Noah's ark.

[jammin]

Is all this searching going to pay off on Mt. Ararat? Ehhhhh..

There are people that say they have climbed on and even walked in Noah's ark during the summer when it was visible.

But I don't know if I believe them.

What if it is found. That would change history forever. It would prove so many things..oh so many things.

Personally, I am not religious, but if the ark is found...I don't know..I just don't know.

:smok ing:

[Stew11]

it wouldn't change a thing

there is no way to prove that it is the actual noah's arc and not just any other 5000 some year old boat. And even if they did it would probably just go down with the dead sea scrolls and all the other "evidence" that is used to "prove" christianity

also i don't really have a link for this, but I have heard that people found refrences in other ancient cultures around the noah's arc time of a great flood

[Bamonkey21]

Even if there was an arc, there would be no way to prove that there was a flood that covered the whole earth and that Noah took two of each species onto the arc to save humanity

[Digit]

uuuh, i saw a docuumentary.... i thought they found "it" ages ago.


not that i am either believer nor disbeliever, but a word for the disbelievers to consider... it is entirely plausable (and some say proven) that the world was flooded yonks ago, and so, large boats could have been built for such purposes and yes, left in high mountain regions. another plausable concept (perhaps more for the believers to consider) is that there have been MASSIVE tidal waves, the likes of which that only happen when a mountain falls into the sea, which could easily transport even very large lumps of matter (especially those designed to float) very high inland to mountain areas.

[Digit]

speakin of noahs ark... of building the modern day equivalent...


would require...

vast genetic capabilities, trans galactic travel capabilities, musch more fancies besides. i might return to this topic when i'm more with it.
...

[IGotTheCottons]

There are images of a huge wooden object on top of Mt. Ararat, but these are satellite images, and it's kinda hard to make out <i>exactly</i> what it is... But there is a clear, rectangular object protruding from the snow/ice in these images...

Plus there are first-hand accounts found in journals (centuries old) of people who have seen it first-hand... There's also living eye-witnesses that it's there...

I, personally, believe it's there. The possibility that the flood occured is very real. There's evidence for it in the geologic strata. Whether or not it was caused by God is irrevelant... Looking at it from a strictly scientific point of view, the flood does have A LOT of evidence supporting it (more so than many of you probably know)...

Many scientists believe that there was a great deal of water under the crust during earth's early years... This was also back in a time where there wasn't many mountains, and the ones that did exist were still quite small, relatively speaking... Now imagine all this water rupturing out from 10 miles deep... It would have easily covered all the land, and would have also formed the tectonic plates we have today... The violent movement of these plates would have caused the mountain chains, undersea trenches, canyons, etc.

Again, from a strictly scientific point of view, the flood was very much a possibility.

[Zylark]

No it isn't cottons. Science in no way or manner supports any notion of a global flood. You won't find _one_ accredited geologist supporting any flood theory.

You will find a lot of religious fanatics supporting the notion though.

Geology is quite clear on this issue. Based upon knowledge, facts and evidence, not assertions and nonfounded claims just to squeeze some credibility to some deranged world-view that flies in the face of just about everything science has learned us.

First of all, and this really is the showstopper: In the early days of the earth, there was no water here. The earth is too close to the sun to form H2O in a stable manner. It would evaporate long before it could gain some kind of significant mass. Water came millions of years later by a constant bombardment of ice-meteors. It gathered in pools and oceans as the earth was cool enough that late in its formation. All signicant bodies of water (beeing lighter than rock) would gather on the surface. Not burrow down to your mysterious and I might add debunked giant hollows in the earth surface.

For goodness sake, just pick up a collegegrade geology book. Getting actual scientific information is not difficult you know. It's all there open to everyone to scrutinize. And if you do not agree for some reason, the burden of proof is on you. If your evidence is valid, geological theories will change to adapt as a concensus is made in the scientific community. You know, like the schism when einsteinian physics replaced newtonian physics.

[IGotTheCottons]

Originally Posted by Zylark

No it isn't cottons. Science in no way or manner supports any notion of a global flood. You won't find _one_ accredited geologist supporting any flood theory.

You will find a lot of religious fanatics supporting the notion though.

Geology is quite clear on this issue. Based upon knowledge, facts and evidence, not assertions and nonfounded claims just to squeeze some credibility to some deranged world-view that flies in the face of just about everything science has learned us.

First of all, and this really is the showstopper: In the early days of the earth, there was no water here. The earth is too close to the sun to form H2O in a stable manner. It would evaporate long before it could gain some kind of significant mass. Water came millions of years later by a constant bombardment of ice-meteors. It gathered in pools and oceans as the earth was cool enough that late in its formation. All signicant bodies of water (beeing lighter than rock) would gather on the surface. Not burrow down to your mysterious and I might add debunked giant hollows in the earth surface.

For goodness sake, just pick up a collegegrade geology book. Getting actual scientific information is not difficult you know. It's all there open to everyone to scrutinize. And if you do not agree for some reason, the burden of proof is on you. If your evidence is valid, geological theories will change to adapt as a concensus is made in the scientific community. You know, like the schism when einsteinian physics replaced newtonian physics.

This is funny... How then do you explain how petrified trees transcend multiple layers of rock that EACH took MILLIONS of years to form? I'm still waiting to hear ANY geologist explain that one... Organic matter doesn't sit around and wait to be fossilized for millions of years... It rots and turns into dirt when left to it's own... Therefore a tree that was in the process of being fossilized in 1 layer of rock say 50,000,000 years ago would not be around 45,000,000 years later while the NEXT layer of rock was forming... See my point???

Every fossil you'll ever find has 1 thing in common... It was formed by the animal being rapidly burried, then said matierial that buried said creature was rapidly cemented.

Also... Nothing you said in your above post is actually PROVABLE - so you can't really say I'm wrong, now can you?

EDIT: By the way... There's still water in the Earth's Mantle - even today... When volcanos erupt, they emit very high amounts of steam... So according to what you said about how water would go up, and not down (as it's lighter than rock) just kinda got a big kick in the rear, don't ya think? Especially seeing as how the Mantle is 8-10 miles below the surface... But if you wanna keep thinking there's no evidence for a global flood, you can go right on ahead and keep thinking that... Doesn't mean you're right, though...

[bluewoods]

Here is a link to the satellite image.

http://www.space.com/images/h_ark_dgimage01_02.jpg

[MelT]

I think any geologist would explain the multiple layer trees. Many fossils, and the fossil trees you talk about (there are some in Australia too, I've seen them), are made of a very hard material. In Australia the ones I saw were opal, agate or quartz and extremely hard, harder in fact than stone, the reason why the first two are semi-precious. Over time they were partially eroded out of the layer they formed in (the layer they first became 'stone' in), then resubmerged in another layer, say from a mudslide, sand drift or flood - then eroded out of that one too. This can happen a number of the times with things appearing through multiple layers that they weren't originally laid down in.

In the case of almost any fossil it's very provable as a process by simply aligning the creatures age to the oldest layer it's associated with. If that creature is known to have evolved or become extinct by the time the next layer is placed over it, then that too is further proof of association with the lower level and ascertaining its age.

Although there is definite evidence for various floods (plural) world wide on a small scale, there is no evidence for one on a global scale. If there had been there would have been physical evidence for it in a strata somewhere, but we have a complete record of stone layers going back millions of years and it doesn't show.

You were saying in a earlier post that we haven't proven evolution and I'd agree, we haven't proved Darwinian evolution, but we have proved another kind of evolution that's part Darwinian and part environmental/stress related which does exactly the same thing. The idea of evolution has changed a lot in the last 30 years.

But we don't need to 'prove' what evolution is, we can look at how things have evolved and how they're evolving right now and at least know with complete certainty that it happens. As opposed to say, 20 years ago, we now have for example an almost entire fossil record of fish turning into land creatures and developing legs, reptiles turning into birds, fossil by fossil gaining wings and feather, and man evolving as a branch off the Neanderthal line. The Dolphin was once a land creature similar to a goat and we have a record of it's development into a water borne mammal. Whatever evolution is, it's real and provable as a series of events. All dateable, all verified in dated strata without a shadow of a doubt.

There are even lizards (not long reported in National Geographic) that have evolved massively in a matter of a couple of generations, evolving longer legs to climb up bushes to escape a new predator that had been introduced into their island habitat. They then became 'tree lizards'; and in the next generations developed shorter legs again for ease of getting about actually IN the bushes. Whatever evolution is it can happen very quickly and provably.


MelT

[IGotTheCottons]

I don't know if we're talkin about the same trees...

I'm talking about trees that are standing up-right (as in they never fell), and these up-right trees transcend many layers of the geologic strata... So what I'm saying is this... How did the tree not rot when the layer that was forming around the bottom of the tree (which, remember, took millions of years to form) was forming? Then how did the rest not rot when the next layer was forming, and so on and so forth...

The trees I speak of weren't submerged, turned into rock, then the rock erroded away and new layers formed on top... The tree died, and layers of rock formed around the tree... 1 at a time... Until eventually the tree was a fossil and went through many layers...

Shit... I dunno if how I'm wording it is making any sense... I'll try to think of a better way to explain it, or find some examples on the web or something...

EDIT: I'd like to see some info about the dolphin/goat deal if you wouln't mind... Do you have any links I could check out?

The lizard thing I could see... That's more-so adaptation (technically, evolution, but not darwinian evolution)... Like the peppered moths changing colors based on what colors the trees were... That's not proof that lizards changed into birds which changed into mammals, etc... That just shows that the dna changed enough to give them longer legs (or shorter)... In order to progress to a completely different <i>kind</i> of animal (especially if it's higher up on the "evolutionary ladder"), the organism would have to aquire additional dna from somewhere... This has never been observed to happen - though the opposite occurs all the time (ie, organisms having a genetic mutation and losing genetic code).

[mrk195smokin]

ok there no friken way that noha go over 9 billon bactria on ship and keep them all alive how do u do that 500000 years ago we count even try it now.

[IGotTheCottons]

Originally Posted by mrk195smokin

ok there no friken way that noha go over 9 billon bactria on ship and keep them all alive how do u do that 500000 years ago we count even try it now.

You're not serious are you? Bacteria live all over the place dude... Water included...

[thegreenfairy]

even if somebody proved that noah had a boat - that's one story in one book - i don't know if that really proves alot - that's like saying - we know that there's a jerusalem and a king david therefore eerything said about them must be true...

and then there is the consideration of what the world was to ppl back then - it would not have had to b a global flood for the isrealites to beleive it was. they only knew what existed in the nearest parts of europe, africa, india, asia minor (turkey), and maybe parts of asia - and only the sides of these continents nearest the mediteranean.

i think there is basically too many variables to prove or disprove this.

it's pretty plausible that a man had a boat into which he put "every" animal at a time when "the whole world" flooded. the fact that "every" animal was on the boat may b an assumption made afterward. maybe it was merely some animals most neccesary to him and afterward ppl assumed that he would have to have had every animal with him if they were still on earth? if the whole world flooded it stands to reason the animals not rescued would die.

in short - if they find a big boat of the right period ::Shrugs::

it's just another peice of evidence that u can choose to see either way

[MelT]

[quote=IGotTheCottons;1379645]I don't know if we're talkin about the same trees...

Shit... I dunno if how I'm wording it is making any sense... I'll try to think of a better way to explain it, or find some examples on the web or something...[quote=IGotTheCottons;1379645]

No, you're doing fine, we are talking about the same trees, they occur in various places around the globe. Sorry about the length of the following, I explained it very badly, so I'll try again:

1) Say you have a tree on a flood plain 35 million years ago. One day the plain gets covered over with mud and submerges the first 6 feet of it. The top of the tree rots away, more mud comes and seals the tree stump in. The mud hardens and turns to stone. Inside it, the stump rots and changes, incorporating into it the chemicals from the surrounding mud. Mostly though the mud shell has become a mould, so really it's a case of chemicals seeping into the hole left by the tree and making a shape of what WAS the tree out of say, quartz. We have a fossil, still standing upright and about 6 feet high.

2) After a few thousand years, due to say, wind and water erosion, the six feet of mud enclosing the fossilised tree is reduced to perhaps two feet, leaving the top four feet of the fossil out in the open air again. (This same action can remove the original layer the tree was in completely.)

3)The climate changes, the flood plain becomes desert. Sand covers the protruding fossil and, after another few hundred thousand years the sand too turns to stone. So then you have a fossil that at the bottom is in say, limestone, and the layer above that it's in sandstone.

This can happen continually, and can be caused by volcanic action, mud, sand, etc, leading to the fossil being seen to be within a number of different layers of rock, all of different ages. It's a common action, and tens of fossils are found outside of the strata they were originally laid down in.

You can even have a fossil that's been in this situation that itself is layered because the stresses and changes that the rock layers around it have gone through, lead to chemical changes in the rock, or cause it to be replaced with a different kind of rock entirely.

[quote=IGotTheCottons;1379645]The lizard thing I could see... That's more-so adaptation (technically, evolution, but not darwinian evolution)... Like the peppered moths changing colors based on what colors the trees were... That's not proof that lizards changed into birds which changed into mammals, etc... [quote=IGotTheCottons;1379645]

No, I was using the current lizard evolution as an example. Dinosaurs turning into birds is a process that we now have a full timeline for and a variety of excellent fossils showing all the relevant stages of development. We have exactly the same proof for water borne creatures turning into land animals, and in many cases, back again. We can easily show flippers evolving into limbs, gills turning into lungs, etc. There's no question at all anymore that these things have happened. I've enclosed a picture below that shows the development of whales and dolphins from mammalian land creatures into sea creatures. (BTW, as I said above, Darwinian evolution was superceded quite a few years ago. Evolution is now a number of things, not just 'survival of the fittest'.)

Originally Posted by IGotTheCottons

That just shows that the dna changed enough to give them longer legs (or shorter)... In order to progress to a completely different kind of animal (especially if it's higher up on the "evolutionary ladder"), the organism would have to aquire additional dna from somewhere... This has never been observed to happen - though the opposite occurs all the time (ie, organisms having a genetic mutation and losing genetic code).

Think of this more that they're not different kinds of animals, they're progressive stages of the same animal, DNA/RNA itself. The body that carries genes is just DNA's best shot at survival and it's quite happy to adapt it, moving forwards or backwards.

Nothing really 'loses' genetic code or even needs new sequences to evolve, sequences either become withheld or reactivated. There are vast DNA sequences that we all carry around that still hold the instructions for the creatures we used to be. There is always a chance that ANY organism will revert back to a previous incarnation in part - or move forward into a new kind of creature that's never been seen before. Many children are born with horrific reversions to previous stages of our development (even reptilian) or new mutations every day. Because we don't display ancient physical traits doesn't meant that we've lost them out of our DNA, they haven't gone anywhere, and they can be triggered to come back. Dinosaurs became small, feathered, warm blooded creatures because if they didn't they would not survive. Of course it wasn't a conscious decision to evolve, but DNA is now known to respond to external influences that can be passed on to off-spring.

As for going forwards, our move from single cell water-borne organisms to 'animals' didn't require new DNA, it needed DNA that could respond and adapt the sequences it already held. To become water breathing instead of air breathing, big instead of small, is a response to stresses and needs. We aren't fixed into being human. In another few thousand years we may have full body hair again or have the ability to breath water.

But DNA is only a part of the process. Random 'bad' mutations because of egg problems happen all the time in animals and humans, giving say two heads or five legs instead of four, or flippers. These things aren't encoded into DNA as changes that are meant to happen, they're errors, but in some cases the errors have been lucky and have gone on to develop in their own right. Not everything we can be is encoded into DNA now. DNA is a bag of lego that puts itself together to suit the needs of the environment it develops in, and it has many external influences.








What we're arguing about here is really whether you're personally prepared to believe science, not whether the bible is right or wrong. If you say that you're not prepared to believe it then that's fine, but you've asked for evidence and I've presented it, not with guesswork or theories. This IS proof, shown to be such in a variety of different ways - least of all the accurate dating of each subsequent evolutionary development. Unless you have something that can not only disprove thousands of fossils, but isotope dating, basic anatomy and genetic sequencing too you have to at least consider accepting it as fact. If you can't accept it then there's nothing more either of us can say, and that would be a shame.

I have to say though that I admire your staying power and your desire to keep questioning and thinking so +rep. Doing all the postings and all that thought that goes into them, I know myself it isn't easy, and it can fill your mind for a good portion of the day.

MelT