What would happen if we find Noah's ark?

madarab said:

Weren't there several medieval (or even earlier) monestaries on Ararat?

Click to expand...

Don't think there ever was a monastery on mount Ararat, it is a pretty barren place. But the Khor Virap monastery in Armenia is fairly close by.

loriersea said:

[/size]

I wouldn't consider that bias, but rather conformity to the basic guidelines of a discipline, which obviously is expected within any discipline, at least to some degree. If I were to write a paper on a geometrical theory for a math journal, it obviously would not be reviewed by someone who denied the validity of the Pythagorian Theorem, since that person would not be working within the accepted practices of the discipline. Now, you could argue that that is due to a pro-Pythagorian bias, but a less emotional assessment would be that geometry is based on certain principles, and if you deny them you are not doing geometry. Science, too, is based on certain principles, and biological science in particular is based on certain principles, and if you deny them, then you are not doing science.

Click to expand...

so who exactly decided those principles? Therein lies my point. Go with Geology. If somebody wrote something on Geology, but did not ascribe to the Geological column, it couldn't possibly pass peer review, could it? The Geological community has already accepted the Geological column in total. So, going back to the point, if it doesn't ascribe to already held opinions and assumptions (The bias to which I refer) then it isn't going to pass muster, no matter what it is written on, how it is written, or even if sound scientific principles are used. That doesn't even have to go as far as the creation/evolution debate, somebody could agree with the billion year age, but not with the Geological column, and still not pass the peer review. It is not an unbiased review, as much as you'd like to believe it.

TeddyKGB said:

No no no no no. A boat on a mountain is evidence of a boat on a mountain.

The OT flood is contravened by science done by geologists, for whom the existence of a boat on a mountain has something less than no value.

Click to expand...

of course, you'd have to come up with some theory as to how it got there.

GoSeminoles! said:

The question received exactly the amount of consideration it deserved.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I personaly don't believe that finding the Ark would amount to much in the scientific community either. It would end up on a Pratt list somewhere. But I just want to know why you even bother posting on a thread you claim isn't worth consideration.

Uphill Battle said:

The Geological community has already accepted the Geological column in total. So, going back to the point, if it doesn't ascribe to already held opinions and assumptions (The bias to which I refer) then it isn't going to pass muster, no matter what it is written on, how it is written, or even if sound scientific principles are used.

Click to expand...

this is nonsense, because if it were true, newtonian theories of physics would never have been falsified, and we wouldn't now have quantum mechanics and general relativity. even dominant theories in science, like newtonian gravity, can be replaced. but if a theory works very well in most cases, like newtonian gravity, then the replacing theory should explain why, like general relativity does. no, the problem here is that creationists do not use sound scientific principles. they start with a predetermined conclusion, and ignore all evidence which refutes it. that is not science.

Uphill Battle said:

of course, you'd have to come up with some theory as to how it got there.

Click to expand...

I don't. For all I care, it was built there as a 4th century tourist attraction.

caravelair said:

this is nonsense, because if it were true, newtonian theories of physics would never have been falsified, and we wouldn't now have quantum mechanics and general relativity. even dominant theories in science, like newtonian gravity, can be replaced. but if a theory works very well in most cases, like newtonian gravity, then the replacing theory should explain why, like general relativity does. no, the problem here is that creationists do not use sound scientific principles. they start with a predetermined conclusion, and ignore all evidence which refutes it. that is not science.

Click to expand...

1) I didn't say anything about a creationist, in fact, I specifically said someone who believes in the old earth theory, just someone who disagrees with the Geological column.

2) What does any of what you wrote have to do with the Geological column?

TeddyKGB said:

I don't. For all I care, it was built there as a 4th century tourist attraction.

Click to expand...

fair enough. I'm sure there would be plenty of peopl willing to try and find out about it's origins.

Uphill Battle said:

so who exactly decided those principles? Therein lies my point. Go with Geology. If somebody wrote something on Geology, but did not ascribe to the Geological column, it couldn't possibly pass peer review, could it? The Geological community has already accepted the Geological column in total. So, going back to the point, if it doesn't ascribe to already held opinions and assumptions (The bias to which I refer) then it isn't going to pass muster, no matter what it is written on, how it is written, or even if sound scientific principles are used. That doesn't even have to go as far as the creation/evolution debate, somebody could agree with the billion year age, but not with the Geological column, and still not pass the peer review. It is not an unbiased review, as much as you'd like to believe it.

Click to expand...

You ask who decided those principles. I suggest you read the History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth by Christian Geologist and former YEC Davis Young for an explanation of how geological data changed the "bias' from favoring the global flood and young earth to rejection of both based on data and not bias. Many of the geologists who initially falsified the global flood were strongly biased in its favor but eventually rejected it because of the data they collected. Only those few geologists thoroughly indoctrinated into YEC are willing to reject the incredible amount of today's scientific knowledge that must be ignored to accept the global flood as reality.
F.B.

Frumious Bandersnatch said:

You ask who decided those principles. I suggest you read the History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth by Christian Geologist and former YEC Davis Young for an explanation of how geological data changed the "bias' from favoring the global flood and young earth to rejection of both based on data and not bias. Many of the geologists who initially falsified the global flood were strongly biased in its favor but eventually rejected it because of the data they collected. Only those few geologists thoroughly indoctrinated into YEC are willing to reject the incredible amount of today's scientific knowledge that must be ignored to accept the global flood as reality.
F.B.

Click to expand...

I have no trouble with the notion that some YEC's eventually rejected it. Not unlike many people that I know personally who believed in evolution who no longer do. That in itself proves little. That one instance has been touted so often. Where is the rule that one group or another speaks for all?

SH89 said:

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.

Click to expand...

It would be fascinating of course. However, even if Noah's ark were found it would not prove there was a global flood as I'm sure some would conclude. It could not negate the overwhelming geologic evidence that there was not a global flood. I've been following this story for years and so far the evidence that the ark exists is scant at best.

Futz

Uphill Battle said:

1) I didn't say anything about a creationist, in fact, I specifically said someone who believes in the old earth theory, just someone who disagrees with the Geological column.

2) What does any of what you wrote have to do with the Geological column?

Click to expand...

The Geological column and how it came to be is just a scientific theory like Newtonian physics, like the steady state theory of cosmology etc. He just offered an example where although the theory worked really well and was documented by evidence it was shown that it had some problems and eventually was expanded upon.

We have examples where scientific enquiry changed the way scientists thought about the world so it happens. A better example is probably the steady state theory of an eternal unchanging universe being replaced by the big bang theory (the name of which comes from a particular atheist who didnt like it, but I dont remember who).

Every now and again an idea comes from new data that goes against what we hold to be true in more than one levels (remember how tough Einstein fought against Heisenberg). If the idea withstands the blows from every scientist who is dying to prove it wrong then eventually it becomes accepted and we learn a little more.

If indeed there is a problem with the Geological column then the chances of it not being figured out and used by people in the field are nill. The issue is that the "theories" of how the Geological column is wrong do not get into peer-reviewed journal not because they go against our current biases but because they do not follow science.

You then as YECs start claiming scientific naturalism to be biased against God but then again naturalism is biased against Invisible Pink Unicorns or FSMs that doesn't make it unfair it just makes it science. You are also shown how accepting that disease came from demons did not ever yield any possitive results and it was only when we took our microscopes and looked into ourselves and we realised that there where no demons that we started fighting disease. The Bible under some interpretations claims that mental afflictions are due to demons (many Christians still believe this) that does not mean that we will start teaching the controversy in psychology class!

As the long gone prophet Bill Hicks once said:

Bill Hicks said:

My dad says "I believe the Bible is the litteral Word of God"
I go "No it's not dad." "Well I believe it is."
Well you know some people believe they are Napoleon. That's fine beliefs are neat cherish them BUT dont share them like they the f*ing truth.

Click to expand...

Uphill Battle said:

so who exactly decided those principles? Therein lies my point. Go with Geology. If somebody wrote something on Geology, but did not ascribe to the Geological column, it couldn't possibly pass peer review, could it? The Geological community has already accepted the Geological column in total. So, going back to the point, if it doesn't ascribe to already held opinions and assumptions (The bias to which I refer) then it isn't going to pass muster, no matter what it is written on, how it is written, or even if sound scientific principles are used. That doesn't even have to go as far as the creation/evolution debate, somebody could agree with the billion year age, but not with the Geological column, and still not pass the peer review. It is not an unbiased review, as much as you'd like to believe it.

Click to expand...

Such a person would have to provide convincing evidence that the principles that modern Geology are based on, such as stratigraphy (accepted by the geological community since the late 1700s) are wrong. A literalistic interpretation of the book of Genesis would not suffice, nor an appeal based on Special Pleading.

Split Rock said:

Such a person would have to provide convincing evidence that the principles that modern Geology are based on, such as stratigraphy (accepted by the geological community since the late 1700s) are wrong. A literalistic interpretation of the book of Genesis would not suffice, nor an appeal based on Special Pleading.

Click to expand...

And what, pray tell, would be convincing? Is there truly any evidence that would falsify the Geological column? Such as out of place artifacts, Fossils in incorrect Strata, polystrate fossils... is there REALLY anything that would be considered, or is the Geological column considered so "rock solid" (oh come on, that one was good.)

Uphill Battle said:

And what, pray tell, would be convincing? Is there truly any evidence that would falsify the Geological column? Such as out of place artifacts, Fossils in incorrect Strata, polystrate fossils... is there REALLY anything that would be considered, or is the Geological column considered so "rock solid" (oh come on, that one was good.)

Click to expand...

Fossils are never in "incorrect strata." Strata itself can be displaced by movement along faults, but fossils do not change stratigraphic location thereby.

TeddyKGB said:

Fossils are never in "incorrect strata." Strata itself can be displaced by movement along faults, but fossils do not change stratigraphic location thereby.

Click to expand...

Mincing words. "incorrect strata" as in finding Homo Sapiens remains in mesozoic strata, for instance.

Uphill Battle said:

And what, pray tell, would be convincing? Is there truly any evidence that would falsify the Geological column? Such as out of place artifacts, Fossils in incorrect Strata, polystrate fossils... is there REALLY anything that would be considered, or is the Geological column considered so "rock solid" (oh come on, that one was good.)

Click to expand...

At this point the principles of geology and evolution are so well established they cannot be overthrown.* This is not because of some arbitraty dogmatic reason such as scientists assembled and voted to accept one theory or another. It's because they work. Simple as that. As earth-shattering as Einstein's relativity was, it did not overthrow Newton. Newtonian physics still works just fine; all Albert did was identify how to make it work in extreme cases. Likewise, the principles of geology and evolution work. Anything else that might supplant them in the future will have to explain first why the existing theories were so effective.

You are not using the word "bias" in a meaningful way here. In the scientific sense, a bias is to give a conclusion or an assumption more weight than is warranted by the evidence. You seem to be saying that scientists are biased when they assume the geologic column and evolution are true. These are not biases; they are assumptions which are founded on an exceptional array of evidence. If this is a bias it is a bias in favor of reality. Nothing wrong with that.

Whenever a 2000 year-old artifact is dug up in Italy it is interpreted in light of the Roman culture which is thought to have existed there at that time. Historians are not constantly asking themselves whether the Roman empire really existed. Any archaeologist who tried to interpret such an artifact in light of an ancient Japanese Ninja culture allegedly existing in Italy would be laughed at. Before he could interpret in light of the Ninja society he would have to first demonstrate it existed in that place and time (oh, and explain why all this Roman stuff is laying around).

Likewise, no other competing principles can marshal the degree or kind of evidence than the approaches which now govern geology and the life sciences. Behe, Dembski, and other creationists have the cart in front of the horse. Before they can even start to propose alternative theories, they have to present an entirely new approach to studying biology and demonstrate that their new approach is at least as good as the old one. Until they do this, any ID-related hypothesis Behe presents for publication will be rejected out of hand on this ground.


* Here I speak of the fact of evolution rather than the theories of how evolution works.

Uphill Battle said:

Mincing words. "incorrect strata" as in finding Homo Sapiens remains in mesozoic strata, for instance.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Since we never find those, the "incorrect strata" attack is invalid against the geological column.

If Noah's ark is found, then this is what should happen.

Walt Brown or Carl Baugh should be put in charge of making a technically identical ark. They would then be in charge of defining which species belong to which kind, using strict definitions that are testable and non-arbitrary. They should then gather up their kinds and load them onto the new ark with enough food and water to last for 1 year.

This should be done in two phases. First, they should put the loaded ark into a test facility where they are pelted with 30,000 feet of water over a 40 day period. They should then transport the ark, without unloading and reloading, to the South Sea for the next year (minus the original 40 days). At the end we will see how they faired.

My guess is that they will send out an SOS before they ever send out a dove.

Uphill Battle said:

And what, pray tell, would be convincing? Is there truly any evidence that would falsify the Geological column? Such as out of place artifacts, Fossils in incorrect Strata, polystrate fossils... is there REALLY anything that would be considered, or is the Geological column considered so "rock solid" (oh come on, that one was good.)

Click to expand...

If you could find the remnants of an ancient civilization in mesozoic rock in an area near Mexico City, this would indeed turn the current paradigm on its head. I am not talking about a single sparkplug that went down a fissure and got covered by lime. A true archeological find in sediment layed down during the Mesozoic would be what you are looking for. Find any lately?

How about out of place fossils? Find the fossilized remains of a recent ecosystem in Mesozoic sedimentary rock, and yes, you would have evidence that would seriously question stratigraphy. Or, find the equivalent of the Burgess Shale in Paleozoic sediment. Find any lately?