Real Science Radio: The Search for Noah's Ark

[Lordkalvan]

How many did he make? Do you have any idea how many there are? You don't have to guess. You are so far out in left field it doesn't matter. The reason for claiming aliens is the farmer didn't produce the stones. And they know it. So they cook up the other story. Just like the USG letting people chase the aliens that don't exist in Area 51, to thwart what is really there.

It was (and still is, as far as I know), a thriving cottage industry. But I am sure you prefer your conspiracy theory to any actual critical analysis of the Ica Stones. Even if some are genuine archaeological artefacts, the likelihood that they are interpreted with a healthy dose of confirmation bias remains a major consideration in theories advanced about their origins.

 

[gcthomas]

How many did he make? Do you have any idea how many there are? You don't have to guess. You are so far out in left field it doesn't matter. ...

You sound like the supporters of Uri Geller, the spoon bender. When believers are shown that Geller's 'gifts' can be replicated by ordinary stage magicians, they respond with, "yes, we know, but that's not how Uri does it. He has the gift."

So now you say something like 'Yes, I know that this man made them. But the OTHERS are real!!'.

Hopeful. And a little sad.

(Nick: when you said "repent" along with the neg rep for laughing at Stripe, did you really mean repent from laughing at Stripe? Or was there another purpose for your action?)

 

[Lighthouse]

I think you need to pay more attention yourself to your post that I was responding to:

'I don't know if this is bad logic or just bad grammar, but evidence not being found does not mean the evidence is non-extant, or did not once exist; nor does it mean the story is not true.

To prove the story false one would have to actually find evidence that proved the opposite true.'

I don't see anything there that constitutes an argument that 'if one already believes something to be true then the absence of proof of said belief is not going to lead them to stop believing it.' Rather, I see statements that my comments were entirely appropriate to and followed logically from.

It's not my fault you can't follow a conversation to recognize subtext and implication.

 

[Lordkalvan]

It's not my fault you can't follow a conversation to recognize subtext and implication.

Ah, so now it is others' responsibility to understand what you really mean when you write something - and their fault for failing to comprehend your intention - rather than supposing that what you write is actually what you mean? Got it.

 

[Nick M]

You sound like the supporters of Uri Geller, the spoon bender.

He is a con artist godless heathen like you. You are an absoulte buffoon. Don't change the subject.


People have seen this. That is how the drawings exist.

Because of this, people call this mountain, Ararat. It is Masis in Armenian. That is the only question. What is it?

 

[Nick M]

So now you say something like 'Yes, I know that this man made them. But the OTHERS are real!!'.

See, he does know that a few are fake, because the heathen put them there. He knows the patina is positive on stones with dinos. Sucks to be your hell bound self.

 

[Lordkalvan]

He is a con artist godless heathen like you. You are an absoulte buffoon. Don't change the subject.


People have seen this. That is how the drawings exist.

http://host.jwcinc.net/1170501/hagopianpainting197601.jpg

Because of this, people call this mountain, Ararat. It is Masis in Armenian. That is the only question. What is it?

A joke?

 

[gcthomas]

He is a con artist godless heathen like you. You are an absoulte buffoon. Don't change the subject.


People have seen this. That is how the drawings exist.

http://host.jwcinc.net/1170501/hagopianpainting197601.jpg

Because of this, people call this mountain, Ararat. It is Masis in Armenian. That is the only question. What is it?

The paintings are based on the testimony of an elderly man who claims to have boarded the ark seventy years earlier when he was ten. Any evidence he wasn't a fantasist?

 

[Nick M]

Any evidence he wasn't a fantasist?

What sort of evidence would that be? Money, seeking fame? What if he takes nothing and shuns publicity?

This is it, incase you wonder. The only question, is what is it?

 

[Nick M]

It was (and still is, as far as I know), a thriving cottage industry.

You think I care about the stones? Man was created a day after the dinosaurs. They lived together. There is eyewitness descriptions of sauropods. Which you have read, and try to think up reasons to discredit. But sadly, you are way off.

Besides, dry your eyes. You want to go to hell, and you will. You can curse God all you want when you get there.

 

[Lordkalvan]

What sort of evidence would that be? Money, seeking fame? What if he takes nothing and shuns publicity?

And this would exclude him being a fantasist how, exactly?

This is it, incase you wonder. The only question, is what is it?

Clearly not a legendary vessel from a mythical morality tale, any more than the constellation Argo is the Argo itself.

 

[Lordkalvan]

You think I care about the stones?

Apparently, as you introduced the topic.

Man was created a day after the dinosaurs. They lived together.

Which explains the frequent occurrence of human and dinosaur fossils found together. Oh, wait....

There is eyewitness descriptions of sauropods.

For example?

Which you have read, and try to think up reasons to discredit.

So now you know what I've read? Perhaps you can tell me?

But sadly, you are way off.

Way off what?

Besides, dry your eyes. You want to go to hell, and you will. You can curse God all you want when you get there.

It's ironic how quickly threats are resorted to when particular opinions are challenged. It's also instructive how ready you are to speak on God's behalf. Perhaps this concept of God you put forward is nothing so much as an alter ego you have invented for yourself.

 

[Lighthouse]

Ah, so now it is others' responsibility to understand what you really mean when you write something - and their fault for failing to comprehend your intention - rather than supposing that what you write is actually what you mean? Got it.

I did mean what I wrote. What are you talking about?

 

[gcthomas]

I did mean what I wrote?

Would you like me to answer that question isince you are not sure?

 

[Lordkalvan]

I did mean what I wrote. What are you talking about?

Can I point out again that what you wrote (and what prompted my original comment) was this:

'I don't know if this is bad logic or just bad grammar, but evidence not being found does not mean the evidence is non-extant, or did not once exist; nor does it mean the story is not true.

To prove the story false one would have to actually find evidence that proved the opposite true.'

That you then asserted that what you had said was that 'if one already believes something to be true then the absence of proof of said belief is not going to lead them to stop believing it.' And when I pointed out that this was not obvious from your original post you rather pointedly suggested that the fault in not understanding your true meaning was not your own for failing to make this clear, but rather mine for not being able to 'follow a conversation to recognize subtext and implication.'

 

[Letsargue]

Hi Paulos, yes, I couldn't agree with you more: that is a big "if". That's why I used that word. I don't expect that the Ark will be found. But I hope that it will be.

BTW, there are fields of pillow lava that our associates have photographed, videotaped, and hiked over, far up the mountain. And this is textbook pillow lava, which of course forms under water.

But because I've enjoyed interacting with Fool for many years, more in the past than nowadays, what I'm interested in is Stripe's question to him.

Fool, what will you do if that wooden ocean liner is found at 15,000 feet on Ararat?

Thanks guys!

-Bob E.

If these so called scientists can’t find the slightest trace of the Temple, what makes anyone think that the “Truth” is an existence anyhow?? – Prove that God existed, or Christ in reality, and not in only the "Truth" of God, which is just what is Written in the Scriptures. – Truth is the Word Written, and what is “true” is altogether something else!! – Truth does not really have to be (( True )); just that God said it for our learning of Him. --- What is Truth, and what is true?? --- ( Mark 4:34 KJV ) ---//-- Every Word in the Scriptures are revealed by Him; thus all are Parables, including Noah, David, Paul, Adam, and of course the Sower that never really sowed anything but the Words of the Parables!! – You all, and the scientists can’t even Prove that Jesus ever existed, except in the Truth of the Scriptures, and that, we are to have Faith in God, Even if it is not SO, Truly!!!

To believe God, Even knowing that something is not True is truly Faith!!!

Paul -- 070713

 

[Lighthouse]

Can I point out again that what you wrote (and what prompted my original comment) was this:

'I don't know if this is bad logic or just bad grammar, but evidence not being found does not mean the evidence is non-extant, or did not once exist; nor does it mean the story is not true.

To prove the story false one would have to actually find evidence that proved the opposite true.'

That you then asserted that what you had said was that 'if one already believes something to be true then the absence of proof of said belief is not going to lead them to stop believing it.' And when I pointed out that this was not obvious from your original post you rather pointedly suggested that the fault in not understanding your true meaning was not your own for failing to make this clear, but rather mine for not being able to 'follow a conversation to recognize subtext and implication.'

And?

 

[Lordkalvan]

And?

I was responding to what you actually wrote, not to any supposed 'subtext and implication' that I was apparently supposed to realise was what you were really meaning to convey.

 

[Letsargue]

Can I point out again that what you wrote (and what prompted my original comment) was this:

'I don't know if this is bad logic or just bad grammar, but evidence not being found does not mean the evidence is non-extant, or did not once exist; nor does it mean the story is not true.

To prove the story false one would have to actually find evidence that proved the opposite true.'

That you then asserted that what you had said was that 'if one already believes something to be true then the absence of proof of said belief is not going to lead them to stop believing it.' And when I pointed out that this was not obvious from your original post you rather pointedly suggested that the fault in not understanding your true meaning was not your own for failing to make this clear, but rather mine for not being able to 'follow a conversation to recognize subtext and implication.'

(( Evidence ))!! -- IS (( "Evidence" )), that something (( "Evidently" )) Was!!! - If there Is no "Evidence", then "Evidently" It Wasn't!!! - Then there IS NO (( "Evidence" )) to assume that it did exist!!! -- (( WOW ))!!!

Paul -- 070913

 

[xAvarice]

(( Evidence ))!! -- IS (( "Evidence" )), that something (( "Evidently" )) Was!!! - If there Is no "Evidence", then "Evidently" It Wasn't!!! - Then there IS NO (( "Evidence" )) to assume that it did exist!!! -- (( WOW ))!!!

Paul -- 070913

You reduce our IQ with every bracket.