Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kosh · 03-04-2004, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kingdomovehearts
He was looking at the anchor...

But he's in a very rocky area. Your page claims that it's the unique clay bottom which helped the anchors to hold....

DetectedDestiny · 03-04-2004, 11:27 PM

Why do they first compare their soundings with the depths described in Luke and later go on to assert that it's possible for a sandy beach to have developed in 2000 years. Wouldn't have such a development a profound effect on the depth of the sea along the shoreline also? Thus rendering their soundings pretty useless?

Quote:

Luke records that, following this, the sailors dropped a line and measured twenty fathoms. A little further on, they dropped the line again and found fifteen fathoms.

You can follow the approximate line of the ship’s drift on the map of St. Paul’s Bay. Within a quarter mile of passing Koura Point, there is an average depth of twenty fathoms. A little farther west lies the fifteen fathom mark.

Luke records that there was a sandy beach facing them. The modern St. Paul’s Bay does not have a sandy beach, but it is geologically possible that there was one two thousand years ago.

Doctor X · 03-05-2004, 12:11 AM

Was the anchor found on a toilet?

--J.D.

Kosh · 03-05-2004, 06:26 PM

I just hate it when they fold like that...

Gawen · 03-06-2004, 06:33 AM

What's all the fuss? The article claims nothing other than finding an anchor of the type used 2000 years ago. Big deal. It's not like Pauls boat was the ONLY boat using anchors.
In my youngers years of fishing, I must have lost at least 3 anchors. And these I had to cut away so I could get home. Lead anchors were used for a long time in the Med and I can only imagine how many thousands have been lost for whatever reason.

Doc. X....this fixation of yours...of lost articles turning up on toilets....

*afterthought*...If they were Pauls anchors...that would make them True Anchors (tm)

Kosh · 03-06-2004, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gawen
What's all the fuss?

I think the fuss over yet another disengenious Xian claim. They would do well to abide by their own book....

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-05-2004, 12:11 AM	#23
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Was the anchor found on a toilet? --J.D.

03-05-2004, 06:26 PM	#24
Kosh Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Orions Belt Posts: 3,911	I just hate it when they fold like that...

03-06-2004, 06:33 AM	#25
Gawen Contributor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Cylon Occupied Texas, but a Michigander @ heart Posts: 10,326	What's all the fuss? The article claims nothing other than finding an anchor of the type used 2000 years ago. Big deal. It's not like Pauls boat was the ONLY boat using anchors. In my youngers years of fishing, I must have lost at least 3 anchors. And these I had to cut away so I could get home. Lead anchors were used for a long time in the Med and I can only imagine how many thousands have been lost for whatever reason. Doc. X....this fixation of yours...of lost articles turning up on toilets.... afterthought...If they were Pauls anchors...that would make them True Anchors (tm)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.