Regardless of faith: do you believe the bible is the word of god?

Another cool read is the archeological find of the possible "Noah's Ark"

I'm sure many have seen or read about this before; but I always like the reference.

 

I may have missed something, but I don't see anything from the book itself showing that it somehow treats evolution as gospel.

Evolution is a theory. It is currently the theory best supported by available evidence, which is still saying quite a bit. That doesn't mean it won't be contradicted by evidence in the future and revised or even scrapped -- science never claims to produce infallible answers -- and it isn't claiming that god was not involved. In fact, many Christians believe that evolution has been the brush with which God has painted life on Earth. (Science is silent on this matter, since it doesn't even attempt to answer the "why" questions). It is only claiming to be the best explanation based on current evidence.

The "THIS IS A THEORY" stickers are silly. Why aren't they demanding similar stickers for gravity? Or for quantum mechanics? Or for atomic theory? Why not just wrap the whole damn book in a sticker?

 

This video is pretty cool, explaining the connection of "Joseph" building the first pyramid.

[video=youtube;vaN2acVMGC8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaN2acVMGC8&feature=player_embedded#![/video]

Also explains Moses and being a figure in Egypt.

 

Any old boat dug up is Noah's ark. Any image of a dude in his thirties with long hair and a beard is a portrait of Jesus.

The book Forrest Gump is historically correct. I guess that proves the character Forrest Gump was real and did all that crazy stuff.

Aesop's Fables were written by a Greek slave at the same time the first testament was written. They cover all the worthwhile moral lessons that the bible(s) eventually covered (plagiarized?), but acknowledge the characters and stories are fictional devices used to illustrate a point rather than expect anyone to take them as literal fact. It is almost certain the bible was originally written with that intention.

 

Um, you are completely forgetting something. Like the "Dead Sea" scrolls; it's basically dated somewhere around 50 AD right? Don't you find it funny that the exact measurements in the bible, written thousands of years after the carbon date of this exact "boat LOL - being 500 ft long isn't a boat" is pretty interesting?

And why the hell would a 500 ft boat be constructed dated thousands of years BC? And even weirder. In an area that is so far from the nearest sea?

 

No stranger than boats today having specs listed in sales brochures.

As for 500' boats, that's how they built them back then. Their main use was for mass migration so dingies wouldn't do.

 

Really?!?!?! 500 ft boats dated back 6,000+ years?

You talk like people in the 6000-7000 B.C. had the means and technology to construct devices like this.

Please show me another archaeological find of other boats that size dated back then? How about instead of just theorizing your opinion; watch the video, the archaeologic evidence and then get back to me. You are talking from your ass more than your brain. You want actual evidence, then immediately discredit it without even reviewing the evidence. I think it's funny that you toss the label "Blind faith" on us, when you are proving "Blind pessimism". Kinda contradicting don't you agree?

You still haven't answered the question of actual scrolls found and dated around 40-85 A.D. explain historical events that happened thousands of years before it was written. Did they use a P.C. or Mac, and what excavations methods did the people of 40-85 BC use to know exact locations and talk of complete civilizations thousands of miles away from them?

 

As for the great flood destroying all life other than noah and a few mammals as "god" claimed he was doing, seems unlikely since 9/10ths of all life lives in the oceans.

Maybe god had a Doh! moment.

 

Wrong, he didn't say all life.

7 The LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them." --- This talks about animals on land, not sea. But thanks for proving once again that you aren't basing your opinion on actual facts. This fact being what the Bible actually says.

Are you just speaking from what you hear or what you read in the Bible?

 

Looks like you are having more of that "DoH" moment Maris61

 

All supposed noahs ark "finds" have been disproven. Not sure which one you are referring to.

 

Look at the link and come back to me. You may not being its Noah's ark but will you agree it's a 500 ft boat? Lol

 

God's very words, supposedly...

Genesis 6.17
And I, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; every thing that is in the earth shall perish.

Pretty sure most of the plants would do okay too.

 

You talk like they didn't, which is silly.

We're talking elementary carpentry here.

 

But you are right that there are many arguments that this isn't the ark. But I like looking at it because the arguments are fun to read. Did you review the other archeological finds?

 

Show me yours first, since the internet provides nothing resembling a credible find of Noah's ark.

As for the size of said boat...

Genesis 6-15
And this is how thou shalt make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

Genesis 6-16
A light shalt thou make to the ark, and to a cubit shalt thou finish it upward; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.

Cubits at that time were roughly 20-21 inches, so it's approximately 500 feet long.

Show me the boat.

 

Why didn't god show Noah how to build one of these?

http://www.google.com/search?q=paul...3KIHJiQKR2uy7Dw&ved=0CC0QsAQ&biw=1280&bih=685

 

Big old ships...

Athenaeus gives us a detailed description of a very large warship, built by Ptolemy Philopator (c. 244– - 205 BC). It was 130m (420 feet) long, 18m (57 feet) wide, and 22m (72 feet) high to the top of her gunwale. From the top of its sternpost to the water line was 24m (79.5 feet). In comparison the length of the Titanic was 243 m and the largest Oil Tanker around 485 m. It had four steering oars 14m (45 feet) long. It had 40 tiers of oars. The oars on the uppermost tier were 18m (57 feet) long. The oars were counter-balanced with lead to make them easier to handle though its size alone would impress and the broad deck would make a excellent weapons platform.. It had a double bow and a double stern and carried seven rams, of which one was the leader and the others were of gradually reducing size. It had 12 under-girders 275m (900 feet) long. The ship was manned by 400 sailors to handle the rigging and the sails, 4000 rowers and 2850 men in arms for a total of 7250 men. This ship was too large to be of much practical use. Some things of interest about this ship. First, there are no forests worth mentioning in Egypt. All the lumber had to be imported from elsewhere, likely Lebanon. This ship had a crew that was almost twice as large as that of the largest aircraft carrier we have ever built! Athenaeus describes other very large ships and boats of antiquity. One ship had a catapult designed by Archimedes that could hurl a 55 kg (120 pound) stone over 180 m (600 feet).

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/GiantShips.htm

 

It seems that even Christian scholars think little of Mr. Wyatt's findings:

http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/BoatShaped.html

http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/index.html

 

i didn't say it 'proves' anything, but symbiosis/mutualism is a *prediction* of the theory of evolution by environmental selection, not a conundrum for it. if true we would EXPECT to find these types of relationships in nature between different species that have evolved interacting together, each constituting part of the other's physical environment.

the video deliberately misrepresents this as a problem where one species exists as fixed (not changing) and the other enters the picture and must adapt to it, when in actuality according to the theory both species would be evolving together in tandem, building the relationship on both sides through selection of *both* species. both species are changing over time, not just one.

the trouble here is you need at least a basic understanding of what the theory actually says in order to recognize the difference between someone who knows what they are talking about (such as a working scientist) and bullshit youtube religious propaganda.