UFO Evidence Forums : General Discussion
Return to the General Discussion Homepage
User not logged in - Login or Register
Alfie
2/16/2004 4:49:12 PM

Scott:

Hi Scott:

I have not read all the information and theories you have posted. My eyes get real tired very quickly, and NOW I have a headache! LOL

Anyway, I am reminded occasionally about the words from a movie called "Willow" that went something like: "Forget everything you know....". Now I'm not suggesting that you or I forget everything we know, but it stands to reason that our perceptions are flavored by *Everything We Know to this point*. And so... any additional research or study that we conduct is also filtered through that paradigm and is prejudiced by that filter. Therefore, all your research concerning the deluge, for example, is based on your belief that there WAS a complete covering of the Earth by water, and that only eight souls survived that flood. From THAT paradigm, you arrive at your conclusions and beliefs just as I arrive at my conclusions and beliefs based on my filters (or the sum of all information that I envelop to date).

Sometimes we have to keep an open mind, which literally means having the ability and fortitude to suspend all prejudices in order to examine another possibiity or challenge an age-old belief. Our inner-most ability to discern is also usually flavored with the *gathered or learned information*, and often this is good. You know...if you don't stand for something then you'll fall for anything! However, the most accelerated advancements in time-memorial is usually accomplished by the suspension of previous beliefs or going against the grain. I'm sure there are many aspects of Truth that we are intune with, but it is wise to keep seeking, in my opinion, and never come to a sure-fire conclusion. it seems there is always something more to be added to make the picture complete.

Why I mention the deluge, is that for the life of me, I cannot begin to fathom that Noah was able to bring on board the ark_every_living creature upon the earth, two by two. That is a PHYSICAL impossiblity...for there are millions of speicies and sub-species we are talking about. However, perhaps the *seed* or DNA was carried forth? Perhaps there were no physical bodies at all, but more like mental bodies? Perhaps the flood never happened to the extent that it was reported in the Bible? Perhaps the whole story is a story, or perhaps the Bible is really the best Psychology book ever written? Maybe the *people* in the Bible represent psycholgical aspects of mankind, rather than physical aspects. Perhaps the flood was a total *wipe-out* of memory or a washing over of outdated beliefs, and thus the submerging of the flood waters reveals a NEW UNDERSTANDING or a new awareness or a higher consciousness?

These questions bear contemplation in my opinion. AND...my thoughts on this goes back to a statement I made about the Bible being drenched in layers or is veiled; some things refering to physical and historical elements, others to mental elements, and still others to spiritual elements. Hence, the statement: Let those who have eyes to see, see, and ears to hear, hear.

Alfie

 replies will be listed below this message edit

subject: Scott:


  Replies 1 - 4 (out of 4 total)

Scott johansen
2/16/2004 6:15:32 PM

Hi Alfie:
I would first like to say that I really appreciate your outlook on learning and not being so close minded as not to be able to accept new ideas. I assure you that this is not the case. I have to assume by your post that you think of me as someone deeply rooted in religion and theology. I am open to ALL ideas. I take all theories very seriously. I simply haven't seen one spec of evidence that refutes the accuracy of the bible. However, I have seen great inconsistantcies in other theories . Lack of proof speculation, even the theory of evolution has no merit once you become aware of dna structure and genetic strands
Keeping this in mind I would like to give you my research on the very thing that you say you find hard to believe about the ark. Let's look at what the bible says about it and then compare that to a reasonable conclusion.

Detailed instructions were given to Noah by God as to its size, shape, design for light and ventilation, and materials to be used for its construction.
The ark was a rectangular chestlike vessel presumably having square corners and a flat bottom. It needed no rounded bottom or sharp bow to cut rapidly through the water; it required no steering; its only functions were to be watertight and to stay afloat. This kind of vessel is very stable, cannot be easily capsized, and contains about one third more storage space than ships of conventional design.

There was a door provided in the side of the ark for loading and unloading the cargo.

the size of the ark was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. Conservatively calculating a cubit is about 17.5 inches. some think the ancient cubit was nearer 56 or 61 cm.
the ark measured 133.5 m by 22.3 m by 13.4 m (437 ft 6 in. × 72 ft 11 in. × 43 ft 9 in.), less than half the length of the ocean liner Queen Elizabeth 2. This proportion of length to width (6 to 1) is used by modern naval architects.
This gave the ark approximately 40,000 cu m (1,400,000 cu ft) in gross volume. Such a vessel would have a displacement nearly equal to that of the Titanic .. Internally strengthened by adding two floors, the three decks gave a total of about 96,000 sq ft of space.

"You will make a tso´har [roof; or, window] for the ark," Noah was told. Just what this was or how it was constructed is not altogether clear. Some scholars think tso´har is related to light and so they translate it "window" or"a place for light" . Others, associate tso´har with a later Arabic root meaning "back (of the hand)," or"back (of a beast)," "deck (of a ship)," that is, the part away from the ground or water, and for this reason translate it "roof." This tso´har, Noah was told, was to be completed "to the extent of a cubit upward"

The tso´har provided for adequate light and ventilation, not just a single cubit-square "peephole," but an opening a cubit in height near the roof and extending around the four sides to give an opening of nearly 1,500 sq ft. On the other hand, while still allowing an ample opening for ventilation under the roof or elsewhere, the roof could have had slightly angled sides.
Also, "Make for yourself an ark out of wood of a resinous tree [literally, trees of gopher]." Gopherwood is thought by some to be cypress or a similar tree. In that part of the world what today is called cypress was in abundant supply; it was particularly favored for shipbuilding by the Phoenicians and by Alexander the Great, as it is even down to the present time; and it is especially resistant to water and decay. Doors and posts made of cypress are reported to have lasted 1,100 years. Noah was told not merely to caulk the seams but to "cover [the ark] inside and outside with tar.
Now that we have the structure let's talk about it's carrying capacity.

Besides Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives, living creatures "of every sort of flesh, two of each," were to be taken aboard. "Male and female they will be. Of the flying creatures according to their kinds and of the domestic animals according to their kinds, of all moving animals of the ground according to their kinds, two of each will go in there to you to preserve them alive." Of the clean beasts and fowls, seven of each kind were to be taken. A great quantity and variety of food for all these creatures, to last for more than a year, also had to be stowed away.

The "kinds" of animals selected had reference to the clear-cut and unalterable boundaries or limits set by God, within which boundaries creatures are capable of breeding "according to their kinds."

It has been estimated by some that the hundreds of thousands of species of animals today could be reduced to a comparatively few family "kinds"-the horse kind and the cow kind, to mention but two. The breeding boundaries according to "kind" established by God were not and could not be crossed. With this in mind some investigators have said that, had there been as few as 43 "kinds" of mammals, 74 "kinds" of birds, and 10 "kinds" of reptiles in the ark, they could have produced the variety of species known today. Others have been more liberal in estimating that 72 "kinds" of quadrupeds and less than 200 bird "kinds" were all that were required.

That the great variety of animal life known today could have come from inbreeding within so few "kinds" following the Flood is proved by the endless variety of humankind-short, tall, fat, thin, with countless variations in the color of hair, eyes, and skin-all of whom sprang from the one family of Noah.

The Encyclopedia Americana indicate that there are upwards of 1,300,000 species of animals.
However, over 60 percent of these are insects. Breaking these figures down further, of the 24,000 amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, 10,000 are birds, 9,000 are reptiles and amphibians, many of which could have survived outside the ark, and only 5,000 are mammals, including whales and porpoises, which would have also remained outside the ark. I estimate that there are only about 290 species of land mammals larger than sheep and about 1,360 smaller than rats.
So, even if my estimates are based on these expanded figures, the ark could easily have accommodated a pair of all these animals.

Five months after the Deluge began, "the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat," not likely, however, atop the uppermost peak , but on suitable terrain where everyone aboard lived comfortably for some months more. Finally, after a year and ten days from the time the Deluge began, the door again was opened and all aboard disembarked

Claims that remains of the ark have been found are as yet unconfirmed.

[However, the most accelerated advancements in time-memorial is usually accomplished by the suspension of previous beliefs or going against the grain.]

I believe that's what I'm doing.
The grain seems to be that if you believe in UFOs you can't believe in what we refer to as god. I think it idiotic not to be able to accept both. Especially when the existence of both are so obvious.

It is obvious that no one wants to believe my theories.
And I seem to get labeled a bible thumper.I know as much about the theory of evolution as I do creation. Yet, I can Prove evolution to be incorrect.
Easily,and have done so on many occassions where I have listened intently and once I have disproven everything they have said using their own method of intillect they get mad and walk away rather than accept that I was right. NOW THATS CLOSE MINDED.
Why is it when I debate this matter with anyone they act as if they didn't hear or read half of what was said or written. I read EVERY word when they speak or write their rebuttles?
I'm just going to start using parenthetical and pulling up statements I HAVE ALREADY MADE when asked the same question over and over again.

The simpliest explaination rests in the pages of the bible. As I said, "God" is just a word, perhaps the only way to describe the events of that day was to deify it. Even the word Je·ho´vah just means"He Causes to Become"

Scott johansen
2/16/2004 6:15:37 PM

Hi Alfie:
I would first like to say that I really appreciate your outlook on learning and not being so close minded as not to be able to accept new ideas. I assure you that this is not the case. I have to assume by your post that you think of me as someone deeply rooted in religion and theology. I am open to ALL ideas. I take all theories very seriously. I simply haven't seen one spec of evidence that refutes the accuracy of the bible. However, I have seen great inconsistantcies in other theories . Lack of proof speculation, even the theory of evolution has no merit once you become aware of dna structure and genetic strands
Keeping this in mind I would like to give you my research on the very thing that you say you find hard to believe about the ark. Let's look at what the bible says about it and then compare that to a reasonable conclusion.

Detailed instructions were given to Noah by God as to its size, shape, design for light and ventilation, and materials to be used for its construction.
The ark was a rectangular chestlike vessel presumably having square corners and a flat bottom. It needed no rounded bottom or sharp bow to cut rapidly through the water; it required no steering; its only functions were to be watertight and to stay afloat. This kind of vessel is very stable, cannot be easily capsized, and contains about one third more storage space than ships of conventional design.

There was a door provided in the side of the ark for loading and unloading the cargo.

the size of the ark was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. Conservatively calculating a cubit is about 17.5 inches. some think the ancient cubit was nearer 56 or 61 cm.
the ark measured 133.5 m by 22.3 m by 13.4 m (437 ft 6 in. × 72 ft 11 in. × 43 ft 9 in.), less than half the length of the ocean liner Queen Elizabeth 2. This proportion of length to width (6 to 1) is used by modern naval architects.
This gave the ark approximately 40,000 cu m (1,400,000 cu ft) in gross volume. Such a vessel would have a displacement nearly equal to that of the Titanic .. Internally strengthened by adding two floors, the three decks gave a total of about 96,000 sq ft of space.

"You will make a tso´har [roof; or, window] for the ark," Noah was told. Just what this was or how it was constructed is not altogether clear. Some scholars think tso´har is related to light and so they translate it "window" or"a place for light" . Others, associate tso´har with a later Arabic root meaning "back (of the hand)," or"back (of a beast)," "deck (of a ship)," that is, the part away from the ground or water, and for this reason translate it "roof." This tso´har, Noah was told, was to be completed "to the extent of a cubit upward"

The tso´har provided for adequate light and ventilation, not just a single cubit-square "peephole," but an opening a cubit in height near the roof and extending around the four sides to give an opening of nearly 1,500 sq ft. On the other hand, while still allowing an ample opening for ventilation under the roof or elsewhere, the roof could have had slightly angled sides.
Also, "Make for yourself an ark out of wood of a resinous tree [literally, trees of gopher]." Gopherwood is thought by some to be cypress or a similar tree. In that part of the world what today is called cypress was in abundant supply; it was particularly favored for shipbuilding by the Phoenicians and by Alexander the Great, as it is even down to the present time; and it is especially resistant to water and decay. Doors and posts made of cypress are reported to have lasted 1,100 years. Noah was told not merely to caulk the seams but to "cover [the ark] inside and outside with tar.
Now that we have the structure let's talk about it's carrying capacity.

Besides Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives, living creatures "of every sort of flesh, two of each," were to be taken aboard. "Male and female they will be. Of the flying creatures according to their kinds and of the domestic animals according to their kinds, of all moving animals of the ground according to their kinds, two of each will go in there to you to preserve them alive." Of the clean beasts and fowls, seven of each kind were to be taken. A great quantity and variety of food for all these creatures, to last for more than a year, also had to be stowed away.

The "kinds" of animals selected had reference to the clear-cut and unalterable boundaries or limits set by God, within which boundaries creatures are capable of breeding "according to their kinds."

It has been estimated by some that the hundreds of thousands of species of animals today could be reduced to a comparatively few family "kinds"-the horse kind and the cow kind, to mention but two. The breeding boundaries according to "kind" established by God were not and could not be crossed. With this in mind some investigators have said that, had there been as few as 43 "kinds" of mammals, 74 "kinds" of birds, and 10 "kinds" of reptiles in the ark, they could have produced the variety of species known today. Others have been more liberal in estimating that 72 "kinds" of quadrupeds and less than 200 bird "kinds" were all that were required.

That the great variety of animal life known today could have come from inbreeding within so few "kinds" following the Flood is proved by the endless variety of humankind-short, tall, fat, thin, with countless variations in the color of hair, eyes, and skin-all of whom sprang from the one family of Noah.

The Encyclopedia Americana indicate that there are upwards of 1,300,000 species of animals.
However, over 60 percent of these are insects. Breaking these figures down further, of the 24,000 amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, 10,000 are birds, 9,000 are reptiles and amphibians, many of which could have survived outside the ark, and only 5,000 are mammals, including whales and porpoises, which would have also remained outside the ark. I estimate that there are only about 290 species of land mammals larger than sheep and about 1,360 smaller than rats.
So, even if my estimates are based on these expanded figures, the ark could easily have accommodated a pair of all these animals.

Five months after the Deluge began, "the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat," not likely, however, atop the uppermost peak , but on suitable terrain where everyone aboard lived comfortably for some months more. Finally, after a year and ten days from the time the Deluge began, the door again was opened and all aboard disembarked

Claims that remains of the ark have been found are as yet unconfirmed.

[However, the most accelerated advancements in time-memorial is usually accomplished by the suspension of previous beliefs or going against the grain.]

I believe that's what I'm doing.
The grain seems to be that if you believe in UFOs you can't believe in what we refer to as god. I think it idiotic not to be able to accept both. Especially when the existence of both are so obvious.

It is obvious that no one wants to believe my theories.
And I seem to get labeled a bible thumper.I know as much about the theory of evolution as I do creation. Yet, I can Prove evolution to be incorrect.
Easily,and have done so on many occassions where I have listened intently and once I have disproven everything they have said using their own method of intillect they get mad and walk away rather than accept that I was right. NOW THATS CLOSE MINDED.
Why is it when I debate this matter with anyone they act as if they didn't hear or read half of what was said or written. I read EVERY word when they speak or write their rebuttles?
I'm just going to start using parenthetical and pulling up statements I HAVE ALREADY MADE when asked the same question over and over again.

The simpliest explaination rests in the pages of the bible. As I said, "God" is just a word, perhaps the only way to describe the events of that day was to deify it. Even the word Je·ho´vah just means"He Causes to Become"

Scott johansen
2/16/2004 6:23:21 PM

sorry about the double post

Scott Johansen
2/16/2004 6:34:30 PM

Alfie on creation vs. evolution here is a post of mine from a debate on this very discussion board. It was ignored by the person debating me.

[Take for example a fine Swiss watch. You have to admit though it is beautiful and complex it is about one quadrillionth as complex as all of the mysteries and complexities of the universe as we know it. If you were to dismantle this watch and throw it in a bucket,put a lid on it and shake it.How many times do you think you would have to shake it before you were able to reach in and remove this fine swiss watch in perfect working order? not to mention winding it.LOL My point is Don ,that it is not logical to assume that we merely Happened by chance. IT JUST DOESN'T ADD UP,Along with the irrefutable existence of different levels of conciousness . Dreams ,Imagination,E.S P. and the like. There is, however, an area where many would say that modern science and the Bible are hopelessly at odds. Most scientists believe the theory of evolution, which teaches that all living things evolved from a simple form of life that came into existence millions of years ago. The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that each major group of living things was specially created and reproduces only “according to its kind.” Man, it says, was created “out of dust from the ground.” (Genesis 1:21; 2:7) Is this a glaring scientific error in the Bible? Before deciding, look more closely at what science knows, as opposed to what it theorizes.
The theory of evolution was popularized during the last century by Charles Darwin. When he was on the Galápagos Islands in the Pacific, Darwn was impressed by the different species of finches on the different islands, which, he deduced, must all have descended from just one ancestral species. Partly because of this observation, he promoted the theory that all living things come from one original, simple form. The driving force behind the evoution of higher creatures from lower, he asserted, was natural selection, the survival of the fittest. Thanks to evolution, he claimed, land animals developed from fish, birds from reptiles, and so forth.
As a matter of fact, what Darwin observed in those isolated islands WAS NOTout of harmony with the Bible, which allows for variation within a major living kind. All the races of mankind, for example, came from just one original human pair. So it is nothing strange that those different species of finches would spring from a common ancestral species. But they did remain finches. They did not evolve into hawks or eagles.
Neither the various species of finches nor anything else Darwin saw proved that all living things, whether they be sharks or sea gulls, elephants or earthworms, have a common ancestor. Nevertheless, many scientists assert that evolution is no longer just a theory but that it is a fact. Others, while recognizing the theory’s problems, say that they believe it anyway. It is popular to do so. We, need to know whether evolution has been proved to such an extent that the Bible must be wrong.

How can the theory of evolution be tested? The most obvious way is to examine the fossil record to see if a gradual change from one kind to another could havereally happened.

Did it?
No, as a number of scientists honestly admit. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there.So obvious is this lack of evidence in the fossil record that evolutionists have come up with alternatives to Darwin’s theory of gradual change. The truth is, though, that the sudden appearance of animal kinds in the fossil record supports special creation much more than it does evolution.
living creatures are programmed to reproduce themselves exactly rather than evolve into something else andLiving cells duplicate themselves with near-total fidelity. The degree of error is so tiny that no man-made machine can approach it. There are also built-in constraints. Plants reach a certain size and refuse to grow any larger. Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised Mutations induced by scientists in fruit flies over COUNTLESS decadesFAILEDto force these to evolve into something else.

Another thorny question that evolutionists have failed to answer is: What was the origin of life? How did the first simple form of life—from which we are all supposed to have descended—come into existence? Centuries ago, this wouldn’t appeared to be a problem. Most people then thought that flies could develop from decaying meat and that a pile of old rags could spontaneously produce mice. But, more than a hundred years ago, Louis Pasteur demonstrated that life can come only from preexisting life.


According to the most popular theory, a chance combination of chemicals and energy sparked a spontaneous generation of life millions of years ago. What about the principle that Pasteur proved? Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously under the chemical and physical conditions present on the earth today. Billions of years ago, however, the chemical and physical conditions on the earth were far different”!
Even under far different conditions, though, there is a huge gap between nonliving matter and the simplest living thing.Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive. The idea that nonliving material could come to life by some haphazard chance is so remote as to be impossible. The Bible’s explanation, that life came from life in that life was created by God, is convincingly in harmony with the facts.
Despite the problems inherent in the theory of evolution, belief in creation is viewed today as unscientific, even eccentric. Why? Evolution, with all its failings, will continue to be taught because theories related to creation invoke frankly supernatural causes. In other words, the fact that creation involves a Creator makes it unacceptable. this is the same kind of circular reasoning that we meetup with with miracles, Miracles are impossible because they are MIRACULOUS
Besides, the theory of evolution itself is deeply suspect from a scientific viewpoint. being basically a theory of historical reconstruction

Darwin’s theory of evolution is impossible to verify by experiment or direct observation as is normal in science. . . . the theory of evolution deals with a series of unique events, the origin of life, the origin of intelligence and so on. Unique events are unrepeatable and cannot be subjected to any sort of experimental investigation

The truth is that the theory of evolution, despite its popularity, is FULL of gaps and problems. It gives no good reason to reject the Bible’s account of the origin of life. The first chapter of Genesis provides a COMPLETELY REASONABLE account of how these unrepeatable,unique events came about during creative ‘days’ that stretched through millenniums of time.
Okay so now what about the flood?Many point to another supposed contradiction between the Bible and modern science. In the book of Genesis, we read that thousands of years ago the wickedness of men was so great that God determined to destroy them. However, he instructed the righteous man Noah to build a large wooden vessel, an ark. Then God brought a flood upon mankind. Only Noah and his family survived, together with representatives of all the animal species. The Flood was so great that “all the tall mountains that were under the whole heavens came to be covered. Where did all the water come from to cover the whole earth The Bible says thatEarly in the creation process, when the expanse of the atmosphere began to take shape, there came to be “waters . . . beneath the expanse” and “waters . . . above the expanse.”When the Flood came, the Bible says: “The floodgates of the heavens were opened.” Evidently, the “waters . . . above the expanse” fell and provided much of the water for the inundation.
Modern textbooks are inclined to discount a universal flood. So Is the Flood just a myth, or did it really happen? is the idea of the whole earth’s being flooded too farfetched? Not really. to some extent the earth is still flooded. Seventy percent of it is covered by water and only 30 percent is dry land. also 75 percent of the earth’s fresh water is locked up in glaciers and polar ice caps.

If all this ice were to melt, the sea level would rise much higher. Cities like New York and Tokyo would disappear.
The average depth of all the seas has been estimated at 12,430 feet. the average elevation of the land above the sea level, is about2,760 feet. If the average depth is multiplied by the surface area, the volume of the World Ocean is 11 times the volume of the land above sea level. So, if everything were leveled out, the mountains were flattened and the deep sea basins filled in—the sea would cover the whole earth to a depth of thousands of meters.
For the Flood to have happened, the pre-Flood sea basins would have to have been shallower, and the mountains lower than they are now.What happened to the floodwaters after the Flood 2 WORDS SEA BASINS, Scientists believe that the continents rest on huge plates. Movement of these plates can cause changes in the level of the earth’s surface. In some places today, there are great underwater abysses more than six miles deep at the plate boundaries. It is quite likely that theFlood itself triggered the plates to move ,the plates moved, the sea bottom sank, and the great trenches opened, allowing the water to drain off the land.
science teaches that the surface of the earth has been shaped in many places by powerful glaciers during a series of ice ages. But apparent evidence of glacial activity can sometimes be the result of water action. Very likely, then, some of the evidence for the Flood is being misread as evidence of an ice age.
Scientists were finding ice ages at every stage of the geologic history to keep n timewith the philosophy of uniformity formations thatwere once identified as glacial moraines have been reinterpreted as beds laid down by mudflows, submarine landslides and turbidity currents, avalanches of turbid water that carry silt, sand and gravel out over the deep-ocean floor.
More evidence for the Flood exists i the fossil record.

At one time, according to this record, saber-toothed tigerswere in Europe, horses larger than any now were in northaerica, and mammothswere in Siberia. Then, ALL AROUND THE WORLD, species of mammals became extinct. At the same time, there was a sudden change of climate Tens of thousands of mammoths were killed and quick-frozen in Siberia. Alfred Wallace, CHUCKIE DARWINS friend, said that such a widespread destruction must have been caused by some exceptional worldwide event. .....YEAH The FLOOD.It is important to remember that the story of a great flood is one of the most widespread traditions in human culture But behind the oldest traditions found in Near Eastern sources, there may well be an actual flood of gigantic proportions dating from one of the pluvial periods many thousands of years ago.The pluvial periods were times when the surface of the earth was much wetter than now. Freshwater lakes around the world were much larger. It is theorized that the wetness was caused by heavy rains associated with the end of the ice ages. that the Flood did happen is seen in the fact that mankind never forgot it. All around the world, in locations as far apart as Alaska and the South Sea Islands, there are ancient stories about it. So where is there a conflict between the two, the scientists’ evidence is questionable. Where they agree, the Bible is often so accurate that we have to believe it got its information from a superhuman intelligence.]

















  Replies 1 - 4 (out of 4 total)



Return to General Discussion Homepage

 

 

Ads help to support this site: