would not have survived the Flood because they would have been drowned with the rest of the wicked. Of course, after a few generations, the hearts of men would turn away from God again and back towards their own lusts.


How can a man who freely gives out ~hugs~ be considered "wicked?"

----------


## Theocrat

> We had an exciting day at the Ark Encounter today! Bill Nye, the Science Guy, who debated me here at the Creation Museum in 2014, came for a visit. A few weeks ago I publicly invited Mr. Nye for a friendly tour and offered to personally show him through the Ark if he would come. We were excited that he accepted my offerand our presence there together created quite a stir with other Ark guests.
> 
> As we walked through the Ark, we had a very passionate discussion. It was like the debate all over again but more intense at times. Though it did get tense due to our differences in worldviews, it was an amicable visit.


(More at this link)

For those of you who like Bill Nye, he and Ken Ham debated each other a couple of years ago, and it was easy to see how much of a statist Bill Nye is:

----------


## TheTexan

> I'll watch it when TheTexan's finished.


I'm done.  Ended up pulling an all-nighter, to watch the whole series.  It was that good.

----------


## oyarde

> Didn't you see _Evan Almighty_? It could be a dam.


Well , there was the Johnstown Flood 5/31/1889 (dam) . Death toll of 2209 if I recall .

----------


## Suzanimal

> I'm done.  Ended up pulling an all-nighter, to watch the whole series.  It was that good.


Can you give me the short version, I have to go buy food and go to Mass this afternoon. Does going to Mass get me out of watching the video? Because it got me out of Baptism classes once.

----------


## Theocrat

> Can you give me the short version, I have to go buy food and go to Mass this afternoon. Does going to Mass get me out of watching the video? Because it got me out of Baptism classes once.


Suzanimal, you seem to have a fascination about how the dinosaurs fit in with "Noah's Ark," so I would recommend that you watch the video that I posted before, entitled, "Dinosaurs and the Bible." It may open your eyes to some things that the public schools are afraid to teach.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Suzanimal, you seem to have a fascination about how the dinosaurs fit in with "Noah's Ark," so I would recommend that you watch the video that I posted before, entitled, "Dinosaurs and the Bible." It may open your eyes to some things that the public schools are afraid to teach.



You shamed me into watching it. I will watch it this afternoon and comment on it. I figure, I owe you that for talking about sloth poop and giraffe lovemaking in your nice thread.

----------


## erowe1

> How can a man who freely gives out ~hugs~ be considered "wicked?"


How can he not?

----------


## wizardwatson

> Suzanimal, you seem to have a fascination about how the dinosaurs fit in with "Noah's Ark," so I would recommend that you watch the video that I posted before, entitled, "Dinosaurs and the Bible." It may open your eyes to some things that the public schools are afraid to teach.


Don't know if you actually believe Earth is literally only 6000 years old (judging by video, which I didn't watch, so don't know if you are promoting) but I think Gerald Schroeder's (author of Science of God) has a convincing relativistic interpretation of creation time that is biblical and weaves the narrative in Genesis with current theories in cosmology.  I was quite impressed with his explanation.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Suzanimal, you seem to have a fascination about how the dinosaurs fit in with "Noah's Ark," so I would recommend that you watch the video that I posted before, entitled, "Dinosaurs and the Bible." It may open your eyes to some things that the public schools are afraid to teach.


I didn't forget about my promise to watch, I might have to put it off a couple of days, though.  I didn't realize it was that long and I was on the phone most of the day.

----------


## TheTexan

> I didn't forget about my promise to watch, I might have to put it off a couple of days, though.  I didn't realize it was that long and I was on the phone most of the day.


It will be worth your time I promise.

----------


## Theocrat

> Don't know if you actually believe Earth is literally only 6000 years old (judging by video, which I didn't watch, so don't know if you are promoting) but I think Gerald Schroeder's (author of Science of God) has a convincing relativistic interpretation of creation time that is biblical and weaves the narrative in Genesis with current theories in cosmology.  I was quite impressed with his explanation.


I do happen to believe that the universe is a little over 6,000 years old, but I have not heard of Gerald Schroeder's theory on creation. I would say, though, if he accepts that the universe is billions of years old, then he already has a flawed theory because there is no way to consistently fit "billions of years" into the Genesis account of creation.

----------


## liveandletlive

Many respectable, reasonable Christians dont take Genesis literally. I hope Ham doesnt give out the wrong impression here.

----------


## wizardwatson

> I do happen to believe that the universe is a little over 6,000 years old, but I have not heard of Gerald Schroeder's theory on creation. I would say, though, if he accepts that the universe is billions of years old, then he already has a flawed theory because there is no way to consistently fit "billions of years" into the Genesis account of creation.


Well, you should check it out.  Gerald Schroeder actually wrote a book called Science of God where he explains in detail, but he also created a 5 part video series (about 50 minutes total) where he narrates the whole core idea.  The videos are posted by user megawolf7 and are called "Gerald Schroeder, Big Bang, Genesis, Age of the Universe 1/5"... then 2/5, 3/5, etc.

Basically though, the universe "appears" to be 15 billion years old from your current frame of reference.  However, had you been around on "Day 1" after the Photon Epoch when light was literally separated from darkness (Genesis 1:4), the heat and density of the universe from THAT frame of reference would cause you to conclude that the universe of today is only 6 days old.

He backs up this assertion with a considerable amount of scripture, oral Torah, physics and math.  He is very educated, but also easy to understand.

Why 6 days old?  Because cosmologically, in the narrative of Genesis, we are still in day 6.  This is also a Hebrew belief as Day 7, the day of God's rest has not yet occurred.  It corresponds to the millenial kingdom, according to many.

Be happy to elaborate for you and the benefit of other readers, but you can grok his entire thesis with 50 minutes of video which has great illustrations.

----------


## Zippyjuan

The Bible we have today is many oral generations old and then a further many translations separated from the original story. Details change as they go from person to person.   Units may be different as well. What was listed as a "year" for say Noah's life of 600 years may have been lunar months which would have him more like 50 when he died.  

They did find discrepancies between the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls on the height of the Goliath. That had him at about 6' 6" while some texts have him over nine feet tall so details have changed over time. 

http://www.biblestudymagazine.com/ex...-old-testament




> First Samuel 17:4 notes that Goliath’s height was measured at “six cubits and one span,” about nine feet, six inches. That measurement comes from one Hebrew manuscript tradition, known as the Masoretic text, a text that was fixed around 100 AD by the Jewish community in Israel. We know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that there were other editions of the Hebrew Bible. One of those was the Hebrew text from which the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament,1 was translated. The Septuagint at times disagrees with the Masoretic text. The Septuagint has the height of Goliath at four cubits and one span, or about six feet, six inches. The only Hebrew text of 1 Sam 17:4 found among the Dead Sea Scrolls also reads “four,” and the Jewish historian Josephus describes Goliath as, “a man of vast bulk, for he was of four cubits and a span in tallness.


Details depend on who is telling the story.  Some stories are also allegorical rather than historical- more important for their message than the small details. Jesus often used parables to give a message to the faithful.  It was a common teaching method.

----------


## oyarde

There is the Taylor Trail , Glen Rose ,Texas . The Paluxy River bed . It is a fossil of human tracks and Dino tracks . Certainly people do not think every single animal died ? It is possible that there are still some survivors in the Congo .

----------


## Zippyjuan

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/17/sc...nosaurian.html




> *FOSSILS OF 'MAN TRACKS' SHOWN TO BE DINOSAURIAN*
> 
> IN a new analysis of giant fossil footprints in a Texas riverbed, paleontologists have concluded that there is no evidence of human prints mingled with those of dinosaurs. The finding, they said, undermines a key argument advanced by religious fundamentalists who have cited the ''man tracks'' as scientific evidence of a relatively recent, divine creation of life on earth, in keeping with a literal interpretation of the Bible.
> 
> But the discovery has left paleontologists mystified anew about an important aspect of dinosaur behavior: the way they walked.
> 
> Scientists called the discovery an ''exciting development'' in their running dispute with those fundamentalists, known as scientific creationists, who argue that the biblical account of creation should be taught in schools on an equal basis with the Darwinian theory of evolution.
> 
> Confronted with these findings,* a leader of the scientific creationists conceded that the tracks could no longer be ''regarded as unquestionably human.''* A movie incorporating the disputed tracks, ''Footprints in Stone,'' produced by the Films for Christ Association, has been withdrawn from circulation as a document in support of divine creation. 5-Year Investigation What specialists in dinosaur studies have reported finding are clear traces of dinosaur toes associated with the so-called ''man tracks'' along the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Tex., southwest of Fort Worth. The discovery was described by scientists who visited the site early this month and reviewed the results of a five-year investigation of the tracks by Glen J. Kuban, an expert on dinosaur footprints.
> ...





> Two summers ago, pursuing the investigation, Mr. Kuban said he found evidence that ''practically jumped out at you.'' Ronnie J. Hastings, a high school science teacher from Waxahachie, Tex., made a similar discovery at about the same time. Almost every one of the alleged human tracks, they found, was accompanied by distinct colorations in the rock that, upon detailed analysis, revealed* the pattern of dinosaurian digits.*
> 
> The colorations ranged from blue-gray to rust, in contrast to the ivory to tan color of the surrounding limestone bearing the rest of the fossil footprint. To Mr. Kuban and scientists who had a look, this suggested that the digit impressions were somehow filled in with sediments different from those in the rest of the track. These sediments later hardened to rock. This phenomenon presumably went undetected until exposure to air and flood waters from the river eroded the surface and contributed to oxidation processes.
> 
> Mr. Kuban said a careful re-examination of color pictures taken by creationist investigators and used as a basis for their arguments revealed that some traces of the coloration and some actual impressions had been detectable all along. He said this tended to rule out the possibility of some kind of hoax.


More at link.

----------


## georgiaboy

> The Bible we have today is many oral generations old and then a further many translations separated from the original story. Details change as they go from person to person.   Units may be different as well. What was listed as a "year" for say Noah's life of 600 years may have been lunar months which would have him more like 50 when he died.  
> 
> They did find discrepancies between the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls on the height of the Goliath. That had him at about 6' 6" while some texts have him over nine feet tall so details have changed over time. 
> 
> http://www.biblestudymagazine.com/ex...-old-testament
> 
> Details depend on who is telling the story.  Some stories are also allegorical rather than historical- more important for their message than the small details. Jesus often used parables to give a message to the faithful.  It was a common teaching method.


Zip - i mean really, you're going with "the Bible can't be trusted" argument?  What ridiculous hogwash.  Old arguments that just don't hold water, pun intended, debunked many times over.

The Bible is the most reliable ancient document in the world, period.  No other ancient manuscripts hold a candle in terms of number of extant manuscripts, validation against other historical texts, archaeology, validation when compared against itself, internal validation, etc.    No other document has been criticized as much and come through with shining colors as the Bible.

If you throw this kind of silly doubt at the Bible, then you have nothing on which to base any view of ancient history, for the rest of antiquity is pieced together with the barest pieces of surviving literature, as compared to the treasure trove that is the mountain of flawless manuscripts of the Bible.

By the way, Jesus reference Noah specifically, as did other New Testament writers. He's mentioned there as a man to admire.  So yeah, if Jesus believed in the man who built the ark and, together with his family, survived the global flood, then so do I.

Lastly - you don't have to just look at the Bible for evidence of a global flood.  It's documented by various cultures around the world in ancient documents outside the Bible - or maybe you don't consider them reliable either.

----------


## BamaAla

> It will be worth your time I promise.


Joy. About half way through our Freshman year, my roommate fell into this religious cult and came home with all of Kent Hovind's videos with title like "Lies in the Textbooks" and about 200 pamphlets telling you that you would go to hell if you read anything other than the King James Bible. Unfortunately, I have watched all of "Dr." Hovind's videos multiple times.

----------


## TER

> Zip - i mean really, you're going with "the Bible can't be trusted" argument?  What ridiculous hogwash.  Old arguments that just don't hold water, pun intended, debunked many times over.
> 
> The Bible is the most reliable ancient document in the world, period.  No other ancient manuscripts hold a candle in terms of number of extant manuscripts, validation against other historical texts, archaeology, validation when compared against itself, internal validation, etc.    No other document has been criticized as much and come through with shining colors as the Bible.
> 
> If you throw this kind of silly doubt at the Bible, then you have nothing on which to base any view of ancient history, for the rest of antiquity is pieced together with the barest pieces of surviving literature, as compared to the treasure trove that is the mountain of flawless manuscripts of the Bible.
> 
> By the way, Jesus reference Noah specifically, as did other New Testament writers. He's mentioned there as a man to admire.  So yeah, if Jesus believed in the man who built the ark and, together with his family, survived the global flood, then so do I.
> 
> Lastly - you don't have to just look at the Bible for evidence of a global flood.  It's documented by various cultures around the world in ancient documents outside the Bible - or maybe you don't consider them reliable either.


Zippy is not Christian, so his opinion will be against the Bible.  He thinks he is smarter than that.

----------


## Zippyjuan

One can believe in the messages of the Bible without believing that every thing in it was literally true.

----------


## jllundqu

This is just sad.

I know many here believe the creation myth, and that's ok.

But to celebrate scientific ignorance is something I feel compelled to speak about.  The Earth is not 6000 years old.  Sorry.  I know your special book says otherwise, but math is math.

Also, you're ok worshipping a god that would murder the entire world and all it's animals out of spite?

And BTW this particular myth is a ripoff of the Epic of Gilgamesh from many years before Noah.

And people don't live to be 600 years old.

And I own a trilobite fossil from 450 million years ago.

What did the carnivores eat?  The other animals on the ship??  lol

And even scientists who are Christians have had to concede the fact that this 'story' is simply that.... a metaphor and a story.  There was no flood.  There was no ark.

and this:

----------


## wizardwatson

> This is just sad.
> 
> I know many here believe the creation myth, and that's ok.
> 
> But to celebrate scientific ignorance is something I feel compelled to speak about.  The Earth is not 6000 years old.  Sorry.  I know your special book says otherwise, but math is math.
> 
> Also, you're ok worshipping a god that would murder the entire world and all it's animals out of spite?
> 
> And BTW this particular myth is a ripoff of the Epic of Gilgamesh from many years before Noah.
> ...


Have you seen Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs?  Because that's pretty much what was happening when the Hebrews were wandering in Sinai and getting bread from heaven.  Did you hear the one about a virgin conceiving?  Walking on water?  Joshua asking God to stop the sun from moving?  The 10 plagues of Egypt?  How about the dude who brought a guy back from the dead after he'd already been buried for days and was decomposing, only later to bring himself back from the dead?

Whenever I hear someone ask about things of minor miraculous consideration, I have to wonder if you are asking seriously, or if your intent is simply to mock.  If your intent is to mock, why reach for such high fruit as what the animals on the ark ate, when there's far easier things to mock considering Noah actually could have fed the animals by simply stocking supplies and no miracle would actually be required.

The entire intellectual debate presupposes the existence of an all-powerful God.  I actually consider the moral objections to what God does, or moral objections to the world He created a much better starting point than the existence of miracles which are really childs play to a living God.

But it seems no one is really interested in intellectual debate, but rather in mocking and separating themselves into "smarties" and "dummies".  That's why the popular atheists are professional mockers like Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens, and Ricky Gervais, people who make them feel good about being an atheist rather than people who strengthen the argument behind being an atheist.  Actual intellectual believers like Blaise Pascal, and Leo Tolstoy I guess are just looney tunes rather than dummies.

As for your "math is math" thing, I actually answered this 6000 year dilemmna in post #57.

As I said, moral questions are better starting point for intellectual debate, so the part of your post that actually interests me is the part where you say, *"Also, you're ok worshipping a god that would murder the entire world and all it's animals out of spite?"*

How can we judge God for doing what he wants with his creation?  Especially considering he controls the soul as well as the body?  His property, his law.  What's more, Noah's flood is merciful compared to the explicit punishment God intends to deal out during the tribulation.  But again there, we don't know what future life is in store for all those you and others consider victims.

All this stems from the heathen understanding which can't get past "why would God allow suffering?"  God not only allows it, he is the cause of it, and takes credit for it personally many times in scripture.

The God of Abraham is not the feely good hippy that wants to be your friend no matter what and will give you everything you want as long as you worship him, and tells you that you'll live forever no matter what.  That's the other guy.

----------


## wizardwatson

> One can believe in the messages of the Bible without believing that every thing in it was literally true.


The hardest thing to believe is the most important.




> John 6 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. 28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, *This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.*


If you don't believe the central premise of the story, then saying you believe in "messages" and denying all the stories is just a manifestation of not believing in general.

The story of Noah and the ark points to Christ.  Noah's ark and the ark that held the tablets are linked and both refer to Christ.  These stories are not accidents are not included by random chance telling some random history.  Christ mentions Noah, and Lot, and Jonah in the fish.  

Point is, Christ being who he says he is and come to do what he says he came to do, is far more earth shattering than a flooded earth or a guy stuck in a whale.  If you believe in Christ, sure lets discuss how the reality Noah's Ark might be possible, but if you aren't a believer in the most amazing revelation of the bible, the Lamb of God, what's the point in discussing the reality of the less amazing revelations like a bunch of water and animals on a boat?

----------


## jllundqu

> Have you seen Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs?  Because that's pretty much what was happening when the Hebrews were wandering in Sinai and getting bread from heaven.  Did you hear the one about a virgin conceiving?  Walking on water?  Joshua asking God to stop the sun from moving?  The 10 plagues of Egypt?  How about the dude who brought a guy back from the dead after he'd already been buried for days and was decomposing, only later to bring himself back from the dead?
> 
> Whenever I hear someone ask about things of minor miraculous consideration, I have to wonder if you are asking seriously, or if your intent is simply to mock.  If your intent is to mock, why reach for such high fruit as what the animals on the ark ate, when there's far easier things to mock considering Noah actually could have fed the animals by simply stocking supplies and no miracle would actually be required.
> 
> The entire intellectual debate presupposes the existence of an all-powerful God.  I actually consider the moral objections to what God does, or moral objections to the world He created a much better starting point than the existence of miracles which are really childs play to a living God.
> 
> But it seems no one is really interested in intellectual debate, but rather in mocking and separating themselves into "smarties" and "dummies".  That's why the popular atheists are professional mockers like Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens, and Ricky Gervais, people who make them feel good about being an atheist rather than people who strengthen the argument behind being an atheist.  Actual intellectual believers like Blaise Pascal, and Leo Tolstoy I guess are just looney tunes rather than dummies.
> 
> As for your "math is math" thing, I actually answered this 6000 year dilemmna in post #57.
> ...


The OP was about the Ark... so yes, ALL the supposed 'miracles' in the bible I think are BS and I could spend all day talking about why I've come to that conclusion.

Also, you seem to have falsely deduced that I am an atheist... not so.  I simply can't even come close to buying what Christianity is selling, from a scientific standpoint, especially the YEC stuff.

And you spelled it out exactly correct.  To a Christian, god owns you.  "His property, His Law"  This is a celestial north korea IMO.  In your view, god made me sick (sin) and commands me to be well under penalty of eternal torture.  That is no God I would want to believe in.

----------


## wizardwatson

> The OP was about the Ark... so yes, ALL the supposed 'miracles' in the bible I think are BS and I could spend all day talking about why I've come to that conclusion.
> 
> Also, you seem to have falsely deduced that I am an atheist... not so.  I simply can't even come close to buying what Christianity is selling, from a scientific standpoint, especially the YEC stuff.
> 
> And you spelled it out exactly correct.  To a Christian, god owns you.  "His property, His Law"  This is a celestial north korea IMO.  In your view, god made me sick (sin) and commands me to be well under penalty of eternal torture.  That is no God I would want to believe in.


God's law is that you reap what you sow.  I don't believe in eternal torture because you can't sow anything to deserve it.

You will die if you don't believe in Christ.  For certain.  Many will die that do.  But all get resurrected, albeit in different ways.  This teaching that if you don't believe in Christ you suffer eternally is a blasphemy of the truth perpetuated by false teachers.

Simpler given the proliferation of false teaching to stick with "reap what you sow" for people who are mostly familiar and offended by polluted doctrine.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Also, you seem to have falsely deduced that I am an atheist... not so.  I simply can't even come close to buying what Christianity is selling, from a scientific standpoint, especially the YEC stuff.


If you don't believe in a living God, I would consider you an atheist.  A lot of people these days seem to thing Eastern philosophy and mysticism disqualifies them as an atheist.  But Buddhists and Taoists are still atheists if they don't believe in God.  Netiher Buddhism nor Taoism presuppose or exclude belief in a God.  You can practice Buddhism and still be a Christian or an atheist.

God has a specific meaning.

Theism:  belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

Atheism:  disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

So if you are not an atheist, if that is "not so" as you say, then what is the name of your God?

----------


## jllundqu

> If you don't believe in a living God, I would consider you an atheist.  A lot of people these days seem to thing Eastern philosophy and mysticism disqualifies them as an atheist.  But Buddhists and Taoists are still atheists if they don't believe in God.  Netiher Buddhism nor Taoism presuppose or exclude belief in a God.  You can practice Buddhism and still be a Christian or an atheist.
> 
> God has a specific meaning.
> 
> Theism:  belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.
> 
> Atheism:  disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
> 
> So if you are not an atheist, if that is "not so" as you say, then what is the name of your God?


I would say I fall squarely into the Deist camp, ala Thomas Jefferson.  There is a God... but he (it?) most certainly doesn't intervene in human affairs.

----------


## wizardwatson

> I would say I fall squarely into the Deist camp, ala Thomas Jefferson.  There is a God... but he (it?) most certainly doesn't intervene in human affairs.


I do love to talk about this stuff, but I feel we're getting away from Noah's ark discussion into more general religious questions, and I'd rather not pollute Theocrat's thread, especially since he made a point not to put it in Peace Through Religion Subforum.  Glad to move discussion over there if you want to bump one of those old threads, but I think I'll stop on this one now.  Thanx!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> How can he not?


Easy-hugs are benevolent and good for you!   ~hugs~

----------


## Theocrat

> The OP was about the Ark... so yes, ALL the supposed 'miracles' in the bible I think are BS and I could spend all day talking about why I've come to that conclusion.
> 
> Also, you seem to have falsely deduced that I am an atheist... not so.  I simply can't even come close to buying what Christianity is selling, from a scientific standpoint, especially the YEC stuff.
> 
> And you spelled it out exactly correct.  To a Christian, god owns you.  "His property, His Law"  This is a celestial north korea IMO.  In your view, god made me sick (sin) and commands me to be well under penalty of eternal torture.  That is no God I would want to believe in.


I'm just curious as to whether or not you've visited the Ark Encounter yet. Ken Ham is one of the world's most renown scholars on "Noah's Ark" and the Genesis account of the global flood. I'm sure that many of your objections and questions can be answered just by visiting the Ark Encounter and seriously considering the information provided, using assumptions of your creationist opponents.

But therein lies the dilemma. You can't accept those assumptions because your worldview starts with another assumption, which states that only naturalistic explanations of the universe can be allowed in natural science. That assumption, itself, is not based on the methodologies of the natural sciences, though; it is a philosophical assertion based on one's beliefs about metaphysical realities. The reason why that's important to grasp is because *all* evidences are interpreted by a person's philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality. It's not that we creationists do not have evidence that can be shown scientifically to support a global flood; it's just that evolutionists have a counter assumption on what the nature of evidence ought to be about such things.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> You can't accept those assumptions because your worldview starts with another assumption, which states that only naturalistic explanations of the universe can be allowed in natural science.


This is a reasonable assumption, because the alternative (that there are supernatural explanations or that we're just brains in vats) means we cannot predict anything with any degree of certainty.  Will the sun appear to rise in the east tomorrow?  Maybe not -- God might cause the earth to stop rotating as He allegedly did in Joshua 10:13 and suspend the laws of physics such that the calamitous results of such an action didn't occur.  Will a child die without a blood transfusion?  Maybe not -- God might cure him, so there's no need to resort to a medical technique that allegedly violates His Word.  Should I bet half of my assets on a 1000-1 underdog in a sporting event?  Maybe so -- after all, didn't God cause the US Olympic hockey team to defeat the godless Soviets in 1980?

----------


## TheTexan

> Easy-hugs are benevolent and good for you!   ~hugs~


Just be careful not to get any HTDs

----------


## jllundqu

> I'm just curious as to whether or not you've visited the Ark Encounter yet. Ken Ham is one of the world's most renown scholars on "Noah's Ark" and the Genesis account of the global flood. I'm sure that many of your objections and questions can be answered just by visiting the Ark Encounter and seriously considering the information provided, using assumptions of your creationist opponents.
> 
> But therein lies the dilemma. You can't accept those assumptions because your worldview starts with another assumption, which states that only naturalistic explanations of the universe can be allowed in natural science. That assumption, itself, is not based on the methodologies of the natural sciences, though; it is a philosophical assertion based on one's beliefs about metaphysical realities. The reason why that's important to grasp is because *all* evidences are interpreted by a person's philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality. It's not that we creationists do not have evidence that can be shown scientifically to support a global flood; it's just that evolutionists have a counter assumption on what the nature of evidence ought to be about such things.


I am a simple man.  I am not an atheist, more of a deist.  I came to my beliefs by actually studying and reading the bible.  All the supernatural mumbo jumbo in the bible, especially the old testament, is just silly to me as a thinking person.  God-sanctioned mass murder, genocide, rape, etc.??  Virgin births, raising the dead, living to be 600 yrs old... to me it is literally no different than people who believe Thor made the world with his hammer or Zeus casting lightning bolts from Mt. Olympus... Iron age myths that MAN created to explain what science hadn't figured out yet.  Did God send a plague because a certain group wouldn't prostrate themselves accordingly? No, we now know with certainty how diseases are spread.  Did God cause the solar eclipse? No, we know with certainty the physics of our solar system.  Did God cause the earthquake because he was angry?  No, we know with certainty the movement of tectonic plates and geological formation.  Almost everywhere people used to invoke deity, we now know and have a scientific explanation for.  The YEC crowd is such a dwindling minority because it makes no sense to take your cues on geology, physics, plate tectonics, microbiology, and the like from a bunch of near-illiterate peasants from 2000 years ago who knew nothing about it.

For me, God has to fit into the natural world, not the other way around.  If I can do a simple experiment to determine the trilobite fossil I own is 450-million years old, EXTRAORDINARY PROOF is necessary to convince me it is 6000 years old.  Pointing to Genesis and Ham's Ark is not extraordinary proof, it's a joke.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I am a simple man.  I am not an atheist, more of a deist.  I came to my beliefs by actually studying and reading the bible.  All the supernatural mumbo jumbo in the bible, especially the old testament, is just silly to me as a thinking person.  God-sanctioned mass murder, genocide, rape, etc.??  Virgin births, raising the dead, living to be 600 yrs old... to me it is literally no different than people who believe Thor made the world with his hammer or Zeus casting lightning bolts from Mt. Olympus... Iron age myths that MAN created to explain what science hadn't figured out yet.  Did God send a plague because a certain group wouldn't prostrate themselves accordingly? No, we now know with certainty how diseases are spread.  Did God cause the solar eclipse? No, we know with certainty the physics of our solar system.  Did God cause the earthquake because he was angry?  No, we know with certainty the movement of tectonic plates and geological formation.  Almost everywhere people used to invoke deity, we now know and have a scientific explanation for.  The YEC crowd is such a dwindling minority because it makes no sense to take your cues on geology, physics, plate tectonics, microbiology, and the like from a bunch of near-illiterate peasants from 2000 years ago who knew nothing about it.
> *
> For me, God has to fit into the natural world, not the other way around.*  If I can do a simple experiment to determine the trilobite fossil I own is 450-million years old, EXTRAORDINARY PROOF is necessary to convince me it is 6000 years old.  Pointing to Genesis and Ham's Ark is not extraordinary proof, it's a joke.


If God has to conform to your (very limited-as any scientist will admit) possible understanding of the universe, He's not really God. That would be an anthropomorphized deity with numerous human flaws like Zeus. Yes?

----------


## jllundqu

> If God has to conform to your (very limited-as any scientist will admit) possible understanding of the universe, He's not really God. That would be an anthropomorphized deity with numerous human flaws like Zeus. Yes?


To your point.  If God is timeless and all-knowing and all-powerful... how would anyone know it?  Do you have some inside information that I am not privy to?  Do you really trust the second-hand tales of people that lived 2000 years ago?  How do you not require at least some measure of verification as to your belief system.  At least in mine, I have scientific evidence, backed by basic math, to inform my beliefs, which are not atheistic, but my beliefs MUST incorporate verifiable and repeatable scientific facts such as the geological age of the Earth, the origins of life, the age of the universe, etc.

Question:  If you were born in India, and raised as a Hindu, would you not believe as a Hindu?  Same for muslim countries or whatever.  It's all arbitrary and based on archaic writings and not one single piece of verifiable evidence save some hearsay and second-hand accounts.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> To your point. If God is timeless and all-knowing and all-powerful... how would anyone know it?


 The same way anyone knows anything-epistemology. Mine happens to be Eastern Orthodox. Yours is the Cult Of Science. To each his own.





> Do you have some inside information that I am not privy to?


 Depends. A lot of literature I like is obscure in the West, but it's readily available on amazon and so on.





> Do you really trust the second-hand tales of people that lived 2000 years ago?


 If you mean the classical literature of the Toarah, Tanakh, and Wisdom literature, it's a big mix of literary genres. Some is literally true, some are fiction with Wisdom to them(like Tobit) but all of it foreshadows the NT-which is full of literal Truth.  





> How do you not require at least some measure of verification as to your belief system. At least in mine, I have scientific evidence, backed by basic math, to inform my beliefs, which are not atheistic, but my beliefs MUST incorporate verifiable and repeatable scientific facts such as the geological age of the Earth, the origins of life, the age of the universe, etc.


 The biblical canon is one of the best studied and best sourced in human history. Certainly the best understood in antiquity.




> Question: If you were born in India, and raised as a Hindu, would you not believe as a Hindu? Same for muslim countries or whatever. It's all arbitrary and based on archaic writings and not one single piece of verifiable evidence save some hearsay and second-hand accounts.


You should take a course on Biblical literature. You don't really understand what you're talking about.

----------


## wizardwatson

> To your point.  If God is timeless and all-knowing and all-powerful... how would anyone know it?  Do you have some inside information that I am not privy to?  Do you really trust the second-hand tales of people that lived 2000 years ago?  How do you not require at least some measure of verification as to your belief system.  At least in mine, I have scientific evidence, backed by basic math, to inform my beliefs, which are not atheistic, but my beliefs MUST incorporate verifiable and repeatable scientific facts such as the geological age of the Earth, the origins of life, the age of the universe, etc.
> 
> Question:  If you were born in India, and raised as a Hindu, would you not believe as a Hindu?  Same for muslim countries or whatever.  It's all arbitrary and based on archaic writings and not one single piece of verifiable evidence save some hearsay and second-hand accounts.


You say in a couple posts before this, you are a deist.  Deism is not based on scientific observation.  It's a reasoned conclusion.  Christianity is no less a reasoned conclusion.

You seem to think that "scientific evidence" or obvervation has a lot to do with someone's metaphysical beliefs, but it really doesn't.  Theocrat tried to point this out to you when talking about working assumptions.

Even if the God of Abraham was standing right in front of you, how would he change your beliefs?  What "proof" could he give you of His reality that you could not claim was a trick or a deception by an evil agent "pretending" to be God?  Indeed this is precisely what occurred to Christ according to scripture.

This generation will have an even harder time believing during the apocalypse than during Christ's time.  For then they said, "who but God could do such things?"  But our scientific understanding has progressed to such an extent that many will imagine other sources for the power that God displays.  Aliens, mutations, secret government technology, etc.  Not only has scientific understanding increased but so has knowledge of the Word of God, and thus when things start happening, the reality of the God of Abraham is the last thing any "thinking man" will want to believe.  It will be a source of dread and fear.

Because "thinking men" think God is a murderous psycho who drowns babies and crucifies his Son for abstract reasons.  The "kid with the magnifying glass" analogy doesn't really go far enough.  People's rejection of Christianity has caused them to most remember and point out the things about the Father that are scary and repulsive at first glance.  Which will only increase the dread and fear when the 6th seal is opened and all signs point to that Being as the culprit.

Anyway, that's the way it's meant to be really.  Not called the "Terrible Day of the Lord" for nothing.


I digress..

This is why it is necessary to seek the truth sincerely with a clear mind and without an agenda.  Not that you aren't, mind you, but realize it also says that no one comes to believe in Christ unless drawn by the Father.  

Why?  Is God a douchey butthole that purposely keeps people seeking the truth away from the real truth "out of spite"?  

I like to think of it, especially in these last days, in the way Jesus saw the blind man he cured.  His disciples asked him when they saw the blind man, "Who sinned to make this man blind?  Him or his fathers?", because it is written that God also punishes children to the third and fourth generation for the sins of the fathers.  But Jesus said, "Neither, but he is blind so that the glory of God can be revealed."  Then he cures his blindness, and it causes quite a scandal.

It is my belief that there are many sincere seekers out there that are kept from the truth of Christ for the same reason this blind man was made blind.  So that in the end times God is glorified in them when they come to believe when all the things come to pass.

*"And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, saith the Lord GOD, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes."*

*"Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth."*

Anyway, don't focus so much on "scientific verification".  That's only useful for comparing theories about states of matter, future and past.  Reason, truth, and moral matters are on another field entirely and trying to discredit the latter via the former shows lack of understanding.




> One can never really give a proof of the reality of anything; reality is not something open to proof, it is something established. It is established just because proof is not enough. It is this characteristic of language, at once indispensable and inadequate, which shows the reality of the external world. - Simone Weil

----------


## goldenequity

Believers in 'the Flood'
*are believers in 'Catastrophism'* 
(that 'what we see' in Geology/Fossil Record is the result of Catastrophic influence and impact.. i.e. the 'flood'/massive hydrologic forces
and
that they would necessarily have had to 'happen' ALL AT ONCE)

the opposing view
necessarily rejects it (it MUST reject it)
*and is called 'Uniformitarianism'* and here is its definition:
It states that current geologic processes, 
occurring at the same rates observed today, 
in the same manner, 
account for all of Earth's geological features.

Something as simple as this
is a problem for them: Bent Sedimentary Rocks... all across the earth.

----------


## bunklocoempire

lol The Bible kicks ass. 

_The Fall of Man

      1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, Indeed, has God said, You shall not eat from any tree of the garden? 2 The woman said to the serpent, From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die. 4 The serpent said to the woman, You surely will not die! 5 For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. 6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings._

_Did God really say? _   Oldest trick in the Book.    

What is supposed to be the advantage to a Christian like me or others, to limiting my God's power?  What is reasonable about that to a Christian who is not of this world and realizes that the Word divides and brings conflict (naturally), yet the Word also gives an individual peace?

Are the "advantages" similar to _not_ believing in 100% liberty, or maybe not believing in 100% non-aggression?

Fallen Man:  _God?  An all powerful God?  Derp, I'm going to give into my rebellious nature and "rebel" some more, here's an idea for a less powerful god, I think it will help with humility derp, you should be "reasonable" and give it a try._ 

God:  Uh, thanks for proving my point

Fallen Man:  _Wait a minute!  Prove your point?  I'm talking translations and $#@!! "Proving your point" is just a literary trick for my actions to prove your point! _ 

God:   I understand you like to limit the idea of peace, liberty, and love as well... now that's a real trick,  -Hey man.

Fallen Man:  _Yeah, what?_

God:  _"Rebellion"_  -you're doing it wrong.

Fallen Man:
 







  Limiting everything and anything pertaining to righteous ideas, is what fallen man has ever been all about, right from the beginning.
Hillary, Trump, and Johnson is the biggest flippin' clue in _my_ lifetime.

----------


## goldenequity

Uniformitarianism approximates sedimentary layers 'form'
at the 'approximate rate' of about 1 cm per 1,000 years.
Some of these trees extend through 30 feet of sediment.
That's a problem.

----------


## Suzanimal

I'm going to listen to the video tonight.

----------


## bunklocoempire

> Uniformitarianism approximates sedimentary layers 'form'
> at the 'approximate rate' of about 1 cm per 1,000 years.
> Some of these trees extend through 30 feet of sediment.
> That's a problem.


Yes, catastrophism.  Mortal man isn't really big on accepting his lack of control, many exploit this.

My 7th & 8th grade teacher was from Washington state, and we got to explore catastrophism relating to the aftermath of the 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption.  The realization of many logs getting "heavy" and sinking on one end was amazing for this kid. 
 In 35+ years, it's really the only place I've come across this tree thing, without actively seeking it out.



If anyone has been exposed to the "sinking trees" in their lifetime, without actively seeking it, I'd like to know.  Curious.
_Am I the only mushroom?_

----------


## Zippyjuan

If the Earth is 6,000 years old, the Garden of Eden must have been in Sweden. http://www.boredpanda.com/worlds-old...tjikko-sweden/




> *9,500-Year-Old Tree Found in Sweden Is The World’s Oldest Tree*
> 
> The world’s oldest tree, a 9,500-year-old Norwegian Spruce named “Old Tjikko,” after Professor Leif Kullman’s Siberian husky, continues to grow in Sweden. Discovered in 2004 by Kullman, professor of Physical Geography at Umeå University, the age of the tree was determined using carbon-14 dating.
> “During the ice age sea level was 120 meters lower than today and much of what is now the North Sea in the waters between England and Norway was at that time forest,” Professor Kullman told Aftonbladet. Winds and low temperatures made Old Tjikko “like a bonsai tree…Big trees cannot get as old as this.”

----------


## Theocrat

> This is a reasonable assumption, because the alternative (that there are supernatural explanations or that we're just brains in vats) means we cannot predict anything with any degree of certainty.  Will the sun appear to rise in the east tomorrow?  Maybe not -- God might cause the earth to stop rotating as He allegedly did in Joshua 10:13 and suspend the laws of physics such that the calamitous results of such an action didn't occur.  Will a child die without a blood transfusion?  Maybe not -- God might cure him, so there's no need to resort to a medical technique that allegedly violates His Word.  Should I bet half of my assets on a 1000-1 underdog in a sporting event?  Maybe so -- after all, didn't God cause the US Olympic hockey team to defeat the godless Soviets in 1980?


You've missed my point, though. The assumption that only naturalistic explanations can be allowed in the natural sciences is *not* scientifically-based; that statement is based on a person's precommitment to the philosophy of naturalism. How can you prove the validity and reliability of that assumption from the natural sciences, Sonny Tufts? You simply cannot do so without begging the question.

In the natural sciences, the principle of induction is used, that is, reasoning from past experiences to explain present and future phenomena or making inferences from particular cases to a general case. However, naturalism cannot account for the use of induction in the natural sciences because it always takes for granted causation without a rational reason for appealing to it, especially in a universe that is supposedly always evolving. In fact, atheist philosophers such as the 18th Century philosopher David Hume, denied causation on the grounds that whenever it is assumed, it is based on experience, which begs the question, causing one to reason circularly. Thus, Hume denied causation, and in so doing, he undermined the principle of induction, without which, natural science cannot be possible.

So, if one denies that supernatural explanations cannot be allowed in the natural sciences, then, ultimately, they are left with the alternative to reject the principle of induction. And if one rejects induction, then one cannot study the natural sciences. Naturalism (with its assumption that only naturalistic explanations can be allowed in the natural sciences) gives us no foundation to trust the laws in nature nor to appeal to the predictability of natural phenomena. The only way naturalists can be successful in the natural sciences, then, is to borrow assumptions about nature from supernaturalism, which in this case, is the Christian worldview.

When you say that appealing to supernatural explanations leaves us with no certainty about the predicting anything in nature, and then, for an example, question whether the sun might rise in the east tomorrow (because God made the sun and moon stand still once), you need to realize what you're assuming about God. In Scripture, God doesn't cause miracles to happen in nature arbitrarily, for He always has a revealed explanation of their use, which is to vindicate His messenger or His people as belonging to Himself before witnesses. Otherwise, we can accept the reliability of the laws of nature because they are established by an unchanging God. In fact, all of the scientists who established the scientific disciplines that we enjoy today were creationists, so God's use of miracles was no problem for them in their studies and successes in the natural sciences.

----------


## Theocrat

> For me, God has to fit into the natural world, not the other way around.  If I can do a simple experiment to determine the trilobite fossil I own is 450-million years old, EXTRAORDINARY PROOF is necessary to convince me it is 6000 years old.  Pointing to Genesis and Ham's Ark is not extraordinary proof, it's a joke.


Thank you for proving my point. What you've confessed above "gives the game away." You won't accept *any* evidence until God is described by the natural world, but, once again, you need to understand that the demand, "God has to fit into the natural world," cannot, itself, be verified by the methods used in the natural sciences. In effect, you are appealing to a *non-scientific concept* in order to make your own assertion about what God has to be. So, you're not refuting any evidence that proves there was a global flood; you're simply stating the basis on which *you believe* evidences of God's work must be established, in accordance with your Deist assumptions about the nature of God.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> The assumption that only naturalistic explanations can be allowed in the natural sciences is *not* scientifically-based; that statement is based on a person's precommitment to the philosophy of naturalism.


I never said it was scientifically based; I simply said it's a reasonable assumption.  Any further assumption of a supernatural explanation would violate Occam's Razor -- it is unnecessary.  This is reminiscient of the apocryphal story of the French scientist Pierre Simon Laplace, who upon presenting Napoleon with a copy of his work on celestial mechanics was asked by the Emperor why he had not mentioned God anywhere in the work.  Laplace replied, "I had no need of that hypothesis."




> In the natural sciences, the principle of induction is used, that is, reasoning from past experiences to explain present and future phenomena or making inferences from particular cases to a general case. However, naturalism cannot account for the use of induction in the natural sciences because it always takes for granted causation without a rational reason for appealing to it, especially in a universe that is supposedly always evolving. In fact, atheist philosophers such as the 18th Century philosopher David Hume, denied causation on the grounds that whenever it is assumed, it is based on experience, which begs the question, causing one to reason circularly. Thus, Hume denied causation, and in so doing, he undermined the principle of induction, without which, natural science cannot be possible.


Yet Hume, you, and everyone else on the planet relies on induction and behaves as if causation exists.  If I were to drop a 50 pound weight right above your foot, would you, Hume, or anyone else not draw your foot back?  Ask yourself why you would behave in this manner if causation doesn't exist and induction is unreliable.




> So, if one denies that supernatural explanations cannot be allowed in the natural sciences, then, ultimately, they are left with the alternative to reject the principle of induction.


This doesn't follow at all.   The assumption that there's an external reality that we can observe and reason about doesn't require the further assumption of a supernatural cause that validates our sense experience.  




> we can accept the reliability of the laws of nature because they are established by an unchanging God.


That is your unprovable assumption.  It's also a bit inconsistent, given that the God depicted in the Old Testament is much different than the one in the New Testament.  The God who would command us to "love thy neighbor as thyself" would hardly have ordered the genocides in the OT.

----------


## erowe1

> There is a God... but he (it?) most certainly doesn't intervene in human affairs.


This religious conviction, which you adopted by a leap of blind faith, is behind everything else you've said. Answering every single objection you have is as simple as rejecting this premise.

----------


## erowe1

> This doesn't follow at all.   The assumption that there's an external reality that we can observe and reason about doesn't require the further assumption of a supernatural cause that validates our sense experience.


It's not the assumption that an external reality exists that we can observe and reason about that requires God. It's the assumption that your reasoning is trustworthy that requires God. On the assumption of naturalism, your own reasoning, being the results of purposeless causes, would not be trustworthy.

Really, nobody needs to have God's existence proven to them, they just need to be honest with themselves that they already know he exists.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Was there an ancient global deluge, mass extinction event? Who/what land creatures survived? When? How? How deep did the water get? Higher than the Himalaya peaks? The Alps, the Andes? Where did it all go afterward?

(This is the kind of inquiry (among some others) that eventually got me dis-invited from Sunday school.  )

----------


## erowe1

> Was there an ancient global deluge, mass extinction event? Who/what land creatures survived? When? How? How deep did the water get? Higher than the Himalaya peaks?  The Alps, the Andes? Where did it all go afterward?


The water that's on the earth now could easily cover the tops of all the mountains, just not at the heights that they are now, nor with the oceans being as deep as they are now. Flatten out all the land, and the earth's surface would be 100% covered with water.

----------


## goldenequity

So....
The man in the funny hat was pointing over the rail at the silvery snaking river
at the very, very bottom of the most biggest GINORMOUS hole you've ever seen
and telling all the people gathered around in their Hawaiian shirts and sunglasses...
that it was the Colorado River and across just SO MUCH TIME... you just CAN'T imagine
how much time... well... it just Carved and Carved and Carved on the hard rocky rock...
and just kept carving and carving.. and THAT'S how we got the BIGGEST hole
in the whole wide world.
and then...
that's when the little girl walked up.

She just kept tugging on his coat... and of course, minding her manners.
When the man in the funny hat finally stopped and looked down...
She asked a simple question:
*"Where's all the dirt?"
(that's a problem too.)*

============================================

**at the bottom of every major river system on earth is
a Delta.... the Mississippi, the Ganges, the Nile etc. *HERE*

*There is NO DELTA* at the 'bottom' of the Colorado River which,
supposedly did all that 'carving' and formed the biggest hole on Earth.
*The depositions should be MASSIVE*.... dried or wet.
Depositions of any substance
are simply not there... not current; not past.

*REMEMBER:*
No Catastrophes No Cataclysms... *only 'slow & steady'* has to explain it.
Where's all the dirt? 
1,000 *cubic miles* of 'slow & steady' sediment

----------


## Zippyjuan

> The water that's on the earth now could easily cover the tops of all the mountains, just not at the heights that they are now, nor with the oceans being as deep as they are now. Flatten out all the land, and the earth's surface would be 100% covered with water.


Of course if the Earth is only 6,000 years old, that great rising of the Himalayas must have happened in just a few thousand years. 

IF the earth was flat, why wasn't the land all covered in water before the 40 days and 40 nights of rain? Did the land sink in those 40 days? Did the bottom of the oceans rise up?   The water had to come from someplace to be drawn up in to the sky, condense, and fall as rain.

----------


## erowe1

> Did the land sink in those 40 days? Did the bottom of the oceans rise up?


Most likely, yes.

And then, at the end of the flood, God caused the land to be more varied in elevation again, with the water congregating in the oceans.




> The water had to come from someplace to be drawn up in to the sky, condense, and fall as rain.


It didn't only come down from above, it also came up from below.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> On the assumption of naturalism, your own reasoning, being the results of purposeless causes, would not be trustworthy.


I don't see how this follows at all.

----------


## erowe1

> I don't see how this follows at all.


It follows because your thoughts would have to be produced by a purposeless mechanism that has no interest in the concept of truth. This problem is especially apparent if you accept the theory of evolution. But I don't think there's any naturalistic alternative to evolution that could avoid it either. If you want to see this argued out in detail, see various works by Alvin Plantinga (and others), summarized here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolut...nst_naturalism

----------


## Suzanimal

I'm listening. The part about grizzlies in Ga was spot on, lol. He's actually rather entertaining.





> Here's an explanation of how dinosaurs fit in with the account of "Noah's Ark":

----------


## Suzanimal

Nessie? Really? All these spottings and not one clear photo.

He makes a lot of good points in the video and he was very entertaining but I'm not convinced.


And what's wrong with watching people drink on tv? What if it's a show about the wedding at Cana?

----------


## goldenequity

> Yes, catastrophism.  Mortal man isn't really big on accepting his lack of control, many exploit this.
> 
> My 7th & 8th grade teacher was from Washington state, and we got to explore catastrophism relating to the aftermath of the 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption.  The realization of many logs getting "heavy" and sinking on one end was amazing for this kid. 
>  In 35+ years, it's really the only place I've come across this tree thing, without actively seeking it out.
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone has been exposed to the "sinking trees" in their lifetime, without actively seeking it, I'd like to know.  Curious.
> _Am I the only mushroom?_


This covers the 'sinking trees' and 'where's all the dirt' 




=========================

*Dr. Walter Brown's* *HydroPlate Theory* (that's where Hovind GOT the concepts from)

This is a VERY brief overview by an 'older' Dr. Brown
(and I mean VERY brief... REAMS of material have been written that further expand and explain
the full impact of the hydroplate theory that cover stuff like 'crustal lightening' influencing/changing radiometric dating etc.
Just depends on how curious and how deep you want to dig.)




I saw him in the 80's.... he looked more like this




======================

*Hydroplate Theory*

He turns 79 this year and lives in Phoenix, Arizona. 




> *Here is how Brown summarizes this theory:*
> 
>     The hydroplate theory has three starting assumptions. All else follows from them and the laws of physics. Proposed explanations for past events always have some initial conditions. Usually they are not mentioned.
> 
> *Assumption 1: Subterranean Water.* About half the water now in the oceans was once in interconnected chambers about 10 miles below the entire earth’s surface. At thousands of locations, the chamber’s sagging ceiling pressed against the chamber’s floor. These solid contacts will be called pillars.The average thickness of the subterranean water was at least ¾ mile. Above the subterranean water was a granite crust; beneath that water was earth’s mantle. [See Figure 54.]
> 
> *Assumption 2: A Global Continent.* The earth’s preflood crust encircled the globe. On the crust were deep and shallow seas, and mountains, generally smaller than those of today, but some perhaps 5,000 feet high.
> 
> *Assumption 3: An Initial Crack.* A small initial crack occurred in the earth’s crust. (Later, several ways this crack could have started will be mentioned.) The basic forces that quickly propagated the crack around the earth will soon be explained. (pages 123-124)
> ...

----------


## goldenequity

This one goes deeper and stays on target 
taking the time necessary
to explain some of the nuances of the Rupture, Flood, Drift and Recovery phases..
the mid oceanic rifts, hydro tectonics etc.

In this excerpt video by Bob Enyart are compiled 'snips' from a seminar
promoting/contrasting the hydroplate theory over competing biblical/creation theories
like catastrophic plate tectonics theory (CPT) and the vapor canopy theory.




**(*for Bible Students/Christians:* a critical/in-depth teaching on *'the firmament'* of Day 2 is *HERE*  


> (*Email:* From Walt Brown to Bob Enyart on March 22, 2005: "Dear Bob, I like your proposal concerning *Genesis 1:8a*, and after much thought, have decided to include it [in the 8th edition of In the Beginning]. I have credited Pastor Diego Rodriguez and you as the originators of this very attractive explanation. ... Thank you for sending me your explanation. -Walt")


Enyart references and quotes from a seminal work (Genesis Flood, 1st Creation Science book I ever read... that's like dictionary thick)
by the GODFATHER of Catastrophism: *Dr. Henry Morris, The Genesis Flood, 1961 / The Genesis Record, 1976*
 
*How deep do you want to go?*
Want to get into the Z-pinch and the heavy elements?? 
(origins of radioactivity... but, but... that would include Carbon dating!!! yep.  )




Awesome that this guy is animating and explaining what was previously only in print.
This one is only 6 days old.




*His channel:* https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGB...NCI8ppLIQOHmFg

=================================

Here is Dr. Walter Brown's book online:
*In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, 8th edition, 2008*
This book online is 'textbook' size and can't be tackled in one sitting... maybe a 'chapter'
here's one of my favorite *pages*.

----------


## Theocrat

Once again, secular humanists prove how they don't want any other religious worldview to compete with their own by preempting free speech. They are trying to convince public schools to not have field trips to the Ark Encounter, but what is the harm in having students presented with another perspective that may get them thinking differently about what they've been taught in the public schools (Yes, I know we shouldn't have public schools, but that's beside the point...)?

Shouldn't secularists be thrilled to have students visit places like the Ark Encounter, where the assumptions and evidences for a global flood can be challenged in the public's eye, even if it discredits their work? I thought secularist humanists were "free-thinkers," after all. They sure are going through a lot of pains to keep people away from a supposed myth instead of opening a dialogue in the pursuit of truth, no matter where the evidences lie. It smells like fear, to me.

Ken Ham writes:




> The secularist group Freedom From Religion Foundation (FRFF) is once again engaged in bullying tactics to thwart the First Amendments guarantee of freedom of religion and free exercise of religion under the Constitution. Here is another instance of the FFRF attempting to intimidate public schools.
> 
> FFRF published a press release with the headline: FFRF Warning More Than 1,000 School Districts About New Noahs Ark.
> 
> In the article, they stated:
> 
> The Freedom From Religion Foundation is advising public schools in more than 1,000 school districts against visiting a new religious theme park. . . . FFRF is already receiving inquiries from concerned parents that overzealous teachers or principals may mistakenly believe it appropriate to schedule school-related trips to the Ark Encounter, as has happened with the Creation Museum. In order to allay such concerns and to remind public schools of their constitutional obligations, it is sending a memo to every school district in Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, West Virginia and Ohio.
> Actually, FFRF is undermining or encouraging the violation of the First Amendment by bullying school districts with this threat. (Their usual threatening technique is to try to intimidate people to do what FFRF wantsnot what the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees!)


Read more about it here.

----------


## Theocrat

> Nessie? Really? All these spottings and not one clear photo.
> 
> He makes a lot of good points in the video and he was very entertaining but I'm not convinced.
> 
> 
> And what's wrong with watching people drink on tv? What if it's a show about the wedding at Cana?


Yeah, I don't agree with Dr. Hovind on many theological points, especially as his ones against alcohol consumption. But, nonetheless, you should watch his other seminars to get a full scope on what he's talking about.

With the Loch Ness Monster, it's not like people have their cameras ready when a sighting happens, just like when an accident occurs no one can take a picture of the actual accident. It's an unexpected event, so you would not expect there to be many photos of sightings like the Loch Ness Monster. But the fact that there are so many accounts of seeing plesiosaurian creatures all around the world is quite compelling that such creatures still exist today.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Which way to the dinosaurs and unicorns exhibits?

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> what is the harm in having students presented with another perspective that may get them thinking differently about what they've been taught in the public schools


Would you feel the same way if the field trip was to a mosque, a Buddhist temple, or an atheist reading room?

----------


## Theocrat

> Which way to the dinosaurs and unicorns exhibits?


You find them here.

----------


## Theocrat

> Would you feel the same way if the field trip was to a mosque, a Buddhist temple, or an atheist reading room?


Yes.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> also to keep this on topic, cleaning the stalls on the arc would have been a pretty big job.


... We had to wash all the animals we had to feed them too
We were merely human slaves in a big floating zoo ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-82ubie58E

----------


## Suzanimal

> Yeah, I don't agree with Dr. Hovind on many theological points, especially as his ones against alcohol consumption. But, nonetheless, you should watch his other seminars to get a full scope on what he's talking about.
> 
> With the Loch Ness Monster, it's not like people have their cameras ready when a sighting happens, just like when an accident occurs no one can take a picture of the actual accident. It's an unexpected event, so you would not expect there to be many photos of sightings like the Loch Ness Monster. But the fact that there are so many accounts of seeing plesiosaurian creatures all around the world is quite compelling that such creatures still exist today.


Been to Loch Ness and everyone there had a camera looking for the monster.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Been to Loch Ness and everyone there had a camera looking for the monster.


200,000 people visit a year.  Surely somebody would have seen and photographed something. They have also scanned the entire loch from one end to the other and found no evidence of a large creature. 
http://www.gizmag.com/robot-underwater-nessie/42800/




> There have been sporadic sightings of what is purported to be the Loch Ness Monster since the first recorded encounter by St Columba in 565 AD. After a supposed photograph was taken in 1933, public interest in some sort of large, dinosaur-like creature making its home in the Highlands skyrocketed, and in the decades since the loch has been subjected to sonar scans, submersible hunts, hydrophone surveys, and enough photographs taken above and below the surface to wallpaper the Grand Canyon.
> 
> However, despite all this effort, no conclusive evidence for the existence of Nessie, as it is nicknamed, has ever been found.


Coelacanths and sharks are the closest thing to "living dinosaurs" we have today.  Or crocs and alligators.

----------


## Suzanimal

> 200,000 people visit a year.  Surely somebody would have seen and photographed something. They have also scanned the entire loch from one end to the other and found no evidence of a large creature. 
> http://www.gizmag.com/robot-underwater-nessie/42800/
> 
> 
> 
> Coelacanths and sharks are the closest thing to "living dinosaurs" we have today.  Or crocs and alligators.


They have a big fake Nessie right there by the water.

----------

