Re: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: CNN: Expedition to search for Noah's Ark
- On 28 Apr 2004 at 13:27, Randy Raymond wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, Dave OldridgeYes, it probably is, but there were aircraft that could fly as high
> <doldridg@s...> wrote:
> > On 27 Apr 2004 at 21:40, Randy Raymond wrote:
> > > --- In
> firstname.lastname@example.org, "gymnast_chickk"
> > > <tinaoehler@y...> wrote:
> > > > I'm cautiously optimistic, Leon. Anyway, I think this whole
> > > > chase started when Russian pilots spotted (what appeared to
> be) the
> > > > ark from their aircraft, which aroused the interest of the
> > > (that
> > > > was way back in 1917). So, he sent two companies of soldiers
> > > climb
> > > > the mountain. They located the ark, took pictures and sent
> back a
> > > > full report to the Czar. But, unfortunately, a few days after
> > > > expedition sent its report to the Czar, the government was
> > > overthrown
> > > > and godless Bolshevism took over, so that the records were
> > > made
> > > > public. These amiable atheists had every reason to destroy the
> > > > reports, unless they were negative, that is. Judge for
> yourself --
> > > > don't you think we should settle this thing once and for all?
> > > >
> > > > gymnast (moving her toes out of the way)
> > >
> > > I doubt very seriously that there were any airplanes in 1917
> > > could operate AT the 17,000 ft. altitude of Mt. Ararat, much
> > > significantly above it. I think you have been taken in.
> > Spad. Designed in France in 1916. Ceiling 17,500 feet.
> > There were probably others, too. WWI spurred aviation technology
> > almost more than WWII did.
> I stand corrected then. Before I posted that reply, I tried to
> google for historical airplane altitude records, and couldn't find
> any. The best I could come up with was one for about 13,000 ft.
> sometime in the 'teens.
> The story still sounds aprocryphal. I have some difficulty
> imagining the Czar sending what would have been the highest of high
> tech airplanes scouting over the mountains of Armenia while his army
> was being destroyed in WWI. Also, Czar Nicholas abdicated on March
> 15th of 1917.
as 20,000 feet at the time. You just needed to find them and
Germany, France or Britain were the main places to look. Not sure
what was happening in the USA but I doubt any American aircraft
would have been in the area then. After the war, maybe. But
Turkey was allied to Germany at the time, so it's quite possible
that some Allied plane was on some kind of reconaissance flight.
- ----- Original Message -----From: guesser12001Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 9:50 AMSubject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: CNN: Expedition to search for Noah's Ark--- In email@example.com, "Leon Albert, Prof.
of Anthropology, ret." <lalbert001@c...> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: guesser12001
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 10:18 AM
> Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: CNN: Expedition to
search for Noah's Ark
> --- In email@example.com, "Leon Albert,
> of Anthropology, ret." <lalbert001@c...> wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: guesser12001
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 12:38 PM
> > Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: CNN: Expedition to
> search for Noah's Ark
> > "...17,000 ft. altitude of Mt. Ararat..."
> > how much water would it take to cover the entire Earth to a
> > 17,000 feet above sea level? I don't know but it's more than
> > ever existed on this world.
> > I am a Christian. I believe in Jesus' death on the cross to
> > mankind. But I don't have to defend the creation story to
> > made the World.
> > Disproving the literal Genesis story doesn't prove God
> > the world, either.
> > The big bang, Who made it bang?
> > Matter, where did it come from? God is just as good an
> > as any.
> > Faith is faith and doesn't require proof.
> > Guesser
> > Leon: Nature doesn't require our anthropomorphic projections
> scientific explanations of it, Guesser.
> > Leon
> Leon: My point exactly (read upthread). What I said was that the
> literalist view of a world-wide flood was wrong based on the
> of water it would take to cover the Earth to 17,000 feet (more
> the world ever contained). In fact, Genesis says that the
> tops were covered with over 40 feet of water (requiring even more
> My point was that refuting the scientific "proof" of the Bible
> doesn't "disprove" God's creation of the Universe, only a literal
> reading of the creation story of the Bible
> What I was saying was that neither creation nor the strict
> evolutionist's version can be proved and that each was a matter
> Believers say God did it, nonbelievers say it just happened.
> Believers say, before matter, there was God.
> Where God came from is to the believer as were matter came from
> the non-believer. Can't be explained.
> Leon: You radically misunderstand the role of "faith" in science
as contrasted with its role in religion, Guesser. Where in religions,
faith permeates every aspect of the belief system, in science, ONCE
one moves beyond its underlying assumptions, NOTHING is accepted on
the basis of faith. May I suggest that you read a book or two on the
philosophy of science BEFORE you 'pontificate' any further on its
nature? And, science does not require "proof" of its theories, as you
appear to think. It just goes with those that are testable, that have
survived numerous and diverse testing, and that are supported by
massive and diverse empirical evidence, as SCIENCE defines
both "theory" and "evidence."
> Leon AlbertGuesser:
I had always suspected it but now I know I must be an ignorant
person, especially since you have now told me so.
Leon: Don't feel bad. We are all "ignorant" of many things.
>What are "underlying assumptions" if not things believed based on
something: proofs or beliefs (faith in something).Leon: Excepting the "proofs" nonsense (which negates the need for assumptions), I've already conceeded this.>You just won't
admit you have pre-conceived notions equal to those of that poor
fellow (Laurie) that you are always insulting.Leon: None of us can avoid "pre-conceived notions." Virtually none of mine regarding science (or practically everything else) are remotely "equal" to those held by the idiot ignoramus, Laurie Appleton.>At least admit, since
there is no evidence, that you cannot say from where the building
blocks of time space and matter originate.Leon: Physicists point to tons of evidence in support of their theories regarding the cosmogeny of matter, space, and even "time."
>I thought I had a good point in mentioning how much water it would
take to cover the Earth to a depth of 40 plus feet above the
mountains as it says in Genesis (more than has ever existed). But
because that idea can be said in a sentence and doesn't use a lot
of "scientific" jargon (parralax and whatnot), you'd rather ignor it
and put me down instead. I was agreeing that a literal creationist
intertretation of the universe was wrong.Leon: I did not even comment on your remarks regarding the flood myth, beyond noting my amazement that supposedly adult minds even bother to talk about such an obviously childish myth as if it were even a possibility.
>As an anthropologist, do you have as low an opinion of all the
cultures you've studied as you do the segment of your own which
believes God might have created the universe?Leon: No scientist is obligated to have a "high opinion" of his subject matter, whether it be the products of digestion, a deadly disease, a particular culture, or the nature of human religion(s). The primary, if not sole goal of science is scientific explanation of whatever is being studied. Again, I suggest that you study a little philosophy of science BEFORE you pontificate on its nature, guesser.