Wasn't there an actual ark?

[Wirraway]

Try getting and watching this Video:

“The Quest for Noah’s Ark” "High atop a mountain in Eastern Turkey is a giant 5,000 year old wooden ship containing hundreds of stalls and cages. Is it Noah’s Ark?..

ISBN 0-9667985-4-6

Grizzly Adams Productions Inc., Filmed in the U.S. and Turkey

Based on a book by Charles E. Sellier and David W. Balsiger.

you have a missing link. or maybe your link is missing.

 

[mtnutt]

TravisandJill, you are right that God can do anything. But don’t invoke miracles if you are insisting on a naturalistic explanation for the flood and ark story. If God could materialize marsupials in Australia instantaneously, God could also suspend them above the sea for 150 days and dispense with the ark altogether. If you do insist on a literal interpretation of the Noah story, you must account in literalistic terms for all its aspects, not invoking miracle when it suits you.

If you interpret it literally, you have to account for how kangaroos, koalas, wallabies, echidnas, and platypuses swam thousands of miles across open ocean to Mesopotamia, without any food, in order to reach Noah’s ark. You also have to account for how the animals got back to every continent on the flood-devastated earth devoid of vegetation appropriate to their digestive requirements. Remember, if you opt for a literal interpretation, you cannot suddenly invoke a miracle to explain those bits of the story you find inconvenient, because then you are no longer interpreting it literally.

StAnastasia

Why do you insist on limiting what GOD can and/or will do? If you choose not to believe that the Ark story is factual, fine, other posts in this thread have made clear that you will not be violating church teachings.

GOD can work miracles or not as he sees fit. Certainly He could have hovered everyone above the waters. He also could have submerged everyone and kept them alive or even just killed those He was punishing outright, no flood necessary. He chose to work through human means, helping out where necessary. Perhaps He wanted to teach Noah, his family and us a lesson. Something like, righteous obedience will be rewarded and disobedience will be punished. (Just guessing) Whatever his purpose was will be revealed to us in time, as will the true nature of the story, fact or myth.

I choose to believe the story (obviously). You can choose otherwise and I don’t have a problem with that. Just please don’t ridicule others for believing that GOD performs His works in ways that are a mystery to us.

 

[StAnastasia]

“The Quest for Noah’s Ark” "High atop a mountain in Eastern Turkey is a giant 5,000 year old wooden ship containing hundreds of stalls and cages. Is it Noah’s Ark?..

ISBN 0-9667985-4-6

Grizzly Adams Productions Inc., Filmed in the U.S. and Turkey

Based on a book by Charles E. Sellier and David W. Balsiger.

This is an old creationist hoax, debunked years ago.

 

[StAnastasia]

I choose to believe the story (obviously). You can choose otherwise and I don’t have a problem with that. Just please don’t ridicule others for believing that GOD performs His works in ways that are a mystery to us.

How am I ridiculing you to insist that if you claim an old myth to be literally true, you provide some evidence supporting that belief?

Suppose I were to try to push the North American native claim that the earth was created by a muskrat that had dived down into the primal waters and brought up mud in its paws, from which God fashioned the world. Would you merely accept this, or would you attempt to get me to subject this belief to the test of scientific credibility?

 

[mtnutt]

How am I ridiculing you to insist that if you claim an old myth to be literally true, you provide some evidence supporting that belief?

Suppose I were to try to push the North American native claim that the earth was created by a muskrat that had dived down into the primal waters and brought up mud in its paws, from which God fashioned the world. Would you merely accept this, or would you attempt to get me to subject this belief to the test of scientific credibility?

No, I am not asking you to subject this belief to the test of scientific credibility, I am asking you to subject it the test of your faith in GOD.

 

[StAnastasia]

No, I am not asking you to subject this belief to the test of scientific credibility, I am asking you to subject it the test of your faith in GOD.

My faith in God has nothing to do with accepting a pre-scientific myth about a flood.

StAnastasia

 

[JReducation]

Why are we debating whether there literally was or was not a Noah’s ark, when it does not seem to be a concern for the Catholic Church?

Catholicism does not look at the Old Testament for history lessons, but for spiritual guidance and for revealed truths about Jesus. The focus of the Catholic Church’s use of the Old Testament is what it says about Christ and about redemption.

I think that focussing on whether the story of Noah is literal or not sidesteps the question about Christ.

What does this story tells us about Christ?

How does it prefigure Christ’s saving act?

What does it say about the Church?

How does it prefigure the Church?

What does it say about man’s salvation?

Those are the questions that theologians ponder when they read this story. Whether there was a literal ark or not is one left to archeologists and anthropologists. Even the rabbis of Israel were not focussed on the literalness of the story. They looked for its meaning in their relationship with God.

Spending all this time and energy on whether or not there was an ark is not a concern for the Catholic Church. That’s why we will never see an official statement on it. The Church is concerned with more essential questions.

Shouldn’t we be asking those questions too?

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Wirraway]

Why are we debating whether there literally was or was not a Noah’s ark, when it does not seem to be a concern for the Catholic Church?

because its fun running circles around the Arkoids who misapprehend biology and engineering in a feckless attempt to explain how ye arke could have been built.

…

I think that focussing on whether the story of Noah is literal or not sidesteps the question about Christ…

please, multitask all you want.

 

[StAnastasia]

because its fun running circles around the Arkoids who misapprehend biology and engineering in a feckless attempt to explain how ye arke could have been built.

The Earth diver creation story is to be taken literally. I found mud under the fingernails of the muskrat.

 

[Wirraway]

The Earth diver creation story is to be taken literally. I found mud under the fingernails of the muskrat.

we’re witnessing devolution happen before our very eyes.

 

[JReducation]

because its fun running circles around the Arkoids who misapprehend biology and engineering in a feckless attempt to explain how ye arke could have been built.

Whatever floats your boat. I must prefer to examine and discuss what the OT says about Christ, in this case, the story of the Ark.

But if some people think it’s fun to run rings around how this story came to be and what part was historical and what was metaphor, be my guest. I find that boring.

Exciting to me is to see Christ slowly revealed through these stories and the Christology that they contain.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[William_inquire]

If you interpret it literally, you have to account for how kangaroos, koalas, wallabies, echidnas, and platypuses swam thousands of miles across open ocean to Mesopotamia, without any food, in order to reach Noah’s ark.
StAnastasia

Assumption: you believe that the world was in pre flood times like it is now . This is very much an assumption. Your assumption is likely related to the belief you have that there never was a world wide flood.

Probability: If the flood occured as a world wide flood it is extremely unlikely that the preflood world is like ours.

Question: have you ever given thought to what it might have been like? Scientists and others talk about a super continent.

Exercise for fun and speculation: look at a map that includes the ocean floor. Now imagine the waters of the deep pushing up through the mid oceanic ridge. What would happen if that were so? As you do so , look at the edges (1st 100 miles or so) of the continents; is there any apparent correlation?

Ponder and form a hypothesis: If a force were to push a slab of rock there is increasing amounts of friction. Rock also has a breaking point. Now imagine larger and larger slabs of rock. Is there a point at which the rock will simply crush rather than overcome friction? What happens if the slab of rock is a mountain (besides earthquake). What happens if there is a lubricant such as water? Does that do anything to the friction such that the very large body of rock can now move?

Comment : plate techtonics says that huge plates, chiefly composed of rock “slide” , but doesn’t discuss anything but more pressure to move the rock.

 

[Wirraway]

Whatever floats your boat. I must prefer to examine and discuss what the OT says about Christ, in this case, the story of the Ark.

But if some people think it’s fun to run rings around how this story came to be and what part was historical and what was metaphor, be my guest. I find that boring. …

well then, you’re in the wrong part of the thread, my friend.

 

[StAnastasia]

Assumption: you believe that the world was in pre flood times like it is now . This is very much an assumption. Your assumption is likely related to the belief you have that there never was a world wide flood…

This stuff is all straight out of the “science” playbook of Protestant Fundamentalist Creationists. It has zero credibility as science, and therefore is worthless, and it has been definitively refuted countless times. If any of this stuff were even remotely true, we would see numerous panel discussions of Noans’ flood and its effects at professional meetings of biologists, geologists, and paleontologists. But it’s not discussed there, because it is total intellectual garbage. It is relegated to the backwater of the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and screenings of Expelled in church basements.

For us Catholics who are scientists and theologians, the point is rather to witness to the world that Catholic theology is not at cross purposes with science. Indeed, when properly understood and articulated science leads us to the creator of this ancient, dynamic, and evolving universe.

Prayerfully yours,
StAnastasia

 

[Wirraway]

Assumption: you believe that the world was in pre flood times like it is now . This is very much an assumption.

without begging the question, what evidence do you have that the world was different in biblical times?

Probability: If the flood occured as a world wide flood it is extremely unlikely that the preflood world is like ours.

the pysical laws that govern natural processes would all be different. how convenient. if you have to violate a law of physics, why not pretend the laws aren’t really laws?

Question: have you ever given thought to what it might have been like? Scientists and others talk about a super continent.

which one? Rodinia, 1.3 billion years ago, or Pangea, about 250 million years ago. take your pick.

Exercise for fun and speculation: look at a map that includes the ocean floor. Now imagine the waters of the deep pushing up through the mid oceanic ridge. What would happen if that were so? As you do so , look at the edges (1st 100 miles or so) of the continents; is there any apparent correlation?

ok, WRONG. mid oceanic ridges are transform boundaries between plates (e.g., the north american plate and the eurasian plate are spreading apart right in the middle of iceland) and are the location where the plates spread apart. what comes up at the ridges isn’t water, its magma.

Ponder and form a hypothesis: If a force were to push a slab of rock there is increasing amounts of friction. Rock also has a breaking point. Now imagine larger and larger slabs of rock. Is there a point at which the rock will simply crush rather than overcome friction? What happens if the slab of rock is a mountain (besides earthquake). What happens if there is a lubricant such as water? Does that do anything to the friction such that the very large body of rock can now move?

Comment : plate techtonics says that huge plates, chiefly composed of rock “slide” , but doesn’t discuss anything but more pressure to move the rock.

what’s the hypothesis you’re stating? or trying to state?

don’t argue from ignorance.

“Tectonic plates are able to move because of the relative density of oceanic lithosphere and the relative weakness of the asthenosphere. Dissipation of heat from the mantle is acknowledged to be the original source of energy driving plate tectonics.” read up on at the most basic summary before you posit theories.

 

[Namesake]

Assumption: you believe that the world was in pre flood times like it is now . This is very much an assumption. Your assumption is likely related to the belief you have that there never was a world wide flood.

Probability: If the flood occured as a world wide flood it is extremely unlikely that the preflood world is like ours.

Question: have you ever given thought to what it might have been like? Scientists and others talk about a super continent.

Exercise for fun and speculation: look at a map that includes the ocean floor. Now imagine the waters of the deep pushing up through the mid oceanic ridge. What would happen if that were so? As you do so , look at the edges (1st 100 miles or so) of the continents; is there any apparent correlation?

Ponder and form a hypothesis: If a force were to push a slab of rock there is increasing amounts of friction. Rock also has a breaking point. Now imagine larger and larger slabs of rock. Is there a point at which the rock will simply crush rather than overcome friction? What happens if the slab of rock is a mountain (besides earthquake). What happens if there is a lubricant such as water? Does that do anything to the friction such that the very large body of rock can now move?

Comment : plate techtonics says that huge plates, chiefly composed of rock “slide” , but doesn’t discuss anything but more pressure to move the rock.

You are reinventing geology. Do you have the appropriate credentials?

 

[William_inquire]

yes, God could fix every challenge raised… it is perfectly acceptable to say that God willed it.

don’t argue practical shipbuilding with professional shipbuilders
if you have any evidence that shows that physical laws changed over the last 5,000 years, I’d love to hear it

QUOTE]

Wirraway: again your last post points to the very issue I am addressing.
(Clarification: before I address the main issue of the post I wish to state : I never said that the laws of physics change. I did say that it is possible there were technologies that were known and are no longer known.)

You said that it is possible for God to will it. So you concede the possibility that the Arke existed.

However you turn around and say that essentially: since the Ark is not scientifically ( read: naturally) possible , then it never existed. (you have many posts disputing the possibility of the Ark)

this turn around from believing to not believing because of science IS a cultural issue. It is called Worldview. It is deeply embedded in the way we think.

Much of the current philosophy of science rejects explanations that include anything supernatural, whether true or untrue. It is also illogical to say “since we don’t know how to do it today, then it couldn’t have been known in earlier cultures.”

PS> there have been critics long ago. Voltaire criticized the bible. He said that it would be gone a hundred years after his death. Irony is that a bible publishing society owns and uses his house. extra irony: Voltaire became obsessed about where Magog was. He ended up proving where it was. There have always been people attacking the bible and this will continue until He comes.

 

[William_inquire]

You are reinventing geology. Do you have the appropriate credentials?

NO I am not reinventing geology. I am merely:

1. pointing out that there has long been discussion of a super continent. If such a thing existed then at some point the earth did look different.
2. inviting others to consider other possibilities. Scientists with Naturalism and Uniformitarianism as part of their worldview posit that the flood could never have happened. Their worldview simply will not allow them to consider it. Francis Crick the co Nobel prize winner for the discovery of the double helix was told the current scientific age of the earth was less than 5 billion years. When told this he attributed life on earth to " Aliens"

 

[StAnastasia]

There have always been people attacking the bible and this will continue until He comes.

William, I have seen no one on this thread attacking the Bible. What I do see is a number of people well educated in science and in biblical theology, who recognize that the Bible was not written as a science textbook, as you are insisting. Cardinal Baronius once said that “the Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens [or the earth] go.”

StAnastasia

 

[Wirraway]

…
You said that it is possible for God to will it. So you concede the possibility that the Arke existed.

However you turn around and say that essentially: since the Ark is not scientifically ( read: naturally) possible , then it never existed. (you have many posts disputing the possibility of the Ark)…

I said, God can do anything, suspend any physical law He chooses. so its perfectly OK to say that there was ye Arke.

and that’s where the conversation should end. its a miracle, and nothing more need be said. you don’t have to explain the trinity, you don’t have to explain ye arke.

so don’t get into a debate about how it could be done, and argue nonmiraculous facts with engineers, archtects, biologists, shipbuilders and historians. you cannot win. it can’t be done. that’s what makes it a miracle.

to tell a maritime architect that an 400’ wooden ship, with no steel bracing, won’t hog and break its keel and sink, is pathetic. simply ignoring the technical arguments or making a hand wave argument, as is done with every scientific objection, is even more pathetic.