Noahs Ark Found!...Well, what if it is? Does this validate Bible 'Stories'

A group of Chinese and Turkish evangelical explorers say wooden remains they have discovered on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey are the remains of Noah's Ark.

The group claims that carbon dating proves the relics are 4,800 years old, meaning they date to around the same time

the ark was said to be afloat.

The first 2 sentences of the damn article was all I had to read. What self respecting evangelical believes in carbon dating?

Also, Nobama believes that the earth is 9K years old --- his lunacy continues to amaze me, no wonder he is a Palin fan.

Yes, there is evidence of a catastrophic flood in the Mediterranean Sea, about 5600 years ago. Evidently the sea was filled with fresh water and was 100 meters or more below the level of the Atlantic Ocean. Sea water stated to trickle into the lake slowly at first. At some point a huge breech occurred and a massive area was flooded.

This type of massive flooding would have created a mega tsunami, one that reaches thousands of feet in height. Any kid knows how this would work if they have every created a small lake and made a mini-flood. The water doesn't gradually rise, it sloshes up the sides of small hills.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory

This flood would have impacted the known world of someone like Noah. It would have had little impact on the rest of the real world.

Yes, I did mean "400 AD" before when referring to Augustine.

And to carry Augustine's work further, he mentions that the dimensions of the ark share the same relative dimensions as the human body, thus representing the human body, Christ's body, and the church.

As I said before, there may be truth to a story without the story being written as a camera would record it. There probably have been massive floods over land during the history of man. Any climate researcher would tell you that our world is headed toward a significant rising of water, and to people that spent their entire lives in one small area of the world, a regional flood would have felt like the entire world flooding. Think about how this may have felt to someone along the Jewish heritage in this specific area of the world. There is truth to it, though it may not have played out as written.

And the story was probably recorded as a way of bridging the gap between what the author was trying to foreshadow and what the author knew had occurred, according to Jewish oral history.

The email contains a message from Dr. Price about this expedition.

I was the archaeologist with the Chinese expedition in the summer of 2008 and was given photos of what they now are reporting to be the inside of the Ark.

....

To make a long story short: this is all reported to be a fake. The photos were reputed to have been taken off site near the Black Sea, but the film footage the Chinese now have was shot on location on Mt. Ararat. In the late summer of 2008 ten Kurdish workers hired by Parasut, the guide used by the Chinese, are said to have planted large wood beams taken from an old structure in the Black Sea area (where the photos were originally taken) at the Mt. Ararat site.

....

As I said, I have the photos of the inside of the so-called Ark (that show cobwebs in the corners of rafters – something just not possible in these conditions) and our Kurdish partner in Dogubabyazit (the village at the foot of Mt. Ararat) has all of the facts about the location, the men who planted the wood, and even the truck that transported it.

Silent SUper Majority wrote:

Hate to burst your bubble bud, but there is exceptionally little proof for Macroevolution, it is almost entirely based on theory and ideas. I'll say it again, if you believe in evolution because of the evidence you are wrong. If you believe in it because you have faith in evolution then go for it, but it takes just as much faith to believe in an evolution view point as it does to believe in religion.

BTW, the theory that have "no evidence supporting it" actually has just as much evidence supporting it as does evolution. Sometimes you got to pull your head out of your ass long enough to look at the situation unbiased.

Did you even read what you typed?

It takes no faith to believe in evolution. Evolution shows its credibility by evidence. Religion on the other hand is believed through faith without any empirical evidence.

You must be watching Fox or History Channel. They tell lies like the US Won the VN war. Funny as hell isn't it !

It takes a lot of "belief" in evolution. Take for example the population of the earth today. If humans have populated the earth for hundreds of thousands of years, there wouldn't be enough room on this planet to fit them all. Here is the math and explanation.

Example #1:

Fact: gestation period for a human is roughly 9 months

Fact: a human can easily have a baby every year during child bearing years

Fact: child bearing years last AT LEAST 20 years

So, year zero being the exiting of the Ark.

This is of course conservative, and doesn't take into account variables that can't be taken into account as this is a fact based look.

Noah and 3 sons and 4 wives have a child every year for 20 years. At year 20 then, there are a total of 80 children.

Since this is conservative, I'm waiting 20 years before reproducing any children from the children, ie the next set of child bearing children will be between the ages of 20 and 40.

So at year 40, those 80 children begin reproducing for 20 consecutive years. After 20 years of reproduction, those 80 children will turn into 800 children. This is year 60, and there are 800 children on top of the 80 and 4.

So at year 80, those 800 children who are now between the ages of 20 and 40 begin reproducing. This results in a population of 8,000 at year 100.

Sticking with the 20 year wait period. At year 120 those 8,000 begin reproducing resulting in 80,000 children of the ages of 20 - 40 at year 160.

So at year 200, there are 800,000 children who begin reproducing.

Resulting in 8 million children between the ages of 20 and 40 at year 240.

So at year 280 there are 80 million children between the ages of 20 and 40 able to reproduce, and at year 320 there are 800,000,000 who begin reproducing...

Leaving us at a tidy and fully factually possible sum, based on human genetics and child birth, at 8 BILLION PEOPLE ON THE PLANET 360 YEARS AFTER NOAH LEFT THE ARK.

----------------------------------------------------------

Example #2:

Today’s world population hovers near 6.5 billion people, growing at an annual rate of 2.3%. A statistic somewhat mind-boggling observation is, that more people are alive today than have ever lived before. Just in the last one hundred years, the world population has increased more than six-fold.

We can use these numbers and attempt to work backwards to calculate how long it would take to grow this world population at different growth rates starting with “Adam and Eve”. The result of this exercise has resulted in table 7-2. Assuming a generation to be 25 years, the table also shows the average number of children per family that corresponds with the growth rate:

Growth Rate Aver num of children Age of Mankind

2% 3.3 1,150 years

1% 2.5 2,275 years

0.5% 2.25 4,550 years

0.25% 2.12 9,100 years

This demonstrates that even with a very low growth rate of the population, such as .5% (quite low compared to the current 2.3%) and the average number of children per family 2.25, only 4,550 years would be required to grow a population of 6.5 billion from just one original couple. Even with the growth rate at only .25%, only 9,100 years would be required to achieve the same.

One might claim that the lack of medical knowledge dramatically lowered the average life expectancy of our “ancient” ancestors, forcing the growth rate to be much lower. However mankind has a strong drive to populate and continue to preserve and grow the species. As observed often today, areas with the lowest degree of development and by far the lowest life expectancy, see their population growing the fastest. Women can bear children in their teenage years, so even a life expectancy of only 25 or 30 years of age, still gives more than enough time to get large families.

The same applies for the aftermath of epidemics (for instance, the plague in Europe in 1347) and the effect of major wars or other catastrophes. Historical records show usually a population boom right afer the catastrophic event. This boom compensates within a few generations for the more than average loss of life. For instance, the devastating plagues of 1347 killed an estimated 50-75% of the population in many European countries, but in less than 200 years, the dip in population had been completely recovered. That’s why the generation born right after WWII is called – the Baby Boomers.

The Population Boom After the European Plagues

A similar line of thinking challenges that even the low range of the biochemical estimate of 37,000 years of human habitation might still be too high. If the “first family” was alive that long ago, even at a low growth rate of .5% we now should have a world population of 1.4 x 1080 (that would be calculated as (1 + 0.005 (the .5% growth rate)) ^ 37,000 (years)).

Lastly, please notice that the global flood described by the Bible happened about 4,500-5,000 years ago. This event would be quite consistent with the above calculations of growth rate and size of today’s world population.

This exercise shows that mankind didn't need to take 100,000 years to reach 6.5 Billion people.

Deez nuts,

Let's see your evidence. Even the Rational Faith guy demonstrated compelling stats.

trotty moore wrote:

creep wrote:

Jesus was gay

No girlfriend, spent time with dudes all the time. Yep, totally gay.

I bet jesus had nothin under his robe,..

you know when he had an urge for a quickie while giving his surmon

In your comparisons woman are always pregnant and no one ever dies. Also, every man has more than one wife. So, every man would have to kill at least one male so they can have an extra wife. Unlikely to say the least.

A woman having a baby every year for 20 years straight? You must be thinking of the Christian TV show, 19 kids and counting. That show is not reality. It's about a woman and man obsessed with having kids. Thankfully, very few people have that type of problem.

4.7 billion years is a long time for things to happen.

pregnant without pause wrote:

In your comparisons woman are always pregnant and no one ever dies. Also, every man has more than one wife. So, every man would have to kill at least one male so they can have an extra wife. Unlikely to say the least.

A woman having a baby every year for 20 years straight? You must be thinking of the Christian TV show, 19 kids and counting. That show is not reality. It's about a woman and man obsessed with having kids. Thankfully, very few people have that type of problem.

That was example #1, just to show how rapidly the earth could have reached 8 billion people. You can't argue with example #2. Again, mankind didn't need a billion, much less 100,000 years to reach 6.5 billion people.

my thesis committee wont let me cite wiki.

Mr. Price wrote:

All you guys out there. Read up. Basically, there were a couple of catastrophic floods at the dawn of written history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_

(prehistoric)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh_flood_mythhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark

Just one problem I see with your theory right off the bat. Your theory assumes that people are having as many babies as they possible can for as long as they can while they are living.

Early populations of man did not have babies’ continuously from when they could. The tribal group would not have been able to feed the large amount of children that your theoretical situation would cause. What do you think the tribe did to children who were considered weak? What if the tribe was going through a drought and had trouble finding food?

Fact: gestation period for a human is roughly 9 months. (we both agree on this)

Fact: a human can easily have a baby every year during child bearing years (IF YOU LIVED IN MODERN TIMES...not if you leave 100 years or more ago.)

Fact: child bearing years last AT LEAST 20 years (Once again in MODERN TIMES....500 years ago you were lucky to leave past 20.)

On top of that the majority of children even as late as the Renaissance did not live past 10 for a thousand different reasons.

Because of poor diets women during prehistoric times had a very hard time conceiving a baby. They might have gotten pregnant any number of times but because of their dietary choices maybe only 1 out of every 10 pregnancies was brought to term. Also even if a woman had a child in prehistoric times any number of environmental factors made it very unlikely that that child would live to full maturity and reproduce on its own.

You’re supposed conservative .5 percent population growth is built upon a very flimsy theory that every man and women in the world can physically conceive a baby. During prehistoric times because of diets only the strongest of the strong could conceive and then support a child. Everyone in the early times was not reproducing like rabbits like your theory suggests. They couldn't.

I don't think you really grasp what life was like during prehistoric times. Your plagiarized theory is based off of human conditions today not human conditions in the past.

Ask yourself why has the human population of today exploded since the early 1900s.

Ask yourself why when you look at family pictures from the 1800s was it common to see families of 10-15 children. Because people back then realized that they would be lucky if 4 or 5 children survived to adulthood out of the 10 or 15 kids they had.

I'll just mention one historical issue. You said there was a huge population boom right after the plague of 1347. Look up what new inventions happend around that time to do with farming. It had more to do with surplesses of food because of new farming inventions than anything to do with the plague.

Logical Faith wrote:

If we go back 5000 years, we come to the time of Enoch, who “walked with God 300 years … and God took him [into Heaven].”

* Was Enoch real? The Bible says he was. There is no reason to think the Bible has suddenly lapsed into fiction when the other people were genuine historical figures.

* Was Adam real? Well, Enoch was a son of Cain, who was a son of Adam. So if Enoch was real there is no reason to think that his father Cain wasn't, or that his grandfather Adam wasn't. They were only two generations away.

You seem to be confusing one Enoch with another. The Enoch who "walked with God" was a descendant of Adam's son Seth, not Cain.

Whoops I forgot the obviouse flaw in your theory....

Without a food surplus there would be no population growth.

No food no new babies.

So it really doesn't mater how much you are trying to reproduce. You can have as many kids as you want but if you don't have food to feed them then they die real quick.

Primative farming techniques would not allow for a rapid population growth like you described. Shot without modern day farming equipment the world could not sustain the current population levels and growth. If you did away with the machines I can guarantee you will see about 3-4 billion people die real quick.

A rapid population growth during prehistoric times before farming was invented would have been impossible. Do you understand how much land is required to feed just one person for an entire year without using farming.

Your theory also pretends that there is an unlimited food supply.

I've seen your same theory many times before. there is a reason why it is ignored by almost everyone.

I'll yield that an old earth is possible and perhaps the flood was local and a parable. One thing I don't get is how the lineage is chronologically laid out for humans in the bible, yet we know human fossils have been around much longer than 10,000 years.

Anyway, while it's clear that nobama is trolling as usual, I do respect the posters who may believe in a young earth. It's hard to know what's correct or likely to be correct when everyone wants to persuade you. You just have to keep searching. You might start with a used textbook for physical anthropology, biology, or geology. I actually read more Christian books when I was on my search, since they were more readily available. Their arguments didn't hold up as well as internet sites for the opposition; at least for me anyway.

Problems with a young earth:

-Radioactive dating, and not just carbon.

-Tree rings and varve layer figures corresponding.

-Weathering would have needed much, much longer than 10,000 years.

-Glacial striations and seafloor spreading showing the continents have been slowly moving for also more than 10k.

-If plate tectonics is false, why are nearly all earthquakes and volcanoes at plate boundaries?

-Ash layers. Let's say a volcano has blown twice in recorded history, but we see it has 30 ash layers. Did the other 28 happen right at the beginning of the Earth? If so, why the rock layers in between?

-Distant starlight. Why can we see light coming from a million light years away if it's only 7000 years old?

That's all I can think of at the moment. Here's a couple possible links to check out--

http://www.asa3.org/asa/Education/origins/agelogic-cr.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#flood

Whatever conclusions you ultimately reach, best of luck to you all in your search.

10/10

The argument put up by Rational Faith is so moronic I'm just going to leave it at that. One non-argument deserves another.

It's easy to see that Noah's Ark didn't happen as described in the Bible. No species is going to survive the inbreeding that comes from being reduced to a population of seven, let alone two. Even if they did, that kind of genetic bottleneck would be obvious in the genetic similarity of all members of the species today. That doesn't show up.