Atheists on Noah's Ark evidence (a failed debate)

[JM]

Atheists on Atheism vs Christianity are failing hands down. I have
never actually debated this subject on this newsgroups, and have been
debating pen names that I have never debated before.

Yet, these obvious soc-puppets (a word I coined - coining is legally
acceptable), claim that the debate has been won (by them of course),
and the Durupinar formation is not Noah's Ark, not a ship, or anything
of that sort. The claim is that since the site has been debunked
before said lazy atheists do not have to do so again.

Since I have never debated debated with these characters, they are
obviously claiming to have done so under a different name. So much for
honesty.

Nonetheless, the atheists are so lazy that they cannot even provide
any Google links that prove they had won any debate. So the fact still
stands.

1. Jim Irwin the astronaut found a pattern of iron at the site.
2. Baumgardner found a pattern of iron on the site.
3. Radar shows ribbing.
4. Atheist Ekrem Akurgal ruled the formation a ship.
5. I, and some tourists were able to duplicate the pattern.

On the other hand, atheists have claimed that the pattern of iron has
never been duplicated. An obvious lie. Atheists have been making flat
assertions based on reclining in a chair and holding the head upright
while smoking a pipe (in other words chemical reactions occur when
offending thoughts occur in the brain), and these chemicals cause
curse words and lazy butt assertions to come out.

JM

[Simpleton]

On Apr 10, 10:41 am, JM <JM20000...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Atheists on Atheism vs Christianity are failing hands down.  

No, they are not.

> I have
> never actually debated this subject on this newsgroups,

Just about everybody knows that, JM.

[LL]

LL: Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!! That's a good one. Got any
more?

On Apr 10, 10:41 am, JM <JM20000...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[Drafterman]

On Apr 10, 1:41 pm, JM <JM20000...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Atheists on Atheism vs Christianity are failing hands down.

And what, exactly, is your objective measure that results in that
assessment?

> I have
> never actually debated this subject on this newsgroups, and have been
> debating pen names that I have never debated before.
>
> Yet, these obvious soc-puppets (a word I coined - coining is legally
> acceptable), claim that the debate has  been won (by them of course),
> and the Durupinar formation is not Noah's Ark, not a ship, or anything
> of that sort.  The claim is that since the site has been debunked
> before said lazy atheists do not have to do so again.
>
> Since I have never debated debated with these characters, they are
> obviously claiming to have done so under a different name. So much for
> honesty.
>
> Nonetheless, the atheists are so lazy that they cannot even provide
> any Google links that prove they had won any debate. So the fact still
> stands.

If you had experience in debate then you would know that this clearly
is an argument from silence fallacy. A fallacy, you see, is a logical
term. I imagine you are as unfamiliar with logic as you are with
debate. Just because someone can't, or doesn't, refute your claims,
doesn't make them factual or true. That is, just because (in your
mind) atheists do not prove evidence against your claims, it, by no
means, makes them facts.

>
> 1. Jim Irwin the astronaut found a pattern of iron at the site.

James Iwrin found no evidence of an Ark. "I've done all I possibly
can," he said, "but the Ark continues to elude us"
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jbirwin.htm

> 2. Baumgardner found a pattern of iron on the site.
> 3.  Radar shows ribbing.

The formation "discovered" by Baumgardner and Wyatt is a natural
formation.
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/bogus.html

> 4. Atheist Ekrem Akurgal ruled the formation a ship.

When asked why it had to be a ship, he replied, "because there is no
other explanation."
This is hardly the basis for any sort of argument. Because a single
person can't think of another explanation, doesn't mean squat.

> 5. I, and some tourists were able to duplicate the pattern.

So?

Essentially all you have put forth is that some pattern has a ship-
like shape. You, nor anyone else, has done any sort of connection that
the pattern is an actual ship, rather than just a ship-shaped object
or formation. You, nor anyone else, has shown, that if it is an actual
ship, that it MUST be Noah's Ark.

So, again, you have presented no argument to debunk because you have
presented no argument. You are drawing conclusions from things that
are not conclusive. You are asking us to punch holes in something
which is basically one big hula hoop and when we scratch our heads
wondering how exactly this "argument" can be demolished any more you
turn around and declare yourself the winner.

[Shot In The Dark]

So Drafterman shut you down, bro. How do you like them apples?
Hmmm. Hmmmmm. That's what I thought. You characterise the Atheists
here as lazy and unmotivated. How about worn down and tired from
refuting the same bullshit over and over again. I mean, you're
expecting others to do your heavy lifting here, and D-man obliged.
That you will still probably hold the same erroneous position on the
subject illustrates the reason it becomes tiring to keep bringing up
the rear, time and again. You have the luxury of being insane at
least to a degree and so you probably don't labor with redundancy.
For those of us who enjoy new ideas and progressive thinking, your
insistence on that which is old hat and well refuted is an anchor on
the discussions. The fortunate thing is that this thread is basically
through pending your concession, were you to be honest. I won't hold
my breath.

On Apr 10, 1:41 pm, JM <JM20000...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[Drafterman]

The thing I can't wrap my head around is that the concept that
something proven wrong in the past suddenly becomes right just because
a certain amount of time has elapsed and someone has the stupidity to
bring up the subject.

"Derrrr, just because it was proven wrong before doesn't mean it's
wrong now! Derrr"

JM, don't get drool on the keyboard.

> > JM- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Brock]

On Apr 10, 1:41 pm, JM <JM20000...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Atheists on Atheism vs Christianity are failing hands down. I have
> never actually debated this subject on this newsgroups, and have been
> debating pen names that I have never debated before.

There are definite eristic and solipsistic trends with atheistic
responses on the forum for anyone to see. It doesn't reflect well
upon atheists positions on the forum, I believe.

Regards,

Brock

[Simpleton]

On Apr 10, 11:53 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The thing I can't wrap my head around is that the concept that
> something proven wrong in the past suddenly becomes right just because
> a certain amount of time has elapsed and someone has the stupidity to
> bring up the subject.
>
> "Derrrr, just because it was proven wrong before doesn't mean it's
> wrong now! Derrr"
>

I thing such people are compelled to regurgitate every ten years or
so.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.atheism/msg/d1b9ca80c9a0b0aa


Some of the links in that may no longer work, but what should be of
interest is that even creationists who has earlier claimed and
celebrated the discovery to be The Leaky Canoe came to their senses.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Keith MacNevins]

Excellent post by Snot In The Dark -- if you are an insomniac in need of literature with sleep inducing qualities.

--
Ambassador From Hell

[Observer]

On Apr 10, 10:41 am, JM <JM20000...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Observrer

Early refutation of the flood on this forum

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/tree/browse_frm/thread/3d807511300845b1/701f25dd48c391e8?rnum=41&q=rappoccio+noah%27s+ark&_done=%2Fgroup%2FAtheism-vs-Christianity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F3d807511300845b1%2F8cd1ba39b3a12c5e%3Flnk%3Dgst%26q%3Drappoccio%2Bnoah%2527s%2Bark%26#doc_8cd1ba39b3a12c5e

[Dag Yo]

I'll humor you for a second JM. What exactly are your claims and and
are your claims supported by evidence?

> 1. Jim Irwin the astronaut found a pattern of iron at the site.

> 4. Atheist Ekrem Akurgal ruled the formation a ship.

Someones protesting a bit too much.

[wiseclam]

You must have missed this post on the other thread so I'll offer it
again here...

JM - I've looked at the first video and started to review the second.
I'll consider your claims if you can answer two questions...

1. How many species of animals exist on planet earth?


2. How did penguins and polar bears get to the ark in 7 days?


For your reference...


Genesis 7
1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole
family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2
**********Take with you seven [a] of every kind of clean animal, a
male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male
and
its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to
keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days
from
now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights,
and
I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have
made."***********

5 And Noah did all that the LORD commanded him.
6 Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the
earth. 7 And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives
entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood. 8 ******Pairs of
clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move
along the ground, 9 male and female, came to Noah and entered the
ark,
as God had commanded Noah. 10 And after the seven days the
floodwaters
came on the earth.*********

[Ted Goas]

THE FLOOD ITSELF IS IMPOSSIBLE, unless you believe in miracles. We
wrote a piece about this concerning the flood itself (not the ark, not
the animals, not present-day remains) and concluded the Great Flood
was impossible.

I encourage anyone to take a peek at our article here:
http://www.skepticalmonkey.com/christian-bible/noahs-ark-flooded-with-facts/

We weren't lazy. We did our research, cited our sources, and peer-
reviewed our work. We didn't shoot from the hip.

-Ted Goas
http://www.skepticalmonkey.com

[Jeff]

I'm repeating myself, but so it goes. If a flood destroyed all but
Noah and his family, then we'd expect the lapsed time of genetic mtDNA
drift to date to the time of the Noah's ark tale or 6000 years ago.
Recent calculations date common mtDNA to about 140,000 years ago.
Sorry.

On Apr 10, 1:41 pm, JM <JM20000...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[Drafterman]

On Apr 10, 9:32 pm, Jeff <joesi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm repeating myself, but so it goes. If a flood destroyed all but
> Noah and his family, then we'd expect the lapsed time of genetic mtDNA
> drift to date to the time of the Noah's ark tale or 6000 years ago.
> Recent calculations date common mtDNA to about 140,000 years ago.
> Sorry.

If a flood destroyed all but Noah and his family, we wouldn't be able
to discuss it since just about every ecosystem on Earth would have
been annihilated. The only things to survive would be sea creatures.
Humans would have become extinct and if this discussion was ever to be
had it would be by other intelligent creatures millions of years after
the fact.

[wiseclam]

On Apr 10, 5:11 pm, Ted Goas <tg...@netscape.net> wrote:
> THE FLOOD ITSELF IS IMPOSSIBLE, unless you believe in miracles. We
> wrote a piece about this concerning the flood itself (not the ark, not
> the animals, not present-day remains) and concluded the Great Flood
> was impossible.

I trust that it is impossible. And the burden of proof is not on you
(or me - or any global flood denier) anyway.

Similarly, the burden of proof is on the global flood claiments to
show that 5 million+ species could fit on the boat. And the burden is
also on them to show how all these species could travel - across
oceans in some cases, to get on the damn thing in the first place.

These 'Noah's ark is real' people are mad. They are beyond flat-
earthers. They are simply not operating in the real world. Period.

[Saint Onan]

On Apr 11, 3:41 am, JM <JM20000...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 1. Jim Irwin the astronaut found a pattern of iron at the site.
> 2. Baumgardner found a pattern of iron on the site.
> 3.  Radar shows ribbing.

This is supposed to be evidence of what?

Iron is an abundantly common element within the earth's crust. Iron
also has magnetic qualities that will cause atoms of iron to clump
together in bands when suspended in a magnetic field like the earth's.
What you've described is exactly what we should expect to see in an
iron-rich lump of rock formed by purely natural processes.

Now, explain by what process a wooden ship can be fossilized into
stone in a mere six millennia.

> 4. Atheist Ekrem Akurgal ruled the formation a ship.

What qualified Ekrem to so rule? Latent atheist superpowers?

> 5. I, and some tourists were able to duplicate the pattern.

What do you mean by "duplicate"? You built your own Ark, left it on a
mountaintop for a few thousand years, then came back to find an ark-
shaped rock with a few iron streaks?

How did Noah gain access to ironworking technology two millennia
before the rest of the world, anyway?

[zencycle]

From: "wiseclam" <wise...@earthlink.net>
Subject: [AvC] Re: Atheists on Noah's Ark evidence (a failed debate)

>
> Similarly, the burden of proof is on the global flood claiments to
> show that 5 million+ species could fit on the boat. And the burden is
> also on them to show how all these species could travel - across
> oceans in some cases, to get on the damn thing in the first place.

I remember reading somwhere that just getting a breeding pair of all the
insect species in the world on the boat would have filled it.

[JM]

Simpleton's dishonest rises again. He takes my statement "I have
never actually debated this subject on this newsgroup," out of
context, making it seem that I'm admitting that I'm incapable of
debating the subject. The point was that I have never debated the
subject to which Simpleton is too lazy to debate.

JM

[JM]

Simply put I called you guys a liar. Whether or not you want to make
a side-point a matter of contention is obviously not relevant to the
arguments I made in support of Noah's Ark.

>
>
>
> > 1. Jim Irwin the astronaut found a pattern of iron at the site.
>
> James Iwrin found no evidence of an Ark. "I've done all I possibly
> can," he said, "but the Ark continues to elude us"http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jbirwin.htm

Here Drafterman shoots himself in the foot. He claims that James Irwin
found no evidence of an Ark and quotes Irwin. The problem is, I said
in the above point, number one, that Jim Irwin merely substantiated a
pattern of iron at the site. This is proven by his statement in this
short video clip:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cOkSn9dBavQ

In no way did I say that Jim Irwin EVER claimed that Noah's Ark was
found. In fact, the only thing that Irwin did claim was that the
pattern seemed to indicate that the Durupinar formation was manmade.
There is no evidence to show that Jim Irwin ever considered the full
evidence in regard to the Durupinar site. In fact, the evidence shows
that Jim Irwin was already committed to find the Ark on Mt Ararat, a
fact that Drafterman suppressed (if he didn't suppress that fact he
was ignorant of the fact- and that looks bad for him.

At anyrate, we know this much:

Fact: Pattern of Iron.
Opinion: Jim Irwin "I never found the Ark."

So Drafterman uses Jim Irwin's opinion in regard to Noah's Ark against
the fact that there is a pattern of iron at the Durupinar site. So
opinion versus fact.

Drafterman fails basing his views on opinion and not fact.

>
> > 2. Baumgardner found a pattern of iron on the site.
> > 3. Radar shows ribbing.
>
> The formation "discovered" by Baumgardner and Wyatt is a natural
> formation.http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/bogus.html

Drafterman, here, cites the work of a "Lorence Collins."

1. Collins never did a study of the Durupinar site.
2. Collins has never been to Turkey.
3. Collins erroneously claims that the formation is made of rock.

Further:

In the Journal of Geoscience, Education, volume 44, 1996, p.42, there
is a drawing of what is supposedly a representation of the Duripinar
site, a boat shaped formation that is located some 14 miles south of
Mt Ararat. Collins' chart depicts this formation as a natural eroded
syncline. Unfortunately, for Collins, this chart was a total
fabrication. Even his co-writer David Fasold says it was fabricated.
Collin's syncline theory was merely a presupposition. On page 443 we
read: "Evidence from microscopic studies and photo analyses
demonstrates that the supposed Ark near Dogubayazit is a completely
natural rock formation." David Fasold, his cowriter, on the other had
admittedly said:


"THE ARTICLE I WROTE WITH LARRY COLLINS PRESUPPOSES IT'S A SYNCLINE
AND HOW IT WOULD SOLVE THE RIDDLE, BUT FOUR OTHER GEOLOGISTS SAY IT'S
NOT A SYNCLINE. (IT'S NOT FOLDED ROCK BY THE WAY AND THERE IS NO
SHISTOSITY DOWN THE MIDDLE) IT'S JUST SOMETHING COVERED IN MUD. "

- David Fasold
1998/03/20
alt.atheism

How could Larry Collins have described the formation as being a
natural rock formation? The facts are simple, anyone can write
anything they want, without regard for accountability. And having a
Ph.D makes no difference and is no guarantee that said writing will be
anything but fictitious. But the fact is, if you contacted Mr Collins
today, on the phone, or even by mail, he would honestly admit to you
that he never went to the Duripinar site. Yet, the article somehow
found it's way into the Journal of Geoscience Education. Collins
violated a rule of science. Science is about observation and accuracy
of information. Without that direct observation, Collins was violating
that rule.


"PEOPLE WHO POP-OFF THAT IT'S A SYNCLINE HAVEN'T SEEN IT. "

- David Fasold
1998/03/20
alt.atheism

Collins gives a naturalistic explanation to the "thirteen lines of
limonite, marking supposed walls" that converge toward the structure's
pointed end[s]." It behooves us to remind the untrained layman, that
limonite is an oxidized form of iron. And as many are aware, iron was
used in the preflood world, according to the Bible. The coincidence
that Collins finds in the pattern of limonite being similar to that
found on a boat doesn't lead him to support this as a manmade
structure, because he says:

"I, as a geologist, can show that all these features could be formed
by natural processes."

"Could be's" form a part of presupposition and speculation. In
reality, there are cracks that are found in the Duripinar site. An
earthquake in 1978 formed a crack along the top deck. This cuts across
partly from across the top deck from rear almost to prow but veers
starboard. Even an earthquake could not produce the even lines, or
cracks that Collins speculates on being the cause of these evenly
space limonite (iron) deposits. At least Collins readily agree that
there is a pattern of iron there.
One thing that Collins is not pointing out, is that iron changes
composition in exposure to air and water. It becomes rust and
limonite. He criticizes an "iron bracket" that was discovered by Dr.
John Baumgardner as being not consistant with iron forged out of a
priimitive smelter, because it was thorougly mixed with clay, quartz,
calcite , and anthophyllite particles, but would have been solid iron.
It's hard to imagine a 4000 year old vessel containing pristine
undecomposed iron, but a ready explanation is that much of the iron
rusted, and like the process involved with petrification, holes in the
iron were replaced with quartz, calcite and a host of other particles.
We would not expect to find a 4000 year old piece of iron buried in
the mud in a perfect state of preservation, in other words.

But I would think that if Collins wanted to make a point, he would
discover a place on earth somewhere, where one could find a pattern of
iron that match the ones with rigidity as the pattern that is found at
the Duripinar site. If he can show that nature can and has duplicated
such a fantastic feat, producing even iron spacings that go vertically
up a plane and even on the sides of a surrounding wall, we would be
impressed.

>
> > 4. Atheist Ekrem Akurgal ruled the formation a ship.
>
> When asked why it had to be a ship, he replied, "because there is no
> other explanation."
> This is hardly the basis for any sort of argument. Because a single
> person can't think of another explanation, doesn't mean squat.

What Ekrem Akurgal said was that the object was a ship.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=UM8BuKm7CNI

So your tampering with the words I wrote is disingenuous.

>
> > 5. I, and some tourists were able to duplicate the pattern.
>
> So?
>
> Essentially all you have put forth is that some pattern has a ship-
> like shape. You, nor anyone else, has done any sort of connection that
> the pattern is an actual ship, rather than just a ship-shaped object
> or formation. You, nor anyone else, has shown, that if it is an actual
> ship, that it MUST be Noah's Ark.

What I have put forth is the shape is 1. that of a ship:

http://www.anchorstone.com/images/u2_small.jpg

That there is a pattern or iron, the sort you would expect if it were
a ship:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4CEydyhk2wE

This is a fact that you haven't even commented on.

>
> So, again, you have presented no argument to debunk because you have
> presented no argument. You are drawing conclusions from things that
> are not conclusive. You are asking us to punch holes in something
> which is basically one big hula hoop and when we scratch our heads
> wondering how exactly this "argument" can be demolished any more you
> turn around and declare yourself the winner.

Actually I have presented several lines of argument. Jim Irwin said
there was a pattern of iron there. World famous archeologist said that
the formation is a ship. The pattern is such that would expect to
find if it were a ship.

On the other hand you have merely argued in a vague manner stating,
"you have presented no evidence." In other words you have made no
claims in regard to the evidence.

In regard to the pattern of iron, you argument could be: 1. There is
no pattern of iron, Irwin lied. Or, 2. It's just lucky chance that the
pattern is that of a ship, on a ship like shape. 3. I can site
several examples, in the Journal of Micky Mouse they found 5 natural
rock boat shapes that coincidentally have a pattern of iron that fits
that of a ship. They are found at Disney World, Disney Land, Epcot
Center, Disney in Japan....

The best you could do was to cite a geologist from California, a man
who:

1. Never went to the site
2. Who's cowriter says that the formation isn't rock and that Collins
presupposed that it was rock.

That's pretty sad if that's the best you can do.

JM

[JM]

I agree with your assessment Brock.

JM

[Saint Onan]

It's impossible to agree with a nonsensical position. What you mean
is, you'll blindly take sides along with anyone who attacks atheism.

[Saint Onan]

On Apr 11, 12:54 pm, "zencycle" <funkmaste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> From: "wiseclam" <wisec...@earthlink.net>

Not to mention all the genera of social insects that don't even breed
in pairs.

[Dave]

On Apr 10, 10:41 am, JM <JM20000...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Atheists on Atheism vs Christianity are failing hands down.

You have failed to provide any proof to back up your claims. Videos
are not proof. It appears, that among many things, you are a failure.

[Dave]

On Apr 10, 8:54 pm, JM <JM20000...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I agree with your assessment Brock.

It is not surprising that two psychos would agree.

[Simpleton]

Thanks JM, you simply confirmed what I said, and in the process proved
your charge wrong.

[JM]

No it's not. I never debated the issue with "SIMPLETON."

JM

[zencycle]

From: "Saint Onan" <giga...@ozemail.com.au>

Subject: [AvC] Re: Atheists on Noah's Ark evidence (a failed debate)
>>

>> I remember reading somwhere that just getting a breeding pair of all the
>> insect species in the world on the boat would have filled it.
>
> Not to mention all the genera of social insects that don't even breed
> in pairs.

mmmmm, yes. Ants. Lots and lots of ants. Termites too, and bees, wasps, big
mean fucking wasps.

[Drafterman]

On Apr 10, 11:51 pm, JM <JM20000...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 11:10 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 10, 1:41 pm, JM <JM20000...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Atheists on Atheism vs Christianity are failing hands down.
>
> > And what, exactly, is your objective measure that results in that
> > assessment?

Evasion noted. I'll repeat the question:

What argument is there to support the notion that the pattern of iron
is man-made and not natural?
Furthermore it isn't my opinion that Jim Irwin said that, it's a fact
that he said that. The point being (which you missed beautifully) if
that if Jim Irwin did not consider his discovers as evidence of the
Ark, why are you?

Just throwing out stuff like "Pattern of iron found" is irrelevant.
You fail to assign any sort of significance to this "discovery".

I would be impressed if you could show why the patterns MUST be a
boat.

>
>
>
> > > 4. Atheist Ekrem Akurgal ruled the formation a ship.
>
> > When asked why it had to be a ship, he replied, "because there is no
> > other explanation."
> > This is hardly the basis for any sort of argument. Because a single
> > person can't think of another explanation, doesn't mean squat.
>
> What Ekrem Akurgal said was that the object was a ship.
>
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=UM8BuKm7CNI
>
> So your tampering with the words I wrote is disingenuous.

I didn't tamper with the words. They are directly from your buddy
Wyatt's web page:

http://www.wyattnewsletters.com/noahark/na14.htm

So, if you have a problem, contact him. Regardless, you have failed to
logically assign any significance to his opinion. Especially after
(wrongfully) chiding me for confusing opinion with fact.

>
>
>
> > > 5. I, and some tourists were able to duplicate the pattern.
>
> > So?

Again, what is the significance?

>
> > Essentially all you have put forth is that some pattern has a ship-
> > like shape. You, nor anyone else, has done any sort of connection that
> > the pattern is an actual ship, rather than just a ship-shaped object
> > or formation. You, nor anyone else, has shown, that if it is an actual
> > ship, that it MUST be Noah's Ark.
>
> What I have put forth is the shape is 1. that of a ship:
>
> http://www.anchorstone.com/images/u2_small.jpg
>
> That there is a pattern or iron, the sort you would expect if it were
> a ship:
>
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4CEydyhk2wE
>
> This is a fact that you haven't even commented on.

What facts? It is not a fact that all things shaped like a ship are
ships. It is not a fact that all patterns of iron are ships. You have
yet to establish the correlation.

Do you believe there is a face on Mars too?

>
>
>
> > So, again, you have presented no argument to debunk because you have
> > presented no argument. You are drawing conclusions from things that
> > are not conclusive. You are asking us to punch holes in something
> > which is basically one big hula hoop and when we scratch our heads
> > wondering how exactly this "argument" can be demolished any more you
> > turn around and declare yourself the winner.
>
> Actually I have presented several lines of argument.  Jim Irwin said
> there was a pattern of iron there. World famous archeologist said that
> the formation is a ship.  The pattern is such that would expect to
> find if it were a ship.

These are not arguments. You have a discover of iron formations and
someone's opinion. An argument would be you showing the necessary
logical conclusion that an iron formation and someone's opinion means
it's Noah's ark.

>
> On the other hand you have merely argued in a vague manner stating,
> "you have presented no evidence."  In other words you have made no
> claims in regard to the evidence.

That is correct. I have made no claims in regard to the evidence.
Because there is no evidence to make claims in regards to. Again:

You have shown there is a pattern of iron, which is not evident of any
specific thing.
And someone's opinion.

>
> In regard to the pattern of iron, you argument could be: 1. There is
> no pattern of iron, Irwin lied. Or, 2. It's just lucky chance that the
> pattern is that of a ship, on a ship like shape.  3. I can site
> several examples, in the Journal of Micky Mouse they found 5 natural
> rock boat shapes that coincidentally have a pattern of iron that fits
> that of a ship. They are found at Disney World, Disney Land, Epcot
> Center, Disney in Japan....
>
> The best you could do was to cite a geologist from California, a man
> who:
>
> 1. Never went to the site
> 2. Who's cowriter says that the formation isn't rock and that Collins
> presupposed that it was rock.
>
> That's pretty sad if that's the best you can do.

The best I can do is the rational disassembly of your non-argument.
But you appear to be immune to that and insist on empirical
contradictory evidence to your non-conclusions, which is unnecessary
at this point since you haven't presented anything worth refuting.


You have:

A pattern of iron.
Someone's opinion.

You don't have:
A logical argument that shows why the above two things must be a boat.
Why that boat must be Noah's ark.

>
> JM

[wiseclam]

On Apr 11, 7:11 am, "zencycle" <funkmaste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> From: "Saint Onan" <gigacy...@ozemail.com.au>

> > Not to mention all the genera of social insects that don't even breed
> > in pairs.
>
> mmmmm, yes. Ants. Lots and lots of ants. Termites too, and bees, wasps, big
> mean fucking wasps.

Not to mention plants.

Or the effects of desalinization on salt water fish.

Or errosion from the necesarily pounding rain.

Or logic.

[wiseclam]

On Apr 10, 1:35 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are definite eristic and solipsistic trends with atheistic
> responses on the forum for anyone to see.  It doesn't reflect well
> upon atheists positions on the forum, I believe.

Brock - do you agree with JM on this? Did the story of tNoah occur as
described in the bible?

[zencycle]

From: "wiseclam" <wise...@earthlink.net>

Subject: [AvC] Re: Atheists on Noah's Ark evidence (a failed debate)
>

> On Apr 11, 7:11 am, "zencycle" <funkmaste...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> From: "Saint Onan" <gigacy...@ozemail.com.au>
>> > Not to mention all the genera of social insects that don't even breed
>> > in pairs.
>>
>> mmmmm, yes. Ants. Lots and lots of ants. Termites too, and bees, wasps,
>> big
>> mean fucking wasps.
>

> Or logic.

One of my favorites is how they claim that fossils of sealife thousands of
feet above sea level is proof of the great flood

HELLLOOO! Ever heard of tectonic plate shift?

fucking asshats.

[LL]

On Apr 11, 7:56 am, "zencycle" <funkmaste...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> HELLLOOO! Ever heard of tectonic plate shift?

LL: I doubt it. It's not in the bible. Besides that, it's 5 syllables.
Far too many for their ability interpret. Try explaining it in words
of one syllable or less.

[Simpleton]

That is simply incoherent as a response.

> I never debated the issue with "SIMPLETON."
>

Just about everyone knows that too.



> JM- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[OldMan]

On Apr 10, 10:41 am, JM <JM20000...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Atheists on Atheism vs Christianity are failing hands down.  I have

> never actually debated this subject on this newsgroups, and have been
> debating pen names that I have never debated before.
>
> Yet, these obvious soc-puppets (a word I coined - coining is legally
> acceptable), claim that the debate has  been won (by them of course),
> and the Durupinar formation is not Noah's Ark, not a ship, or anything
> of that sort.  The claim is that since the site has been debunked
> before said lazy atheists do not have to do so again.
>
> Since I have never debated debated with these characters, they are
> obviously claiming to have done so under a different name. So much for
> honesty.
>
> Nonetheless, the atheists are so lazy that they cannot even provide
> any Google links that prove they had won any debate. So the fact still
> stands.
>

> 1. Jim Irwin the astronaut found a pattern of iron at the site.

> 2. Baumgardner found a pattern of iron on the site.
> 3.  Radar shows ribbing.

> 4. Atheist Ekrem Akurgal ruled the formation a ship.

> 5. I, and some tourists were able to duplicate the pattern.
>

> On the other hand, atheists have claimed that the pattern of iron has
> never been duplicated. An obvious lie. Atheists have been making flat
> assertions based on reclining in a chair and holding the head upright
> while smoking a pipe (in other words chemical reactions occur when
> offending thoughts occur  in the brain), and these chemicals cause
> curse words and lazy butt assertions to come out.
>
> JM

Back when I still accepted that the global flood described in Genesis
6-9 literally happened as described, I watched a video that Ron Wyatt
did on his Noah's ark expeditions. I though it was an embassing
joke.

[Shot In The Dark]

You're so clever, Queef. That's precisely why I hold you in such high
esteem.

On Apr 10, 4:14 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Excellent post by Snot In The Dark -- if you are an insomniac in need of
> literature with sleep inducing qualities.
>
> On 4/10/08, Shot In The Dark <adgies...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > So Drafterman shut you down, bro.  How do you like them apples?
> > Hmmm.  Hmmmmm.  That's what I thought.  You characterise the Atheists
> > here as lazy and unmotivated.  How about worn down and tired from
> > refuting the same bullshit over and over again.  I mean, you're
> > expecting others to do your heavy lifting here, and D-man obliged.
> > That you will still probably hold the same erroneous position on the
> > subject illustrates the reason it becomes tiring to keep bringing up
> > the rear, time and again.  You have the luxury of being insane at
> > least to a degree and so you probably don't labor with redundancy.
> > For those of us who enjoy new ideas and progressive thinking,  your
> > insistence on that which is old hat and well refuted is an anchor on
> > the discussions.  The fortunate thing is that this thread is basically
> > through pending your concession, were you to be honest.  I won't hold
> > my breath.

> --
> Ambassador From Hell- Hide quoted text -

[Keith MacNevins]

Can't say the same for you. But it is probably comforting for you to know that lowlifes probably do appreciate you. You speak for them very well.

[Brock Organ]

Or JM and myself. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Brock]

On Apr 11, 10:32 am, wiseclam <wisec...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 1:35 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There are definite eristic and solipsistic trends with atheistic
> > responses on the forum for anyone to see. It doesn't reflect well
> > upon atheists positions on the forum, I believe.
>
> Brock - do you agree with JM on this?

I haven't done a point by point comparison.

> Did the story of tNoah occur as
> described in the bible?

Yes.

Regards,

Brock