Noahs Ark?

Originally posted by defrag99

As I recall, if you search Google for Noah's Ark, you will discover that many expeditions have climbed Mt. Ararat to see if they could find the ark itself.

Some expeditions actually took photos of a large flat wooden structure upon the side of that mountain.

Now, if that's not Noah's Ark, I'd like a list of all the OTHER sea-faring vessels that have landed on the side of that mountain.

There are photos of some interesting geological formations...but no 'Noah's Ark' pics that I know of...

Check this out - the truth behind the discovery of 'Noah's Ark'...

www.talkorigins.org...

[edit on 4-8-2007 by jimbo999]

Originally posted by ebe51
Don't know, I would guess they were brought there, by Noah's kid's kid's kid's.

but how did they get them from australia?

They don't need moms most all anmials have instintive behavior.

no, most undomesticated animals learn behaviors from communal settings. birds can't fly without watching examples, certain hunting techniques are taught to predators by their parents, and there are many other behaviors that animals acquire..

and the whole predator thing brings up another issue... how did noah keep the animals from eating each other... and how did he keep them fed... and where did he keep ther.... refuse.

In bible writing days they did not have the science or have words for species, or animals families. This is new science that has came up with these terms. But like I said a kid can tell you that dogs and cats are not the same kind of animal, yet a horse and zebra are.

which species of zebra? there are 4
and horses and zebra are in the same genus.. they can't reproduce and provide fertile offspring.

you've yet to give any proper definition for "kind"

Many adapted, many died is my guess

that's not how fish work. fill up a freshwater fish tank with half fresh and half salt water. throw in either fresh or saltwater fish... the only fish that will survive are the ones that are from an environment that has the salinity of the tank

most all bugs find a way to thrive, many can lay eggs in mud or where every and hang out there for long periods of time.

but the whole world was flooded... there wasn't any mud

Indeed it is check out this link...www.talkorigins.org... or www.earthage.org...

you're counting christianized aboriginal myths? that doesn't count at all. those were developed after an exposure to the hebrew myth.

Geology evidence for a flood is all over, one I like off hand is the fact trees have been found standing up-right cutting through Earth layers that were suppose to have took billions of years to fourm. I don't about the tree where you live, but the trees around I don't think are stand up-right for billions years while dirt covers them, I suppect they would fall over and rot first. Check out this link...
www.earthage.org...

earth age isn't a credible source. could you give me a peer-reviewed scientific source that shows this "evidence"?

reply to post by superdude
its called evolution evolution is real too a degree so he took kangaroos but remember the continents split up after the flood soo those kangaroos BECAME native to austrailia

reply to post by ebe51
all these questions about the ark it was a MIRACLE it oppossed the laws of nature LIKE A LOT OF THINGS

Hey yall. New to the board. Figured this would be as good a topic to break ground as any.

Originally posted by Leveller
As somebody has already stated: go read the Epic of Gilgamesh.
It's an older Babylonian text that contains all of the fundamentals for the Bible story of Noah.

The dove is there, the animals, the mountain, the olive branch, and the rainbow - all and more are present in this older story.
It is probable that part of the Old Testament was compiled whilst it's Hebrew authors were exiled in Babylon. Here they would have been surrounded by Babylonian religion and legend.

Here's the thing about Noah versus Gilgamesh. Whether or not the epic was written before Noah is entirely beside the point from a technological perspective. For all you know, Noah's ark happened as laid out in the Bible, but the story was passed down orally, where the Babylonians were just the first to write it down. Age of the documentation is completely pointless, and applicability can be debated. The ability of the ark to sustain the lives of so many animals can be debated. The possibility of embellishment can be debated. What CANNOT be debated, however, is the technical side of the debate---the seaworthiness of the craft itself.

Consider this. Gilgamesh's "ark" was a cube. Length, width, and height were all the same dimension. And while the cube would quite likely have floated, it would have had ZERO stability! It would have bucked and rolled and tossed this way and that, capsizing with every wave.

Noah's ark, on the other hand, was built with dimensions rivaling the stability of an air craft carrier. In test tanks, the US Navy determined that the craft---while little more than a long, watertight box---would have been EXTREMELY seaworthy, practically impossible to capsize.

One other point of order. Both Gilgamesh and Noah were written before any culture had any sort of advanced seafaring technology beyond river-running boats or, at best, seagoing skiffs---certainly nothing coming close to the dimensions of either craft! As such, it is perfectly reasonable that Gilgamesh's craft would be deemed unseaworthy. What is incredible is that, in such a technologically inferior culture, an ark of Noah's description could indeed be built and survive the rigors of seatravel.

How could such a primative culture have gotten that one right? It would be like the Wright Brothers designing a 747

Doesn't anybody already know how this happened? Noah took every species of animal because God shrunk them down with his powers so they could all fit duhhh... The story of Noah doesn't have to be logical at all really but how many parts of the bible really are after all? I'm telling you it's all magic! That's how it happened!

reply to post by jheated6


Bravo! Way to give this some objective, serious thought...

reply to post by nashdude


Thank you, I try so hard..... So I was just wondering if you had the real answers? I don't see how mine is any different from any other way it could have gone down....

Here is the most likely culprit of the flood myth. It would explain why almost every culture around the rim of the Indian Ocean has a version of a giant flood.

Giant Asteroid Impact

Originally posted by jheated6
reply to post by nashdude

 

Thank you, I try so hard..... So I was just wondering if you had the real answers? I don't see how mine is any different from any other way it could have gone down....

I noticed how you never addressed the points I made concerning the seaworthiness of a ship designed hundreds of years before such a ship could have existed. I also noticed how you never addressed the UN-seaworthiness of the "ship" the Ark was supposedly modeled after.

Perhaps I AM offering answers, but you're not willing to see past your biases to the possibility that I might be right...

reply to post by nashdude


Ok so are you saying that the ship was sea-worthy enough to actually do it? or are you saying the ship shouldn't have even existed at all? Either way I think the ship would have to dwarf the titanic to even attempt to move 1/10 of the species on earth....

Originally posted by jheated6
reply to post by nashdude

 

Ok so are you saying that the ship was sea-worthy enough to actually do it? or are you saying the ship shouldn't have even existed at all? Either way I think the ship would have to dwarf the titanic to even attempt to move 1/10 of the species on earth....

We're not talking about "I think", but rather "is it possible?" Whether you personally subscribe to it or not, the question that must be asked is not about likelihood, but whether or not such a feat is outside the realm of possibility.

Whether it was big enough is not the point. There are so many "mutt" species of animals that all species could viably be represented on the Ark, but THAT'S not the point either. I was speaking strictly of 1) its viability as a craft, 2) the improbability that the Ark could have gotten it right when its supposed "parent story" had gotten it wrong, and 3) the impossibility that it could have existed---either physically or in imagination---without the outside help that Genesis suggests. So to just write off God as a possible answer is to give your biases higher priority than any possible truth. Not very scientific

[edit on 11-7-2008 by nashdude]

A few problems I have with the Noah story.

1) Why did god bother at all making Noah build an ark etc, after all only about a 1000-ish years earlier (or 1 god day according to some) god created everything (or he got the Earth to do it). So why didn't he just start again and make better animals etc? Was god still on his rest day?

2) Doesn't anyone seem to realize that the reason there are flood stories globally is that the sea level has risen around 400 feet since the last ice age so yes virtually everywhere has been flooded at some point. Also the fact that most peoples lived by the sea would tend to give rise to a few tales of flooding.

3) While everyone battles on about the number of beasts noah had - I am more interested in why Noah's sons and wives children decided that they would only interbreed with their siblings, and not their cousins etc, so that they could create the different races.

That'll do for now


G

Originally posted by shihulud
A few problems I have with the Noah story.

1) Why did god bother at all making Noah build an ark etc, after all only about a 1000-ish years earlier (or 1 god day according to some) god created everything (or he got the Earth to do it). So why didn't he just start again and make better animals etc? Was god still on his rest day?

His creation wasn't faulty, but what had become of it necessarily... due to free will. If He had restarted from scratch, then the whole purpose of free will---to produce within man the ability to "exceed his programming" and LOVE God---would have been made null and void.

2) Doesn't anyone seem to realize that the reason there are flood stories globally is that the sea level has risen around 400 feet since the last ice age so yes virtually everywhere has been flooded at some point. Also the fact that most peoples lived by the sea would tend to give rise to a few tales of flooding.

That would explain the Ark settling on a plain or something... not on top of a mountain that still exists.

3) While everyone battles on about the number of beasts noah had - I am more interested in why Noah's sons and wives children decided that they would only interbreed with their siblings, and not their cousins etc, so that they could create the different races.

Good question. I'll research it, but I think it might have something to do with sibling rivalry.

Originally posted by nashdude

Originally posted by shihulud
A few problems I have with the Noah story.

1) Why did god bother at all making Noah build an ark etc, after all only about a 1000-ish years earlier (or 1 god day according to some) god created everything (or he got the Earth to do it). So why didn't he just start again and make better animals etc? Was god still on his rest day?

His creation wasn't faulty, but what had become of it necessarily... due to free will. If He had restarted from scratch, then the whole purpose of free will---to produce within man the ability to "exceed his programming" and LOVE God---would have been made null and void.

Makes no sense - who would have known???? And why would the whole purpose of free will be null and void? - Just make more humans with free will.

2) Doesn't anyone seem to realize that the reason there are flood stories globally is that the sea level has risen around 400 feet since the last ice age so yes virtually everywhere has been flooded at some point. Also the fact that most peoples lived by the sea would tend to give rise to a few tales of flooding.

That would explain the Ark settling on a plain or something... not on top of a mountain that still exists.

There's no evidence that Noah's ark rests anywhere. All supposed evidence has been refuted as far as I'm aware or been a lie.

Originally posted by shihulud

Originally posted by nashdude

Originally posted by shihulud
A few problems I have with the Noah story.

1) Why did god bother at all making Noah build an ark etc, after all only about a 1000-ish years earlier (or 1 god day according to some) god created everything (or he got the Earth to do it). So why didn't he just start again and make better animals etc? Was god still on his rest day?

His creation wasn't faulty, but what had become of it necessarily... due to free will. If He had restarted from scratch, then the whole purpose of free will---to produce within man the ability to "exceed his programming" and LOVE God---would have been made null and void.

Makes no sense - who would have known???? And why would the whole purpose of free will be null and void? - Just make more humans with free will.

You're either completely missing the point, or avoiding it intentionally. Free will had nothing to do with anybody "knowing" about it. Free will must exist out of necessity for there to be choice. Whether or not anybody "knew" about it, it had to be in place for us to either choose FOR God or choose AGAINST God. If He had "hit reset", He still would have had to eventually deal with the same situation all over again, because free will demands the choice. In fact, if He had started creation all over from scratch, He would have lost ground with mankind that had been gained in the Flood! I mean, how would mankind have learned anything from the destruction of the world if they had all been destroyed with it?!?

God doesn't want pets---He wants PEOPLE. Without free will, He doesn't get what He wants. So yes---if He circumvented free will, "hit reset", or anything along those lines, He would have voided the entire purpose of creating man.

2) Doesn't anyone seem to realize that the reason there are flood stories globally is that the sea level has risen around 400 feet since the last ice age so yes virtually everywhere has been flooded at some point. Also the fact that most peoples lived by the sea would tend to give rise to a few tales of flooding.

That would explain the Ark settling on a plain or something... not on top of a mountain that still exists.

There's no evidence that Noah's ark rests anywhere. All supposed evidence has been refuted as far as I'm aware or been a lie.


How so? Have we been able to explore Mt Ararat? Have we been able to determine once and for all what that rectangular shape sticking out of the glacier is? Or what it is NOT?

You're right. There is no evidence (of yet) that supports the Bible in this. There is also no evidence that refutes it either. And until we can get on the mountain and do an extensive search, we can go neither way on this scientifically. Assumption is not proof.