What would happen if we find Noah's ark?

[nvxplorer]

how do you know? Do you know exactly what effect a worldwide deluge would create... not only raining, but water "from the deep?"

The effects of a worldwide flood are trivial to predict, and many forum members have repeatedly done so. It’s for this reason that a global flood has been falsified for hundreds of years.

 

[Uphill Battle]

The effects of a worldwide flood are trivial to predict, and many forum members have repeatedly done so. It’s for this reason that a global flood has been falsified for hundreds of years.

trivial to predict? as in couldn't be bothered?
or trivial to predict, as in you believe you know what it would be like in a global flood, and have proved otherwise?

 

[nvxplorer]

trivial to predict? as in couldn't be bothered?
or trivial to predict, as in you believe you know what it would be like in a global flood, and have proved otherwise?

Trivial as in “easily understood, child’s play, with little effort.”

 

[Uphill Battle]

Trivial as in “easily understood, child’s play, with little effort.”

I understand. You beleive you could accurately predict what the world would look life if it was subjected to a global deluge. Bold claim. (seeing as you have nothing to base it against.. no other terrestrial form that has suffered a global deluge.) or does the "you have no comparison" argument only apply to those who believe YEC?

 

[nvxplorer]

I understand. You beleive you could accurately predict what the world would look life if it was subjected to a global deluge. Bold claim. (seeing as you have nothing to base it against.. no other terrestrial form that has suffered a global deluge.) or does the "you have no comparison" argument only apply to those who believe YEC?

Myself, I am not qualified to make predictions, but many members are and have. The main argument comes from physics and the release of heat from condensing rain. When water vapor condenses, it releases heat. You may be familiar with the opposite effect - evaporative cooling. The amount of heat released from such rainfall would cook the planet. Another feature we’d see is brackish closed water systems. I mentioned the Lake Tahoe/Truckee River/Pyramid Lake system in a recent thread. This system is devoid of salinity. There are numerous evidences which falsify a global flood. I’m sure many web articles are available.

 

[dad]

As I said already, just because the ark is found it does not follows that 1-the flood was global and 2-that the earth is young. The flood could well be local and the earth still old even if the ark is found.


As.

So let me see here, if there was a flood, say near the black sea, The Almighty needed to tell Noah all flesh would be destroyed? Ha. You don't think much of God, I see. Now, Noah spent years, building an ocean liner sized boat, on top of this, and put two of every kind of animal on earth, seven of some kinds, in it, and food supplies galore. All for something he could have walked away from? Utterly insulting to God's intelligence, honesty, and word! Then, God covered even the highest mountains for nearly a year with water? Why would all life on earth need to be represented in this ark, then? Your position is not scriptural, and absurd. Oh, yes, God had to Personally close the ark door as well, and send a rainbow, and promise never again to cover the earth with water, to destroy men-for some dinky local flood? Think about it.

 

[BelovedSonofRock]

The young earth theory falls apart when you look at the theory and evidence in toto and when one uses it for predictability.

When people want to find diamonds, fozzil fuels and minerals they use old earth theory because it works. One has great difficulty predicting with the young earth theory.

Young earth theory hypothesizes that the Grand Canyon was created in a very short time by a large amount of rapidly flowing water. YET proponents often point to the rapidly formed canyon that was created shortly after the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. These are some of the things one would expect to find from a rapidly formed canyon:

large number of large boulders, especially at the end of the canyon (downstream) (rapidly flowing water breaks off rock in larger pieces)
mostly rough edged rocks (no time to be worn smooth)
an extremely large delta (no time to be eroded away)
evidence of a large amount of water at the beginning of the canyon (upstream)

The Grand Canyon is lacking these pieces of evidence.

Another piece of damaging evidence is that there were two volcanic eruptions that caused lava to flow into the canyon and created large natural dams. If the canyon was formed in a very short amount of time, the amount of water flowing through the canyon would not have allowed the dams to form. Not only were the dams large enough to form large lakes but they were eroded to what are now a series of rapids.

Also, think about the amount of water that would be needed to form the Grand Canyon in a very short amount of time. The Niagara Falls has a tremendous amount of water flowing over it and it is not eroding very rapidly. Of course, now its flow is requlated by a Canadian-US group. But, if there was that much water to rapidly form the Grand Canyon it would have left much more evidence than just the Grand Canyon.

If Noah's flood did occurred there would be more than one Grand Canyon. The places where I would look would be China, Brazil, Australia, India and probably Central Europe. But when you look at those locations you see that other forces of nature than water were prominent in there formations. Northern China, for instance, was greatly shaped by winds depositing dust over a tremendously large amount of time.

The YET does not account for the formation of the Hawaiian Islands. The islands were formed as that area of the earth moved over a hot spot. The western Islands are older than the eastern islands. An a new island, Lo'ihi, is starting to form at the bottom of the ocean. Scientist estimate that the new island will reach the surface in 50,000-200,000 years. If YET is correct there should be only one or two Hawaiin islands of the same age.

The YET does not account for the formation of the series of caldera volcanoes in Western United States (From Washington to Wyoming). Yellowstone National Park is in the youngest of the calderas. This series was formed as the North American plate moved over a hot spot. The hot spot is now under Yellowstone National Park.

Now here is something interesting. The Grand Canyon and this series of calderas are relatively close together. Now if a large amount of water was in the area to form the Grand Canyon, these caldera's would show some evidence of this water. They don't. Now, if you hold to the YET and the hypothesis that the Grand Canyon was formed by large amount of water in a very short amount of time, you'll have to say that the caldera series was formed after the Grand Canyon was formed.

So, here's a scenario: A huge lake forms over western US and then rapidly drains to form the Grand Canyon. Then the continental plate rapidly moves 700 miles but stops periodically to allow a caldera to blow. Ok, but here's another piece of evidence to consider, the successive ash layers from each caldera eruption don't support this scenario.

Ok, new scenario: A huge lake forms over western US and then rapidly drains to form the Grand Canyon. Then the continental plate rapidly moves 700 miles but stops periodically to allow a caldera to blow, the ash to settle and to allow plant and animal life to firmly reestablish before the next caldera blows.

Now add the formation of the Hawaiian Islands, the rise and fall of the North American inland sea, the cratering of the moon, and other major geological and biological events. The Yough Earth Theory falls apart under the weight of evidence in toto.

For those who need to know, in toto means: completely or in total

Beasst,
Your prediction came true. They ignored this completely.

 

[TeddyKGB]

how do you know? Do you know exactly what effect a worldwide deluge would create... not only raining, but water "from the deep?"

It would not create the severe meanders seen. You can "what if" and "how do you know" until you are blue in the face. Ask any geologist. Better yet, email AIG. You will probably get some pathetic claim about soft sediment or something.

right. You say it doesn't affect it much. But the point remains, how do you know the river did NOT dry up to an almost imperceptible amount for a period of time?

It might very well have. The point is not what we see in the river now, but the 2 billion years of sediment it has exposed.

 

[TeddyKGB]

So let me see here, if there was a flood, say near the black sea, The Almighty needed to tell Noah all flesh would be destroyed? Ha. You don't think much of God, I see. Now, Noah spent years, building an ocean liner sized boat, on top of this, and put two of every kind of animal on earth, seven of some kinds, in it, and food supplies galore. All for something he could have walked away from? Utterly insulting to God's intelligence, honesty, and word! Then, God covered even the highest mountains for nearly a year with water? Why would all life on earth need to be represented in this ark, then? Your position is not scriptural, and absurd. Oh, yes, God had to Personally close the ark door as well, and send a rainbow, and promise never again to cover the earth with water, to destroy men-for some dinky local flood? Think about it.

It is obviously not well-known, but Noah was not escaping from a flood at all. He had the lead in the Ararat Pictures production of The Epic of Gilgamesh. The set pieces were astounding, I hear.

 

[Asimis]

So let me see here, if there was a flood, say near the black sea, The Almighty needed to tell Noah all flesh would be destroyed? Ha. You don't think much of God, I see. Now, Noah spent years, building an ocean liner sized boat, on top of this, and put two of every kind of animal on earth, seven of some kinds, in it, and food supplies galore. All for something he could have walked away from? Utterly insulting to God's intelligence, honesty, and word! Then, God covered even the highest mountains for nearly a year with water? Why would all life on earth need to be represented in this ark, then? Your position is not scriptural, and absurd. Oh, yes, God had to Personally close the ark door as well, and send a rainbow, and promise never again to cover the earth with water, to destroy men-for some dinky local flood? Think about it.

I don't like your tone so if you are going to talk with me I suggest you change it. Your overpretentious post grew old before you wrote it.


As.

 

[dad]

I don't like your tone so if you are going to talk with me I suggest you change it. Your overpretentious post grew old before you wrote it.


As.

Really? I wasn't so much 'talking to you' as addressing a point. Speaking of which, really there isn't much you can say about it. I woudn't feel bad, we are all wrong sometimes.

 

[AirPo]

So let me see here, if there was a flood, say near the black sea, The Almighty needed to tell Noah all flesh would be destroyed? Ha. You don't think much of God, I see. Now, Noah spent years, building an ocean liner sized boat, on top of this, and put two of every kind of animal on earth, seven of some kinds, in it, and food supplies galore. All for something he could have walked away from? Utterly insulting to God's intelligence, honesty, and word! Then, God covered even the highest mountains for nearly a year with water? Why would all life on earth need to be represented in this ark, then? Your position is not scriptural, and absurd. Oh, yes, God had to Personally close the ark door as well, and send a rainbow, and promise never again to cover the earth with water, to destroy men-for some dinky local flood? Think about it.

Yes, obviously the bible flood story is fictional.

 

[BananaSlug]

So let me see here, if there was a flood, say near the black sea, The Almighty needed to tell Noah all flesh would be destroyed? Ha. You don't think much of God, I see. Now, Noah spent years, building an ocean liner sized boat, on top of this, and put two of every kind of animal on earth, seven of some kinds, in it, and food supplies galore. All for something he could have walked away from? Utterly insulting to God's intelligence, honesty, and word! Then, God covered even the highest mountains for nearly a year with water? Why would all life on earth need to be represented in this ark, then? Your position is not scriptural, and absurd. Oh, yes, God had to Personally close the ark door as well, and send a rainbow, and promise never again to cover the earth with water, to destroy men-for some dinky local flood? Think about it.

And pterodactyls and teratorns flew the marsupials to australia and the dodos back to Mauritius (sp?). And God said, "Oh, wait, I didn't mean for you to save all the animals." And therefore smited the dinosaurs, megatheriums, and other creatures. And it was good.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

So let me see here, if there was a flood, say near the black sea, The Almighty needed to tell Noah all flesh would be destroyed? Ha. You don't think much of God, I see. Now, Noah spent years, building an ocean liner sized boat, on top of this, and put two of every kind of animal on earth, seven of some kinds, in it, and food supplies galore. All for something he could have walked away from? Utterly insulting to God's intelligence, honesty, and word! Then, God covered even the highest mountains for nearly a year with water? Why would all life on earth need to be represented in this ark, then? Your position is not scriptural, and absurd. Oh, yes, God had to Personally close the ark door as well, and send a rainbow, and promise never again to cover the earth with water, to destroy men-for some dinky local flood? Think about it.

The problem here is that those postulating a local flood are attempting to 'rescue' the bible. Because if a global flood is insisted upon, then the bible is wrong. No two ways about it. A global flood has been conclusively disproven. So if you insist that the text refers to a global flood, you have two options. You can either (a) admit that the bible is wrong or (b) blind yourself to all the evidence and insist that a global flood actually happened. Most people are rational enough to not do (b), so they hypothesise a local flood that was so big it seemed to the inhabitants of the area that it covered the whole world (and did cover the whole world of which they knew).

Certainly, while a global flood and the attendant story is impossible for about a bazillion reasons, there's nothing impossible (or even unlikely) about the idea of a huge local flood that caused a man to make a boat and take his livestock aboard. And that story get exaggerated over time into the Noah myth we have today (and, of course, the many other similar myths, some of which predate the bible).

 

[Uphill Battle]

And pterodactyls and teratorns flew the marsupials to australia and the dodos back to Mauritius (sp?). And God said, "Oh, wait, I didn't mean for you to save all the animals." And therefore smited the dinosaurs, megatheriums, and other creatures. And it was good.

species die out at an almost constant rate. What is the difference if they died out today, or shortly post flood?

 

[Beastt]

The problem here is that those postulating a local flood are attempting to 'rescue' the bible. Because if a global flood is insisted upon, then the bible is wrong. No two ways about it. A global flood has been conclusively disproven. So if you insist that the text refers to a global flood, you have two options. You can either (a) admit that the bible is wrong or (b) blind yourself to all the evidence and insist that a global flood actually happened. Most people are rational enough to not do (b), so they hypothesise a local flood that was so big it seemed to the inhabitants of the area that it covered the whole world (and did cover the whole world of which they knew).

Certainly, while a global flood and the attendant story is impossible for about a bazillion reasons, there's nothing impossible (or even unlikely) about the idea of a huge local flood that caused a man to make a boat and take his livestock aboard. And that story get exaggerated over time into the Noah myth we have today (and, of course, the many other similar myths, some of which predate the bible).

And the problem with treating it as an exaggerated myth is that it becomes less that the word of the omnipotent entity claimed as the author.

So, back to square one; the Bible is wrong, therefore, not the word of God?

 

[Asimis]

Really? I wasn't so much 'talking to you' as addressing a point. Speaking of which, really there isn't much you can say about it. I woudn't feel bad, we are all wrong sometimes.

 

[nvxplorer]

species die out at an almost constant rate. What is the difference if they died out today, or shortly post flood?

What’s that you say? Appearances are subjective, and to me, species don’t appear to be dying out at all.

 

[Uphill Battle]

What’s that you say? Appearances are subjective, and to me, species don’t appear to be dying out at all.

don't call WWF then.

 

[dad]

And pterodactyls and teratorns flew the marsupials to australia and the dodos back to Mauritius (sp?). And God said, "Oh, wait, I didn't mean for you to save all the animals." And therefore smited the dinosaurs, megatheriums, and other creatures. And it was good.

The flood was not when death entered the world, or even extinctions. When Eve pulled that forbidden fruit off that tree, it began. Now, to get into the continental seperation in this thread, and explaining how marsupials may have gotten a ride on the Australian one, would not be fitting, as the thread is about finding the ark, and what it would mean.