Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Post Volume: Total: 918,050 Year: 5,307/9,624 Month: 332/323 Week: 176/160 Day: 12/38 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wyatt's Museum and the shape of Noah's Ark
Tennessee R
Inactive Member


Message 296 of 303 (317460)
06-04-2006 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by DrJones*
06-04-2006 2:21 AM


Dr.Jones said:
"You're telling me that after laying out there for thousands of years, not a single fraction of an inch of the "ark" decayed/was broken off/moved from its original position? That really sets off my bullshit detector."
From possibly not long after the landing (if this is the ship), to sometime in the 70s (either 60s or 70s) the ship was primarily covered in debris. It wasn't until an earthquake recently that it was exposed like it is today.
If I remember correctly, Ron said he found broken off remains. But the lenght with the strong keel remained mostly intact, according to Ron. Again, if I recall, there was one large broken section (possibly near the bow?) (Probably tells in the official videos).
But, after all, you don't believe in the ark at all, so there's no reason to discuss THIS boat-shaped object.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by DrJones*, posted 06-04-2006 2:21 AM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by DrJones*, posted 06-04-2006 2:44 AM Tennessee R has not replied

Tennessee R
Inactive Member


Message 301 of 303 (317465)
06-04-2006 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by sidelined
06-04-2006 2:31 AM


sidelined said:
"Since the Egyptian Royal Cubit was not a precise measure there is no way to determine an EXACT measuremnt no matter what you say. Even laser measurements are not exact TR and every measurement has a degree of uncertainty."
I was responding to a quote from someone who thought I couldn't make up my mind on how long it was, and I was trying to convey the idea that Ron measured it (Sorry, should I say SAID he measured it) to the closest possible degree. I don't believe he was ever quoted with all of the exactly's in there, they were to make a point that wouldn't have gotten across to Ringo any other way.
I know. Ive tried.
And please excuse me, Ringo, that's just my experience with you so far.
I'm sure that my way of putting things mixes things up. I'm sorry.
Edited by Tennessee R, : I'm sure that my way of putting things mixes things up. I'm sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by sidelined, posted 06-04-2006 2:31 AM sidelined has not replied

Tennessee R
Inactive Member


Message 303 of 303 (317468)
06-04-2006 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by ringo
06-04-2006 2:49 AM


Ringo said:
"Approximately 515 feet can not be exactly 300 cubits. Is the measurement approximate or exact? It can not be both. I'm trying to tell you that your language is sloppy, not necessarily that your point is wrong."
Everything I said was accurate. It is 300 cubits long.
If you want to, you can do the math, and figure out exactly how many feet that is. All I know offhand is that 300 cubits equals around 515 feet.
I really do have trouble expressing my thoughts sometimes, so please forgive me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by ringo, posted 06-04-2006 2:49 AM ringo has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024