Evidence for God from Science

Interesting article today: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/ ... ey-ararat/

While intriguing as to what ancient, huge, man-made wooden structure could possibly be entrenched at 4,000 meters on Mt. Ararat, it does seem implausible for it to be the actual ark. I would have thought that the timbers might well have been scavenged after the ark's initial use. And even if merely abandoned, certainly one would think that any wood would have long ago completely rotted and deteriorated over so many thousands of years. And yet, hoaxers aren't going to haul nor be able to implant huge timbers in a mountain 4,000 meters up as some sort of perverse April Fool's joke. So what could it be?

Why do I have a strange feeling of deja vu? That article is 2 years old.

Do a search, noob!

Noob?!!! Yes, wise guy, I well know that most of that article is old, as I was very familiar with its contents. But it was newly posted (with new info?) on Fox News' website, TODAY. Yes, I HAVE read all of that thread before. Just wanted to generate some additional comments speculating upon what could possibly be at 4,000 meters.

Noob?!!! Yes, wise guy, I well know that most of that article is old, as I was very familiar with its contents.

Has Noah's Ark Been Found on Turkish Mountaintop?

Published April 27, 2010

FoxNews.com

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/ ... z1rAy8Y9My

Must've been a slow news day at Fox, for them to repost a 2 year old article, with no updates since 2011.

Last Updated: 22 Feb 2011

Just wanted to generate some additional comments speculating upon what could possibly be at 4,000 meters.

Maybe it's the remains of Shem, Ham, and Japeth's mountainside ski lodge?

Resume speculations....

Might I inject a bit of other reality on this subject? If one were to find a ship high up on the side of a mountain and they are also sure that the biblical account of Noah is correct.... how could you determine that the ship was Noahs? Has anyone considered that there were other shipbuilding people possibly existing on a coastline and that there were many ships already in existence when the flood occured? Further, if there were other ships where might they logiclly end up? wooden boats can still float even if capsized and they could wash ashore... when a shore occured.
As for the perspective that Noah and family may have used the ark for building purposes based on, I assume absence of trees to build with. How do you know that all trees were washed away and or that it killed them all? Lets review what was written;

Genesis 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Let us take note of what God said he is going to destroy;
1) man
2) beasts
3) creeping things
4) fowls of the air
That appears to be the entirety of what was to be destroyed so did anyone see plants and trees or the like in that list?
Here is a great idea, do a scientific experiment. build a tub around a well established tree, fill with water, leave it submerged for the 10-12 months then empty it and see what happens. There may be several outcomes; 1) the tree dies, 2) the tree comes back
In either case the tree is still there and its lumber is still useable. I would also point to the other biblical text to back the concept of trees still living;

Genesis 8:11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.

Hmmm now where would an olive leaf come from.....
Olive - is a species of a small tree in the family Oleaceae. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive

Thus I would think logically that Noah would not have had to use the ark which was covered in pitch within and without to build housing. Most likely they would have lived in the ark until the land was liveable again and they would have used the trees still existing to make their new homes and make fires. Imagine trying to cook food on burning wood covered in pitch.... ummm yummy.

Philip wrote:Interesting article today: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/ ... ey-ararat/

The group claims that carbon dating proves the relics are 4,800 years old, meaning they date to around the same time the ark was said to be afloat.

It seems that logically there are two choices:
a) Accept radioactive dating procedures which conflict with a Biblical flood.
b) Find fault with such methods and don't rely on them.
You can't do both, which is what these people seem to be doing.

Gotta love it when people criticize the use of radiometric dating in all circumstances under the argument of "they aren't accurate" when those datings conflict with their beliefs, then jump on the idea of radiometric dating when it works for them. Like you said, to do both is hypocritical.

Well, to begin with, no one accurately knows when exactly the flood occurred, as the Biblical genealogies are not comprehensive. And secondly, there are archaeological sites for early man that have dated (accurately?) MUCH older and WAY outside of the area of the flood, which some say was just 5,000 or so years ago.