Noahs Ark soon to be discovered?

westford

Member
Tennessee R said:
3. The boat has collapsed, but it is still there (And was put together with metal brackets and rivets.
When is the event supposed to have happened? If, as has been suggested earlier in this thread, it occured c.7-8,000 years ago, they couldn't have used metal brackets or rivets.

PS - Cain = Venture
 

Pilot

New member
Noah's Ark is actually a big box. My ancient Hebrew is a little rusty, but the word "ark" means bpx or chest.
 

Tennessee R

New member
Thank you westford.

Pilot,
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"
 

Johan

Active member
They are probably looking in the wrong place.
The Bible states that it came to rest on the Mountains of Ararat...it was a range of mts back then.
 

indyt

Active member
ClintonHammond said:
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*
 

indyt

Active member
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....
 

indyt

Active member
Thats cool, we can agree to disagree. I am glad we can have conversation without getting ugly. But if you would ever like to talk about the matter of God, Christ or salvation in the future, I would be glad to partner with you on that. :)
 

Brown Fedora

New member
temple of john said:
Though I respect your opinion, I think it important to not mix science with Theology. There are certain facts proven true by science. The Bible in my mind, should not be taken literally. I believe it more to tell stories of morality, God's laws, etc. Though I think some of what the Bible says may be true, most are just stories meant for children.

Science is not infallible. Neither is religion. Sadly, there are extremists in both who will tell you otherwise. For every St. Jerome, we have Steven Hawking locking himself in a room for two weeks and then coming out to claim he'd invented "time travel".

Naw, as a scientist (as much as that means in my current situation), I tend to believe that there is no logical reason to dismiss the existence of God. Those who feel otherwise are welcome to their opinions.

-Fed-
 
Science doesn't CLAIM to be infallible...
The MEN who created religion would have us believe it was...

That's one of the big important differences to me...
 

Brown Fedora

New member
ClintonHammond said:
Science doesn't CLAIM to be infallible...
The MEN who created religion would have us believe it was...

That's one of the big important differences to me...

An interesting point. If I may respond, Clinton (respectfully),

As a scientist I know plenty of scientists (personally, professionally, and from afar) who DO believe that science is infallible, and claim as much. Merely using different words for infallibility does not change the basic intent of many prominent and well meaning scientific minds.

To me, there really is no difference. Religious fundamentalists would have you believe that theirs is the only true interpretation of faith, and that anyone who disagrees with them is not only an idiot and of dubious sanity, but also bound for hell.

Scientific fundamentalists would have you believe that theirs is the only true interpretation of reality, and that anyone who disagrees with them is not only an idiot and of dubious sanity, but also bound for academic disgrace. (Which as a scientist is pretty much hell - just ask David Irving).

In 1500, the Church was firmly convinced that the earth was the center of the universe. In 1800, Science was firmly convinced that space was filled with lumineferous ether. Men of faith and science questioned both these views, and were persecuted for them.

Simply claiming that science is not as likely to error because it is not based upon "faith" merely ignores that "faith" is often required in formulating scientific hypotheses. It is, to me, equally ludicrous to claim that the bible shouldn't be questioned because it is the "Word of God", as if human beings had the mental capability to full comprehend the intents of the Creator.

I tend to see it the way that Plato did "There is no absolute truth in the realm of the mundane".

For every Bishop who's claimed the ability to calculate the age of the earth based upon a few Biblical passages, there's a Steven Hawking who believes he can mathematically determine the exact age of the universe based upon a few computer projections.



-Fed-
 
"I know plenty of scientists who DO believe that science is infallible"
Then they are NOT reputable scientists... plain and simple...

"For every Bishop.... there's a Steven Hawking"
The difference is Hawking admits when he's wrong...
 

Brown Fedora

New member
ClintonHammond said:
"I know plenty of scientists who DO believe that science is infallible"
Then they are NOT reputable scientists... plain and simple...

"For every Bishop.... there's a Steven Hawking"
The difference is Hawking admits when he's wrong...

I beg to differ regarding their credulity. As would the Universities and institutions employing them. There is a difference between credulity and ethical responsibility. I didn't say I agreed with their assertions.

As for Hawking, I can't recall him ever admitting being wrong about anything.
Don't see a big retraction of "A Brief History of Time" appearing on my local bookshelves, let alone a list of errata. Oddly enough, I do see the Bishop of Utrecht repudiated by a number of prominent "religious" sources.

I should also point out that Mr. Hawking is one of those scientists who has gone on record for scientific infallibility. Having a large brain does not entitle one to claim supreme knowledge of any subject.

Interestingly, from a statistics point of view, the harder the science, the deeper the belief. Social science tends to be at the bottom of the spectrum in terms of belief in a higher power; hard sciences tend to top it out.

Irregardless, with all due respect, you seem to have missed my point(s)completely. Religious fundamentalists would find equal trouble buying into my arguments for science. C'est la vie. Everyone must have his passions, I suppose...

"Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
- Albert Einstein
 
"I can't recall him ever admitting being wrong about anything"
He's not very wrong very often, but when he is, he's the first to admit it... (Though likely resistant and begrudgingly, of course...) when/if I get a chance to source you some examples I will....

"Irregardless"
No such word, speaking of credibility...
(sorry... personal pet-peeve...)

Anyway.... This has got way off topic.... I won't be holding my breath that "Noahs Ark" is gonna be 'discovered' any time soon.... indeed at all....
 

Rick5150

New member
Wow, I love these discussions. As an agnostic, I will say that the idea of grownups believing in invisible deities is interesting at best. The Bible is an excellent resource for morals and many things that are written in this great book could conceivably have happened. I consider it a ?must-read? for everyone. I also consider it a work of fiction loosely based on events that were perceived to be true. It is in no way fact, until it can be proven otherwise.

There are so many items were demonstrated to have been borrowed from other cultures. ?Woman from Man,? ?The Great Flood,? ?The Creation,? etc. All have been done before, most many times. The argument should not be ?if so many cultures wrote about these events, why couldn?t they be true?? The real question is one of timeline. ?Why are these two stories so similar when they are written thousands of years apart?? The answer is most likely that one culture borrowed and edited the story from another to suit their needs and beliefs as they evolved.

The Bible cannot be taken literally. Read 101 Myths of the Bible to see some glaringly obvious mistakes or interpretations.

?indyt? said:
After the flood the water would simply evaporate or be absorbed in the ground.

You are not making a valid point here. This is clearly impossible. Water can evaporate, but it has to evaporate to somewhere. Water is in a constant cycle -- it evaporates from the ocean, travels through the air, rains down on the land and then flows back to the ocean. It does not disappear never to be seen from again. Are you saying all this water is floating around in the sky? In a similar concept, you can put ice in a glass and then fill the glass to the brim with water. When the ice melts the glass overflows, right? Of course not. The earth maintains similar balance.

About 1.6 percent of the planet's water is locked up in the polar ice caps and glaciers. Another 0.36 percent is found underground in aquifers and wells. Only about 0.036 percent of the planet's total water supply is found in lakes and rivers. Keep in mind that water stays level. To raise the water over 30% of the earth?s land mass to a depth of 50 feet, for example, the water will have to raise 50 feet in the oceans as well. It is not physically possible. See link for figures

?TennesseeR? said:
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.
But for this argument to be valid, religious folks have to take into account that there are many species now. If we derived many different species from one, isn?t that part of evolution? I realize that is a bad word to the religious, but it happens. If it happened to the animals, why not people? Not necessarily drastically, like from apes either.

Religion is faith-based. There are probably some facts, but the majority of religion is that you need to believe in something that cannot be seen or proven. If you are bad you will be punished and if you are good you will be rewarded. Just like Santa Claus. Show me the facts that prove God exists and I will be His biggest worshipper.

Until then, the Bible is not fact and simply a terrific collection of stories that have many excellent values. Also, one of the most violent books you will ever read.

To add some levity, have any of you heard of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? It is a humorous look at intelligent design. If you cannot disprove it beyond a doubt, you cannot ignore it. Interesting theory?
 
Top