On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 07:22:32 -0800 (PST), osugeography
> Pastor Dave, Th.D. wrote:
>> wgroom said:
>>> Recent purported finding of ark
>>> from a few days ago...
>> As for me, until I see that last, closer up satellite photo,
>> I simply can't be sure. But from the distance I saw it,
>> it sure does look like it! Although some do claim it is
>> nothing more than a rock formation. I don't tend to
>> buy this concept, as the "formation" would be going
>> against the grain of what surrounds it.
>> Anyway, I'm open to all reasoned information about it.
> Hello, Pastor Dave.
> In regards to your writing...
> "Although some do claim it is nothing more than
> a rock formation. I don't tend to buy this concept,
> as the 'formation' would be going against the
> grain of what surrounds it."
> Geologically, but in layperson's terms,
Just FYI, while I do not claim to be a Geologist, I am
also not strange to the subject of geology either and
I have carefully examined the responses of others,
who are experts in this field and who do know what
they're talking about, so I can have a conversation
about this with you here. :)
> there are many "formations that ... (are) going
> against the grain of what surrounds it (them)."
It does happen. But let me note a couple of points:
1) I did not say that it cannot be a rock formation.
I said, "I do not TEND to buy it". In other words,
I do not LEAN that way. Sorry for any confusion.
2) And after I said that, I had also said (quoted above);
"I'm open to all reasoned information about it.",
which is what I assume by your tone of writing
that you are attempting to do now and I am
of course, happy to address such reasoned answers.
3) Your comment makes it seem as if this should be
the normal thinking when one sees a formation
that runs in the opposite direction of that which
surrounds it, by the use of the word, "many".
But "many", compared to what number?
You see, "many" just isn't "many" (meaning most),
when there are "many more" that don't, now is it.
At that point, "many", becomes "some of them",
as at that point, it becomes a comparative term.
I.e., a percentage that is smaller than those that
don't go against the grain, now doesn't it. :)
Back to my comments in response to your response...
So for me, while it does indeed occur, we must also take
into account the size of this "against the grain formation"
if that's what it is and that this would indeed be an
uncommon occurrence (relatively), not a common one,
which is why it's being observed as an uncommon thing
to see there, but not discounted as a possibility and
neither am I discounting it as such.
As I said, I have not reached a conclusion here and remain
open to any and all reasoned responses, including yours.
And that is how this should be viewed. As an unknown.
Conclusions should not be reached until knowledge that
allows for an absolute conclusion is gained. And in fact,
we cannot even say that it is only two possibilities there
(rock formation/Noah's Ark). It could be something else
entirely, could it not? We should be open to anything. :)
And as for what they conclude, as a general statement,
I agree with them that it should be considered as follows
and I state now my agreement by saying;
"It could be nothing more than a rock formation,
but it is strange enough that it warrants some
further examination and I state that this to be
(at this time) a fair assessment of this situation."
> I would ask that you look at pictures of a doubly
> plunging syncline.
Yes, I understand that and as I said, you have no need
to try to "convince me away from it being Noah's Ark",
as I have not concluded it to be Noah's Ark at this point
in time at least and it could be exactly what you state
as a possibility; that it is a "doubly plunging syncline".
> That is very similar to what is shown in many
> of the pictures.
I agree. :)
> I have seen one in southern Oklahoma, but do not
> have the location, or pictures here at hand, although
> I am reasonably confident that I can find the information.
No need to. I know that they look similar. :)
> This large scale formation is unusual, but certainly
> not unique. I'll look and check back here.
Okay, but FYI, I don't question what you said just now.
And I like that you said that it is "unusual, but not unique".
And I believe that I have said the same thing (about it
possibly being a formation that goes against the grain)
and hope that I have made this much clearer now. :)
The bottom line is, I don't know what it is and anyone
who says; "I know what it is for a fact!" is flat out
either lying, or deluded!
But I do find it strange that it is located where it is
and can easily be seen as looking like a large boat!
Don't you think that's worth some further investigation,
given the amazing implications of it?! How can science
turn its back on such an investigation, as it has so far
(and consistently does when it might have to face the
conclusion that it doesn't fit into the godless preassumed
doctrines of atheistic scientists, which is not the same as
saying "science", but they pretend it is), simply because
it might lead to a conclusion that makes them edgy?!
Don't you think that we should begin with;
"I don't know and it would be unscientific to exclude
anything at this point and this is worth investigation."
...as our premise?
It is at least worth wanting to see this other, amazingly
close up picture of this "anomaly", is it not? :)
I hope that you are not one of those people (and I am
not accusing you of being one of them) whose curiosity
stops when it comes to something that may end up
proving a Biblical statement (which again, I am not
accusing you of being).
You seem like a very reasonable fellow to me and I look
forward to further reasoned discussions with you (both
regarding this subject and hopefully on other subjects),
which unfortunately, is something that I just don't find
much of in news groups. :)
We are born wet, naked and hungry. Then things get worse.