I apologize, Gaudere, it wasn’t my intention not to include you. You beat me to the punch – damn simultaneous posting. I was referring to an apparent misunderstanding in the distinction between previous rebukes by David B the moderator and arguements by David B the poster.
<---- Apologizes for “anti-religious zealots” salvo…
Glitch:
If a flood where of such a magnitude that it could put a boat up high on a mountain, it would have to be incredibly voluminous, would it not? I don’t see how it would just seep out of the ground, or whatever method you’re thinking about would work.
Hmmm, good point.
But why would somebody say that, that a flood was coming? Base on what? On why build it big enought to house so many animals?
As far as the bomb shelter analogy, that was a very real threat that thankfully, never materialized. I don’t see how it fits in this context, however.
And as far as the “space aliens/time travellors” retort, c’mon, you’re using more faith than i am.
Patrick Ashley
‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ -Edmund Burke
If such a boat was discovered it would, admittedly, be evidence that would indicate that one of the stories in the Bible is not entirely false. It would prove absolutely nothing except the existence of an unusually large and old ship inexplicably perched on a mountain in Turkey. The fact that there is one readily available explanation does not mean that it is the only one.
The evidence against the flood is far more compelling than the fact that no one has yet found the Ark. For example, there is nothing to indicate that all of Turkey (at least) was immersed in a few hundred feet of water at any time in the last few thousand years. I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation for Stonehenge, I could live without hearing one for the big boat on a mountain. Unanswered questions are not going to make m give up on science in favor of mysticism of any type.
If pigs had wings, they’d be chickens.
Against stupidity the very gods / Themselves contend in vain.
Assuming I’m one of the idiots being referred to let me respond as only an idiot such as myself can.
All that this would “prove” is that somehow a big boat got on top of Mt. Arafat. Since there is no evidence that there was a flood that reached to the top of MT. Arafat 4,000 years ago, and quite a lot of evidence that no such flood occured. One might assume that the boat was built, or moved there, and look for evidence to support this.
I, personally have no trouble at all imagining what type of “idiot” might decide to build a large boat on top of a mountain, and the reason he might do so.
How’s that? As evidenced by the statements on this board, I think some people would believe in space aliens before they would believe in God. I think a God/alien/Elvis/Santa Claus argument is perfectly reasonable in this context.
Esprix
No apology necessary, Nen. I was considering doing some sort of witticism about how the moderator in this case should definitely not be confused with David B, but I couldn’t think of a really good zinger.
Hmmm…
I think if such an aquatic vessel, it could provide some pretty concrete evidence for one of two things.
1.)The Biblical story of the Flood, and of Noah’s preservation of both the human race and the various animal species by loading them into an Ark is true.
2.) Sometime about 4,000 years ago, a couple of practical jokers with a whole lot of money and wwwaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy too much time on their hands got together, hired a bunch of people to build a really big boat at the top of Mount Ararat, threw a bunch of animal shit around inside, along with some old pots, pans and assorted clay vessels. While the construction was going on, they wrote the book of Genesis, complete with the story of the Flood. All of this with the idea in mind that four thousand years later some archaeologist would find the wreck, compare it with the description in Genesis…
I’ll bet those guys are laughing their asses off.
The trouble with Sir Launcelot is by the time he comes riding up, you’ve already married King Arthur.
I would take it as absolute proof that the legend of Utnapishtim is correct and that, by extension, Gilgamesh had indeed encountered the scorpion men on his quest for the pearl of life. This also provides tangential support for the entire Sumerian pantheon, so I would immediately set out to show respect to Ninkasi (she-who-fills-the-mouth) by drinking a good strong beer.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
“All it would prove is that there is a big boat on Ararat” - to paraphrase many.
I can’t believe it.
So, there is an ancient story about a man that built a boat that was later discovered by contemporary man, fitting the same dimensions, and it “means nothing?”
See, this is what I mean. I set out a parameter, and though the story could turn out to be one of the biggest archeological finds in history, due to the correalation of the Bible, it “means nothing.”
Does anyone wonder why I feel a sense of anti-religion in this board?
I guess I’ve learned that no matter how much evidence you can throw at the Bible, some people won’t believe it, because they don’t want to.
After which, of course, I would plan a boat trip to Dilmun.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Are you a literalist? Please do grace this inquiry with a response. I have made several points and inquiries directed toward you in this thread and the “Is Atheism a ‘Religion’” thread which requested a response, yet received none.
That’s too bad. A witty reprimand/clarification would have been enjoyable.
Of course it means something - everyone here would be pretty much “Wow” about the correlation of the story in the Bible with the discovered facts (not to mention finding such a large boat that was so friggin’ old).
You’re using the discovery of the Ark as proof of God’s existence, whereas most people here are, in their own way, trying to point out that the discovery of the Ark would not be proof of anything other than the Ark story might have been true.
You simply picked an example that wasn’t water-tight. Try again.
Esprix
Nen:
Can you be more specific? Pertaining to what?
It proves nothing. Or at least nothing of great importance.
OK, let’s say I was accused of murdering you over this disagreement, and somebody wrote a story describing in detail how I did it, and that I buried the steak knife that was used for the murder in a hole in your backyard. Then let’s suppose that the knife is found there. Does this prove that I killed you? Even if there is no evidence to suggest that I even know where you live, and plenty to suggest that I was right here at the time the murder was committed?
Fill in the blank with, let’s say, “evolution” and look at some other threads. And in that case, the evidence is real, not hypothetical.
Patrick, do you honestly believe that one true story would immediately prove the complete inerrancy of the entire Bible?
Please, you’re smarter than that.
Most of the responses have admitted that the discovery of the RBB* would lend a great deal of veracity to the story of Noah, and therefore some evidence for the existence of God. (And as far as I’m concerned, the Gilgamesh story fits equally well.)
But that doesn’t mean that evidence for the Flood story would prove anything else in the book.
As an example: Say I publish a book that claims George Dubya Bush A) had snorted cocaine and B) was a Pod Person from Mars. I subsequently find photographs of Dub snorting coke. Can I use those photos to “prove” that he is also Martian? Obviously not.
Finding the RBB* woiuld be a piece fo the puzzle that is life. It is very little on its own, but might well combine with other evidence to support a scientific theory. As it stands, even if it were discovered, the preponderance of evidence still lands foursquare against a catastrophic flood.
-andros-
(* Really Big Boat)
I’d have to wonder how Noah managed to get two individuals of every species on the planet into such a small space? And what did he use to feed the lions during the weeks in the ark? (Is that what really happened to the unicorn?) Where did he keep the food for all the animals, and for himself and his family?
Oh yeah…
And wouldn’t a worldwide flood kill all the fresh water fish (as the fresh water and sea water mixed)? Or did Noah have big aquariums on the ark too? What about plant life? Wouldn’t all that time under salt water kill all the plants, too? Did Noah also have two of every species of plant on board? What happened after they got off the boat? When the lion got hungry, wouldn’t he have killed one of the last two sheep on earth?
Quoting Andros:
No, and I never said that! What I was asking was, given the boat parameters, what would non-believers have to say? That’s all.
Not from what i’ve read. All I got was a bunch of “proves nothing” or some silly response. Ok, maybe I used the wrong term, “Prove”, perhaps i should have used “heavily suggest” or “lends creedence to validifying” the story of Noah.
Again, never said anything else about the rest of the Bible, just the story of Noah.