What would happen if we find Noah's ark?

[Split Rock]

So where is YOUR evidence of this claim??

I see this fantasy from creationists all the time here. If evolutionists find evidence the earth is young, they dismiss it. If they find human footprints with dinosaur footprints they ignore it. Anything going against the "Evolution Myth" is covered up and dismissed because evolution is a religion. etc, etc.

Part of the problem is that there is little or no evidence that would prove Genesis to be true.

Which part? The talking snake? Special Creation? A 6,000 year old earth? The Flood?

Special creation would have not produced a single twin-nested hierarchy. Each "Kind" would be genetically distinguishable from other "Kinds."

A 6,000 year old earth would not have rocks dated to billions of years.

The Flood would have left clear evidence of its effects in the geological column.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Alright, to put the thread back on the ark where it was intended...

I read that link about noah's impossible journey... And although I disagree with quite a few of his calculations, I do agree with the major point of his paper.

That the construction, population, and voyage of the ark required supernatural protection/assistance.

he points this out like it's a foil, but I can respond to that theory with a few words.

well, duh.

You aren't going to find many Christians who believe in the voyage of the ark, and don' believe that God aided the journey. We don't deny the supernatural at all. That's what it really comes down to, isn't it? If you do believe in the supernatural, it's possible, and if you don't it isn't. Like I said. Duh. If supernatural means were not employed, then it would have been impossible.

It leads me to believe that alot don't believe in anything that science can't explain. Sad really, because there is much in this world that science cannot explain. Even alot of scientific principles do not have all the details worked out.

also, the text of the bible dictates that it was a miracle based feat. I figured literacy would be important for someone who wrote such a long paper, but evidently details are left out to satisfy the argument. for instance, Genesis 7:8-9 states the Animals CAME to him, not that he had to gather them. Miracle? well duh. So, if in the account, one miracle is used, it doesn't seem a stretch to believe more were. (and the reference to "using more or less divine power" is garbage, in light that those who believe in the God of Noah tend to believe he is omnipotent, whereas he can't "run out" of that power.

So, it was a very long document proving the truth. Noah's journey had to be miraculous. Again, Duh.

 

[TheNewAge]

It leads me to believe that alot don't believe in anything that science can't explain. Sad really, because there is much in this world that science cannot explain. Even alot of scientific principles do not have all the details worked out.

This is not a reasonable cause to invent miracles though. Science does not claim to be able to explain anything that no data or evidence exists for.
However, a plethora of evidence exists that disproves any possibility of a miraculous world-wide flood.

 

[Mr. QWERTY]

Alright, to put the thread back on the ark where it was intended...

I read that link about noah's impossible journey...

Thank you for reading the link.

Your conclusion is that there were a lot of miracles involved (construction, feeding, animal travelling).

But why would you believe this as a default, rather than the physical evidence that says this could not have happened?

I suppose that this goes one step prior to the ark. Why do you believe the bible (as evidenced by at least the story of the ark) over the evidence in the world around you?

 

[Guywiththehead]

Was it supposed to be Mary?

I wouldn't dignify that by calling it Mary. All it is is a vague female face.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Thank you for reading the link.

Your conclusion is that there were a lot of miracles involved (construction, feeding, animal travelling).

But why would you believe this as a default, rather than the physical evidence that says this could not have happened?

I suppose that this goes one step prior to the ark. Why do you believe the bible (as evidenced by at least the story of the ark) over the evidence in the world around you?

I don't believe the evidence around me DOES say that it couldn't happen.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I wouldn't dignify that by calling it Mary. All it is is a vague female face.

alright, for the record, here is a Christian who does NOT believe Mary photocopies her mug onto sandwiches, tortilla chips, fridge mold, or any other medium. Cheers.

 

[SH89]

I wouldn't dignify that by calling it Mary. All it is is a vague female face.

True.

I did a google search(just for kicks ):

Look at this one:

 

[TheNewAge]

I don't believe the evidence around me DOES say that it couldn't happen.

The key word is believe.

The flood has been disproven from multiple angles and multiple disciplines whose researchers largely, work independently of each other.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

So, it was a very long document proving the truth. Noah's journey had to be miraculous. Again, Duh.

I don't fault anyone for believing the Noah story is true and that it is a miracle. However, I take issue with invoking science to say the story is true. Once science has been invoked, all talk of miracles and the supernatural must cease and the question becomes singular: Does the evidence support the claim?

 

[Uphill Battle]

I don't fault anyone for believing the Noah story is true and that it is a miracle. However, I take issue with invoking science to say the story is true. Once science has been invoked, all talk of miracles and the supernatural must cease and the question becomes singular: Does the evidence support the claim?

Wow, unbelievable, but I actually agree with something you said! (bear with me, I just find it amusing.)

Noah's Ark isn't science. I never claimed it was. If someone out there DOES claim it is, they are wrong.

although I disagree with alot of what was written in that post (number of animals, how noah "HAD" to go about one thing or another) I don't disagree with the notion that it was miraculous. Of course it was.

I guess what I didn't like about the document was the "have your cake and eat it too" attitude. Whereas they say that creationists can't know what would be in a "kind" but the author somehow knows what wouldn't be. The numbers given are only based on their own model. I agree, that with the number of "species" we have today, you couldn't fit them all on the ark the size described. But I don't believe that every species today was represented on the Ark. According to the scripture, it stated kinds. I don't know what they are, I wasn't there to tally them up. But neither was the author of that paper.

 

[Mr. QWERTY]

But why would you believe this as a default, rather than the physical evidence that says this could not have happened?

I don't believe the evidence around me DOES say that it couldn't happen.

Well, to clarify a bit. The evidence says that it could not have happened without miracles. You do say this yourself. We do not have evidence that the necessary miracles actually occured though (other than biblical testimony). So, based on these facts:

1. The ark story would have needed (several) miracles to be true.
2. We do not have evidence that these miracles happened.

Why would you beleive in the ark story?

edited PS. I am also not finding fault with anybody for believing the story is true. I am more curious as to why you would believe it to be true.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Well, to clarify a bit. The evidence says that it could not have happened without miracles. You do say this yourself. We do not have evidence that the necessary miracles actually occured though (other than biblical testimony). So, based on these facts:

1. The ark story would have needed (several) miracles to be true.
2. We do not have evidence that these miracles happened.

Why would you beleive in the ark story?

edited PS. I am also not finding fault with anybody for believing the story is true. I am more curious as to why you would believe it to be true.

1) agree.
2) we have no evidence they did not.

I believe in the ark story for a number of reasons.

1, because I believe the bible to be true.
2 I believe the bible to be true because of other evidences, namely those surrounding Jesus Christ.
3) I don't believe in the Ark story because of common sense, logic, scientific evidence, or the like. I understand and fully admit that the voyage is "scientifically impossible."
4) I do however, disagree with the evidences given for old earth, evolution, et. al. I Do believe that there IS evidence of a young earth.
but mostly, if I believe in a God who could make it all, I believe in a God who could do anything, including what I believe to be his word says about it.

 

[Mr. QWERTY]

Thanks. As frequently happens, the foundations of our thought processes are SO far apart that we will never see eye to eye on this.

 

[TeddyKGB]

1) agree.
2) we have no evidence they did not.

I believe in the ark story for a number of reasons.

1, because I believe the bible to be true.
2 I believe the bible to be true because of other evidences, namely those surrounding Jesus Christ.
3) I don't believe in the Ark story because of common sense, logic, scientific evidence, or the like. I understand and fully admit that the voyage is "scientifically impossible."
4) I do however, disagree with the evidences given for old earth, evolution, et. al. I Do believe that there IS evidence of a young earth.
but mostly, if I believe in a God who could make it all, I believe in a God who could do anything, including what I believe to be his word says about it.

How do you deal with the fact that you believe in a God who says one thing but makes it appear like He did something else?

 

[Uphill Battle]

Thanks. As frequently happens, the foundations of our thought processes are SO far apart that we will never see eye to eye on this.

no doubt. (but that isn't ALL bad... what would we have to argue over otherwise?)

 

[Uphill Battle]

How do you deal with the fact that you believe in a God who says one thing but makes it appear like He did something else?

I don't believe he DID make it appear like he did something else. Don't put words in my mouth. YOU believe the world looks billions of years old, cool. I don't.

 

[Guywiththehead]

2) we have no evidence they did not.
http://www.christianforums.com/t95378

Furthermore, the burden of proof is upon you, not us.

I believe in the ark story for a number of reasons.

1, because I believe the bible to be true.

Is there a firmament surrounding the Earth?

2 I believe the bible to be true because of other evidences, namely those surrounding Jesus Christ.

So, you have evidence that no one else in the entire world has seen before, do you? Surely you don't mean the falsified mentions of Jesus in other sources?

3) I don't believe in the Ark story because of common sense, logic, scientific evidence, or the like. I understand and fully admit that the voyage is "scientifically impossible."

So you believe in something that has no possible way to have happened without God changing the Earth to remove evidence of its existance? That's ignoring the myriad of other problems with it.

4) I do however, disagree with the evidences given for old earth, evolution, et. al.

So, what's wrong with ERVs? I'd like to see a Creationist deal with that one for once.

I Do believe that there IS evidence of a young earth.

I'd like to see it.

 

[TheNewAge]

I'd love to see this evidence of a young earth as well. However, I think I will be disappointed in the end.

 

[TeddyKGB]

I don't believe he DID make it appear like he did something else. Don't put words in my mouth. YOU believe the world looks billions of years old, cool. I don't.

Then there should be scientific evidence to that effect, yes?

What am I missing here? If you have to appeal to miracles, then are you not saying that the empirical evidence is against a young-Earth?

The Earth can not look old and not old at the same time, can it?