KFC Kickin For Christ KFC Kickin For Christ

ARK UNCOVERED?

▼

ARK UNCOVERED?

from JoeUser Forums
I'm kind of surprised the writers here at JU haven't mentioned what's going on in Iran with the finding of the Ark. It's all over the "Other" blog sites almost an hourly account from what I saw. One account read "Texas Finds the Ark." Good Morning America had a piece on this yesterday and they seemed very excited about this news.

I'm not surprised and always felt that they would find this ark eventually. I always put the finding of it with "last days" timing because it's just like God to give yet another chance for belief in Him. So none can say....."I didn't know." He's long suffering and does not want any to perish and is always lovingly waiting for those who don't believe in Him to come. Of course I know that even if they found this Ark many will be so busy with their lives they will hardly notice.

June 29, 2006 — A team of Texas archaeologists believe they may have located the remains of Noah's Ark in Iran's Elburz mountain range.

"I can't imagine what it could be if it is not the Ark," said Arch Bonnema of the Bible Archaeology Search and Exploration (B.A.S.E) Institute, a Christian archeology organization dedicated to looking for biblical artifacts.

Bonnema and the other B.A.S.E. Institute members hiked for seven hours in the mountains northwest of Tehran, climbing 13,000 feet before making the apparent discovery.

"We got up to this object, nestled in the side of a hill," said Robert Cornuke, a member of the B.A.S.E. Institute. "We found something that has my heart skipping a beat."

At first, they didn't dare to hope it was the biblical boat.

"It wasn't impressive at first," Cornuke said. "Certainly didn't think it to be Noah's Ark. But when we got close, we were amazed. It looked similar to wood."

In addition, some B.A.SE. members say, their discovery didn't look very distinctive.

"It looked like the deck of any boat today," Bonnema said.


Long Search for the Ark

The Bible places the Ark in the mountains of Ararat, a mountain range theologians believe spans hundreds of miles, which the team says is consistent with their find in Iran.

The Bible also describes the Ark's dimensions as being 300 cubits by 50 cubits — about the size of a small aircraft carrier. The B.A.S.E. Institute's discovery is similar in size and scale.

"It is provocative to think that this could be the lost ark of Noah," Cornuke said

Throughout history, people have been searching for the Ark to help prove God's existence.

"There's this idea, if we can prove that the ark existed then we can prove that the story existed, and more importantly, we can prove that God existed," said Bruce Feiler, author of "Where God Was Born."

There's more on this... Link
5,379 views 43 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
While I find it very interesting, I'm sceptical as always. I've seen this "Ark discovered" story too many times in the past years. I'll be interested to learn of the results of any archeological dig that may take place there (if any).

Under the right conditions, wood can petrify in a relatively short period of time, so at this point assuming it's age would be somewhat foolish. It could turn out to be nothing more than the ruin of an ancient building.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
Under the right conditions, wood can petrify in a relatively short period of time, so at this point assuming it's age would be somewhat foolish. It could turn out to be nothing more than the ruin of an ancient building.


I am with you MasonM. Mt. Helens showed us that. From the pictures I saw I am by no means convinced. Yes I agree it is petrefied wood but I wouldn't run around making such claims at the risk of being a complete fool.
Siege of Centauri
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Under the right conditions, wood can petrify in a relatively short period of time, so at this point assuming it's age would be somewhat foolish."


I've seen petrified wood from all over. My dad brought some back from Texas last week. The reddish stone in particular in the photos almost looks agatized. There's a difference between silicification and full petrification, and somehow I doubt you found fossilized sea creatures in the trees near Mount St. Helens.

That's assuming it is wood at all. I've seen a lot of freaky geological features. We have areas here in Kentucky where water washes out slices of softer limestone leaving harder rock standing up in sheets that you would swear were man-made walls. The stratification of a lot of stone looks like wood.

Really, the fast silicification argument could shoot a hole in the argument that this is Noah's ark. If this is due to a phenomenon that can take place over the course of a hundred years or less, then there's no really reason to believe this is Bible-era ancient at all, is there?. The real test of this is whether they'll turn their data over to be independantly verified, or if we'll keep getting hazy "when tested was found to be petrified wood" stuff.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
Wow, so does that mean you think of Hitler as a hero too?


*puzzled* what's the connection between Hitler, Hus & Luther that would make me put Hitler on this list?

Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
#29 by BakerStreet
Mon, July 03, 2006 4:54 PM

So basically you're saying you will refuse to believe it no matter what scientific study reveals?
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
yup pretty much.......

and they say we are closed minded......hmmmm?

and I've been to Mt. St. Helens....it was quite a boon for the creationists side. Turned out to be a mini lab for them. I think it was God trying to get our attention yet again.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
Nah, it's just another volcano
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
Nah, it's just another volcano


ya.......right.....
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
"So basically you're saying you will refuse to believe it no matter what scientific study reveals?"


Where did I say that? No, I won't believe it if they hoard the materials and don't allow independant verfication, but no one with a brain should.

Anyway, believe what? At what point am I a villain for letting common sense step in. Just because it looks like wood doesn't make it wood. Just because it is wood doesn't make it a boat. Just because it is a boat doesn't make it Noah's boat. Just because it is Noah's boat... and on and on.

I'm not the dishonest one here. You can look at these conversations and see who is open to new discovery and who constantly uses old, tired arguments that even creationists have given up on. What is frightening to me is how easy it is for creationists to embrace falsehood.

Look at the history of the debate. Look how many mistakes or outright lies have been uncovered in the creationist arguments. Look at previous claims about supposed Noah's Ark finds. These are supposedly people who have a religious edict to follow in terms of lying, and yet every word has to be taken with a grain of salt.

No, I won't JUST believe JUST what any creationist says, because creationists are notorious for lying, be it intentional or just blindly believing someone else's lies. There are only a handful of young-earth creationists with any semblance of integrity left. I'll grant KFC that Mr. Ham is among them, though I think he still works backwards, twisting fact to prove belief instead of adjusting belief to fit the facts.

Go back through that list on answersingenesis.com and ask yourself how many times you've heard creationists use those arguments. Now, are they lying, or are they just indoctrinated to believe falsehood? There's a fine line between the two when you've been shown something is false and yet you persist to use it when you think you can get away with it, imho.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
#35 by BakerStreet
Tue, July 04, 2006 05:29 AM


You're too easy. Read my comment #27 again, I actually agree with you here, I'm just egging things on a bit for my own amusement.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hmmmm so creationists are liars now Baker? Have you ever read the history of Darwin? Have you ever read his wife's take on all this? I always thought she was the one with the brains in the family. She accused him of what you accuse the creationists of doing. Hiding evidence to further his theory. Read her letters sometime.

I like that you reason with your brains. I admire that. But I think also that you have your mind firmly planted in the other direction. You dismiss too quickly without much thought when it comes to what the creationist says. I don't think Ham is doing any twisting at all. BTW he wrote a book called "Evolution, The Lie." Maybe you should read it sometime.

I plan on checking out his museum when it opens next spring.....are you? Or are you already too willing too dismiss anything the creationist's have to say?.

Anyway, believe what? At what point am I a villain for letting common sense step in. Just because it looks like wood doesn't make it wood. Just because it is wood doesn't make it a boat. Just because it is a boat doesn't make it Noah's boat. Just because it is Noah's boat... and on and on.


Here's what I mean. Yes I agree to a point. But even if they come up and say it's a boat, and the door is missing (previous accounts thru the years) and the dimensions are pretty close to what we see biblically, you won't believe unless we see fossils of animals or some such thing in there. Your unbelief will never be satisfied. I actually take the previous accounts with a grain of salt myself as I'm pretty skeptical. I took need more than he said, she said. So I say, let's just wait and see what develops here.

Having said that, for whatever reason I believe you really don't want the book to be proven. Jesus spoke of the ark didn't he?

John Calvin claimed that there is a tremendous bias and prejudice built into the human heart that only the influence of God the Holy Spirit can overcome. He distinguished between what he called the undicia-those objective evidences for the trustworthiness of scripture-and what he called the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit which is necessary to cause us to surrender to the evidence and acknowledge that the bible is the word of God and the words therein are truth.



Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
" Hmmmm so creationists are liars now Baker? "


People who say things they know to be untrue are liars, yes. Too many times I have heard arguments come from young earth creationists who then turn around and admit that that they've used false arguments 'to make a point', or as over-simplification, yadda yadda yadda. They ask you if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys, they make demands for proof of phenomenon that evolution never even predicts, they deny that speciation ever occured when even young-earth creationists admit it.

Do I hold creationists to a higher standard of the truth? You bet. After all, it isn't just a matter of ideals for them, it is a mandate from God. When someone misrepresents things knowingly or exagerates to smear the beliefs of people they oppose, etc., it flies in the face of the book and beliefs they are standing there promoting.

"I plan on checking out his museum when it opens next spring.....are you? Or are you already too willing too dismiss anything the creationist's have to say?. "


I don't dismiss anything without a reason to dismiss it. You act like I am some christian-burning atheist, but I'm not. As far as I am concerned there's no reason to reject any Christian description of creation outright unless there's reason to believe otherwise. The difference between the two of us is that I am willing to rethink that description when faced with good reason, and you believe anything you see counter to it has to be false.

Therefore, I don't see how you can say that I am too quick to dismiss anything. You've admitted that you would dismiss anything or anyone that denied the biblical account. Kind of nutty to start saying other people dismiss too quickly.

" But even if they come up and say it's a boat, and the door is missing (previous accounts thru the years) and the dimensions are pretty close to what we see biblically, you won't believe unless we see fossils of animals or some such thing in there."


I've lived my life around relic hunters, antique peddlers, gold and gem miners, etc., through my dad. You learn to deal with fakers and liars. You learn to smell them when your next trip to buy groceries depends on the deals you make with them. No, things don't have to be proven 100% to be believed, BUT the more insane the claim, the more evidence needed.

If you have an antique pen, you don't have to work hard to prove that it is from the revolutionary war period. If you are going to claim that it was the pen used to sign the constitution, well, that takes a LOT more provenance. The claim is that it is a boat; that it is an ancient boat older than any we've ever found before; that it is a boat owned by a particular man who no one can even prove existed.

Therefore find the boat, you prove the existence of the owner of the boat. On top of that, the claim would supposedly prove the Bible to be true. It is a boat that people are going out SPECIFICALLY to find, and therefore squeezing every bit of data they have to prove their point. Right now we have a lot of rock on the top of a mountain that may or may not be fossilized wood. Heck, who needs more proof than that?

When paleontologists do that with fossils you dismiss it offhand, but then when someone looks for Noah's Ark, skepticism is obviously a lack of faith. Yes, if they find Noah's name carved on the door, you're going to have to prove to me that we're talking about the same Noah. The more fantastic the claim, the heavier the burden of proof required.

If you feel differently, I'm sure I could round you up a piece of the original cross, a toothpick Elvis used, or a splinter from George Washington's wooden teeth. Whichever would be easiest for you to believe. If I claim it is a piece of the cross, though, you'd be lacking faith to doubt it, right?
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
That in the end is what undermines creationism as a whole. Creationists say, right out in the open, that no matter what proof is given, they'll never doubt the Genesis story. It is a matter of faith, and if God came down and told them it was false they'd refuse to believe He is God.

In the same breath they say that people who are skeptical of the Bible dismiss things too quickly. When someone doubts the newest burial shroud or Noah's Ark that some con artists is pushing, then you 'really don't want the book to be proven do you?'
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
In the same breath they say that people who are skeptical of the Bible dismiss things too quickly. When someone doubts the newest burial shroud or Noah's Ark that some con artists is pushing, then you 'really don't want the book to be proven do you?


now come on Baker, you don't think I'm that bad do you? Hint: I've never believed the burial shroud. Not for a moment. I've already told you I'm a skeptic and don't believe things very easily.

That in the end is what undermines creationism as a whole. Creationists say, right out in the open, that no matter what proof is given, they'll never doubt the Genesis story


I've never said that. God doesn't expect that of me either. He wants us to use our brains. That's actually scriptual you know. I'm afraid tho not too many Christians know this.

There has not been any proof as of yet. So it's a moot point. Again God never contradicts his word. How would we be able to know he was God? John said we were to test the spirits. One of the tests would be to go back to what was written just as Jesus did. It is written, it is written he would say. He always went back to scripture.....always. He never went to tradition....never.

I understand what you're saying Baker about not believing lightly everything that comes down the pike and I agree with you. But remember this boat was not just any ordinary boat. It was unlike anything else and many modern shipbuilders have studied the dimensions of this and found them to be quite extrodinary and have copied the formula for the big boats we have today. I believe everything in scripture is there for a specific purpose. In this case the dimensions are very specific even the detail about the windows and the door and the pitch. I believe it's going to come into play someday.....if this is not it then when the real one shows up.

You know what the pitch was? Kapher in the Hebrew which is the same word for atonement. This was a picture of Christ. Just as the boat was sealed with this Kapher so are Christians sealed with the atoning blood of Christ. It all fits. This was a picture of Noah and his family being called out and saved just like the Christians of today are being called out and saved as well.

Do I hold creationists to a higher standard of the truth? You bet.


I agree wholeheartedly. WE AGREE HERE. This is a sore point for me. How can you be sure they are really Christians tho? Many use that term today because they like the idea of it. They like the benefits or so they think....But a Christian follows Christ and lying deliberately is not the way to do so.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
"now come on Baker, you don't think I'm that bad do you?"


I have no way of knowing, honestly. I've offered a pretty reasonable explaination of the difficulties of proving this is Noah's ark. At least I think so. When I do, though, you accuse me of not wanting the Bible proved correct. Like I've said before, I'm cool with it if it is proved 100% correct, but I don't build houses on sand, and frankly anyone who thinks that pile of rock is going to prove anything to anyone isn't as skeptical as they think they are.

When people jump to believe the weaker arguments against evolution or in favor of stuff like this, they have booby-trapped themselves. Later, when the evidence falls out from under them, the stigma of the mistake will rub off on everything else they propose. Christianity has suffered from that since the very beginning.

I just think when people like Mr Ham adamantly insist that this or that can't be true, he risks the same mistakes that have occured in the past, like the dreaded Galileo example. Right now creationists are called 'flat earthers' by many bigoted proponents of evolution. When you stick your neck out and say that a thing is true or the whole thing isn't, you've set up 'the whole thing' for a fall it doesn't deserve.

It's a shame, but it is true. Credibility is important, and while science has a lot of black eyes, religion, in terms of science, is one long string of black eyes from the beginning on. If literalists would just have the faith to let their message be their message and not feel it necessary to replace science with belief, there wouldn't be nearly as many.

" agree wholeheartedly. WE AGREE HERE. This is a sore point for me. How can you be sure they are really Christians tho? Many use that term today because they like the idea of it. They like the benefits or so they think....But a Christian follows Christ and lying deliberately is not the way to do so."


Well, not all creationists are Christians. Jews who believe the literal description of creation would be creationists, too. Islam probably has a LOT more creationists than either of the other two religions, frankly, given their even more strict beliefs about the inerrancy of the Koran.

I hope you don't think I am sitting over here foaming at the mouth with anger and hate. If you've watched me in other discussions over the years you'll know that this is pretty tame, and even if it wasn't people that I have conversations like this are usually as friendly to me afterward as before, and vice versa. I don't have whatever tactful bone it is that lets people say things I differ with slide by, though. That's just me.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think there is a difference between unbelief and unconvinced.

Baker you sound unconvinced to me. I don't hear hard heartedness in your replies. They are logical and easy to follow.

Thomas was unconvinced of the resurrection, though he knew Jesus personally.

It took Christ Himself to convince Thomas...no other report, no matter how reliable, was believable or LOGICAL to him.

I believe as long as your heart is open to the possibilities then God will convince you or not convince you as He knows you need.

I believe the Bible draws me nearer to God, it helps me know Him better. Since I can't sit down and have tea with Him literally, He gave me this wonderful book to tell me all about Himself. And He didn't make it only the feel good stories either...

And when I am in the Word daily my life is good, full, rich. When I am not, I miss it and feel somewhat separated.....but that is me.

Believing the Bible to be inerrant is not the basis of salvation. There are people around the world who have never read a word of the scripture but have accepted Jesus as Lord based on HEARING alone.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
geeeeesh T...nothing to disagree with here.....you're no fun.....

but I don't build houses on sand, and frankly anyone who thinks that pile of rock is going to prove anything to anyone isn't as skeptical as they think they are.


who said anything about a pile of rocks? Not me. If this is indeed the Ark (too early yet to tell) it will be very clear as clear as the finding of the dead sea scrolls. There won't be any question. Will it make believers out of Atheists? No not unless the spirit of God is moving in that person's heart.....a spiritual birth has to take place for that to happen and only God gives life...both physical and spiritual. We do nothing to be born the first time and we do nothing to be born the second is what I believe. But I do believe this will push those close over the edge as God uses this to get their attention. Like I said before....God gives a bit more light to every generation. I like to read the reformers like Luther, Calvin and Matt Henry but I can see they were limited. They could only go so far as God allowed for that time.

Right now creationists are called 'flat earthers' by many bigoted proponents of evolution.


now why is that? Right in scripture a creationist reads about the circle of the earth. The religionists of old are not the creationists of today. I see a big difference between religionists (either past or present) who only want to protect and promote their man made religion and the Christians who are genuinely seeking the face of God. I am a true creationist but understand that true Science is a friend of the scriptures not an enemy. God created Science.

science has a lot of black eyes


True Science is fine, it's pseudo Science just like pseudo Christianity that is the problem.

If you've watched me in other discussions over the years


no I haven't read or watched you much since I'm fairly new here still......just since November. But I'll try to keep an eye open for you.

people that I have conversations like this are usually as friendly to me afterward as before, and vice versa. I don't have whatever tactful bone it is that lets people say things I differ with slide by, though. That's just me.


ya, even tho we're on differing sides here on the literal scripture and the creation controversy I too hope we can still be friendly. I have no qualms with being friendly with those of differing opinions. In fact I like to see what makes people tick...what they believe and why. Sometimes you do come across angry to me, but maybe I do too. It's hard to tell without the visuals and tone of voice in conversation.

In my heart of hearts I want them to find the ark soon. I really believe that will happen someday. When they do, I believe the time will be short before the trump sounds. When the trumpet sounds, just like in ancient Judaism.....it's time to move.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
"who said anything about a pile of rocks?"


Looks like a pile of rocks to me, so far. It definately looks nothing like a boat.

"now why is that? Right in scripture a creationist reads about the circle of the earth."


Come on, now. Christians were using arguments from the Bible to prove the earth was flat just like they were using scripture to prove the sun revolved around the earth. And, if I may be so bold, as you are using scripture to 'prove' that the earth is 6000 years old. Someday when Christianity has finally discarded the young earth idea, someone will be sitting in your place trying to convince someone like me that the Bible had always been scientifically correct.

If the Bible can be a scientific guide, it is strange that scriptures about science are always cited after the discoveries are made by secular powers. It's like a psychic that always claims to have known something before it happens, but doesn't bother letting anyone know until after.

"I see a big difference between religionists (either past or present) who only want to protect and promote their man made religion and the Christians who are genuinely seeking the face of God."


And that's why we'll never be able to really agree on much. You are protecting your beliefs just like they were. There's no difference at all between what you are doing here and what you call 'religionists' were doing then. Many christians right now are seeking the authority to impose their views, and frankly I have no doubt that if those same people had been around during the inquisition they'd have been imposing it with the rack.

There's no difference between someone promoting their religion, and your estimation that you are just promoting the 'truth'. Both are just subjective beliefs. They thought their religion was the truth too. How exactly are you different?

It is the height of mean-spirited arrogance to pretend that they didn't aspire to see the face of God as much as you or anyone else. Almost as bad as seeing their failures and haughty pride in their beliefs and still emulating it, ignoring the pitfalls.