E-Mail Post To A Friend
Email a copy of 'Noah's Ark Found?' to a friend
Loading ...
12 comments to "Noah’s Ark Found?"
-
carl (theWAREHOUSE)
July 1st, 2006 at
2:05 am
Fascinating. It’s surprising how often the bible’s record of history gets proven right over the reactionary “scientific” supposition. Weird.
-
Mac
July 1st, 2006 at
2:49 am
They just keep finding that thing everywhere, don’t they?
-
Roberto
July 1st, 2006 at
3:13 am
That is a great achievment, Keep going, please give more information and pics about the area in google earth program.
Bye -
mrgoodbar
July 1st, 2006 at
6:32 am
>>It’s surprising how often the bible’s record of
>>history gets proven right over the
>>reactionary “scientific†supposition.Yeah, like that time we discovered the earth was really at the center of the solar system or that the whole thing was only 8,000 years old. Oh wait…
-
Revtim
July 1st, 2006 at
10:45 am
Even if the ark story is literally true, the wood wouldn’t be petrified. It takes millions of years, not thousands.
-
Andy
July 1st, 2006 at
11:44 am
Carl writes
> Fascinating. It’s surprising how often the bible’s record of history gets proven right over the reactionary “scientific†supposition. Weird.Yep. Sure.
By the way, your Bible doesn’t mention what happened to all the fish when the earth was “flooded”. My fish in my fishtank die if the temperature drops below 26 degrees. Flooding the earth would change the salinity and temperature of the rivers/oceans. How could sea life exist after the flood?
You Christians revise your theories every century or so. This has been the century the Church admitted the earth is round. Before then you claimed slavery was dinky, before then it was okay to burn witches, before then it was okay to kill Arabs to satisfy the political aims of the church. If the Bible were infallible then why is it neccessary to have such drastic revisions as often as you make them?
-
NeonCat
July 1st, 2006 at
4:03 pm
Andy, don’t you know? Fish were carried on the ark!. That way there wasn’t a problem with salinity, temperature, etc. Freshwater fish stayed on deck, in the rain, and saltwater fish stayed in little aquariums below. It wasn’t mentioned in the bible for concerns over length. Had to have room for all those begats, after all.
-
Andy
July 1st, 2006 at
4:13 pm
I stand corrected. Your explanation is both plausible and Godly.
Not that I want to have the last word or anything, but you forgot shellfish and insects. Or was your post also shortened over concern over length. You only had one “begat” in there afterall.
-
Alex
July 1st, 2006 at
8:03 pm
What I want to know is why Noah brought those darned roaches!
-
Justin
July 2nd, 2006 at
11:09 am
Well it was either the cockroaches or the unicorns and as a child, Noah had a Traumatizing experience with desperate unicorn.
-
Nicholas Dollak
July 3rd, 2006 at
11:05 pm
In my youth, I would have been content with the “Noah’s Ark” conjecture. Of course, having researched this sort of thing for years, I find that any attempt to claim that an archaeological discovery “proves” a Biblical account is an example of the “if-then” fallacy (in logic).
Revtim’s right about how long it takes for wood to petrify. A sample several thousands of years old might be rather heavy with absorbed minerals, but it would still be a long way from petrification.
Also, remember that the entire region is prone to flooding, and was even more prone in the past (when it was a little less arid). To people who mostly never traveled more than 50 miles from their birthplace, a major flood might seem to have engulfed the whole world.
Noah’s Ark is not the only “Ark” story out there, either. Greek mythology includes a similar tale as part of the Prometheus story. The Babylonian epic “Gilgamesh” includes a flood story in which the Noah-like hero builds a wooden cube stocked with all sorts of animals. Frankly, in a region that got flooded like that, most people would have kept a boat for emergencies. Some would probably have built larger boats so they could save their livestock as well. There may be the remains of several “arks” scattered among the mountains; a large craft would have been impossible to steer and could easily have run aground.
As for the elevation — plate tectonics. Those mountains weren’t quite so high thousands of years ago. Earthquakes and volcanoes have plagued the region in the past, and pushed the mountains higher, and the debris along with them. (If you want another Biblical connection, there’s your fire & brimstone that rained down on Sodom & Gomorrah. Does that mean these “sin cities” existed? We don’t know. But in those days, the general consensus was that any city wiped out by a volcano must have been wicked and offended the gods or God. Fortunately, we don’t think this way any more. Oh, wait, those people who claimed that New Orleans was “wicked” so that they wouldn’t have to apologize for allowing the levees to deteriorate or have to actually work to help rebuild…)
-
Aleki
July 4th, 2006 at
4:22 pm
(Revtim wrote” Even if the ark story is literally true, the wood wouldn’t be petrified. It takes millions of years, not thousands.”)
The idea that it takes millions of years for wood to petrify is false. As is usually the case with such geological phenomena, the actual process has very little to do with the amount of time available, but instead demands the right conditions.
There are several documented instances—in the laboratory and in nature—in which wood was petrified in just a few months or years.
Sorry Revtim but I just hate it when someone who has no clue what they’re talking about adds conjecture without first doing a little fact checking. (Just because you can blog doesn’t mean you should)
And yes I am a scientist but I still believe in God.
PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT
-
Your purchase helps support the blog - Thank you!
