what if it is Noah's Ark

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by qdz3se, Apr 26, 2004.

  1. qdz3se


  2. I think it's about time someone went to see that.

    I'd like to go with them.

    I'd like to live in Noah's Ark.

    Lauren, you want to live in Noah's Ark with me? Two of every kind, male and female *wink*

  3. Quote from the article:

    "Geologists say even though there is evidence of a flood in Mesopotamia in Sumerian times, it is not possible for a ship to make landfall at an altitude as high as Mount Ararat."

    Wow could you imagine how high the waters were in the flood to be able to easily cover Mt Ararat?

  4. -it is said to have had at least 35,000 individual animals on it--INCLUDING DINOSAURS.

    -there were only 8 people on the boat feeding the animals for 371 days.

    -the size of the ark was 45 feet tall, 75 feet wide, and 450 feet long.

    CONCLUSION: it's bs of the highest degree.
  5. Genesis does not actually say Mt. Ararat. There are many Christians (and Jews I am sure) that believe in a local and not global flood.
  6. I agree with all your objections to a global flood but disagree with your conclusion.

    The geological record does show a flood in the Mesopotamian region at approximately the right time. A local flood would have answered all your objections, wiped out mankind, fulfilled the text of Genesis and not required kangaroos hopping across a mythical land bridge before and after the Flood.
  7. And, by the way, I understand that you would think that a global flood scenario was the only way to interpret Genesis. I would say the majority of Christians that I know believe in "Flood Geology" and the young earth beliefs that go along with it.
  8. What is most amusing to me, is your attempt to apply material logical to Biblical stories.

    If God does exist and is all powerful, God could suspend the laws of material nature to accomplish His goals. From the perspective of God who has unlimited power, anything is possible, and from the perspective of a material mind, only that which is known to the limited material mind is possible.

    Your entire belief system is based on what you can perceive with the senses and extrapolate upon via the use of relativistic logic.

    You judge what you don't know to be true or false only on the basis of limited instrumentation.

    In other words, if there is something that does in fact exist outside the range of your intellect and senses, you would say it does not exist until it can be known via your limited intellect and senses.

    Your entire belief system is based on ignorance not knowledge, as you claim knowing only that which is knowable via your limited instrumentation, and at the same time you have to admit you don't know everything, nor can you even hold the totality of all that is known scientifically in your mind at the same point and time. Your mind cannot calculate at the speed of computers, your senses are very limited and need mechanical instrumentation to see beyond a relatively short distance, etc.

    So, what you posses is a limited knowledge, which is the product of a limited mind, and implemented by limited thinkers.

    It is sufficient to say that you believe in material science.

    Anything more is clearly redundant.

  9. True, but I would argue that in this case there is no need to go beyond what the geological record shows...

    Again, a local flood gets rid of every scientific and logical objection that I know and does not require resorting to "Q" type explanations (if you know what I mean) of the events.
  10. The atheists and theist alike suffer from selective reading of the Bible.

    When it serves their purpose, they read it literally to support their belief systems, and when it doesn't serve their purpose they read it figuratively to bolster their position.

    #10     Apr 27, 2004