Well, plenty of people have waded into this mess without my echoing their many excellent posts. However, I decided to address the above, since no one else did. Why would someone 4000 years ago say a flood was coming? Because it is human nature to talk about what we fear. There have been floods as long as there have been rivers (much longer than 4000 years). Furthermore, because the first civilizations developed near rivers, floods have been one of the banes of humankind since the beginning of civilization (also longer ago than 4000 years). This is why there have always been flood stories – because floods are fairly common and extremely destructive. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to find out that an early soothsayer declared that “a flood is coming, a great flood, greater and more destructive than any previously known.” Neither would it surprise me to find out that some people believed him. Doomsday prediction has been around a long time – longer even than 4000 years.
Jess
Remember the Straight Dope credo: It’s all about wiping out ignorance, not coddling the ignorant.
Are you a literalist insofar as you take the Bible literally? That is, words in the bible, verbatim, correspond to actual events; moreover, there are no fictional or embellished tales included in the Bible written for the purpose of conveying a concept of the Christian or Judaic faith.
So it is feasible, by your own admission, that a boat could be found under the circumstances you have delineated and have nothing to do with the biblical tale. It is possible that such a discovery would lend some credit to the existence of Noah’s Ark; however, it is also possible that it is a boat with no biblical correlation and the tale of Noah’s Ark could be fictious. Do you concur with the latter possibility or do you wish to retract some of your prior statements?
this noahs ark/mt ararat thing has been “talked about” for 30 years. was the site ever completely excavated?
any independant conclusions drawn?
latest dating tecqniques?
soil strata analysis?
“i am noah . . and this is my story” . . scratched in aramaic on the hull of this vessel?
bda, there is no site to excavate. They can’t even decide which mountain to look on!
This is a fun game to play, though.
What if you awoke early on Easter morning and, looking out the bedroom window, saw a bunny pushing an egg with his nose. Would this convince you of the existance of the Easter Bunny? Huh? Well?
Why pick on such a trivial bit? Why not take the hypothetical all the way?
Suppose the sky parted and a big golden voice spoke so that every human being on the planet heard that voice in their own language, and that voice spoke the Ten Commandments to all humankind at the same moment, around the world? What would non-believers say?
Look, it’s fairly simple.
IF THERE IS A GOD, then it’s obvious that He doesn’t want any actual, undisputable evidence found of His existence. We haven’t even found very much circumstantial or inferential evidence – Joseph’s coat or the Ark of the Covenant, or David’s sling or whatever. In fact, there’s dispute whether David even existed (although a discovery of an artifact about ten years ago that refers to the House of David certainly implies the Davidic kingship existed). So, IF THERE IS A GOD, it’s clear that He doesn’t want us to have evidence thereof, and we aint gonna find any. IF THERE IS A GOD, it’s fairly clear that He wants us to base our actions and beliefs on our love of Him and of our fellow humans, not on scientific evidence.
IF THERE IS NO GOD, of course, then there’s no evidence to be found. End of story.
So this hypothetic is silly. The finding of the wreck of a huge ark would still be circumstantial, and would prove nothing to those who don’t want to believe (as has been mentioned several times) and would prove everything (albeit wrongly!) to those who do.
I have to say, coming into this after more than 50 messages have been posted, how silly this whole thing looks from Patrick’s side. Of course, he will accuse me of being an anti-religious whoknowswhat, but I’m used to that instead of actual discussion from him by now.
Anyway, Patrick posts a hypothetical and then gets upset when people don’t answer the way he wants them to (to the point of insulting them for doing so). Yet he ignores the other responses, like the one talking about all the evidence found for evolution and the ones about previous flood myths. He doesn’t want to deal with this. He just wants to deal with his story and have people interpret it his way.
Frankly, I find the whole thing a bit ridiculous.
Patrick: If you’re going to post a question, don’t get all pissed off when people respond in a way you don’t want them to. Fercryingoutloud, this is Great Debates!
I’m quite interested in hearing from you further. Is it a matter of displacement vs. volume using the supplied dimensions for the ark? Or a construction material problem? I’m not challenging you, I’m interested to hear the engineering problems with the ark as it is traditionally conceived of.
No, I could go with that, but why? I’m willing to admit that the parameter I posted would not PROVE that it is the ark of Noah, however, it is reasonable to say it is, based on the description in the Bible.
Patrick Ashley
“For those who believe, no evidence is necessary; for those who don’t believe, no evidence is enough.” -Unknown
); people were shorter back then.