? about GLOBAL FLOOD if ARK FOUND

one

How "global" has to be a flood that covers Ararat?

any expert or geologist wanabe in this forum that can relate the recent Tsunami to the above question?

take into consideration what i mentioned in a previous topic

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/83981/1.ashx

Ararat is not as 'tall" as Everest.

In the previous topic i mentioned that, the Everest "peak", less than 6 miles tall, on "top" of the Earth (40000 miles circumference) should look similar to a

grain of salt less than 200 micrometers tall (if you can SEE it) on "top" of a basketball. (30 inch circumference)

I did not reviewed the math but i think it should be 100 micrometers instead of 200, round numbers.

Does a "global" flood can be "proved" by finding the "ark" or some frozen fisth on top of the Ararat?

or by the "fact" that people all around the "globe" have an interesting story about a flood?

It seems like both question can be answered and explained without affirming a "global" flood.

What do you say?

stillajwexelder

Just read The Epic of Gilgamesh - which precedes the flood

Reatta

In round numbers the earth's circumference is 24-25000 miles.

one

Reata,

ok, probably i was thinking 40000 kilometers, anyway the "grain of salt" used in the compartive example stil is no more than 200 micrometer.

The "fact" that people around the globe have an interesting story about a flood is not evidence for a global flood. It has been shown clearly that humans are the ones that spread out from the "fertile crescent" and not the water. The flood was almost certainly a highly localized event. Speaking of doing the math, figure the volume of ark required to contain even pairs of all the types of animals in the world. Actually, only the unclean animals were in pairs.

FairMind

I believe the Bible account of a global flood. Will the ark ever be found? There have been a number of ancient vessels found in the Iraq area that have given rise to the question “could one of them be the ark?” From what I have read the general consensus is no. Several years ago the National Geographic magazine had an article regarding a piece of tar-covered timber that someone had discovered on Mount Ararat in an area where ice had melted. Could this have been a piece of the ark? Maybe, maybe not, my question is how would you know it was the ark if the ark was actually found? An abundance of frozen preserved animal dung might suggest the vessel was the Biblical ark. Finding the Captain’s (Noah) Log would nail it down tight.

FM

Preston

An abundance of frozen preserved animal dung might suggest the vessel was the Biblical ark. Finding the Captain?s (Noah) Log would nail it down tight.

That's a lot of log

- Preston

Jim_TX

"a piece of tar-covered timber that someone had discovered on Mount Ararat in an area where ice had melted. Could this have been a piece of the ark? Maybe, maybe not, my question is how would you know it was the ark if the ark was actually found?"

Well, usually... if old objects are found - scientists will try to carbon-date them.

So, I guess the real question would be... "Would you accept it as 'fact' if there were carbon-dating done on old objects?"

If you answer 'yes' - then stick to that - even if the carbon-dating does not give an answer that you like.

If you answer 'no' - then it is going to be difficult to provide you with _anything_ that can be called 'proof'.

Even if writings were found - 'Noah's Log' as you put it... you may dismiss it as a 'forgery' if the time-line does not line up with what _you_ feel it should.

Regards,

Jim TX

Leolaia

From what I recall, the wood was carbon-dated to AD 300-700.

The literary and archaeological evidence is pretty strong that the story of the Flood ultimately rests on (1) historical floods that devastated Mesopotamia c. 3500 BC and 2900 BC, and (2) archetypal myths which form part of our collective folklore.

heathen

An interesting note here is that the bible does not say the ark landed on mount ararat but on the "mountains" of ararat . I've seen some people claim to have found evidence that the ark landed on the foot hills of mount ararat . I think since the waters had receded that it more likely ther was far more land than what some people assume and it would be stupid to conclude that the ark landed on top of the mountain itself since apparently the dove returned with an olive branch.