Noahs Ark soon to be discovered?

Fair enough.

In 1999 and 2000 maritime explorer, Robert Ballard, found evidence in the Black Sea that it was a freshwater lake until it was flooded by the Mediterranean Sea about 7,000 years ago. It is his belief that this is the origin of the Noah story. Regarding the Bible and archeology, I recall that prior to 1900, scholars thought that the Hittites, as mentioned only in the Bible, never existed. Early in the 20th century, archeologists found the remains of the Hittite empire. I wouldn't be too hasty to dismiss Biblical stories, especially the ones that seem impossible. There is a great deal we don't know at this time.

We have a wise man among us, ladies and gentlemen. Pilot, I'm impressed. But as for the flood itself, strata in the earth relay more of a singular catastrophic event than millions of years of layering. If anyone's interested, I'll post some references and explanations.

Is this the similar theroy concerning the petrafied trees found in the wake of Mt. St. Helens, after the explosion?

Very similar. It seems there is at least one tree that stands upright through several strata, appearing according to "old Earth" theories to have grown for millenia. The trees at Mt. St. Helens demonstrated how an earth-shattering (literally) catastrophe could deposit objects in similar fashion. This theory (singular catastrophe) also explains why several species appear before their supposed time in the geological strata, or appear with animals not from their supposed periods.

To all concerned, I found an interesting biblical archaeology site. A lot of it is currently under construction, but the sections on the Ark of the Covenant and the alternate route of the Exodus are up and running.

http://www.baseinstitute.org

Thanks for the reference.

Very interesting link. Thanks, Cain!

Anytime, guys. I'm really glad you enjoyed it.

bob said:

Ok the forum ate my previous post but i really dont want to get into this anymore why?

I really dont want to take on faith because then things get ugly, because with faith a lot is possible and then the hypotheticals come 'this could have occured' 'what if...'

Looking at it from a purely scientific viewpoint there is no evidence for Noah's Ark (the flood is an entirely different kettle o'fish that i dont want to get into); and the story takes place in the parts of the Bible that i would consider pure myth (but i dont want to get into a slanging match about the validity of the Bible)

Until there is evidence for the existance of Noah's Ark outside of the Bible the possibility of its existance will not convince me.

Click to expand...

Sorry to butt in, but I must say, from a purely scientific view you have to include a creator in the recipe. Evolution is not a science, it's a religion. The only time science makes the most sence is when you believe there is a creator, God, who created the earth, not that there was this biological soupy stuff that nobody even knows where That came from, yet this stuff can make us!?! Even after billions of years, and there is no proof that the earth has even been around over 20,000 years anyway, it still couldn't happen!

Hope I didn't create any hard feelings.

Yolegoman

Yolegoman said:

there is no proof that the earth has even been around over 20,000 years anyway

Click to expand...

One word - geology.

Geology is covered in the "single cataclysm" theory much more comprehensively than in "old earth" theories.

Sorry to butt in, but I must say, from a purely scientific view you have to include a creator in the recipe.

Not in any science I've ever studied. You are mixing accepted fact with accepted faith. They are different things.

Evolution is not a science, it's a religion.

This is actually a very interesting point...science as a religion. If people like philosophic arguments, I would strongly suggest people research this issue in refereed articles. In fact, anyone considering a career in science should look into this debate. That being said, I must ask what definition of science you are using to make this claim.

The only time science makes the most sence is when you believe there is a creator, God, who created the earth

Really? I've always thought (and practiced) science makes the most sence when pride is removed from the lab and research project, procedures are documented in exacting detail, and results questioned several times by peers trained in the same field your research is being conducted in.


Even after billions of years, and there is no proof that the earth has even been around over 20,000 years anyway, it still couldn't happen!

Really? So all forms of radiometric dating are falsehoods, perpetuated by scientists and governments throughout most of the world? Same with chronostratigraphy, magnetostratigraphy, biostratigraphy, etc? And just how do you know it couldn't happen? There are more things in this world that I don't know about than I am knowledgeable of...does this mean therefore they can't possibly happen? I don't know much of the Judeo-Christian religion...does this mean it must be false? I know nothing of the religious beliefs of the Kwakwakwa'wakw. Do they therefore not exist?

Please think critically about what you say and belive in.

Cain said:

Geology is covered in the "single cataclysm"

Click to expand...

Not quite accurate. Geology currently belives that there was one event that formed the Earth. But geologists will be the first to say that cataclismic events have occured throughout geologic time, events which have radically changed the very shape of the continents.

It's been a while since I've been to these forums...Cain, I've been reading some of your posts, and I must say I enjoy them, and the point of view you bring.

[Edited by StarFire on 09-04-2003 at 05:19 pm]

Much obliged, Starfire. I enjoy talking about the ways that science bears out the Bible almost as much as I enjoy the very fact that it does. God requires faith, not blind faith. I'm equally impressed with your prodigious expertise. Glad to know we can disagree "like civilized people."

bob said:

1. It has been thousands of years since the flood events and the wood would have rotted away
2. Wouldnt the survivors of the flood have needed wood to start building again
3. Wood will rot over time, and even by some magical means the wood survived the boat would have collasped due to the lack of modern joining techniques the boat would have fallen apart especially if it was as big as it is supposed to be.
4. No one has managed to find it in thousands of years - someone would have noticed an enormous boat in the hills!

Click to expand...

Ron Wyatt's site is located several miles from Mt. Ararat, is:
1.Pertrified
2. possibly, but, the Ark was a gigantic thing (about 515 feet long) I think they would have trees again before they used up all the wood on Noah's Ark
3. The boat has collapsed, but it is still there (And was put together with metal brackets and rivets.
4. in the Bible, it says in hebrew: "The mountains of Urartu" which is the whole region around Mt. Ararat.

Kill Cavalry said:

It's all a very complex thing, the Ark. It may have existed until this time, but being an Arabic nation Turkey did not allow people to climb the mountain for decades. I've been told this is because the Quaran places the Ark somewhere else. Two expeditions from this century produced pieces of wood they claim to be from the Ark. Tests showed these two seperately funded expeditions had produced the same kind of wood, of the same age. Carbon-14 dating supposedly disproved this, but the very creator of Carbon-14 said that in the conditions in which these pieces were found his system would be unreliable in dating.
It's an enigma. Do I think it exists? Hell, I don't know, but it's certainly something worth looking into.

Click to expand...

I know Kill Cavalry is not here right now, but he's right, Carbon 14 is only accurate to a ceartain number of years.

bob said:

Indy87 said:

CAnt it be frozen!!!

Click to expand...

There may be snow on Arrat but there would need to be icebergs to cover up a Boat that size!

Click to expand...

In fact, ON Mt. Ararat, the glacier up there replaces itself every so many years, so if it was on Mt. Ararat, it would be destroyed. Also, most people don't know, Mt. Ararat is a volcano, so if Noah's Ark ever was up there (In the Ohura Gorge, where most look for it), it would be blown to smithereens by now. However, if it were several miles away, it could be preserved, petrified, and waiting.
See http://www.wyattmuseum.com

VALIS said:

I fail to see how multiple cultures having a legendary flood story would detract from the possibility of there having been a period of significant flooding, which the geological record supports.
While the dimensions of the Ark in the Old Testament is not large enough to hold two of every animal, nor the food needed to feed them for forty days, it would be possible to float a wooden ship of those dimessions. [/B]

Click to expand...

Noah's Ark would be measured in the Royal Egyptian Cubit(20.6 in., not in the Hebrew Cubit(18 in.), therefore, Noah's Ark would be 515 ft. long.
They would not have to carry a cocker spaniel, and a bulldog, and a lab, etc, only a pair of dogs, a pair of horses, etc.

Venture said:

Archaeologists are finding today that the Bible is the most reliable archaeological handbook in existence, and have yet to disprove even one of its accounts. To the contrary, most have been borne out. A big boat and a big flood are well within the realms of possibilty and probability.

Click to expand...

Very, very well said Venture.
Edit: And Cain (Has he changed his name since then?) and Yolegoman has some very good points also.

[Edited by Tennessee R on 02-11-2004 at 09:22 pm]