Not that it matters, but Armitage doesn't have a PhD. He is best described as "some dude".
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence of NOAH's FLOOD
- Thread starter Little Nipper
- Start date
Trees aren't living things? That's a new way of changing the story to try and make it fit reality I guess.
Is this what you do? Laugh off, what you can’t explain?
I don’t accept all of the claims in the show either, but when other parties verify the claims, it should be considered worthy of study.
I guess you “laugh off” every posters on here who’s had interactions & conversations with entities in the spirit realm, also, huh?
Just ignore it right? Maybe it’ll go away?
That may be the explanation. For the period of the flood, everything in the world didn't count as living things and that is why they survived. But then, why put them on the ark. So many questions. So few answers that don't require obscure, controversial and uncharacterized evidence that must be evidence for the flood, but can't be shown to be. But doubt is the gap that keeps it all alive. Doubt is the ark that keeps what is wanted or could be afloat in the flood of reason.
Have you ever actually read that story, since the KJV and the Hebrew bible and Young's literal translation clearly say that the flood which drowned most of Noah's family was only 15 cubits high, and why it had no effect on the olive tree from which a leaf was plucked by Noah's pet bird (Gen 8:11)? Which is why kangaroos and sloths are not native to the Middle East.
Doesn't change the fact that the bible says the olive tree from which Noah's bird plucked a fresh leaf from was totally unaffected by the flood since it was growing outside the flooded area.
Similarly, the bible says that Noah's brothers (Jabal & Jubal) and their families were unaffected by the flood which drowned their grandparents (Gen 5:27) and their widowed mothers (Gen 5:31) and their aunts & uncles & cousins (Gen 5:26) and their other brothers & sisters (Gen 5:30) since they are the fathers of all nomadic herders and musical instrument makers and were living outside the flooded area (Gen 4:20-21). Nor did that particular flood have any affect on our aborigines who arrived here over 50,000 years before Adam's grandmother was born.
That's just pure fantasy with not a skerrick of evidence to support it
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is hardly a "research paper". He has almost no information about the horn, exactly where it was recovered from or what his methodology was. He does not even justify calling it a triceratops horn. That is why some have speculated that me may have just found a Pleistocene horn from a giant buffalo. A now extinct species that used to live in the area. With proper documentation of how he got his horn the so called research is not worth very much. I was just reading some old discussions on it and it appeared that Mark really screwed the pooch. No real evidence of where it came from. It was never shown to an expert in the field. And from what I have seen of the horns of the triceratops and the giant buffalo to my untrained eye it looks more like a giant buffalo horn.
You have to lie or be incompetent. or both, to be creationist "researcher".
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You used a really poor source. Worse yet your poor source linked to the site that they got it from and they explained how that map failed. Worse yet, there was nothing that indicated a recent warm Antarctica. When the source that you use refutes its own claim by tipping their hand you should just own up to what an embarrassing failure that was and promise to try to vet your sources more thoroughly in the future.
AdamjEdgar
Active Member
sorry subduction...for some reason the google link has also been hijacked on the other forum i was also posting this article...I am not sure how that happened.
the really interesting thing is that the rebuttal claiming he is a crackpot gets some pretty nasty responses in its own comments section discrediting its claims Dr Armitage is essentially an uneducated crackpot. The bogus article spins more bull**** than reason.
The correct link is below...
I would also encourage watching at least the following youtube talk by Dr Armitage on his findings...its not long and is quite interesting as he explains why he believes this is real soft tissue.
the image below for example is a vein valve that is still intact with trapped bacteria inside. He states that testing has shown it is not calcified, not woven, not a fungi...its real soft tissue.
What exactly is this supposed to demonstrate relative to the flood? I get confused by the many creationists claims about this and that.
Again, not Dr. That implies someone with specialist knowledge and a body of research in the field that doesn't exist with Armitage. If he were an amateur with cred, that would be different.
Has he done a DNA analysis of the soft tissue
Presumably to prove that there were 14 Tyrannosaurus and 14 Seismosaurus etc on Noah's boat
Some of the largest animals to ever exist and not one peep about them in the Bible at all. Other than silly attempts to stretch the poetic description of a hippo to fit a random dinosaur.
That would have been some boat ride. The stench alone would have required extensive magical duct work and air handlers.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Mark refuted himself by not following proper protocol. One of the rules of the scientific method is that one must do one's work so that others can reproduce as much of it as possible. He did not do that. He made other errors too. When he should have consulted experts he did not do so. He also did not make a cast of his find and worse yet destroyed it with the tests that he made on it. So when people that know far more than Mark say that it is much much much more recent giant buffalo which went extinct only about 20,000 to 30,000 years ago I find them far more reliable than Mark. At any rate all that Mark found was a horn of unknown age. It does not provide any evidence for a young earth as a result. It only provides evidence of his incompetence.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Since they would not be "clean animals" there would only have been two.
Why wouldn't there be 14 Seismosaurus and 14 of every other dino herbivore species, along with 56 elephants and 14 hippos etc?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Read the myth.
!!Winner!!
I know, right?!
I mean , it’s clear. To the few of us, I guess.
Question, if you don’t mind: are you a YEC (Young Earth Creationist)? I’m not… I don’t believe the Genesis account demands it. Especially with all that was described as happening on Day 6. It would take way more than a short 24 hours, imo.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
No, I was laughing at the "chariot of the gods" reference.
I didn't know there were people that took that seriously.
Yes. Just like I laugh off people who claim to have spotted bigfoot or who claim to have been abducted by aliens.
There's not even anything there to ignore. The point exactly.
Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Ok.
Two questions:
1. why do you refer to him as "dr"?
2. what do you think this article means / proves / shows?
But not to anyone who has actually read that story, and how an olive tree was unaffected by a river flood which was only 15 cubits high.
About a year ago we had a similar flood which was over 26 cubits high and also covered the mountains but did not affect the olive trees growing outside the flooded area either, and some people are still homeless.
Genesis 7:20 KJV -
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail;
and the mountains were covered.