Posted on 06/30/2006 8:26:43 AM PDT by DannyTN
There are (and were) many Byzantine era shrines in the Dead Sea area to St. Lot. The Pillar of Salt is mentioned by quite a few people that traveled to that area. In fact, there are still formations called "Lot's wife" of large salt pillars that are very popular tourist destinations.
As to the Ark, well part of me really hopes it is true. Kind of a dream of mine. But I doubt it. Most old accounts of the ark place it in what is now Turkey (Plato, Eusubias, etc), so Iran isn't that probable.
You're not factoring in the God effect.
How did Jesus feed the multitude with just a few fish and a couple of loaves?
You cannot apply natural laws to God.
I don't know, I wasn't there.
"What about Helen Thomas? "
Is she a living thing? Does she breathe? If not, she wouldn't have had to have been on the ark. Does she breathe? Is she even an earth creature? Demons wouldn't have needed to be on the ark.
Interesting. Wonderful.
I'm not sure what a world wide flood that covers the tops of the highest mountains looks like. I don't know what geological processes occurred during the flood or afterwards either, but it sounds like they were intense with "mountains rising and valleys falling".
"Ever think that the flood story is a lesson that was not to be taken as a literal event?"
No because Jesus refers to them as real. If there was a misconception, I think He would have corrected it or at the very least not perpetuated it.
The following article provides scripture references for Jesus's comments regarding the flood. In addition, it lists several evidences for the flood and refutes the claim that it was only a local flood.
Was the flood global?
The apostle Peter in 2 Peter 3 even warned that people would assume that "all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation" and thereby forget creation and the flood.
But again, what you think is irrelevant and likely incorrect. Who are we to guess or second-guess the infinitely complex reasoning of God. Just because it seems reasonable to you does not make it reasonable to God.
Any geologist can quickly recognize that this rock is not from wood and is not related in any way to an 'ark'.
I'm sure there are perfectly logical reasons for finding a 400-foot long boat 15,000 feet above sea level. (/sarcasm, I think)
I posted some articles in this thread on rapid petrification of wood. But I don't claim that the conditions on the mountain mimic the conditions necessary for rapid petrification.
If they really did find petrified wood up there, then there are only three possibiliities. Either the wood petrified in place up there by some process. Petrified wood was carried up there. Or the wood was petrified prior to that rock being elevated to mountain status.
If a nail you're seeing is just a tiny bit below and to the left of dead center, I don't believe that's a nail, but I'm not sure what it is.
If you go the article linked in post 15, you find that they had a geologist with them who said the following...
Reg Lyle, oil and gas geologist said “the object appears to be a basalt dike, however, it is absolutely uncanny that the object looks like hand hewn timbers, even the grain and color look just like petrified wood….I really need to keep an open mind about this.”
But they are also reporting that tests run on the samples of the rock they brought back are showing it to be petrified wood.
*She is the sole evidence supporting the hopeful monster theory
A basalt dike, eh? Well, this would be the first basalt dike ever seen with stratification and layering!
Basalt is igneous in origin; this is a metamorphosed sedimentary rock formation. And if you were to follow it back in the mountainside, it would extend far longer than any imaginable ark, for 1000's of yards, maybe miles.
The qualifications of this Lyle 'geologist' are extremely suspect. Making so simple an error about a basalt dike would get him flunked in every freshman geology course.
Dikes come from intruded magma, like, y'know, it's hot. Dikes then always cause each side to show signs of baking, that is, mineral alteration of the country rock. Evidence of this? Hmm. Lyle is either a complete phony (follow the money from his speaking tour!) or is so blinded by desire-to-believe that he is incapable of honest judgment.
Oh, it is probably galvanized, stainless steel or titanium. Noah would not have used common iron if he was thinking about leaving evidence for the ages. /sarc/
In that hour, he that shall be on the housetop, and his goods in the house, let him not go down to take them away: and he that shall be in the field, in like manner, let him not return back. Remember Lot's wife.
*I gotta go with Jesus one this one :)
If Constantine's mother Helen didn't find this artifact, I don't believe it. :-)
There is an ark story that puts the ark in the region of Kashmir after it was driven up along the valley of the Indus River which is present day Pakistan.
Yes I read the article you linked to. But that was a very unique situation where the wood was submerged into a volcanic pool which is loaded with dissolved minerals, and it certainly is not the way most petrified wood is formed.
My guess is that this find in Iran is not petrified wood. But even if it is, it can be dated by radiometric dating, and it would have to test out as being 4,000 years old or less to remain a candidate for being the ark.
And then there's the problem that exposed wood does not petrify. That's not how the process works.
Way too many problems with this story, in my opinion.
There is an ark-like, flood story in 100 or more creation myths from various human societies.
Let them all be compared and see if Genesis can hold. Teach the controversy!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.