I recently saw something on the internet that said if the Ark was found that it will prove the existence of god and disprove evolution and geological aspects
thoughts?
No more than the discovery of the place of the battle of Troy proved the existence of the pagan Gods talked about in Homer.
If the Ark story wasn’t tied to Creationism (i.e. if the Creation story was allegory, especially time wise) and if they found a boat of such description as the Ark on top of a mountain with evidence of trillions of animals having been on it, and if they could find evidence of a flood that covered the world a few thousand years ago, during man’s civilized existence, then it could well prove the Ark story, but not the existence of God–only that such an event occurred.
Perhaps putting it in such terms will emphasize its absurdity, but probably only to those who already considered it absurd. Meanwhile, we can only file this under the Interesting Myth category.
While I would disagree with Mr. Painfull Truth’s characterization of the “boat” (and surrounding circumstances) in question, I would agree with the conclusion that…if found…it would do nothing more than prove the historical legitimacy of certain aspects of Genesis.
No respected scholar in the scholarly world (to my knowledge) would claim that Jesus Christ did not exist. His existence doesn’t send droves of people into the church. My point being that many historical claims in the Bible have already been proven true to no effect.
A very relevant illustration to present here…(especially in light of PainFull’s uninformed construction of the Ark story) would be an allusion to the Gestalt Beast.
readingshakespeare.org/Lessons/C … tBeast.jpg
You see…even if the ark were found…some would view it as a duck…and others as a rabbit. That is to say…some would interpret the fact of its existence differently than others based on apriori bias’. This is the case with all facts, as PainFull truth demonstrates.
Supposing thousands, if not millions of years of pre-flood animal life, the ark would have to be big enough to hold “trillions” of animals. However, supposing a consistently Biblical framework we can see the flood came at most only a few hundred years after creation…therefore, there would only be a few thousand (at most) parent “types” on board. Instead of two polar bears, two grizzlies, and two pandas…you would have two parent bear “types” with the genetic makeup of all the species of bear found today. A few thousand baby (sheep sized) animals wouldn’t take up that much space at all. ( For a look at the Christian “ark” model, see John Woodmorappe’s book on the subject. It’s considered THE definitive work on the flood / ark model and answers many of the questions involved.)
? (And that’s Paineful)
[/quote]
A few hundred years after Creation, the Solar System wasn’t even in existence. If you insist on a few hundred years after the Solar System was created, the planets had not even collected from the dust surrounding the Sun. And if you insist on a few hundred years after the Earth was formed, it was still molten rock with only water vapor that wouldn’t condense into oceans for millions of years. And it was millions of years after that before single celled animals appeared, and billions of years after that before mammals appeared, and millions of years after that before man appeared.
Faith cannot be explained with reason if is isn’t originally based on reason. Reason guides faith, faith supports reason.
? (And that’s Paineful, as in Thomas Paine.)
A few hundred years after Creation, the Solar System wasn’t even in existence. If you insist on a few hundred years after the Solar System was created, the planets had not even collected from the dust surrounding the Sun. And if you insist on a few hundred years after the Earth was formed, it was still molten rock with only water vapor that wouldn’t condense into oceans for millions of years. And it was millions of years after that before single celled animals appeared, and billions of years after that before mammals appeared, and millions of years after that before man appeared.
Faith cannot be explained with reason if is isn’t originally based on reason. Reason guides faith, faith supports reason.
Mr. PainFull,
This is essentially an epistemological question, and hence your reversion to discussions of “faith and reason” are appropriate, though misguided in my opinion.
You base “reason” as your foundational method of deriving knowledge about the world, and place faith (if such a thing even exists) under the dominion of reason. But then, the question arises, why do you trust your own reason? It seems that faith in reason is “higher” than reason after all…(at least in your system.)
So you’re stuck in a viscous circularity involving your true epistemological foundation.
Did you examine the image of the Gestalt Beast? When you talk about the universe and how it came to be as if it were some sort of established fact, you’re doing nothing more than critiquing the “ark” story through the lens of your own biased presuppositions. You’re viewing the world as a duck, and trying to explain the “Ark story” in terms of the duck…when all the while, I, as a Christian view it from the standpoint of the rabbit.
Thus, the question arises as to which of our authorities are actually authoritative enough to proclaim objective validity over the matter in question.
My authority Authorizes Himself (through various means that need to be further explained. See my “Problematic Christians and Consistent Text” series of posts) while yours is just arbitrarily assumed. (You arbitrarily assume the authority of reason…all the while claiming arbitrary faith in an authority is invalid. Thus your authority refutes itself on an epistemological basis.)
To conclude, the existence of an ark on some mountain will not only FAIL to demonstrate the truth of the Christian position, it will inevitably be funneled through the lens of your anti-Christian presuppositions and simply get grafted into your non-Christian explanation of the natural world. I don’t know how you’ll do it…perhaps you would deny that the “ark” found is the same “ark” discussed in Genesis. Or perhaps you would admit that it’s the same ark, only the story itself in Genesis is a fabricated legend arising from a seed of truth. However you explain it, the fact of its existence (if discovered) would not change your foundational view. It would merely find a natural place.
Only when your heart is regenerated by the monergistic quickening of the Holy Spirit will you filter the fact of an “ark” through a new set of presuppositions…allowing you to see the true marvel of such a find.
Priceless!
Good critiques are also priceless…
I’m with Shotty on this one:
The idea in this passage, being that a person will place findings of anything allegedly religious in relation wherever they intend it to sit naturally in line with their already approved view of the reality, is pretty accurate.
In the topics case; I don’t think finding the ark would ever be resounding evidence to convince masses of any given religious truth’s.
Various other artifacts have surfaced somewhat similarly and have made no effect to the direct belief conversion of masses.
If an Ark is found it will obviously be proof of the veracity of the Gilgamesh flood story which predates the Pentateuch. The Gods instructed Utnapishtim to build an ark, the design of which is copied by the Bible in exacting detail, on which his family is allowed to survive the Flood. Of course, one may quibble that remains of the Ark would only prove that Utnapishtim built it, not that the Gods are real, but it would be pretty compelling circumstantial evidence.
NOTE: The highlighted sections show the only two truly new elements grafted onto the older Epic of Gilgamesh, namely that the destruction of the Earth was to punish human wickedness and that a covenant was arranged preventing another flood. I think it’s pretty clear that the biblical authors deliberately lifted the older story because it was familiar to everyone but changed elements to demonstrate how the fledgling faith of Judaism was different.
Keep in mind that the creation of Judaism comes from a highly nomadic group of people.
It was far later that they stopped being nomadic.
Well, to the point, the original point was directly this:
To which, you accurately responded:
But even beyond that, even if gods were able to be proven by this, the stance of evolution does not hinge on either the flood myth, nor gods; so that claim is a bit steep, if none of the others are.
I think most scholarly opinion supports that the Epic of Gilgamesh is older than the Pentateuch. Perhaps far older. And it is thought to be based on an older story that predates written language. The point where it seems to have settled into the “familiar” form is likely about 1,000 years before the Old Testament was finalized.
Yeah, that’s what I was getting at in a tongue-in-cheek way.
Come to think of it…I wonder just how far back we have record of the Hebrews…hmmm…
maybe provide a link?
this is heresay.
They thought they found noah’s ark years ago, stuck in a mountain.
They have since learned that it was not an ark, but a natural rock formation.
Behold the ark:
Yeah, I saw that documentary too, and I wasn’t impressed - wishful thinking and grasping, spring to mind…
Any vessel found within a hundred miles of the biblical description will be accepted as the Ark, and it will likely be given a date that encompasses several hundred years, lending to the self-validation effect.
When will people begin to accept the bible as a book of parables and contemporary political narratives?