Posted on 06/30/2006 8:26:43 AM PDT by DannyTN
I'd like to know your explanation. That's the quasar or object that appears visually to be linked to a galaxy and the object and the galaxy have dramatically different redshifts right?
It might not fit in an YEC model, but the disparity certainly does raise questions of whether we understand all the factors affecting redshift. The object raises the possibility that we have significant "unknown unknowns" with regard to redshift.
Ancient Mesopotamian texts (pre-biblical) also refer to a great flood.
If you are unable to grasp the implications of SN1987A, just say so. I can attempt to dumb it down to your level.
I will be glad to. :-)
It will have to wait till I get out of the lab.
Nice tagline... but shouldn't it be "Sonrise"? ;)
What do you think explains redshift variability best?
"Ah, but we know that this cannot be, it's all a myth!"
LOL!...Either these are the remains of Noah's ark, or they are not. Believers don't need to see the ark to know the great flood really happened. Could it be compared to: "Blessed are they who have not seen and yet have believed".?.. I think so.
I can't help but notice you sometimes tangle horns with unbelievers. Do you really think that a discovery of an enormous ship {if that is what this is} high up on a mountain is going to change their world view? I think not. I'll compare that to: "And He said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though One rose from the dead.
As for those with hardened hearts, unless something big really rocks their world, they'll continue along their way.
I looked for a reply to your statement, didn't see one. You can not apply what is spiritual to natual thought. You have hit the nail on the head because not one single person in this world can prove or even remotely show anything in the original bible text is false.
Everyone knows this, but still the naysayers are going to come and they will go and in the end there will be God and his word that stands above all...it has for an eternity.
Interesting. What scientific law is that?
That's just the thing. Wood at that height could probably be preserved as wood, perhaps 4000 years later. But in order to become petrified, it would have become submerged and buried by other sediments.
Then extremely slow movement of water molecules through that layer would replace the organic material in the wood while maintaining the physical structure of it.
It's impossible to conceive of those conditions on a mountain top. First, you can't bury it in sediment. Second you can't have the waterflow underground to make the replacement happen. It's just too dry or frozen.
The link you provided makes the categorical statement that it's petrified wood, but provides no backup for that claim. So, there's no way to know whether it's credible or not. Extremely unlikely claims need corroboration.
I'm not saying it's not petrified wood. I can't make that determination from the photos. All I'm saying is that I don't see how it could be. It fails the common sense test.
Great picture, although I am a believer.
I can't believe you don't see the ones on the right. They are visible without enlarging it. Right after the "break" in the wood, a bit farther right than the midline of the image. I saw the ones on the left too, but they looked a bit iffy, as though they could be nails OR debris on top. The ones on the right also might be debris but they are so equidistant they really look like nails.
Aa, ah, the usual ad hominem response. Don't address the subject, just change to the "anonymous internet poster". You are a master at this.
However, I note for your further consideration, that you have never disproved the Pixie Theory of Aerodynamics. I asked you to post evidence against it---you have offered no evidence against it. And, just who do you think you are? to assert YOUR belief to be paramount over those of the family values of Pixies?
Lyle is the same. He has a Theory of the Ark. He is probably a fraud, but maybe a true-believer. All of this can be explained by Pixie Theory. Teach the controversy. Follow the money.
That's the funny thing about advocates of Noah's Flood. Anything that makes no sense about the story gets a miraculous explanation.
Which really begs the point.
If God wanted to destroy stuff, He wouldn't use a lame flood that for which he had to change all the rules of physics. Nor would He leave evidence that it never happened.
He'd just do a ZOT.
It's so incredibly obvious today that it's a fable that it's ridiculous to be discussing it. Don't even mention the dinosaur angle. You'll get people here saying that Noah took baby dinosaurs on the ark.
This is quite cutesy of Danny. All the factors that relate to faith-belief and evolution-denying? Can Danny name two or three such factors?
significant "unknown unknowns" with regard to invisible gods, undiscoverable 'powers', faith-based rejection of pixies, 189 schisms in Christian theology.
Lyle is the same. He has a Theory of the Ark. He is probably a fraud, but maybe a true-believer. All of this can be explained by Pixie Theory. Teach the controversy. Follow the money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.