Has Noahs Ark been found. Interesting read

[230RN]

Yeung Wing-Cheung, from the Noah's Ark Ministries International research team that made the discovery, said: "It's not 100 percent that it is Noah's Ark, but we think it is 99.9 percent that this is it."

So the other 0.1 percent is what?  The basket Moses was found in?

[Gowen]

Let's assume the Ark is real, how do you propose it got up there on the mountain?

[lupinus]

Is it Noah's Ark? Probably not. Noah's Ark was wooden and it's highly unlikely wood of that age would still be around. Especially from such a wet environment.

As to if the Biblical flood was global, I believe the Bible to be the true and inerrant word of God. And the Biblical account of the flood was as a global flood wiping out all life but for Noah, his family, and the animals on the ark.

Arguing that the Bible is, or is not, true is one thing. But the Biblical account is most certainly that of a global flood.

[thebaldguy]

I remember hearing about this ark being discovered back in the '70s. I always wondered why the story faded away back then. If I remember right, Turkey would not allow further exploration of the area or something like that.

Is this really the ark or just a large building that got washed up in a tsunami or moved in an ice age by a glacier? I don't know. We may never know for sure.

[grampster]

The story of the great flood and Noah has to be put in context.  Note the creation in Genesis one, especially the first nine verses.  Then look at Genesis 7, 11th verse.  The context is water.

As for me, the rather simplistic language in Genesis 1 is transformed into the wonder that is inspired when one looks at the pictures Hubble gives us.  The more the science of Man evolves and reveals within the confines of the vast array of our own planet, more is the wonder at how anyone can refuse to believe in the Creator of all.

Finally, I am reminded of an old Jewish saying:  "Man plans and God laughs."

[Perd Hapley]

Let's assume the Ark is real, how do you propose it got up there on the mountain?

The Bible says that it landed on Mt. Ararat, while the water was still very high. 

Is it Noah's Ark? Probably not.

Arguing that the Bible is, or is not, true is one thing. But the Biblical account is most certainly that of a global flood.

This.  The whole flood account would lack any consistency, if it were just a regional or local flood. 

[taurusowner]

Humans will never be able to look at things outside the lens of our own lives.

If "The Flood" ever happened, I don't think it was an actual global flood.  I think it was a Mediterranean tsunami of some sort, caused either by a volcano or a medium-sized meteor strike.  Or possibly a tectonic "lunge" and falling, of the plates surrounding the middle east and africa.  There isn't enough water to do it on the earth, unless it all drained to the earth's center and Jules Verne is right about dinosaurs down there.  And even then, there probably wouldn't be enough.

That's a good example.  Imagine you have a child playing with LEGOs, and it's time for bed.  If you tell him to put the toys away, he might try to "fly" the airplane to the toybox.  If you put it away, you just pick it up and put it in the box.  In the child's mind the LEGOS "can't do that".  He's a kid, and he sees things in the context of his toys being real.  You as an adult can just bypass that and put them away however you want.

We are that child.  We can't see enough water in the world, so we say it's impossible.  We can't think of a way to fit all those animals on a boat that small, so we say it's impossible.  We attempt to explain everything within the context of our own understanding.  Except that when dealing with God, none of that applies.  If you believe in the God of the Bible, then what does it matter about how it happened?

If He threw a big ol' rock into one of the nearby ponds, or popped an earth-zit (volcano), he could accomplish His needs easier than creating a bunch of extra water, then getting rid of that extra water once He was done.

Another example.  Easier?  Is simply thinking "meteor hits the earth" easier than thinking "cover the earth with water".  To us  more volume of water = a harder task to deal with.  But trying to apply that to God is pointless.  That is why all of this debate about "how did God do it" is pointless as well.  The God of the Bible simply needs to think something, anything, and it is.  Filling an empty cup with water or filling the entire planet with water is exactly the same thing to Him: just a thought that came into being because He wanted it to.

I think where we get caught up is that He didn't explain everything to us.  That's where questions like "How can the Bible be real if it doesn't talk about dinosaurs, when we clearly have dinosaur bones right here?" or "Where did all the people come from after Adam and Eve?"  Does something have to be in the Bible, His "explanation" to us, for it to be real?  Of course not.  When a 6 year old asks you why the sky is blue, the answer you give him is probably not going to be about the diffusion of light wavelengths.  Does that mean it doesn't exist?  No, it just means you're telling the child an answer that gives him something, and leaving out the things that would be beyond him.  Why can't God do the same with us?

[mellestad]

Let's assume the Ark is real, how do you propose it got up there on the mountain?

That is a pretty big assumption.  If it were a boat carbon dated to the last few thousands years then it would have to have been built there or carried there.  A flood large enough to get a boat that high isn't possible, so it isn't even an option.

[mellestad]

Humans will never be able to look at things outside the lens of our own lives.

That's a good example.  Imagine you have a child playing with LEGOs, and it's time for bed.  If you tell him to put the toys away, he might try to "fly" the airplane to the toybox.  If you put it away, you just pick it up and put it in the box.  In the child's mind the LEGOS "can't do that".  He's a kid, and he sees things in the context of his toys being real.  You as an adult can just bypass that and put them away however you want.

We are that child.  We can't see enough water in the world, so we say it's impossible.  We can't think of a way to fit all those animals on a boat that small, so we say it's impossible.  We attempt to explain everything within the context of our own understanding.  Except that when dealing with God, none of that applies.  If you believe in the God of the Bible, then what does it matter about how it happened?

Another example.  Easier?  Is simply thinking "meteor hits the earth" easier than thinking "cover the earth with water".  To us  more volume of water = a harder task to deal with.  But trying to apply that to God is pointless.  That is why all of this debate about "how did God do it" is pointless as well.  The God of the Bible simply needs to think something, anything, and it is.  Filling an empty cup with water or filling the entire planet with water is exactly the same thing to Him: just a thought that came into being because He wanted it to.

The point isn't that a deity couldn't accomplish the act, the point is that to do so would be a direct miracle, as would removing evidence of a flood on that scale.  If we can say a deity flooded the world with miles of water then removed all traces of the event, we've given up on finding scientific truth.

[taurusowner]

The point isn't that a deity couldn't accomplish the act, the point is that to do so would be a direct miracle, as would removing evidence of a flood on that scale.  If we can say a deity flooded the world with miles of water then removed all traces of the event, we've given up on finding scientific truth.

Why would that make us give up on scientific truth in general?  If I have a glass of water, and God makes the water vanish, I will probably not be able to deduce the method he used.  But does that mean the other million glasses of water I have consumed in my life time cannot be explained by the human digestive system?  Why does one or a handful of miracles mean we can't try to explain the rest of things that are not miracles?

[mellestad]

Why would that make us give up on scientific truth in general?  If I have a glass of water, and God makes the water vanish, I will probably not be able to deduce the method he used.  But does that mean the other million glasses of water I have consumed in my life time cannot be explained by the human digestive system?  Why does one or a handful of miracles mean we can't try to explain the rest of things that are not miracles?

I did not say "In general", that is something of a strawman.  We're talking about a situation where a flood covered the planet, by miracle, then went away, by miracle, and left no trace, by miracle.

If a deity made someone not need water, by miracle, it would be an appropriate example.  And indeed, if we accepted divine feeding as the cause we would be giving up on finding scientific truth.

[taurusowner]

So God would be unable to make the water recede like normal water leaving evidence along the way, but vanish as it recedes so all that water is not still on Earth?

I've done some work with Police Explorers in my area, and one of the things we have them do is crime scene analysis.  We make up a crime scene, and they have to come in, do the sketching, photographs, evidence log, photo log, etc.  Did a crime really happen? No.  Did we create the illusion of a crime? Yes.  Can those students use our illusion within the context of the training to come to a conclusion?  Yes they can. 

God can plant evidence.  God can make things seem older than they are, or younger.  God can choose to leave behind signs of his work, or not.  He can put clues in place for us to read if He wants to, or not.  The question isn't whether you believe in the acts of the God of the Bible, but if you believe in Him.  If you do, the mental roadblocks of "I can't understand this, so I must dismiss it" vanish.  If of course, deep down one does not believe in Him, forcing the world to fit into one's understanding is really the only choice.

[Perd Hapley]

There's no evidence of Noah's flood, eh?  Have you looked? 

[grampster]

The God of the bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob said..."My ways are not your ways....." and further...."does the clay ask the potter why..." and further....."Now we see things as through a glass darkly, then we shall see things as the really are...."

Where did the water go?  Back where it came from.

Ragnar said it well..."If you believe in the God of the Bible, then what does it matter about how it happened?"

[Tuco]

I remember hearing about this ark being discovered back in the '70s. I always wondered why the story faded away back then. If I remember right, Turkey would not allow further exploration of the area or something like that.

Yup. 
Back in the foggy recesses, I recall a big-screen documentary on the subject with that exact conclusion.

[Matthew Carberry]

Alternately, God gave us reason and a consistent physical world.  Why would He throw that over?

Plant evidence?  Really?  That's the preferred view of the Creator you want?

How about this...

Most of humanity is in a given area, they defy God, God destroys their culture by dumping the Black Sea into the Med, some folks in the area and their livestock survive because God is faithful and chooses to give them a means of salvation.

Their culture destroyed they slowly begin to repopulate the area, telling the story of how faith in God will save you from destruction, like it did when their contextual world was destroyed by water due to their sins.  Even those who fall away from the truth later tell the same stories with their own spin.  Eventually it is written down multiple times, the base story even travels as man spreads across the globe as documented by historical evidence changing shape over time but maintaining key similarities.

The presaging of the salvation of a remnent by faith is effectively made and maintained with no contradiction of physical science or Scripture, as the events were perceived and passed down by those who were there.

[taurusowner]

In football, the ball moves from one end of the field to the other through the actions of the players.  The Ref can at any point he deems necessary, move the ball himself outside the normal play of the game.

God set up the universe, and the laws that govern it.  Under normal circumstances, the universe moves along the way it's been set without outside interference.  If God sees fit to step in and change something or move something around, like a Ref at a football game, that's His choice.  He made the Universe, and the rules that govern it.  Science included.  And if he wants to set that aside at any given time, it's His game, not ours.

[Matthew Carberry]

It's not capability, it's intent. 

Why act overtly supernaturally when directing the natural is more than sufficient?

I realize I am not capable of grasping God's reason, but I prefer to think He has chosen to minimize the times when I have to.  He didn't give me this big brain just to screw with it willy-nilly.

[Mabs2]

I really don't think there's any way anyone is ever going to understand why he did the flood the way he did it.  Or how he did it at all.
You can't say that he only used Black Sea's water to flood only the Med because that'd be easier.  I don't believe that anything is easy or hard or even easy or more easy for God.  Whatever he wants to happen happens.

To me, it appears that he used a method that left little evidence.  There have been some claims by some people that there is evidence of sea fossils being somewhere they shouldn't be that could only happen due to a floo, but for the most part, the scientists are skeptical.  Probably what he planned.  God doesn't want us to have scientific proof (therefor, we don't) of his existence because then there would be no need for faith.  If he used massive tectonic plate shifting to cause giant tsunamis the globe over, there'd be some evidence of it somewhere, I'd wager.  It is quite likely that he did, indeed, make water just spontaneously appear (or rather, moisture in the air spontaneously appear and then condense into rain).  This way, the Earth floods and there's no drastic action that causes lots of damage and thus leaves lots of evidence.

[charby]

Charbish, I just wanna know the story behind the giant blackboard... That -is- a photochop, right? Please tell me that is a photochop...

I don't know the back story on it, but look at the clothes and hairstyles in the picture, I'd say early 80's, so I would imagine in the days before powerpoint and the intertubes lecture hall chalkboards probably looked like that.

[Perd Hapley]

Alternately, God gave us reason and a consistent physical world.  Why would He throw that over?

Plant evidence?  Really?  That's the preferred view of the Creator you want?

How about this...

How about this?  

http://www.icr.org/article/what-geologic-processes-were-operating-during-floo/

A cataclysmic interpretation of geological and fossil evidence.

The above web sites have plenty of other articles on how a literal view of the flood can jibe with reason, science, etc.  Whether or not such arguments are convincing, there's no need to engage in ill-informed sniping at Biblical literalism, when its proponents have answered many of these objections online.  

While the view that God planted/hid evidence remains popular, it has never been the most sophisticated argument in the stable.  Organizations like AIG and ICR reject such views.

[Mabs2]

The point isn't that a deity couldn't accomplish the act, the point is that to do so would be a direct miracle, as would removing evidence of a flood on that scale.  If we can say a deity flooded the world with miles of water then removed all traces of the event, we've given up on finding scientific truth.

That's pretty much what I said.
God doesn't want you to be able to prove he exists, because then there would be no need for faith.
He can move your house to the other side of the planet tomorrow and remove all evidence that it was anywhere else, even from your mind, and no one would ever notice a thing.

EDIT:  My bad, for some reason I got to reading the thread and thought your post came after mine.

[Perd Hapley]

God doesn't want you to be able to prove he exists, because then there would be no need for faith.

From a Christian perspective, belief in God's existence is not really the goal.  Faith is also needed (I would say primarily needed) in order to trust that God is right about matters of opinion, even when you think that He is wrong.

Besides, if God didn't want us to be certain of His existence, He wouldn't have left so much evidence.   

[Matthew Carberry]

I only snipe at biblical literalism because from my research it is absolutely not necessary to support the message of salvation.  It introduces unnecessary complexity and controversy into what should be a simple apologia.  It clouds the truth instead of illuminating it.

We are special to God, He has plans for us, by our choices and nature we cannot fulfill those plans ourselves, He made a way for that to happen that simply depends on us faithfully accepting His unwarranted grace.

Why get into pissing matches over the natural sciences and historical interpretation, ignore them as irrelevent to the relationship between God and man.

[taurusowner]

I only snipe at biblical literalism because from my research it is absolutely not necessary to support the message of salvation.  It introduces unnecessary complexity and controversy into what should be a simple apologia.  It clouds the truth instead of illuminating it.

We are special to God, He has plans for us, by our choices and nature we cannot fulfill those plans ourselves, He made a way for that to happen that simply depends on us faithfully accepting His unwarranted grace.

Why get into pissing matches over the natural sciences and historical interpretation, ignore them as irrelevent to the relationship between God and man.

I think that most attempts to "prove" God scientifically stem from the fact that most attacks on religion stem from people claiming that God cannot exist scientifically.  The Ark story is a perfect example.  People look at the flood and say that it's impossible for that much water to be on earth, or for every animal to have been in the ark, and thus the Bible is full of lies and should be mocked and ridiculed.  So a response to this kind of attack is to look to historical evidence of events in the Bible as proof of its validity.  No one is saying it is necessary to support the message of salvation.  But it is a form of defense against attacks by those would would say the Bible is scientifically and historically impossible, and thus to be ignored.