Jump to content

Noah's Ark found?


cityboi

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Wouldn't disassembling the ark, and re-building it as homes take a lot more work than simply cleaning where the animals may have defecated??? I don't follow the logic of tearing down what, once removed from water, is essentially a 3 story building, in order to build homes!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believing in scientific fact requires faith? That statement proves that you do not understand what science is. By accepting nothing that can't be observed, scientific reason is the opposite of faith.

Now, they come with Evolution, and the Big Bang theory, none of which can be proven in a laboratory, and they want people to believe that they have it all down pat and that they are right? They don't even agree on whether or not Global Warming is real, and we're living through it!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really late, and I am really really tired, plus I don't have a lot of time right now, but there are a few comments here that I won't be able to sleep unless I reply on... so here goes (tomorrow, I will post more in depth and hopefully more coherently, as I won't be half asleep.. hehehe)

But anyways, here goes.

Believing in scientific fact requires faith? That statement proves that you do not understand what science is. By accepting nothing that can't be observed, scientific reason is the opposite of faith.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could list off a host of reasons not to live in a zoo, not least of which is the fact that the Bible itself specifically says that Noah did not stay in the ark after the flood waters receded:

9:18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and

Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.

9:19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth

overspread.

9:20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:

9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered

within his tent.

...

9:28 And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years.

9:29 And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and

he died.

So unless Noah split time between a tent and a disease-ridden zoo-boat for three hundred and fifty years, he would presumably have built some kind of permanent settlement for his extended retirement. That would have meant the extremely difficult task of cutting wood (exacerbated by the fact that the earth had just been Katrina'ed by Yahweh), which would be utterly foolish with a large useless supply of cut lumber sitting nearby.

Of course, this all presumes that a tale about the ancestral father of a tribe of nomadic Mesopotamian warrior-shepherds was transcribed with literal perfection by the court of King James. A few pitchers of salt is probably necessary for this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "theory" of evolution has been proven. It's easily demonstrated to occur in species of life with really short lifespans. Even in humans there are variations in the species that exist simply because their ancestors evolved differently to survive in the various parts of the planet. The most obvious one, skin color, is the most obvious one. This, BTW is a process that took place over 10s of thousands of years, not over the short that is claimed from Noah's time. Remember if you believe this story, all humans on the planet are directly descended from Noah and his family.

On the earlier comment about people living in tents during Noah's time, there IS historical evidence of where humans did live 5000+ years ago in Egypt, China, the America's and parts of Europe where Christianity was unknown then and their history does not record any event where the world was flooded and they lived in structures that exist even today.

"(God would create everything perfect, especially since his intention was that these beings would live FOREVER), then, if you follow the logic, it makes perfect sense that they would live very long lives. What would be absurd would be if the Bible told of these perfectly created beings and their off-spring, living a measly 60-100 years!!!!"

If they were so perfect, why did he condemn them all to die in a horrible death by drowning? As I said earlier in this thread, I have no interest in worshiping such a vengeful and spiteful GOD. And if that was the case, why didn't he learn from his mistake?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Indeed, vlad and metro. I love when people use the term "theory" to discredit science. It further proves that they don't know what they are talking about.

Linclink, a "theory" is about as proven as anything gets in science. the term doesn't mean a guess or an opinion, as it can in everyday speech. In science, a theory is an expression of the concept that "whenever I do/observe this, this is what happens." It is repeatable and verifiable. No faith or conjecture is required. Sure, most theories have holes, but that simply means the entire mechaniam isn't understood. It the basic concept were in any doubt, it would be called a hypothesis, not a theory. Do some searching for theories that have been overturned. Sure, there are a few, but they are very few and very far between.

The notion that bacteria and viruses cause disease is a theory, but I don't see you doubting that.

As for my bias, of course I accept science over religious dogma. One is based on observation of reality, the other is ancient mythology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "theory" of evolution has been proven. It's easily demonstrated to occur in species of life with really short lifespans. Even in humans there are variations in the species that exist simply because their ancestors evolved differently to survive in the various parts of the planet. The most obvious one, skin color, is the most obvious one. This, BTW is a process that took place over 10s of thousands of years, not over the short that is claimed from Noah's time. Remember if you believe this story, all humans on the planet are directly descended from Noah and his family.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

while you may have the luck of having a quasi-physicist in your life... i happen to have a degree in evolutionary biology.

adaptation is a form of evolution. evolution that you are trying to discredit and that many scientists take issue with is macro-evolution... humans came from monkeys.

adaptation, at least when it results in a change in form, is called micro-evolution. it's a smaller scale. look at darwin's finches for example. with the flu, the virus that did not have the biological change was easily killed off by the antibodies created by the vaccine. the ones that had a slight change (adaptation in your mind) did not die. it's called survival of the fittest. being fit can mean physically strong or having certain biological features that one cannot enhance on their own (such as the changes that the flu virus has gone through). it has evolved. evolution doesn't say that the flu becomes HIV, and that's where your lack of understanding of evolution comes from. it's a theory because certain types of evolution are not believed or cannot easily be proven (macro-evolution, though DNA evidence does add more proof to it).

your lack of understanding of science keeps coming out more and more as you fail to explain certain key scientific theories. those theories are based on observations. your faith in god and the bible is based on blind faith. even the catholic church has conceded to science and said that the story of the creation took place over millions of years and not 7 days as the scientific evidence of this is just too strong. heck, they had to concede that the earth is round and that the earth revolves around the sun (not the other way around) and that happened only after excommunicating galilleo for stating otherwise. it is because of science that many christian denominations have conceded that the bible is a bunch of stories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I guess you answered your own question. People in Noahs time (as well as hundreds of years later, as is seen with Abraham and Jacob and the children of Israel in the desert after leaving Egypt) lived in tents. I don't know if he brought tents with him for the trip, or if he waited until after they were there to make new ones (from animal skins). So, if he didn't bring them, I could see him using the ark until he had made himself and his family tents. I doubt however that they built homes, as these were nomadic peoples (much like still exists today), and they didn't exactly live in houses.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i happen to have a degree in evolutionary biology.

adaptation is a form of evolution. evolution that you are trying to discredit and that many scientists take issue with is macro-evolution... humans came from monkeys.

adaptation, at least when it results in a change in form, is called micro-evolution. it's a smaller scale. look at darwin's finches for example. with the flu, the virus that did not have the biological change was easily killed off by the antibodies created by the vaccine. the ones that had a slight change (adaptation in your mind) did not die. it's called survival of the fittest. being fit can mean physically strong or having certain biological features that one cannot enhance on their own (such as the changes that the flu virus has gone through). it has evolved. evolution doesn't say that the flu becomes HIV, and that's where your lack of understanding of evolution comes from. it's a theory because certain types of evolution are not believed or cannot easily be proven (macro-evolution, though DNA evidence does add more proof to it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's true that nomadic people typically lived in tents; however, it is equally true that there are remains of substantial permanent civilizations from the time and place in which you claim Noah lived, and consistently thereafter in an unbroken chain until modernity. Something has to give in your theory: either Noah did not live at the time you claim, or the flood did not actually wipe out all of civilization, or Noah and his family were involved in the construction of rather large settlements immediately after they got off the ark (that being the case, they were some pretty hard-working folk, weren't they?).

Bear in mind, of course, that Noah supposedly lived for 300 years after the flood. So if you are saying that there were no permanent settlements in the area of Mt. Ararat during that time, you'd be contradicting a pretty large mass of archaeological evidence.

Also, you have yet to explain how radiometrics have accidentally placed the age of the earth at several billion years instead of several thousand. Your household "quasi-physicist" may want to consult Stephen Hawking before formulating an answer to this one...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I have repeatedly stated, I (as well as Christians as a whole) have no problem with Adaptation (or Micro-Evolution). I have no problem with an iguana that adapts to the conditions on the Galapagos, or the finches or the flu. But when someone states that Evolution as a WHOLE is an empirically proven theory, you and I both know that that is a bunch of crock. As you have said, Macro-Evolution is disputed among scientists. And that is what Christians have a problem with. It has not been proven. The reality is that no one alive has EVER seen the "Macro-Evolution" of anything. And that is why evolution is a THEORY.

You know that to compare adaptation (or micro-evolution which is nothing more than a species adapting to its enviornment, survival of the fittest, etc... ) with "Macro-evolution" (which is what most lay people are speaking of when they talk about evolution, the whole we came from monkeys, and going further back, we came from fish, is the same as comparing apples to oranges. Macro-Evolution has not been observed (unless someone here is MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of years old).

That is why it is a Theory. It has not been observed, it cannot be duplicated in a lab, it is only conjecture.

Again, give me one example of true Macro Evolution (no Christian has a problem with adaptation, or Micro Evolution, other than the time issue). It has NEVER been observed. No one has ever seen a species become a completely different species. No one has ever seen an eye form from proteins that are just floating around. No one has ever observed, in studying the universe, something being born inside a black hole (you know, the whole, there was nothing, then there was something, then there was a bang, and look, stars, planets, whole systems, from nothing!!). So be honest and admit that Evolution has not been observed (other than adapatation/micro-evolution).

Honey, when has the Catholic Church been right about anything? The Catholic Church teaches that one is to believe Church Tradition over the Bible. So their belief in evolution doesn't surprise me one bit. It only further proves that they are led of men (much as they were in the times of the crusades and in the time of Galilleo), and not of God.

Again, anyone can believe as they want. Just don't tell me that there is empirical proof for things that there is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honey, when has the Catholic Church been right about anything? The Catholic Church teaches that one is to believe Church Tradition over the Bible. So their belief in evolution doesn't surprise me one bit. It only further proves that they are led of men (much as they were in the times of the crusades and in the time of Galilleo), and not of God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's true that nomadic people typically lived in tents; however, it is equally true that there are remains of substantial permanent civilizations from the time and place in which you claim Noah lived, and consistently thereafter in an unbroken chain until modernity. Something has to give in your theory: either Noah did not live at the time you claim, or the flood did not actually wipe out all of civilization, or Noah and his family were involved in the construction of rather large settlements immediately after they got off the ark (that being the case, they were some pretty hard-working folk, weren't they?).

Bear in mind, of course, that Noah supposedly lived for 300 years after the flood. So if you are saying that there were no permanent settlements in the area of Mt. Ararat during that time, you'd be contradicting a pretty large mass of archaeological evidence.

Also, you have yet to explain how radiometrics have accidentally placed the age of the earth at several billion years instead of several thousand. Your household "quasi-physicist" may want to consult Stephen Hawking before formulating an answer to this one...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Radiometric Dating is very inaccurate once you start dating past the half-life of the element. That is when one piece of uranium that started out as 1 gram if dated when it is 1/2 gram it starts to give off wrong ages. This is especially true if the uranium was located near any piece of lead(which the uranium turns in to). These scientist are also not considering the fact that the environment also plays a key factor in everything. With varying environment conditions, the rate of decomposure of uranium cant possibly be the same as it started out with. They radiometrically dated two spots of hardened lava from the same flow and came out with varying dates in the millions when the lava was formed a mere two hundred years ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you're starting to get yourself in over your head (just the fact that madvlad had nothing to say after my explanation should be enough :P )...

first, adaptation of the finches was not something the individual birds decided to do. those with the superior beaks were able to live in certain conditions and those with the inferior beak died off. it's biological adaptation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pillsbury,

Sorry, I didn't see your post. Again, I am not attacking catholics as a people. In fact an aunt I love very much is a mother superior. My problem is that as an organization the catholic church does as it wishes and it's only answer is that it has a right to do so. The old testament of the Bible is the same as the Torah (the Jewish scriptures). The new testament did go through the Nicene Creed. There were conclusions that the catholic church came to which can be proven using the Bible (I have no problem with those doctrines, just as I have no problem with science when it can prove it's theories). But I will not accept something as fact just because the catholic church says it is so (just as I will not accept as fact a theory that has not been proven). And because the Catholic Church feels that it has a right to do as it pleases, regardless of what the Bible says, so long as it is in accordance to Church Tradition, I disagree with the Church as an organization. But again, I have nothing against Catholic people, seeing as a very large part of my extended family is catholic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you must not have a very strong grasp of science if you can really say that theories are weak because they can't be duplicated. going by that, your faith is weak because you can't prove that god wrote the bible (which he didn't, it was written by man). but this isn't about attacking religion.

i never put words in your mouth, but you are trying to say that adaptation is not evolution. and you are also trying to talk about something which you don't have a lot of knowledge. i specifically took classes on evolution and studied it and wrote papers on the evolution of birds. i have done plenty of research and way more research exists that supports the theory that birds evolved directly from the dinosaurs (as can easily be seen in the ready availability of dinosaurs that birds came from, such as tyrannosaurus). if you want to ignore the evidence, be my guest, but me and thousands of scientists will continue to see it as proof. there are very few dogmas in science because they cannot be duplicated, but can you prove to me without reading from the bible that jesus was the son of god? i didn't think so. i'm not denying jesus never existed, but i am deny that he is the son of god and rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.

for what it's worth, i took several classes on mammalogy and ornithology. i studied it, i wrote papers on it. i did research. are you going to tell me that whales did not evolve from walking mammals? i can prove to you that this is true. whales have an extra bone that is not used for anything, right where the hind legs would go. it is widely believed that this bone is what was left of the hind legs.

the fossil record is the empirical evidence of everything i've described.

for the record, i was born catholic. i have no issues with christianity, but i do have issues with people refuting established scientific knowledge. the protestant denominations were not branched off until much later. the orthodox church was the first to branch off, which holds just about the same exact beliefs as catholics with some differences in the way things are practiced and differences in the calendar (which is why the orthodox easter is different than everyone else's easter). do some research. i'm not going to post it all here, but what i've just said is widely held as fact by the vast majority of evolutionary biologists, ornithologists, mammalogists, archaeologists, and paeleontologists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.