Did they find Noah's Ark?

[laptoppop]

Nothing on the link you provided showed anything about the Ark, so I am not quite sure what your argument is here?

My argument is that you called Josh McDowell a liar without knowing anything about him.
"

So now you will buy his book and in other ways enrich his coffers when he lies to you about this? Nice racket these people got going for them "

Josh is an upstanding general apologist, not even someone who talks a lot about creation (I'm not sure he has EVER written on the topic). But you assumed that he would write a book, lie about this, and run a racket.
-lee-

 

[steen]

My argument is that you called Josh McDowell a liar without knowing anything about him.
"

So now you will buy his book and in other ways enrich his coffers when he lies to you about this? Nice racket these people got going for them "

Josh is an upstanding general apologist, not even someone who talks a lot about creation (I'm not sure he has EVER written on the topic). But you assumed that he would write a book, lie about this, and run a racket.
-lee-

If he claim to be part of the crowd that found the Ark, then he is nothing but a new Wyatt.

 

[laptoppop]

If he claim to be part of the crowd that found the Ark, then he is nothing but a new Wyatt.

Caught with your own words - and instead of saying yah, I was too harsh, you defend them? Sheesh! I guess there's just no way you could possibly be wrong, and you are here just to help enlighten us poor souls.

I am totally willing to admit that someone can be rational and intelligent and have a different view than I do. I seek such people to dialog with, to grow, and sometimes to change my opinion. I am totally willing to admit that someone can truly love the Lord with all their heart and have a different way of looking at Scripture or a different way of worshipping.

You have shown how closed your mind is with your own words. In matters of faith, solid convictions are a fine thing. In matters of science, one should be open to challenge and discussion. Creation crosses both - but there are good, intelligent, Jesus loving folks with different opinions.
-lee-

 

[charityagape]

rofl jereth u a funny man watching to much stargate. i want them to find it how good would that be lol and these smilies are the best!

oh and to your question did they find it. who ever said it was lost i know it is there. noah didnt have rac back then :S

That was a serious hypothetical question but glad I could be the butt of your jokes. No skin off my nose.

 

[jereth]

You moron. Don't you know that God miraculously blew on the waters so that they left the earth entirely and formed the ice rings around Pluto?

D'oh! How could I have forgotten?

Seriously now, can't YECists see there is a major problem here with their reasoning?

On the one hand, the majority of YECists voted that the flood can be explained by "no natural cause, 100% miracle" (http://www.christianforums.com/t3048578-opinions-on-the-flood.html)

On the other hand, they say that Genesis 7:19, 20 (the water covered the highest mountains) is irrefutable proof of a global flood.

But if the flood truly was a miraculous event, why couldn't it be local and high enough to cover mountains? I'm willing to bet that most of you believe God used a miraculous force field of sorts to hold back the waters of the Red Sea (exodus 14). Why couldn't he use a similar force field to hold back the waters of the flood?

Please explain.

 

[Poke]

Now hypothetically suppose this is the ark, or a ship anyway, is there anyway for it to have gotten there (any logical way) other than a flood that went above the peak and could a localized flood have reached 13,120 feet above sea level?

Oh yeah, the TE theory that Noah built a huge ark to escape a local flood, instead of taking a hike to do the same. And, then God promised, through the rainbow, never again to send a local flood.

Ha, the proof that they're right is that no verified ark has been found high on a mountain.

The ark may never be found because it may not have survived.

 

[laptoppop]

D'oh! How could I have forgotten?

Seriously now, can't YECists see there is a major problem here with their reasoning?

On the one hand, the majority of YECists voted that the flood can be explained by "no natural cause, 100% miracle" (http://www.christianforums.com/t3048578-opinions-on-the-flood.html)

On the other hand, they say that Genesis 7:19, 20 (the water covered the highest mountains) is irrefutable proof of a global flood.

But if the flood truly was a miraculous event, why couldn't it be local and high enough to cover mountains? I'm willing to bet that most of you believe God used a miraculous force field of sorts to hold back the waters of the Red Sea (exodus 14). Why couldn't he use a similar force field to hold back the waters of the flood?

Please explain.

Yes, God could have held the waters back like the red sea. There's just nothing in the Scripture passage that would support it, and for a YEC, the evidences of the flood are worldwide.
-lee-

 

[jereth]

Yes, God could have held the waters back like the red sea. There's just nothing in the Scripture passage that would support it,

And there's nothing in the Scripture passage that would deny it either.

The point I'm making is that YECists seem rather inconsistent when, on the one hand, they say: "The mountains were covered, therefore the flood must have been global. It comes down to plain gravity and the way water behaves, even a dimwit can see this."

Yet they are more than happy to vote for the flood being a highly miraculous event. Can you not see the inconsistency here?

and for a YEC, the evidences of the flood are worldwide.

Well, YECs have been known to ignore the plain evidence in favour of the highly imaginative, but let's not go there...

 

[RealityCheck]

IF there was a global flood, there should be evidence of that everywhere. 6000 years ago? No problem.

Look in the earth to find bones/fossils that date to about 6000 years ago. Find that, you find the flood layer.

Then, you would expect to find that exact same layer all over the globe. It's global, so it would have affected the whole earth at the same time.

 

[laptoppop]

And there's nothing in the Scripture passage that would deny it either.

Let's take another look at that with some snippets (I encourage everyone to read these things in context)
Gen. 6:7 - "I will blot out man...from the face of the land...for I am sorry that I have made them." (a local flood would not blot out man, just a few people)
6:13 "the end of all flesh has come before Me" -- not just a few flesh, ALL flesh - again, not local
The Lord tells Noah to build a huge vessel. Not needed for a local flood.
The Lord tells Noah to gather two of every living creature, sevens of "clean" critters, etc. -- again, not needed in a local flood.
7:4 "and I will blot out from the face of the land every living creature" -- ok, here's one that is ambigouous, and could be local
7:19 "and the ater prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everwhere under the heavens were covered"
etc. -- read the text.

One can argue in other ways for a local flood, but the story says "all" lots of times -- it is told as a all-encompassing event. One of the most common ways around this is to say that this story was told from the point of view of a person there - that all THEY knew was destroyed. You have the problem that God is directly quoted -- wouldn't He know what He had made, and the extent of it? Also, of course, you have entered one of the prime areas of disagreement - was Genesis the Word of God given through men/wormen, but written as He intended, or was it a collection of stories handed down that got written together, but is fable, not fact.

The point I'm making is that YECists seem rather inconsistent when, on the one hand, they say: "The mountains were covered, therefore the flood must have been global. It comes down to plain gravity and the way water behaves, even a dimwit can see this."

Yet they are more than happy to vote for the flood being a highly miraculous event. Can you not see the inconsistency here?

The behaviour of water is just one argument, not the prime one. The inclusive language of the story itself, the existence of flood legends in a multitude of cultures around the globe, the existence of the geologic column around the entire earth, including huge areas, the existence of huge structures, like the Grand Canyon in the US which YEC sees as being best explained as happening in the aftermath of the flood, etc., are all arguments in favor of a global flood.

YECs like me would say yes, it was miraculous in that God caused it. The Scripture is not clear on *how*. I have no problem with a completely natural explanation, such as an asteroid strike causing major disturbances in the atmosphere and the planet itself, etc. No inconsistency here -- there's just no reason to postulate a local flood.

Well, YECs have been known to ignore the plain evidence in favour of the highly imaginative, but let's not go there...

<grin> Of course, I might say that the TEs choose a convoluted explanation over a simpler model.....
-lee-

 

[laptoppop]

IF there was a global flood, there should be evidence of that everywhere. 6000 years ago? No problem.

Look in the earth to find bones/fossils that date to about 6000 years ago. Find that, you find the flood layer.

Then, you would expect to find that exact same layer all over the globe. It's global, so it would have affected the whole earth at the same time.

Very close. It turns out that hydrodynamic deposition is more complicated than that. The stratification of the global geologic column is consistent with what you would expect from a global flood. To a YEC, the worldwide column is prime evidence of a worldwide event. Other views must explain how each layer of the column came into being for each site -- typically by postulating a mind-boggling number of individual local events.

Look into how fossils are dated. Most fossils are "dated" by using dates assigned to other, particular, index fossils. As for the other various dating methodologies, there is various research that indicates some particular issues with them. One good resource on a laymen's level is the book "Thousands, not Billions" talking about results of the recent RATE project over at ICR.org.

While the flood was global, it was not the same over the entire globe in terms of flow, temperature, dissolved solids, etc. A local flood exhibits huge variations, we would expect even greater variations for a larger event.
-lee-

 

[steen]

the evidences of the flood are worldwide.
-lee-

That evidence is missing.

 

[steen]

Let's take another look at that with some snippets (I encourage everyone to read these things in context)
Gen. 6:7 - "I will blot out man...from the face of the land...for I am sorry that I have made them." (a local flood would not blot out man, just a few people)
6:13 "the end of all flesh has come before Me" -- not just a few flesh, ALL flesh - again, not local
The Lord tells Noah to build a huge vessel. Not needed for a local flood.
The Lord tells Noah to gather two of every living creature, sevens of "clean" critters, etc. -- again, not needed in a local flood.
7:4 "and I will blot out from the face of the land every living creature" -- ok, here's one that is ambigouous, and could be local
7:19 "and the ater prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everwhere under the heavens were covered"
etc. -- read the text.

You seem to try to tell us that from the evidence, the conclusion of a worldwide flood would be "logical" and that therefore we must accept it as such. Now, when we provide evidence that is very logical, consistent and supported by multiple independent sources, then suddenly we are wrong to see it logically? That seems a tad hypocritical to me.

...The behaviour of water is just one argument, not the prime one. The inclusive language of the story itself, the existence of flood legends in a multitude of cultures around the globe,

in multitude of different formats and generally always from people who live on the coasts or in flood plains.

But then, f.ex. the kootenay (SW British Columbia) has this flood myth:
A small gray bird, despite the prohibition of her husband (a chicken hawk, Accipiter cooperi), bathed in a certain lake after picking berries in the hot sun. There she was seized and raped by a giant in the lake. The bird's husband shot the monster, who in revenge swallowed up all the water to keep others from having it. The woman pulled out the arrow, and the water rushed forth in a torrent. The husband and wife escaped to a mountain until the flood receded. (In variant versions, the woman was seized by a giant fish or water animal. The husband killed it, and its blood caused the flood. The husband escaped up a tree.) [Kelsen, pp. 147-148; Frazer, p. 323]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Kootenay

Are you considering this a support for the Biblical flood?

the existence of the geologic column around the entire earth,

With specific and unique layers that correspond to geological and biological events of the past, and thus with multiple, independently verified dating of billions of years. That certainly CONTRADICTS a Biblical flood.

including huge areas, the existence of huge structures, like the Grand Canyon in the US which YEC sees as being best explained as happening in the aftermath of the flood, etc.,

Evidence?

are all arguments in favor of a global flood.

"arguments"? I see it as wishful thinking generating selective pieces of evidence out of context while rejecting all other evidence. When you have to be so selective about evidence and discard such an enormous amount of contradictory evidence to make your case, then that really only is "evidence" of self-delusion.

 

[steen]

Very close. It turns out that hydrodynamic deposition is more complicated than that. The stratification of the global geologic column is consistent with what you would expect from a global flood.

And what evidence do you have for that claim?

To a YEC, the worldwide column is prime evidence of a worldwide event. Other views must explain how each layer of the column came into being for each site -- typically by postulating a mind-boggling number of individual local events.

Ah, so merely looking at billions of years of events is mind boggling to you? How about looking exclusively at the Green River varves of Utah? Simple, straightforward, uniform stuff Couple million layers of alternating sediment, course and fine, the course each having pollen in it, the fine not. Hmm, "hydrological sorting"? Or millions of years of sedimentation into a lake bottom following annual cycles?

Look into how fossils are dated. Most fossils are "dated" by using dates assigned to other, particular, index fossils.

Rather, that is merely the rough draft, for using the correct methods for the fine tuning.

As for the other various dating methodologies, there is various research that indicates some particular issues with them. One good resource on a laymen's level is the book "Thousands, not Billions" talking about results of the recent RATE project over at ICR.org.

Ah, where they deliebartely misapply dating methods and have no control for consistency. As this is not the way REAL dating is done, the ICR's "project" is one solely and wholely for deception. That so many creationists are ignorant of what radiometric dating REALLY is about, I suggest you look at this source from ASA (You DO know who they are, right?):
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

 

[Assyrian]

But then, f.ex. the kootenay (SW British Columbia) has this flood myth:
A small gray bird, despite the prohibition of her husband (a chicken hawk, Accipiter cooperi), bathed in a certain lake after picking berries in the hot sun. There she was seized and raped by a giant in the lake. The bird's husband shot the monster, who in revenge swallowed up all the water to keep others from having it. The woman pulled out the arrow, and the water rushed forth in a torrent. The husband and wife escaped to a mountain until the flood receded. (In variant versions, the woman was seized by a giant fish or water animal. The husband killed it, and its blood caused the flood. The husband escaped up a tree.) [Kelsen, pp. 147-148; Frazer, p. 323]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Kootenay

Are you considering this a support for the Biblical flood?

You mean the raven and the dove were actually responsible for the flood? If only Noah had known.

 

[Assyrian]

Let's take another look at that with some snippets (I encourage everyone to read these things in context)
Gen. 6:7 - "I will blot out man...from the face of the land...for I am sorry that I have made them." (a local flood would not blot out man, just a few people)

A local flood could blot out man from the region that was flooded

6:13 "the end of all flesh has come before Me" -- not just a few flesh, ALL flesh - again, not local

Gen 6:13 And God said to Noah, "I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth (erets land) is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth (erets).
Read the rest of the verse. God was determined to make and end to all flesh because the erets, the land, was filled with violence. God was going to destroy the violent people with the erets, the land. What erets? The one that was filled with violence. No one lived in Antarctica. It wasn't filled with violent people. So according to Genesis it should not have been flooded and the penguins escaped the flood. This verse gives us a context for the flood and limits to the regions inhabited by the violent people God wanted to destroy.

The Lord tells Noah to build a huge vessel. Not needed for a local flood.
The Lord tells Noah to gather two of every living creature, sevens of "clean" critters, etc. -- again, not needed in a local flood.

There were probably a lot of unique species living in that region. But God does a lot of things that seem strange to us. It doesn't make them wrong.

Have you considered it would probably be a lot easier to lock all the animals in a box, rather than herd a huge menagerie across the ANE?

7:4 "and I will blot out from the face of the land every living creature" -- ok, here's one that is ambigouous, and could be local
7:19 "and the ater prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everwhere under the heavens were covered"
etc. -- read the text.

This sounds like human testimony of what happened rather reporting what God said. I see no reason to read this any differently to the 'sun standing still' which tells us what people saw rather than teaching geocentism. All the high hills Noah could see from horizon to horizon were covered with water.

 

[laptoppop]

This sounds like human testimony of what happened rather reporting what God said. I see no reason to read this any differently to the 'sun standing still' which tells us what people saw rather than teaching geocentism. All the high hills Noah could see from horizon to horizon were covered with water.

I think we're just going to have to amiacably agree to disagree on this one. To me, the plain reading is that God told Noah to build an ark, Noah and his sons spent about 100 years building it, the Lord facilitated loading the ark with animals, and the planet was flooded. I would think the author (Moses) would use special care in recording what God had said. I also believe that the authors of Scripture had special guidance from the Holy Spirit to write what God wanted written.
-lee-

 

[steen]

You mean the raven and the dove were actually responsible for the flood? If only Noah had known.

Well, laptoppop tells us that all the flood myths are evidence of this global flood, so certainly the myth from the Kootenay must have such relevance. Now, this would mean that somewhere in the Bible God told Noah that water was going to come from the Giant when the arrow was pulled out. Now, that is not exactly as the bible describes the flood, however. So when Laptoppop claims that these many flood myths are somehow relevant to the Biblical flood, then their relevance must show up SOMEHOW.

Else, the argument about how all these societies have flood myths is of course is utterly bogus.

 

[Assyrian]

I think we're just going to have to amiacably agree to disagree on this one.

To me, the plain reading is that God told Noah to build an ark,

OK

Noah and his sons spent about 100 years building it,

It depends on how you interpret the 'their days will be 120 years' which may refer to human lifespan.

the Lord facilitated loading the ark with animals,

Other wise Noah and sons would never catch the aardvarks which can burrow faster than a team of men can dig. That is if there were aardvarks in the region flooded.

and the planet was flooded.

No the bible never says that.

I would think the author (Moses) would use special care in recording what God had said. I also believe that the authors of Scripture had special guidance from the Holy Spirit to write what God wanted written.
-lee-

I agree totally.

But you also have to realise we need to be very careful reading the bible with 21st century mindset and thinking words and phrases really mean what they mean to us rather than what they meant to the people God inspired.

What does under the whole heaven mean? To us it is obviously the whole planet, under the spherical sky. But in the bible it often mean under the sky above us, from horizon to horizon even.

Gen 7:19 all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered.
Does this mean the whole earth? Lets see how similar phrases are used in the rest of the bible.
Deut 2:25 This day I will begin to put the dread and fear of you on the peoples who are under the whole heaven, who shall hear the report of you and shall tremble and be in anguish because of you.'
The peoples under the whole heaven that were trembling with anguish simply meant the ones living around Canaan.
Isaiah 13:5 They come from a distant land, from the end of the heavens, the LORD and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land.
Who is this nation from the end of the heavens? Isaiah 13:17 Behold, I am stirring up the Medes
Acts 2:5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven.
Yet if we read, every nation under heaven simply meant nations as far apart as Persia to Rome. This is not saying the bible is wrong. We just need to understand the way it speaks to us.

 

[laptoppop]

It depends on how you interpret the 'their days will be 120 years' which may refer to human lifespan.

Actually it comes from the story itself - Noah was 500 years old when he received the command from the Lord, and 600 years old when he and his family went into the ark.

No the bible never says that.

To me it does, through the use of the word "all", the covering of the mountains (including the mountains where it landed - many thousands of feet high), taking all the animals on board to preserve the various types, etc. I appreciate your talking about "under the heavens" and "heavens" etc. but in this case I think the context is pretty darn compelling. You can disagree -- that's fine.

I typically don't just cite these articles, but here's an example article with various reasons that the flood is seen as global: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=440

Of course, I'm not sure I agree, but Chuck Missler and others talk about the strange little verses about the "sons of God" and the daughters of men -- they see it as a satanic/demonic attempt to pollute the species such that man would be unredeemable, and the bloodline of the messiah would be ruined. Interesting perspective. If true, a worldwide flood and destruction of the corrupted (gene pool?) makes more sense.

-lee-