See the real story of this "discovery" : http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2010/04/noahs-ark-paleobabble-update
peter On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 10:15 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence <[email protected]>wrote: > We are generally in agreement, I think, actually. > > On 04/28/2010 02:34 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > > And it doesn't matter. Fundamentalists, generally, corrupt their > > religion, that's my position. (And I will distinguish these from those > > who simply seek to discover and practice the "fundamentals" of their > > religion, which is something entirely different. Fundamentalism in > > Christianity is a kind of sect, not the true seeking of the > > fundamentals.) > > Absolutely! > > I really had just one point. Let me quote briefly, then restate it: > > On 04/28/2010 02:34 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > [sal said:] > >> The point is, if it's not literally true *as* *written* then, as I > >> said, there's no reason to expect to find the Ark on Ararat, or > >> anywhere else -- and it's obviously not literally true. End of > >> lecture. > > > > Good. The mention of a place name is interesting. See > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountains_of_Ararat. This is not one > > specific mountain, apparently. The connection between the modern > > Mount Ararat and the resting-place of the Ark is quite a stretch, > > indeed. You are assuming, apparantely, that the text refers to a > > specific mountain. Ararat, actually, refered to a region, not a > > specific mountain, and thus could refer to just about anything > > including, yes, hills, or the foothills of mountains. > > > My point was this: The thing which makes any "find" of bits of wood or > boat-like things on the slopes of Mount Ararat interesting to a lot of > people is the *BELIEF* that the Ark came to rest on Mount Ararat. > > The only basis for that belief is the (assumed) inerrancy of Genesis. > In fact, once we admit Genesis is not inerrant, and once we recognize > that that section of Genesis seems to be based on the (older) story > found in Gilgamesh, which doesn't mention Ararat at all in any form, we > see that there is no rational reason to associate the ark in any way > with Ararat. > > And so some ancient pieces of wood found on Ararat are just that -- some > pieces of wood found on Ararat. And the news of their discovery should > be of no particular interest. > > ** ** ** > > In fact, I find news stories like the one cited intensely annoying, > because they are taken by many people as more "evidence" that Genesis is > all true, and the Flood happened just as it says, and so the Earth must > really be just 6000 years old and so on and so forth... and this feeds > into global warming denial and a lot of other pernicious beliefs, > through somewhat contorted paths. Hold to one incorrect assumption in > the face of clear evidence to the contrary, and you can wind up in all > kinds of incorrect places. > > ** ** ** > > As to the "hours would be as days" reasoning which allows "7 days" to be > a synonym for "billions of years", that exact sort of reasoning is used > to dodge all questions of errors in the Bible. It's what makes > creationism untestable, and therefore invalid as a theory. > >
