Do you think Noah's Ark is on Arrat???

Mechanical Bliss · Nov 28, 2002

Originally posted by Homie
Mechanical Bliss, you say there is evidence for this and that but how do you really know? It is all really a matter of belief, and what sources you trust.

It seems more rational to trust sources that have evidence that substantiate them, though, doesn't it?

So I guess we'd rather believe the Bible. I must say that what seems most logical to me is that God exists, and christianity seems to be the way to go.

If that's what is "most logical" to you, then believing in anything--no matter how outlandish (from unicorns to living dinosaurs)--is just as "logical". If it's logical to you to believe without evidence (i.e., faith), then you might as well believe in anything at all.

Hector Medina · Nov 28, 2002

Mechanical Bliss,

Here is rescearch on evidence for the flood:

This question also assumes that the pre-flood world was like the world is today. The Bible states clearly that the water was 15 cubits over the tallest mountain. Sea-shell fossils have been found on top of mountain ranges all over the world. The top of Mt. Everest is covered with petrified, closed clams. They had to be buried alive to be petrified in the closed position. This was definitely a worldwide flood. The Bible says in Psalm 104 that as the flood ended the mountains lifted up and the valleys sank down and the water hasted away. Todays mountain ranges are well above sea level, but this was not the case before the flood. If the earth were smoothed out today, that is, the mountains pressed down and the ocean basins lifted up, there is enough water in the oceans right now to cover the entire earth 8,000 feet deep (approximately 1.5 miles).
All of the water ran off rapidly through the soft sediments into the ocean basins during the last few months of the flood. This would explain the rapid carving of features such as the Grand Canyon and the Bad Lands.

The Bible teaches that before the flood a canopy of water surrounded the earth. This canopy is mentioned in Gen. 1:6&7, Psalms 148:4 and II Peter 3:5. The Creation Account in Genesis 1 records that a mist that went forth and watered the face of the whole ground. Genesis mentions no other precipitation until the flood brought rain for 40 days and 40 nights. Many people teach that rain never fell before the flood. Although that is probably true, it cannot be taught dogmatically because the Bible simply does not mention the subject. Possibly if the canopy of water that is mentioned in Genesis 1:6 and 7 increased the air pressure, as many think it did, rain was not possible.
It may be that Noah was preaching that rain would come out of the sky (something that had never happened), and the people laughed just like today when Christians preach that Jesus will come out of the sky (something that has never happened) to catch up all believers in Christ. See Matthew 24:37, Luke 17:26 and I Thess 4:16.

It is reasonable to assume that the larger types of animals on the Ark were young animals because they would weigh less, eat less, and sleep more. Also, after the flood they would live longer to produce more offspring. No one knows for sure how many animals were on the ark. Limiting it down to two of each kind does not mean there were two of each species or variety that we have today. There seem to be about 8000 basic kinds of animal in the world. Also, many animals become dormant, lethargic or even hibernate during stormy weather.
Through the instructions that God gave or through the wisdom of Noah he was given the ability to provide a watering mechanism to disperse water to the animals throughout the ark and possibly even a food distribution system. In Genesis 1:29-30, the Bible teaches that before the flood all the animals were vegetarians so there was not a problem with, for example, the lion trying to eat the lamb. Some have suggested that there was a moon pool, a hole in the center of the floor, which would provide a place for fishing and, if necessary, a way to dispense animal waste from the ark.

The minor problems that the Bible believers cannot always answer are nothing compared to the problems and questions that the evolutionists cannot answer. Although I do not know exactly how Noah took care of all the animals on the ark, I am going to believe the Bible until it is proven wrong instead of doubt the Bible until it is proven right. For someone to reject the Bible and then accept the story that we all came from a rock is silly!

Noah was commanded to take into the Ark all the animals on land in whose nostrils was the breath of life (Genesis 6:17, 7:14-15, 22). I do not believe that all the varieties of insects were on the Ark because they breathe through their skin and do not have nostrils. They could have survived on floating matter or by burrowing in the mud. Some of the insects may have been on the Ark in the fur of the animals or in nooks and crannies of the ark; the Bible does not teach that they had to be on board.

Hector Medina · Nov 28, 2002

To summarize briefly: Dinosaurs were made the sixth day with the rest of the animals. Noah took them on the ark (probably young ones). They have always lived with man. After the flood many died from the climate changes and from man's hunting. They were called dragons for many centuries. (The word dinosaur was just invented in 1841.) A few small dinosaurs may still be alive today in remote parts of the world. There have been over 20,000 reported sightings of dinosaur like creatures in this century. A few pictures and stories are on my web site.

I believe there are few human fossils for several reasons.
1. God made the world full of plants and animals but only two people. 1600 years later the world was still full of plants and animals but still not full of people. There were not as many of them to be drowned.

2. Men are smarter than animals (That is, some men), so he would figure out a way to avoid drowning until the last possible minute by making makeshift rafts or holding to floating logs and tend to be deposited on top rather than in the sediments. Therefore he would not fossilize. For example, millions of bison were slaughtered in the west a century ago, yet few, if any, fossilized. They were left on top to rot, bones and all.

3. Since so many researchers have the preconceived (and false) idea that man has been evolving from small and dumb to big and smart they may tend to not even recognize and properly identify bone fragments of humans that may have been huge by todays standards. Their prejudice is that ancient man was smaller.

In spite of the above problems, Marvin Lubenow, an expert on fossil humans and author of Bones of Contention (available from CSE) says that about 4000 human fossil remains have been found.

The evolutionist has a serious problem with this same question. If man has really been here for millions of years there should be many thousands if not millions of fossils of their bones like we have of the animals. The "where are the bones?" question is really a question for the evolutionist to answer if he expects all the taxpayers to support his religion in the school system.

This question assumes the oceans were salt water during the flood like they are today. I believe the entire world was largely fresh water. Today about 30% of the rain water washes into the oceans, bringing mineral salts with it. The oceans are getting saltier every day. Todays oceans are about 3.6% salt. Between the salts washing in from ground water and the salts leaching in from subterranean salt domes, the oceans could have gone from fresh water to 3.6% in the 4400 years since the flood. If the earth were billions of years old, the oceans would be much saltier like the Dead Sea or Great Salt Lake.
Many animals have adapted to the slow increase in salinity over the last 4400 years. We now have fresh water crocodiles and salt water crocodiles that are different species but probably had a common ancestor. This is not evolution. It is only variation. Changing from a fresh water croc to a salt-water croc is not a major change compared to what the evolutionists believe. They think it changed from a rock to a croc! That would be a major change!

Several years ago, a man in Minnesota told me that he had two large aquariums in his house, one fresh water and the other salt water. He wondered if he could mix the fish together so he figured out how to slowly raise the salt content in the fresh water aquarium a little each week for 10 years until it was 1.8% salt. At the same time, he was lowering the salt content in the salt water aquarium to 1.8% salt. After 10 years he mixed all the fish together. He told me they adapted fine.

Noah had no problem with drinking water during the flood and the fresh-water/salt-water problem does not exist. Attempting to force the way the world is today onto the questions involving the pre-flood world is a common problem. II Peter 3 says the scoffers of the last days will be willingly ignorant of how God made the heavens and the earth (the original creation), and the flood.

Hector Medina · Nov 28, 2002

This info deals w/ supposed contradictions in the Bible.

When I was a new Christian, someone showed me the apparent contradictions between the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. According to Genesis 1, God made the trees on day three, the birds from water on day five, and the animals on day six, all before man. But Genesis 2 records the creation of trees, animals, and birds from dirt on day six, all after man. This apparent contradiction disappears when one reads in Genesis 2 that the events in that chapter describe the events regarding the creation of the items in the Garden of Eden only. God knew Satan could come and say he had created all things if Adam did not actually witness Gods creative power. God made Adam on the sixth day, put him in the garden, made some trees to grow before Adam, then made 1 more of each of the animals so that Adam could name them and select a wife. The rest of the world was already full of plants and animals from earlier in the week.
Another apparent contradiction appears in I Kings 7:23 and II Chronicles 4, the description of the large bowl called the brazen laver. According to both passages, the laver measures 10 cubits (elbow to fingertip, about 18 inches) across and 30 cubits around, a ratio that does not equal pi (3.14159) and appears to be not mathematically valid. However, the 10 cubit measurement spans the outside of the bowl; the handbreadth thickness of the brass is included in the diameter which balances the ratio to equal pi very neatly. There are no contradictions in the Bible.

Many scoffers have sited I Kings 4:26 "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen" and II Chron. 9:25 "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen" as a contradiction. There is no contradiction. He had 40,000 stalls for horses yet only 4,000 stalls for the chariots. They had 10 men and 10 horses per chariot in case they got a "flat tire." See II Sam 10:18 "And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the me of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians," and I Chron. 119:18 "But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men which fought in chariots," to show the same point. The men of 700 chariots would be 7000 men.

Numbers 25:9 tells us, "And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand." Yet, I Cor 10:8 says, "Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand." Scoffers who cannot read well see a contradiction here also, but it is obvious that 1000 died later of the same plague.

Aristotle's dictum stated that when a critic criticized a document, the benefit of the doubt goes to the document not to the critic. No one has ever proven a contradiction in God's Word though thousands have tried. The Bible is the anvil that has worn out many hammers.

Caffeine Socialism · Nov 28, 2002

The Bible is the anvil that crushes truth. If you can show me where in the Bible it says that God knew that Satan would corrupt Adam, I might believe you. But you can't try to prove the Bible's authenticity by citing the Bible and then reverting to your own speculation.

Homie · Nov 28, 2002

Freodin

If you follow this kind of "logic" - anything goes.

I'm sorry if I was misleading in what I said. I look at what I wrote and understand how you and MB would misunderstand me, I was being quite unclear, sorry

. I'll break it down:
You believe there is evidence that substantiates your beliefs in various scientific theories. I believe there is evidence that substantiates my religious beliefs (although that is not what I base my faith on). What I'm saying is really that this "evidence" is not that for certain as we think, it is really a matter of faith. What was looked upon as certain evidence to support a certain 100 years may be laughed at today.

No on to what I said next (which was seperate from this and so I should have made a paragraph): I said that I find it most logical that God exists, I didn't explain why I thought so (That is a whole other thread), in the same sentance I said that christianity seems to be the way to go (nor did I explain this) and so I concluded that because God exists and christianity is true I would rather believe the Bible than some scientist. Sorry for the confusion.

You may wonder why I think "God exists" is the most logical answear and that christianity is the true religion, but don't bring it up here, that would be thread-jacking, and nobody likes that.

Mechanical Bliss · Nov 28, 2002

Originally posted by Hector Medina
Mechanical Bliss,

Here is rescearch on evidence for the flood:

WRONG. I'll go through very few to see why. This whole thing has been copied, pasted, and successfully refuted numerous times on this forum and others. Secondly, this isn't "research"--this is mere speculation NOT based upon evidence but based rather on making ridiculous explanations so that they fit what the Bible says rather than what the real world tells us.

The Bible states clearly that the water was 15 cubits over the tallest mountain. Sea-shell fossils have been found on top of mountain ranges all over the world.

...and yet not all mountain ranges have marine fossils. Furthermore, modern geology has a very good explanation for this: plate tectonics. Marine sedimentary strata with encased fossils are uplifted to form mountains.

The top of Mt. Everest is covered with petrified, closed clams. They had to be buried alive to be petrified in the closed position. This was definitely a worldwide flood.

Fossilization occured before mountain building. That in no way indicates a worldwide flooding episode.

The Bible says in Psalm 104 that as the flood ended the mountains lifted up and the valleys sank down and the water hasted away. Todays mountain ranges are well above sea level, but this was not the case before the flood.

There is absolutely zero evidence for this. Furthermore, I find it interesting that the article you pasted explains ITSELF that it is presupposing that the "pre-flood world was like the world is today". Obviously it is a contradiction to assume something like this, especially after saying pre- and post-flood environments were identical to today.

If the earth were smoothed out today, that is, the mountains pressed down and the ocean basins lifted up, there is enough water in the oceans right now to cover the entire earth 8,000 feet deep (approximately 1.5 miles).

The key word here is "IF". If the world was smooth and the ocean basins actually rose then there could be enough water, HOWEVER there is absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE that this has ever happened. Furthermore, I doubt it is even geophysically possible.

All of the water ran off rapidly through the soft sediments into the ocean basins during the last few months of the flood. This would explain the rapid carving of features such as the Grand Canyon and the Bad Lands.

Again, ZERO EVIDENCE. The Grand Canyon was not a rapidly-formed feature (neither were the Badlands). This is based quite sturdily on the principle of uniformitarianism.

The Bible teaches that before the flood a canopy of water surrounded the earth. This canopy is mentioned in Gen. 1:6&7, Psalms 148:4 and II Peter 3:5. The Creation Account in Genesis 1 records that a mist that went forth and watered the face of the whole ground.

AGAIN, ZERO EVIDENCE. I don't care what the Bible says happened--I care about what reality tells us. You said that this was based upon RESEARCH. However, all this article does is state what the Bible says and then makes up a story NOT grounded in evidence to fit the Biblical story.

Genesis mentions no other precipitation until the flood brought rain for 40 days and 40 nights. Many people teach that rain never fell before the flood. Although that is probably true, it cannot be taught dogmatically because the Bible simply does not mention the subject.

That is just plain ridiculous. If there was no rain before "the flood" then life would not have survived, plain and simple.

 I am going to believe the Bible until it is proven wrong instead of doubt the Bible until it is proven right. For someone to reject the Bible and then accept the story that we all came from a rock is silly!

That's not logical. Justified belief results from substantiation. People haven't disproven the existence of unicorns, so by this skewed logic, you ought to believe in unicorns as well. Secondly, the theory of biological evolution does not state that "we all came from a rock". YOUR myth states that we all came from dust.

The rest of this article is laughable, makes too many assumptions, and twists reality to fit the Bible instead of acknowledging actual evidence. It's not research, it's nonsense. I'm not even going to bother with it anymore.

I find it interesting as well that you have to copy and paste your arguments unlike myself and others here who actually respond to posts with their own words (while occasionally referencing other sites) and own thoughts without bombarding someone with a lengthy cut-and-paste job.

Mechanical Bliss · Nov 28, 2002

Originally posted by Homie
Freodin

I believe there is evidence that substantiates my religious beliefs (although that is not what I base my faith on).

...and yet I can present evidence that substantiates my position and creationists have not been able to.

I said that I find it most logical that God exists, I didn't explain why I thought so (That is a whole other thread), in the same sentance I said that christianity seems to be the way to go (nor did I explain this) and so I concluded that because God exists and christianity is true I would rather believe the Bible than some scientist. Sorry for the confusion.

So, you would rather believe in an unsubstantiated, self-contradictory religious text than evidence collected in the real world. How interesting. Your belief is devoid of any logical justification.

You may wonder why I think "God exists" is the most logical answear and that christianity is the true religion, but don't bring it up here, that would be thread-jacking, and nobody likes that.

...or rather the question can't be answered by you in any way that doesn't make irrational a priori assumptions.

Freodin · Nov 28, 2002

The problem is with what the Bible tells us, and what people think the Bible tells us.

Assumptions like the "water canopy", "all animals were vegetarian", "Noah build his ark in 120 years", "the mountains were only raised after the flood" - all these are not based directly on biblical statements, but on - sometimes rather vague - interpretations.

There are a few verifiable facts in the Bible, but most of the "truths" that are written there are not. They are assumed to be true, because they are in the Bible, and the Bible is infallible and so everything that is in the Bible is true ... and so on.

"Facts" like that in the story of Noah are not verifiable. They are rather inpropable. Scientific observation tells us that they are almost impossible.

So the most reasonable approach would be to say "Well, we don´t know. The authors surely had their reasons to write this, but we cannot say for sure what these were."

But such an approach would destory the faith in the literal truth of the Bible - something that some people abhorr.

The flood story could not have worked without direct divine intervention at all stages. Such an intervention is, as all "Goddidits" unrefutable - but it leaves the question: why bother with an ark at all?

AV1611VET · Dec 5, 2015

Freodin said:
The flood story could not have worked without direct divine intervention at all stages.

What's wrong with that?

Goonie · Dec 5, 2015

14 years, talk about resurrecting a dead thread!

Aman777 · Dec 5, 2015

Hector Medina said:
Greetings,

There is rescerach about shghtings of Noah's Ark either on the Mt. Arrat or in the Arrat mountains and it is split in two becuase of earthquake of 1840.

In Genesis the Ark landed on Arrat.

In Christ,

Hector

Not so since the Ark did not land on a mountain but instead, in Lake Van, Turkey, in the mountains of Ararat. A 450 ft Ark could not have survived landing on the side of a mountain. Scripture shows NO desire of Noah to leave the Ark. If it had been on a mountain, in the dead of winter, Noah's family would have frozen. Amen?

SkyWriting · Dec 6, 2015

Hector Medina said:
Greetings,

There is rescerach about shghtings of Noah's Ark either on the Mt. Arrat or in the Arrat mountains and it is split in two becuase of earthquake of 1840.

In Genesis the Ark landed on Arrat.

In Christ,

Hector

Exposed wood doesn't hold up well.

SkyWriting · Dec 6, 2015

Hector Medina said:
Yes John ,

That would be petrified wood.

Rescearches calim to have a few pieces of it fro the Ark or so.
And Turkish Armenians have a cross that is allegedly made from the Ark's wood.

My rescearch is from:

In Scearch of Noah's Ark 1975

A Documentry avalible on VHS (and possibly DVD)

Its worth checking out.

Hector

Exposed wood does not petrify.

Bradly Capel · Dec 6, 2015

AV1611VET said:
What's wrong with that?

Nothing at all it's a wonderful story and the kids just love it, they also like Goldilocks and the Three Bears and Alice in Wonderland, those and many others make perfect reading for children.

AV1611VET · Dec 6, 2015

Bradly Capel said:
Nothing at all it's a wonderful story and the kids just love it, they also like Goldilocks and the Three Bears and Alice in Wonderland, those and many others make perfect reading for children.

Do they also like the story of Jesus and the Resurrection?

Bradly Capel · Dec 6, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Do they also like the story of Jesus and the Resurrection?

Some might but a lot might find it a bit creepy because he came back to life on his own.

AV1611VET · Jan 4, 2016

Bradly Capel said:
Some might but a lot might find it a bit creepy because he came back to life on his own.

I've yet to encounter one.

VirOptimus · Jan 4, 2016

AV1611VET said:
Do they also like the story of Jesus and the Resurrection?

Stories are stories. Some you belive, some you dont. Some are plausible, some are not. The ones with evidence and facts on their side are easier to belive then those without.

Stories where facts and evidence are contrary to whats being told are silly to belive.

AV1611VET · Jan 4, 2016

VirOptimus said:
The ones with evidence and facts on their side are easier to belive then those without.

How did we get our moon?

Do you think Noah's Ark is on Arrat???

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Questioning Roman Catholic

Questioning Roman Catholic

Questioning Roman Catholic

Imagine all the people.

Gods servant

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Devout believer in a theologically different God

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Not so Mystic Mog.

Christian

The Librarian

The Librarian

Active Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Active Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

A nihilist who cares.

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads