What would happen if we find Noah's ark?

[nvxplorer]

actually, from the data that I have reviewed, an embryo has to reach a certain point before it is viable for stem cell research. If I weren't feeling particulary tired and lazy right now, I'd look it up. But it suggests later, rather than earlier "harvesting" for stem cell research, if what I have gleaned is correct.

Yes, there is a certain stage when these cells can be taken. My point was that most miscarriages and all stillborns are beyond this stage.

Odds have nothing to do with morality. If a couple is in good faith trying to conceive, I don't see where there is a moral discord. There is risk and odds in natural conception, albiet far less.

The moral question arises out of the belief that life begins at conception/fertilization. The question is whether a fertilized egg is a human being. Most Christians must believe this, or they would not oppose the morning after pill. If you believe that it is, then you should be outraged at the practice of fertility clinics. It’s really basic, UB. Perhaps not you personally, but someone who believes life begins at fertilization is a flaming hypocrite if they don’t oppose the practice of these clinics.

the fact of less vocal opposition? Perhaps it's more than one reason. Less understanding of fertility clinic practices, as opposed to certainty of the practices of abortion clinics. A "pet cause" effect, seeing as it would be widely accepted that abortion is the "greater sin" and it would be the target. Whatever the reason, the willful destruction of life is where Christians have a problem.

With the general public, the bolded sentence hits the nail on the head, IMO. There is no excuse for the informed religious leaders, however. I agree with you completely here, and it seems the “pet cause” has more to do with political power than morality.

when you say "accidentally" what are you refering to? Unprotected sex, leading to pregancy among youth... or was there some other inference?

I meant “unplanned.”

 

[Uphill Battle]

Yes, there is a certain stage when these cells can be taken. My point was that most miscarriages and all stillborns are beyond this stage.


The moral question arises out of the belief that life begins at conception/fertilization. The question is whether a fertilized egg is a human being. Most Christians must believe this, or they would not oppose the morning after pill. If you believe that it is, then you should be outraged at the practice of fertility clinics. It’s really basic, UB. Perhaps not you personally, but someone who believes life begins at fertilization is a flaming hypocrite if they don’t oppose the practice of these clinics.


With the general public, the bolded sentence hits the nail on the head, IMO. There is no excuse for the informed religious leaders, however. I agree with you completely here, and it seems the “pet cause” has more to do with political power than morality.


I meant “unplanned.”

Like I said, I will look up the actual viability time for the the embryos. I do not want to make an assertion I can't back up.

I don't know if the "pet cause" has more to do with polical power than morality; more that it has to do with what people understand.

Pregnancy doesn't need to be unplanned at all. you see, for people who hold to bibical teachings, it isn't just about the abortion. You cannot get pregnant out of wedlock, seeing as you are to practice pre-marital abstinence. (some would argue that, but it's fairly biblically clear.) I'm not going to argue that particular morality with you. But if, by that moral standard, you are practicing abstinence before marriage, you cannot get pregnant. God;s standards have reasons beyond the command itself. People who ARE married, are old enough to take precautions to prevent pregnancy. They know how it works.

 

[Uphill Battle]

[font=Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The controversy comes when the cells are harvested. Harvesting can be done by:[/font]

• [font=Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]obtaining cells from the embryos of terminated pregnancies[/font]
• [font=Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]getting them from embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics[/font]

it appears that they do both. http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/chapman.html

and it would appear that some Christians DO have a stand on the other embryos.

http://www.wluml.org/english/newsfulltxt.shtml?cmd%5B157%5D=x-157-232238
(disclaimer, I didn't read all the conditions of an embryonic adoption, so I do not support anything other than the saving of lives. everything else is up to those giving, and taking the embryos.)

It does give me the thought to start a thread questioniong my fellow Christians about their take on it.

 

[nvxplorer]

Thanks, UB. That doesn’t change my argument, though. Whether the life (if you believe it to be life) is terminated by abortion or unused embryos from a clinic, it is still terminated life.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Thanks, UB. That doesn’t change my argument, though. Whether the life (if you believe it to be life) is terminated by abortion or unused embryos from a clinic, it is still terminated life.

that, I do not dispute.

 

[funyun]

They had abortions on Noah's Ark? Seems like they'd need all the people they could get.

 

[Uphill Battle]

They had abortions on Noah's Ark? Seems like they'd need all the people they could get.

yep, this thread has officialy derailed. Happens. Interesting back and forth anyways though.

 

[Blackmarch]

EDIT:The title of this thread needs to be revised.

What would happen if we find Noah's ark? How would this change the scientific community? What are your thoughts on the search for Noah's ark?

From Mount Ararat

Neutral perspective:http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0427_040427_noahsark_2.html

Christian perspective:http://www.noahsarksearch.com/index.htm

This site claims that we have found noah's ark: http://www.arkdiscovery.com/noah's_ark.htm(Though many are hesitant with Ron Wyatt.)

I like this picture by the way:

Discuss.

it owuld probably about as much the same as when the dead sea scrolls were found....

 

[Uphill Battle]

it owuld probably about as much the same as when the dead sea scrolls were found....

I don't disagree. It would probably be summarily dismissed. That of course, is not necessarily what SHOULD happen.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't disagree. It would probably be summarily dismissed. That of course, is not necessarily what SHOULD happen.

I haven't read through the recent messages (last 200+) so I'm sorry if this is a repeat.

Since we are using hypotheticals, what if we found the Golden Fleece? Does that mean Jason and the Argonauts were real? Does that mean that there were 20 foot cyclopses, sirens, lotus eaters, and other mythological beasts? What if we found Troy . . . oh yeah, that's right. What if we found Excalibur, Grindel's grave, the Round Table, Paul Bunyan's axe, etc.? Would you deny the happenings in those mythologies if the artifacts were found?

 

[Uphill Battle]

I haven't read through the recent messages (last 200+) so I'm sorry if this is a repeat.

Since we are using hypotheticals, what if we found the Golden Fleece? Does that mean Jason and the Argonauts were real? Does that mean that there were 20 foot cyclopses, sirens, lotus eaters, and other mythological beasts? What if we found Troy . . . oh yeah, that's right. What if we found Excalibur, Grindel's grave, the Round Table, Paul Bunyan's axe, etc.? Would you deny the happenings in those mythologies if the artifacts were found?

some details of it would have to be real, if a real fleece was found, correct?

For example, if a boat the size and dimensions of the Ark were found, it would give credence to record of such a boat being built. Does it conclusively prove anything more than that? no. But it would lead to some questions. such as, how does a boat this size get on a mountain, for instance. The inside might be examined for evidence of it's inhabitence. It could be checked against the biblical record to see if the size, etc... was accurate. Would it in itself prove a global deluge? no. But it would, as I said, lead to some questions that would have to be either ignored, or investigated.

 

[nvxplorer]

For example, if a boat the size and dimensions of the Ark were found, it would give credence to record of such a boat being built.

As has been discussed, a wooden vessel of such proportions is not structurally sound. A like-sized boat could not be built in the 19th century; it most certainly couldn’t have been built 20 centuries BCE. We could use miracles to explain such a ship, but that defeats our purpose here and raises more questions than it answers. If we find such a boat at the top of a mountain, it would likely be the work of a madman.

 

[Uphill Battle]

As has been discussed, a wooden vessel of such proportions is not structurally sound. A like-sized boat could not be built in the 19th century; it most certainly couldn’t have been built 20 centuries BCE. We could use miracles to explain such a ship, but that defeats our purpose here and raises more questions than it answers. If we find such a boat at the top of a mountain, it would likely be the work of a madman.

what has been proposed is that a wooden vessel of that propotion is not sound. We don't know exactly how it was built, however. It gives the material, it gives the size. You couldn't ascertain it's structural integrity from that alone.

 

[nvxplorer]

what has been proposed is that a wooden vessel of that propotion is not sound. We don't know exactly how it was built, however. It gives the material, it gives the size. You couldn't ascertain it's structural integrity from that alone.

Yes we can. It’s basic engineering. Ship size is limited. With increasing knowledge and technology, the size of ships (or any structure) has always pushed the limits of that technology. A wooden ship such as Noah’s ark is simply not possible (if it’s expected to be seaworthy). If the Bible claimed Noah also built a wooden skyscraper the size of the Sears Tower, this claim could be rejected in the same manner.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Yes we can. It’s basic engineering. Ship size is limited. With increasing knowledge and technology, the size of ships (or any structure) has always pushed the limits of that technology. A wooden ship such as Noah’s ark is simply not possible (if it’s expected to be seaworthy). If the Bible claimed Noah also built a wooden skyscraper the size of the Sears Tower, this claim could be rejected in the same manner.

I have to respectfully disagree, as usual.

 

[Beastt]

I have to respectfully disagree, as usual.

On what grounds do you disagree?

Every building material has structural limits. Do you think you could build a 1000-foot skyscraper out of dried pasta and expect it to stand?

Disagreeing is fine but if you want your disagreement to mean anything you need to provide your reasons for disagreeing and be able to support them. It has long been known that a wooden ship the size the Bible claims for Noah's Ark would not be sea worthy. It would take on water faster than a submerged sponge.

 

[Uphill Battle]

On what grounds do you disagree?

Every building material has structural limits. Do you think you could build a 1000-foot skyscraper out of dried pasta and expect it to stand?

Disagreeing is fine but if you want your disagreement to mean anything you need to provide your reasons for disagreeing and be able to support them. It has long been known that a wooden ship the size the Bible claims for Noah's Ark would not be sea worthy. It would take on water faster than a submerged sponge.

I wasn't disagreeing about the tower at all, sorry. Just your assumption on the integrity of the boat itself.

we don't know that it wouldn't be seaworthy. we have only the "evidence" of those who disbelieve in the existence of said boat. They say "no it couldn't be done" without knowing how it was proposed to be done in the first place (outside of the size.) Do you know how it was made? neither do I. It's ok to say 'I don't know' every once in awhile.

 

[Beastt]

I wasn't disagreeing about the tower at all, sorry. Just your assumption on the integrity of the boat itself.

It's not an assumption. Wood is simply too flexible to provide the necessary rigidity for spans of that length.

we don't know that it wouldn't be seaworthy.

Well actually, yes we do. That's the whole point.

we have only the "evidence" of those who disbelieve in the existence of said boat.

No we have the experience of ship-builders and the known history of wooden vessels. We also have the expertise of structural engineers and materials specialists as well as examples of attempts to build ships more than 300 feet in length. As was pointed out, even at a mere 329 feet, it was found that there was no way to construct a sea worthy craft with sufficient structural rigidity from wood. That's why ship builders turned to steel as demands called for longer vessels. Even with additional bracing inside the hull, once you go beyond 300-feet in length, the wave motion applied to a ship at sea is sufficient to twist wood into separating and allowing for large gaps through which sea water flows. In short, they take on water very quickly in even mild seas.

They say "no it couldn't be done" without knowing how it was proposed to be done in the first place (outside of the size.) Do you know how it was made? neither do I.

The Bible tells us what it was supposedly made of. And wood -- any kind of wood -- is simply too flexible to allow for a sea-worthy craft of that length. This isn't just a matter of people saying it couldn't be done. This is a matter of people who have tried. The military put it's best attempts, best engineers and most experienced ship-builders to the task of constructing a 329-foot vessel. After painstakingly reinforcing the hull, the vessel was still considered to be a structural failure. Every material has limits. Wood simply isn't a material from which a boat of that size can be constructed and remain sea worthy.

It's ok to say 'I don't know' every once in awhile.

I absolutely agree. And if this weren't known, I'd be among the first to say, "I don't know". That, however, is not the case.

If you can recognize that you can't build a structurally sound, 1000-foot skyscraper from dried pasta, then certainly you grasp the principle of structural limitations for various materials. It would seem that the stumbling block for you here is that we're talking about something found in the Bible. As hard as this may be for you, if you take the Noah's Ark story to be an attempt at the factual accounting of an actual event, then the Bible is in error.

Wood simply does not have the structural rigidity necessary to produce a sea worthy craft of more than 300-feet in length. It doesn't matter how you build it unless you make the whole thing solid. And a solid vessel doesn't allow for much cargo space.

 

[Blackmarch]

As has been discussed, a wooden vessel of such proportions is not structurally sound. A like-sized boat could not be built in the 19th century; it most certainly couldn’t have been built 20 centuries BCE. We could use miracles to explain such a ship, but that defeats our purpose here and raises more questions than it answers. If we find such a boat at the top of a mountain, it would likely be the work of a madman.

Perhaps..
although this one has read in a national geographic an article an some ancient chinese exploreer who was supposed to have ships that were more than twice the size of european sailing vessels... so don't what it's worth other than mentioning. but those must've been huge ships.

 

[Renuka]

Well Noah's Ark....I would read all about it...get all the stats and tell my kids about it.