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.
Originally posted by bob 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.
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!
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.
Originally posted by Cain Geology is covered in the "single cataclysm"
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.
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."
Originally posted by bob
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!
Ron Wyatt's site is located several miles from Mt. Ararat, is:
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.
Originally posted by Kill Cavalry 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.
I know Kill Cavalry is not here right now, but he's right, Carbon 14 is only accurate to a ceartain number of years.
There may be snow on Arrat but there would need to be icebergs to cover up a Boat that size!
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.
Originally posted by VALIS
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]
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.
Originally posted by Venture 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.
Very, very well said Venture.
Edit: And Cain (Has he changed his name since then?) and Yolegoman has some very good points also.
You are pretty acurate,
Ark can mean 'container', 'box', 'coffin', etc.
Box-shaped boats have shown no sucess, and almost always sink, therefore, I would go with the defenition 'container'. Ron Wyatt ( http://www.wyattmuseum.com ) built about a 12 ft long model of the ark based on the ratio of the site he found in Turkey, and the shape which is like a modern steam-ship-looking shape (See website ^), and drove speedboats around it to simulate waves, and it stood the test perfectly.
At NO time in the hundreds of thousands of years of Human history was the planet ever covered totally in water... If it had been, where did all that water go?
Noah and his boat makes for a good myth, or bed-time story, but lets not for a second pretend it actually happened as described in "The Bible"
Have to disagree CH. The world was covered by water during the flood of Noah. And yes, I am a Christian and I take the Bible literally. As far as science in concerned it is possible. After the flood the water would simply evaporate or be absorbed in the ground. When God caused the flood, not only did it rain, but springs came forth from the ground to help flood the earth. Also, there have been fossils of sea shells and creatures on top of mountains. The water at some time or another had to have covered the tops of these mountains for animals to be there.
"As far as science in concerned it is possible"
You need to talk to a reputable geologist, because not a single one I've ever met would agree...
"I take the Bible literally"
That's your problem, not mine... Your belief in mythology doesn't make it fact...
"there have been fossils of sea shells and creatures on top of mountains"
Because all mountains were at one point, sea beds... Plate tectonics and continental drift and such have been shaping and reshaping out planet for million and millions of years...
Oh... right... the world is only 5000+ years old.... ya... whatever... *rolls eyes*
No need to get nasty CH. I respect your opinion and beliefs. I am not an ordinary church goer who takes every word from the pupit without question. I study not only the Bible seriously but other sources and reference materials as well. After much study from religious and scientific information, I have concluded their has to be a Creator. I talked extensively about this in another thread ( the Sphinx thread, I believe ) so I want go into the details again. But I do not believe in mythology, the Bible is fact and history. Some things in this world can become more clear when you use an open mind and faith.
P.S. For the record, I do not believe the world has only been here 5000 yrs. I believe it to be much, much older. If you study the word "day" in Genesis 1, which in Hebrew is "yom" you will see it can mean 24 hrs or a long period of time. I take religion and science, all the facts, which is systematic theology, and come to a conclusion.
"I respect your opinion and beliefs."
You don't have to.... It's not offensive to not respect things you don't agree with... I don't respect your opinion in this matter... But that's nothing personal... it's just simple disagreement... I'll say this again later, but "what a boring ol' world it'd be....."
"the Bible is fact and history"
Sorry... survey says 'Bzzzzzt'! it's 'facts' are no such monster... It's history is at best self glorifying and questionable (The most recent evidence is calling into question whether there were ever even any Hebrews IN Egypt at all... If there were, they were certainly never 'slaves'... just as one example...)
So sorry mate.... You go ahead an believe what you want... But the weight of evidence sure seems to be against that belief... In my book, one may as well follow the teaching of people like Erich Von Daniken or Alan F Alford...
But just cause we disagree doesn't mean we can't share a few pints together... What a boring ol' world it'd be if we all believed exactly the same thing all the time eh....