Noah's Ark

AV1611VET said:

Yes.

The Ark is a type of Christ.

Click to expand...

Amen. Every story in the Bible is a type of Christ. Can you identify Jesus in the story of the good Samaritan?

Hiscosmicgoldfish3 said:

The evidence that Ron Wyatt discovered is convincing that that is the Ark up in the hills of Turkey - he found petrified laminated wood and big rivets.

Click to expand...

False, since the story of the Ark places it in Lake Van, Turkey, in the mountains of Ararat. Try to convince us that God is so silly that He would put a 450 ft ship on a mountain, instead of in a 75 mile wide Lake. Remember that Noah lived in the Ark for months AFTER it arrived. In the snow?

Aman777 said:

False, since the story of the Ark places it in Lake Van, Turkey, in the mountains of Ararat. Try to convince us that God is so silly that He would put a 450 ft ship on a mountain, instead of in a 75 mile wide Lake. Remember that Noah lived in the Ark for months AFTER it arrived. In the snow?

Click to expand...

I'm not sold on the idea that that was the Ark - I doubt very much that there was an Ark at all, or a flood of Noah. I am just wondering about the evidence that Ron Wyatt produced, and wonder why AiG are not interested.

AV1611VET said:

Yes.

The Ark is a type of Christ.

Click to expand...

Where do we see a type of christ back at pangea?

AV1611VET said:

Evidence might make a good Raiders-of-the-Lost-Ark scenario; but that's about it.

Click to expand...

He made money. They still make money off of him today.

Hiscosmicgoldfish3 said:

I'm not sold on the idea that that was the Ark - I doubt very much that there was an Ark at all, or a flood of Noah. I am just wondering about the evidence that Ron Wyatt produced, and wonder why AiG are not interested.

Click to expand...

AIG is interested in promoting THEIR view so they can make money and so is Ron Wyatt. The Ark brought the superior intelligence of God to the planet of the common ancestor of Apes. After 6 Million years mindless nature/magical evolution could NOT and was NOT able to produce God's intelligence in Apes. Prehistoric man lived and died just like any other animal.

It's because Adam was made with an intelligence like God's. Genesis 3:22 No prehistoric being, who descended from the common ancestor of Apes has, nor ever can inherit God's intelligence. It must come through sex and not magic. Noah was the FIRST Human (descendant of Adam) to walk on this Earth. He arrived in the Ark 11,000 years ago, according to the History of Human civilization on this Earth. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE

AV1611VET said:

Where did Noah build the Ark?

Be specific please.

I say he built it in what is now New Jersey.
Be prepared to defend your position.

Click to expand...

I would say the Netherlands.
They found Noah's ark there some time ago and have kept it a secret until now.
They just got thru remodeling it.

Life-Sized Noah's Ark Replica To Hit The High Seas This Summer

A life-sized replica of Noah’s Ark may soon be hitting the Atlantic Ocean — but don’t worry, there’s no forecast for genocidal floods (that we know of).

The Dutch ship’s creator has announced plans to move the massive vessel, with the help of a barge, from its port in the Netherlands to Brazil this summer as part of a multi-country tour.

I love this discussion on the flood and ark.
I think you all are missing out on a few facts that the Bible describes and what geology now found about a global flood.
1. the Earth came into existence through accretion of space dust and Ice.
2. It collected huge Ice balls of dirt and ice during the nebular epoch and became one huge ball of Mud.
3. This theory was first postulated by Immanuel Kant in 1755 and became the accepted theory on how our Solar system developed.
4. this would render the Earth much more rounder and smoother than what we see today,
5. the theory would then also explain huge amounts of water beneath the surface of the Earth's surface, and much shallower oceans and much lower mountains than today.
6. the Nebular theory also claims that the Earth never underwent a Hadean epoch such as Laplace suggested to further atheism as a counter for Kant's Biblical explanation. This was proven with the discovery of Zircon crystals aged 5.5 billion years that could only have formed if the Earth was much wetter than originally proposed.
7. Then it is quite correct to have the Author of the Bible telling us that there was huge amounts of water that gushed forth from the fountains of the deep.
8. to give a nice comparison, before the Earth underwent the global flood of Genesis, it was smooth like a passion fruit freshly picked from a vine. After the flood, it was like this same fruit that dried out as it fell in upon itself.
Before the flood the Earth had a shallow ocean and a lower altitude landmass, and as gravity and defrosting of internal water played its role, the landmass fell in upon itself, it pushed this water from the depths of the Earth. Plates of landmasses pushed against each other and created the mountains of today, and the water filled up the huge trenches where previous the ocean beds was shallow.
8. this will be the reason why the Ark came to rest upon a Mountain that never existed before. Also why sea fossils are found on every mountain.
9. incredible amounts of plant material is also evidence as trees changed in coal, showing polystrate dating covering "millions of years", (a terrible headache for evolutionists)
10. even fossils proves that the flood was not only globally, but very sudden as some fossils even shows evidence of feeding whilst dying.
That the Earth was a swampy landscape with shallow freshwater oceans is also to be seen in the great dinosaurs that lived. Not only would it be impossible to walk around on their hind legs, but they will render their fore arms useless on land. No, they were living in shallow water lakes where their hind legs would be walking on the bottom, and the front arms collecting food at chest high water level height.
Dinos such as Stegosaurus would also fit in this environment perfectly.
11. If you want to see evidence of a global flood, look at the Earth as a globe, and do not walk to a cliff to try to find some flood marks. This is like missing the elephant in the room, looking for a mouse.
12. To end it all off, all the continents had residue of this water and ice after the flood. Just look at the Lake Misula and scabland evidence that proves that the continents was covered in Snow and water.
Ant artica was a tropical landscape, and the Sahara a Savana with gigantic lakes.
No, the Bible is correct as always.

Piet Strydom said:

1. the Earth came into existence through accretion of space dust and Ice.
2. It collected huge Ice balls of dirt and ice during the nebular epoch and became one huge ball of Mud.
3. This theory was first postulated by Immanuel Kant in 1755 and became the accepted theory on how our Solar system developed.

Click to expand...

1. Amen. The big bang happened when Jesus made our 2nd Heaven late on the 3rd Day. Genesis 2:4 Less than a Billion years later, the first Stars lit up on the 4th Day. Genesis 1:16 Since each of God's 6 Days is several Billion years, in man's time, it happened some 9 Billion years AFTER Adam was made. Genesis 2:4-7
2. False
3. Catch up. You are living with the knowledge of ancient people.

Aman777 said:

1. Amen. The big bang happened when Jesus made our 2nd Heaven late on the 3rd Day. Genesis 2:4 Less than a Billion years later, the first Stars lit up on the 4th Day. Genesis 1:16 Since each of God's 6 Days is several Billion years, in man's time, it happened some 9 Billion years AFTER Adam was made. Genesis 2:4-7
2. False
3. Catch up. You are living with the knowledge of ancient people.

Click to expand...

It seems as if you are still living with the knowledge of 1905 when the science of astronomy was still in it baby steps.
I would suggest you sharpen up your studies and familiarize yourself with what the current scientific descriptions are about the origins of the Solar system and the Earth.
If you do, you will find that up until 1978, everyone still tried to use the Hadean theory of Laplace(1800AD) which was found to be incorrect due to the speed of the Sun spinning around it's axis.
The latest findings is, contrary to your claim where you simply typed "2. False", that the Earth, as all the planets of the Solar system, a collection of space dust and ice from a nebular cloud.
look at the facts.
1. there are oceans of water still captured within the Earths' interior crust.
Huge Underground "Ocean" Found Beneath Asia
2. the Earth was not a red hot boiling ball of magma as was previously suggested. But was wet an cool when it formed.
Ancient Crystals Suggest Earlier Ocean : Feature Articles
3. Comets are Icey snowballs of dirt and gas.
Comets: Facts About The 'Dirty Snowballs' of Space
Now why would you come out and say tht the latest scientific observations about our solar system is wrong?

Finally, you are totally incorrect with when the Big Bang occurred.
Dont you know it was not during the lifetime of Jesus?
Not only are your sense of scientific observations obsolete, but you have a huge problem with simple chronology!

Aman777 said:

1. Amen. The big bang happened when Jesus made our 2nd Heaven late on the 3rd Day. Genesis 2:4 Less than a Billion years later, the first Stars lit up on the 4th Day. Genesis 1:16 Since each of God's 6 Days is several Billion years, in man's time, it happened some 9 Billion years AFTER Adam was made. Genesis 2:4-7

Click to expand...

Now lets see if you understood what God said about the origins of the Universe over the first 4 days.
1. On the 3rd day, God separated land and water.
If land and water was separated, the prior stage to land and sea would be a ball of mud.
2. this means the Earth was a huge ball of Mud on day 2, and when God separated waters below and above a FIRMAMENT, it means the atmosphere was formed from a collection of GAS, LIQUID AND MATTER. this firmament was the surface of this mud ball Earth.
Nice that the Author of the Bible knew how the earth was formed from Gas, liquid and Matter, and Nasa, National Geographic and the worlds greatest scientists now proved what was written 6 000 years ago.
3.Great, If the Earth was a ball of mud on the second day, with an atmosphere that ascended from this mud ball, it is only logical to conclude that the Earth was a huge collection of Gas Liquid and matter on the first day. Now, look at this description I bet you never thought about.
4. On the first day, when God created light, there was night and day. The Earth turned around its axis.
5. however, before the first day, the Author of the Bible say, the Earth was a collection of water with no shape!
Well, this can only mean that the Earth was a collection of accreted snow, gas and dust as science now knows the solar systen was build from.

Sorry Aman 777, your preconceived idea that the Author of the Bible can not reconcile His description of how He created the Universe with science is unfortunately flawed.
You see, the first man to have postulated on the origins of our universe and solar system, was Immanuel Kant (1755). This is the very same science that was proven correct in 1925 by Hubble.
Swedenborg and others such as Laplace was totally wrong in their descriptions.
Why?
Because Kant wrote his "Universal natural history and theory of the heavens" which was what he learned from the Bible!
The interesting fact about this work of philosophy is that Kant did not know whether he was correct or not, and trusted Genesis totally with his explanation.
Later in his life he was even worried that his works on reason, truth and how to evaluate reason, would be scorned when his universal Natural history of the heavens could be used by atheists against his philosophy, that he did not allow publications prior to his life that would include the book I am talking about.
Now, Today scientific observations proved him correct on Galaxies, the milky way, comets, the Nebular theory, the Big Bang, and much more claims he made, which he found in the Bible!
He was a Pietist and knew Biblical Hebrew and Greek and memorised most of the scripture.

I love it when "scientists", or shall we be more clear, "Ateists" say when they try to render the Old Testament as an ancient book of mythology that can not be trusted with scientific facts; loose their argument when they learn that their Big Bang, Nebular theory, and the origins of our solar system was recorded by a Christian from the Bible, plagiarized by scientists when they tried to weave Laplace's explanation into it, only to prove Kant 100% correct.
Funny how "scientists" now do their utmost to hide Kant from the scientific world.
They will not even mention him, and every scientist / atheist I speak to about Kant, usually just say they did not know.

Tell you what, prove to me that the descriptions from Kant is not what science today observe, and I will agree that I am wrong.
On the other hand, if you even attempt to disprove Kant, you will have a predicament that whatever astronomy today knows, must be changed.
Greetings from South Africa

AV1611VET said:

Where did Noah build the Ark?

Be specific please.

I say he built it in what is now New Jersey.

Be prepared to defend your position.

Click to expand...

New Jersey’s Highlands mountains were connected to what is now Morocco before the flood broke the continents apart.

Piet Strydom said:

Now why would you come out and say tht the latest scientific observations about our solar system is wrong?

Finally, you are totally incorrect with when the Big Bang occurred.
Dont you know it was not during the lifetime of Jesus?
Not only are your sense of scientific observations obsolete, but you have a huge problem with simple chronology!

Click to expand...

The beginning of our Cosmos was late on the 3rd Day Genesis 2:4 of the Creation. We know it was late on the 3rd Age since it was only 180 million years later that the first Stars lit up on the 4th Day. Genesis 1:16 and www.astronomy.com › News Mar 2, 2018 -

Since each of God's Days/Ages is some 4.5 billion years in length, in man's time, God's Truth AGREES with the discoveries of mankind in the last days. Amen?

Piet Strydom said:

1. On the 3rd day, God separated land and water.

Click to expand...

Chapter and verse please, since they were already separated. On the 3rd Day God the Trinity and Jesus made Adam's Earth. Genesis 1:9-10

Piet Strydom said:

2. this means the Earth was a huge ball of Mud on day 2

Click to expand...

UnScriptural and totally against what Genesis says. On the 2nd Day, God the Trinity and Jesus made Adam's firmament or boundary which protected Adam's Earth from the water which surrounded it. IF you know anything about water, you know that if it is above and below a solid firmament, the firmament is immersed in that water. Genesis 1:6-7

stevevw said:

Like most hypothesis they are constantly being developed. This is the same for Dembski's work and other scientists have built upon this as proposed in the papers linked above. ( snip) Whether God created original kinds or a universal organism that evolved there is design. Life that shows such variety and complexity cannot blindly and randomly occur. Even non religious scientists recognize this.

Click to expand...

That’s not true !

joshua 1 9 said:

New Jersey’s Highlands mountains were connected to what is now Morocco before the flood broke the continents apart.

Click to expand...

The Flood has nothing to do with this as Africa started to separate from North America about 235 million years ago during the Triassic. This was due to plate tectonics. Iirc Africa bumping into North America is how the Appalachians formed.

Brightmoon said:

The Flood has nothing to do with this ... This was due to plate tectonics.

Click to expand...

Noah's flood is an archetype of the flood that took place at pangaea. I did a lot of research starting with the dinosaurs they find at Ghost Ranch. All of the remains were herds found in flood deposits. All the way through rocky mountains from New Mexico to Wyoming. The explanation for this is that Satan got the dinos to eat and devour each other so that God had to destroy them. Flood and bones

Brightmoon said:

That’s not true !

Click to expand...

This paper shows how ideas like complex specified info that Dembski had proposed is being developed by mainstream scientists now.
A Unified Model of Complex Specified Information
https://deusexisteumdesafio.com/uploads/extra-101/pdf-extra-101.pdf

There are many mainstream scientists who question natural selections role in how living things have evolved and developed complexity. They propose mechanisms such as with development processes where genes can be switched on and off which produce new variation. Developmental bias produces certain features that are well integrated and suited to help living things adapt to environments rather than blind natural selection sifting random mutations. Developmental plasticity allows living things to change/vary their forms according to the environmental pressures they face. These variations are usually well suited as they are responses to the environment a creature faces.

Epigenetics and extra genetic inheritance play a role where the influence of culture and socialization lead to a creature being in a better position to adapt. Niche construction allows living things to change environments rather than be changed to fit into an environment. These mechanisms minimize and even bypass the need for natural selection. Natural selection has been given credit for evolutionary changes at the expense of these other mechanisms. The changes the above processes bring are more directed along certain paths to achieve certain outcomes rather than the blind and random process of Darwinism. Natural selection is more of a minor player that can refine things rather than create genomic complexity in first place.

Here are some articles that support this.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
We hold that organisms are constructed in development, not simply ‘programmed’ to develop by genes. Living things do not evolve to fit into pre-existing environments, but co-construct and co-evolve with their environments, in the process changing the structure of ecosystems. The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science.

The story that the Standard Evolutionary Theory (SET) tells is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.

In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES, they are also causes.

Valuable insight into the causes of adaptation and the appearance of new traits comes from the field of evolutionary developmental biology (‘evo-devo’). Some of its experimental findings are proving tricky to assimilate into SET. Particularly thorny is the observation that much variation is not random because developmental processes generate certain forms more readily than others.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics
Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life. There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics

Dempski’s meaningless word salad doesn’t apply to the modern understanding of evolution because SCIENTISTS have always known that gene= One Specific trait , isn’t true. Maybe laymen think that . Modern scientists are just getting detailed information that wasn’t available 50 years ago .

Brightmoon said:

Dempski’s meaningless word salad doesn’t apply to the modern understanding of evolution because SCIENTISTS have always known that gene= One Specific trait , isn’t true. Maybe laymen think that . Modern scientists are just getting detailed information that wasn’t available 50 years ago .

Click to expand...

I think it is a bit harsh to call Dempski’s work as word salad. Even his opponents understand that he knows what he is talking about but they just disagree with some of the calculations and assumptions. I think Dempski does understand that it takes more than just a gene to produce a specific trait. In fact the specified info argument is about that very point that it takes much more to produce the high ordered functional info in living things which will require many proteins and genes even for small functions.

George D. Montanez is an expert in specified information but mainly with machines building. He is non-religious and has developed Dempski’s ideas. So mainstream science is recognizing complex specified info. I am not saying that everything he has proposed is correct but that there is something to his ideas as even non religious scientists are now recognizing specified info as a way to detect design as opposed to Shannon info for example.

A Unified Model of Complex Specified Information
George D. Montanez*
https://deusexisteumdesafio.com/uploads/extra-101/pdf-extra-101.pdf

I can't imagine that it is possible to know the answer to the question. If the earth had one supercontinent and the flood waters covered all the land, he could have started from anywhere. I do not find the idea of New Jersey to be more convincing than anywhere else. Sure, it's possible, but anywhere else is possible as well, and I see no reason to favor any one specific location over another.