If Noah's Ark were to be discovered...

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Mirage, Aug 23, 2007.

  1. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    With the recent religious debates going on here I thought I'd pose a somewhat hypothetical, yet very interesting question. We've all heard of "Noah's Ark". Well, over the past few years some interesting satellite images were taken of Mt. Ararat in Turkey. Mt. Ararat is where the ark would have become stuck, according to the Bible.

    Here's a story from Space.com that includes a very interesting image:

    SPACE.com -- Zooming in on Noah's Ark? Satellites Search for Ancient Artifact

    Here's a story from National Geographic from a few years later:

    Noah's Ark Quest Dead in Water -- Was It a Stunt?

    The Turkish government has not allowed any expeditions to go up the mountain since rumors of the Ark possibly being preserved up there originally surfaced. Odd..

    Last year more images were taken, and the measurements of the "object" in the image match the measurements that the Ark would have been.

    CNN.com - Satellite closes in on Noah's Ark mystery - Mar 13, 2006

    So, my question is this. If an expedition does make it up there and finds out that there is in fact a giant ark preserved in the ice, would those of you who consider yourselves "atheists" have a mental dillema? I'm saying "if", to be fair.

    It's a fair question though because an expedition will most likely occur eventually. If an ark matching the description and measurements of the ark from the Bible is found up there, on the same mountain that the Bible says it "landed" way back in the day, I'd say that unless you are set on not believing no matter what, that the evidence would be conclusive.

    It will be very interesting if archaeologists are ever able to get to the bottom of this... er the top of it and figure out what it is. The evidence here would be far too much to be considered simply a coincidence. The ark should be around 500 or so feet long, give or take which is close to two football fields in length. (The ark was said to be 300 cubits long and the exact measurement of a "cubit" is still debated, since there is no exact way to know for certain.) Anyway, it would be next to impossible for somebody to make an ark on their own on the top of the mountain just to try to trick people..

    So if an expedition took place and it was confirmed that an ark matching the description of "Noah's Ark" was found atop Mt. Ararat, how would it effect you? Would it change your mind about anything? Remember that this is a hypothetical question.

  2. MenInTights

    MenInTights not a plastic bag

    This is something that I expect will be relocated along with the Arc of the Covenant. I think it will happen in my life.

    I have nothing to back this up, except I believe that these things have been saved for a day when the world needs them most. Europe is mostly atheist these days and we are heading there fast.

    History teaches us 2 things about religion
    #1-No matter how hard the world tries, you cannot extinguish the Jewish race
    #2----well, I will pause on this one for now for fear it will take this thread way off topic and I really don't want that to happen---

    Oh, as far as how it would change me. I would be very excited. I would take a trip to Turkey to see it if they brought it off the mountain.
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2007
  3. maledoro

    maledoro Strange Visitor

    Here's a place that you might want to visit:
    This was authored by Stephen T. Asma.

    Last edited: Aug 23, 2007
  4. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    Dinosaurs most likely would not have been on the ark due to a few factors. The flood would have changed the environment of the earth, i.e. global climate, humidity, etc, and dinosaurs could no longer survive so what would be the point of bringing them on the ark. It had never rained on the earth before "the flood" either. People also lived to be hundreds of years old. Many people who study this believe that this is due to a "canopy" of ice that surrounded the atmosphere. As the sun's beams hit this, the light and heat was distributed evenly over half of the earth at a time. This also caused the ice to melt, which brought a mist to the earth, similar to rain, but less sporadic. When the flood happened, this "canopy" would have been melted/destroyed entirely. It held enough water to cover the entire earth with water. Why do you think people are so concerned about the polar ice caps melting. If they were to melt, the earth could in fact be covered with water due to the amount of ice.

    So, back to what I was saying. Now that the sun hits the earth directly, it ages things, wears things down, and it's safe to say people definitely are not living to be hundreds of years old any more.

    And to argue the dinosaurs being millions of years old idea due to fossil tests, etc. What do you think trillions upon trillions of pounds of water would do to a fossil? Maybe we should go to the bottom of the ocean and see how the rocks down there match up in a carbon test.

    And you didn't answer my question. This thread wasn't meant to debate if the flood happened. It's meant to make you think about how your ideas would change if it was proven true. It's a hypothetical question as well.
    Steerpike likes this.
  5. maledoro

    maledoro Strange Visitor

    Tell that to Ham.

    Scientific data showed that the prehistoric past was extremely humid, with all of the volcanic activity and lush rainforests.

    Aside from no mention of rainfall in the Bible, there is no proof of this. No mention of rain does not prove that it had never rained.

    Where is the proof of this?

    Noah's Flood is alleged to have covered the mountains of the earth to a depth of 15 cubits (about 8m). To have covered Mt. Everest it would have required a depth of water of about 9km above sea level. If the flood was only required to cover the mountains in Urartu (Ararat), where Noah's boat is said to have settled, about 5km of water would be needed.

    The "vapor canopy hypothesis" states that before the flood, the water existed in the atmosphere as water vapor. The flood occurred when this vapor condensed and fell as rain, flooding the earth. The flood subsided later, various explanations being given for where all that water went.

    First, let us look at atmospheric pressure. For the earth's atmosphere, the pressure is almost exactly hydrostatic, since it is held to the earth by gravity and velocities are too low to significantly change the pressure. In plain language this means that the air pressure at any point is equal to the weight of the air in a unit area column above that point. At sea level, air pressure in US engineering units is about 14.5 pounds/sq inch because a column of air one inch square extending to the top of the atmosphere weighs (Guess what!?) 14.5 pounds. On top of Mt. Everest, the pressure is lower because the lowest and densest 9km of the atmosphere is below that point.

    Now the "vapor canopy" would form a part of the atmosphere, being a body of gas (water vapor) gravitationally held to the earth. It would in fact be most of the pre-flood atmosphere. There would have to be enough vapor to form 9km of liquid, when condensed, and, therefore the vapor would weigh as much as 9km of water. The pressure at the earth's surface, where Noah and family lived, would be equal to one atmosphere PLUS the weight of a 9km column of water of unit area. This is equivalent to the pressure 9km deep in the ocean. What is this pressure? Well, each 10m of water is roughly equivalent to one atmosphere, so the pressure would be 900 atmospheres. The atmosphere would also have a composition of about 900 parts water vapor to one part of what we call air today.

    How could an atmosphere almost 100% water vapor not condense? The temperature would have to be raised to the point where the partial pressure of water equals 900 atmospheres, i.e. the boiling point at that pressure. So we find Noah et al. living in a 13,000psi boiler. Is this credible?

    Patience, please. I was just posting an arcticle I had found about a recent museum that was geared toward Creationism.

    My answer to your question would be that I would be a changed man if the ark was found, but only if it were empirically tested to be the age that the Bible claims and that everything else that went with the Flood myth were proven to be true as well.
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2007
  6. MenInTights

    MenInTights not a plastic bag

    Nice article. Some of the objections they brought up were easy to swat down, others are more challenging. If the ark was found, everything else would fall into place pretty quickly.
  7. maledoro

    maledoro Strange Visitor

    Swatted down, but not in a way that could scientifically proven. As I had mentioned earlier: Ark, schmark. There is a lot of baggage that goes along with it, such as proving that the flood was global and not local, etc.
  8. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    Care to explain how water could rise to at least 17,000 feet without covering most of the globe? ;)
  9. maledoro

    maledoro Strange Visitor

    Care to prove that it had happened?
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2007
  10. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    Um, boats don't float on clouds.... We are talking about standing water here.

Share This Page