Finding Noah’s Ark: Documentary Explores Ongoing Search for Biblical Vessel

Finding NoahIs Noah’s Ark still hiding somewhere today, waiting to be discovered? A documentary coming to theaters nationwide next week explores the ongoing search for the world’s most famous vessel and documents the dangers involved in the centuries-old quest.

According to the Bible, Noah constructed an enormous wooden ark to house his family and representatives of the different animal kinds during the Great Flood. After the floodwaters subsided, the ark came to rest “upon the mountains of Ararat,” according to Genesis 8:4.

Today, Mount Ararat is the tallest mountain in Turkey, with a towering, snow-capped summit and an elevation of nearly 17,000 feet. It consists of two dormant volcanic cones—Greater Ararat and Lesser Ararat.

Is the ark resting somewhere on Mount Ararat to this day? Many experts are convinced it is, and, on October 8, moviegoers around the country will have the chance to witness the latest attempts to locate the vessel.

“Finding Noah: An Adventure of Faith” is a new film that will debut in movie theaters next week. The film’s website invites viewers to experience the search for the ark and see the latest search methods currently being employed.

“Join director/producer Brent Baum and the ‘Finding Noah’ film crew as they follow an expedition of intrepid explorers on a perilous trek up to Mt. Ararat’s desolate summit,” the website says. “There, using state of the art technology and real-time satellite imagery, this team of archeologists, scientists and professional mountaineers will begin a grid work of exploration unlike any before, hoping to finally resolve the age-old question: did Noah and his Ark actually exist?”

More than 600 theaters are scheduled to show the film on October 8. The producers say their documentary will only be in theaters for one day.

  • Connect with Christian News

“Shot in never-before filmed locations and in the harshest of conditions, this unprecedented feature-length documentary shows just how far men are willing to go to discover the truth,” explains the film’s website. “Narrated by Academy Award nominee Gary Sinise, ‘Finding Noah’ is more than a quest for answers, it is a testament of the human spirit, where belief and the need for exploration transcend risk and limitation.”

Adventurers and archeologists who venture onto Mount Ararat face a number of perilous obstacles, including bitter cold, low atmospheric pressure, and treacherous terrain.

Mt. Ararat
Mt. Ararat

“With constant threats of deadly rock slides, hidden crevasses, and glacial ice falls, the Kurdish Rebel held mountain poses great risk to any explorer, let alone those performing a thorough scientific investigation,” the website says.

Biblical scholars have long wondered if Noah’s Ark has survived the thousands of years since the Great Flood. Dr. John Morris, a leading biblical creationist, points out that the Bible does not mention anything about the ark’s survival. However, he believes that “a well-documented and scientifically viable discovery would be quite newsworthy, and it is exciting to consider how it might impact world culture.”

“Questionable claims of Ark discoveries blunt the potential impact of a true discovery,” Morris wrote in an article on the Answers in Genesis website. “But I am convinced and sincerely pray that if found, the Ark will once again warn a rebellious world of the judgment to come. For this reason—on Mt. Ararat and throughout the mountains of that region—I think the search should go on.”

Photo: Facebook

A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Mark Bouckaert

    Or is it the Ark of Gilgamesh? Lol. Both are absolutely ridiculous stories when you think of how big an arc would need to be in order to float a fully stocked Zoo with all the food and water you’d need.

    • bowie1

      An arc is something you draw with a compass.

    • Daniel Rand

      No need to “think of how big an arc would need to be” in order to fit all of the animals. The bible tells you the exact dimensions to the cubit. This has been calculated, and guess what… they would have all fit with room to spare.

      • John N

        All? How many species of animals do you think there ever were on earth?

        For your information: just the number of beetle species is already estimated to be between 850.000 and 4 million. Extant beetles, so to multiply by at least 10 to include the extinct species. And of course one male and one female of each species …. and that’s just one order of animals …

        • Daniel Rand

          The bible is pretty clear that each animal (and creeping thing) was called to the ark “after his kind”. I’m not sure if God would need millions of beetles to enter the ark in order to save “its kind”. Same with many species of animals, where God would only require two (young animals I’m sure) in order to maintain the species after the flood. The story here is that God is the one who called the animals to the ark, not Noah. If God was the one who spoke the species in question into existence in the first place, then I’m pretty sure He wouldn’t have any problem calling and selecting the right species into the ark to restore them after the flood.

          • Mark Bouckaert

            It’s really like Dr. Whos tardis, it’s bigger on the inside. And Noah could also travel instantaneous to any point on the earth with it at any time! Just like Santa does at Christmas.

          • Daniel Rand

            Doesn’t sound like you’ve actually taken the time to honestly study the issue much.

          • Mark Bouckaert

            Sorry but I read the bible for wisdom, it’s not a rulebook nor is it scientifically accurate. Genesis is a take off of the story of gilgamesh from Babylonion times. It’s about 700 years later than that story. And leviticus is a guide for israelis to differentiate themselves from the caanites. Basically a very old set of laws for the land. Really… I eat shellfish and mix my cloth I can’t take that seriously.

          • Daniel Rand

            Such is your right Mark. We can agree to disagree but I myself believe the bible to be a book of wisdom, a rulebook, and is scientifically accurate. It is also a book of prophecy, which in and of itself reveals that its author resides outside our time domain, declaring events centuries before they occur. Take a look at the meanings of the names of Adam and his decendants down to Noah, while we’re on this topic page. You may find it to be an interesting study. All the best.

          • Taylor the Sturdy

            The bible says that rabbits chew their cud. Rabbits don’t produce cud. If the bible lies about scientific facts like that, how can you say it is scientifically accurate?

          • Daniel Rand

            Interesting question. Did you know that the Hebrew phrase for “chew the cud” means “raising up what has been swallowed”? Rabbits and hares practice “refection”, which is similar to rumination. The rabbits food is passed out as a dropping and is re-eaten for nourishment. This process is so similar to what ruminants do what Carl Linnaeus, the father of modern classification, originally classified rabbits and coneys as ruminants. I think that would still classify the Bible as being accurate since the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and we have to account for translation in a fair discussion.

          • Taylor the Sturdy

            Ah but if god was “all-knowing”, wouldn’t he have seen the confusion coming and either made the translation match how we now classify rabbits, or made rabbits so that they are forever classified as ruminants?

          • Daniel Rand

            God provided inspiration to the Old Testament writers and they wrote accurately. The English translaters came along and they used the term “cud”, which is not a bad word to use there. I think we’re just looking to find fault where there isn’t any.

          • Taylor the Sturdy

            There isn’t any fault in the bible? Really? Do you want some examples? We can start with murder. First, what kind of maniac god would try to get a follower to kill his own son? What kind of monster would drown everyone on earth, including innocent children and babies? What kind of insane person would kill all the little boys in Egypt if the didn’t smear sheep flesh on their door?
            We can move on to rape if you want. Did you know that according to the bible, if you rape a woman, all you have to do is pay 50 shekels and you get to marry her whether she wants to or not. And you thought sharia was bad. ..
            We can talk about slavery too, the bible tells you to enslave neighboring villagers. It describes how much to sell certain people for, it never says slavery is wrong, not once.
            You people act like you have a lock on all morality, but if you base your morals on that book, you will end up in prison. American laws do not reflect biblical law at all, and there is a reason for that, we are civilized.

          • Daniel Rand

            Mr. Sturdy, your comments are quite blasphemous and unfortunate but God is merciful and I like you so I’ll try to answer some of your questions if I can. Please keep in mind that this topic is on Noah’s Ark and not the topics you brought up.

            I’m not sure if you’ve actually taken the time to read the Bible for yourself but on the topic of rape, Deuteronomy 22:25-28 says this:

            “But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her.”
            I don’t know where you got the idea that God favors rape but it most definitely wasn’t from the Bible Mr. Sturdy.
            If you don’t understand the reason that God flooded the earth in judgement its because the Church hasn’t done a stellar job of explaining the condition the world was in at the time. Genesis 6 explains a very peculiar event in which the human bloodlines were polluted by fallen angels, called the Bene ‘Ha Elohim, or the Sons of God. The Bible states that the thoughts and deeds of man were evil continually. This included the worst kinds of murder, rape, sexual immorality, child sacrifice to false gods, sins against animals, etc. God saved the only righteous people he could find, and the total was only 8 souls. Pretty scary if that is all there was in that known world.
            As for the Egyptians, they were also busy worshipping their false gods, and enslaved God’s people for 400 years. I hope you didn’t forget about that Mr. Sturdy. God delivered His people and in the process of delivering the plagues, He demonstrated his power and superiority over each of their gods individually. The final plague was brought on by Pharoah himself in the murder of the first born in Egypt. The blood on the door posts was a prophetic sign of the coming Lamb of God, Jesus, who was going to come into the world through the very people He rescued that night.
            You mention morality but the question I have for you is, if there is no God, then where do you get a moral law in the first place? You can’t judge between good and evil without a moral law to judge it against. You can’t have a moral law unless you have a moral law giver. If there is no God, then morality is purely subjective and you would have no basis to judge or declare the actions of criminals, killers, and maniacal despots like Hitler, Mao, Pot, etc. They would each have had a right declare their actions as “good or morally right” in their own minds without a moral law. Moral law was given to us by God in the 10 commandments, which is why our forefathers placed them in courthouses across this country of ours.
            Mr. Sturdy, Christ had to die and shed His blood to rescue us from our sins, which was pointed to by the story of the ark that got us talking in the first place. If Christ did not die and rise again then there would be no hope for us at all. And if God didn’t exist, then neither would we. “Nothing + nothing = nothing”. The world wants you to think that “Nothing + nothing = everything we see”. Hmmm.

          • Steven Thompson

            “Raising up” is not the same thing as “dropping;” having food passed up from the stomach to the mouth is not the same things as passing it through the intestines once before eating it again.

          • John N

            So what is your definition of a ‘kind’? Are all beetles one ‘kind’? If so, how did the millions of species came into existence in just 4000 years? That would mean tens of new species should appear every day. I’m sure somebody would have noticed that …

          • Daniel Rand

            Well John, I’m not entirely sure, of course. But neither is anyone who is really honest about science. We can only know what we observe but that is the issue here. Most people tend to speculate on things that no one has observed, such as macroevolution. Variation of this type is all we have ever witnessed and is exactly what is attested to in Genesis. If macroevolution was in play here, then all of these 350,000 – 4 million beetles all shared the same common ancestor, along with myself, a dandelion, and a guppie. I find that just as hard to believe as you find the story of the ark. However, we both must accept our beliefs by faith.

          • John N

            >’Most people tend to speculate on things that no one has observed, such as macroevolution.

            What is your definition of macroevolution? If you mean evolution beyond the species level, I’m glad to say we have a lot of evidence for that, speculation is not necessary.

            >I find that just as hard to believe as you find the story of the ark.

            Argument of incredulity. What you think is hard to believe, has already been discovered by scientists 150 years ago and is confirmed with every new finding in paleontology, anatomy and molecular biology.

            What I find hard to believe in the story of the Ark is the other way around – the lack of evidence for such an event. Like while the whole earth was flooded up to the highest mountains, none of the people alive at the time – in Egypt, China, India and the America’s – seem to have noticed anything special.

          • Daniel Rand

            I don’t think so John. Macroevolution or a lizard evolving into a bird for example, has never been observed. It has only been observed in charts and books but never in observable science. Scientists will tell you that these things can take millions of years to occur and they hide behind that. I ask for observable proof, otherwise, is it science?
            There are 277 cultural flood stories spanning the globe across various cultures and languages. That doesn’t suggest it wasn’t noticed.

          • John N

            >’Macroevolution or a lizard evolving into a bird for example, has never been observed’

            Well, that’s not what the Theory of Evolution predicts, so how could it be observed? Please read a book on evolution before making such statements.

            >’ I ask for observable proof, otherwise, is it science?’

            Science does not require proof, that’s for mathematicians and lawyers. Science neither requires actions to be observed. In that case, most of archaeology, cosmology, microbiology, physics and chemistry would not be science. Scientific hypothesis need to be testable and falsifiable. Both requirements are met for the Theory of Evolution. Creationism is neither testable nor falsifiable, and has not been observed either, that is why there is no such thing as a ‘Theory of Creation’

            >’There are 277 cultural flood stories spanning the globe across various cultures and languages. That doesn’t suggest it wasn’t noticed.’

            Correct. Floods are a common type of disaster for civilizations built near rivers. And since there are a lot of stories about it, there must have been a lot of survivors, contrary to your global flood story.

          • Steven Thompson

            Humans have pseudogenes (“broken” copies of genes) for a protein used only in egg yolk, in our genomes in the same place (relative to other, functioning genes) as the functional genes for this protein in egg-laying species. There are fossil skulls straddling any dividing line you might wish to draw between “fully-formed humans” and “fully-formed apes.” There is a multitude of other sorts of evidence as well. If you argue that you can know only what you see with your own eyes, you might as well fire every medical examiner, arson investigator, even historian on the planet (yes, historians work with what purports to be eye-witness testimony, but we know that eyewitnesses can lie or be mistaken, so such evidence must be interpreted as much as the circumstantial evidence of, e.g. feather impressions on non-bird dinosaur fossils).

          • Jim H

            “I ask for observable proof,”

            If you are serious, you can begin with the proteins, RNA. or DNA in different species.

            Simply put, the degree of difference between the same proteins (or the DNA or RNA) in different species is proportional to the time since they split apart. So, humans have molecules that are nearly identical to those of chimpanzees, rather more different from those of cows, and very different from those of slime molds. The amount of difference is proportional to the time of divergence on the evolutionary tree.

          • Becky

            You made some excellent points. It’s the same with humans…God didn’t ask Noah to bring specific people with specific features in order to preserve and recreate. Noah’s family were the ones who repopulated the earth. From them came forth every unique feature (eye shape, hair color, height, skin color, etc) that we each were blessed with. Awesome, isn’t it?

          • Daniel Rand

            Extremely awesome. In fact, my bible says, “In the beginning was the Word”. This means matter and energy in the first cause of creation, which makes more scientific sense than what evolutionists want me to believe. They believe that matter just came from nothing, defying the very laws of science they try to hide behind. In light of this, which sounds more like religion and which sounds more like science?

          • Jim H

            First off, I don’t understand why you say “Word” means matter and energy in the first cause of creation”

            “Word” is the translation of the Greek word Logos. The Stoic philosophers identified the term with the divine animating principle pervading the Universe. Under Hellenistic Judaism, Philo (c. 20 BC – AD 50) adopted the term into Jewish philosophy. The Gospel of John identifies the Logos, through which all things are made, as divine (theos), and further identifies Jesus Christ as the incarnate Logos.

            Likewise, you say this is “more scientific sense than what evolutionists want me to believe. They believe that matter just came from nothing, defying the very laws of science they try to hide behind.”

            It is hard to take seriously your accusation that a field of science “tries to hide behind” the laws of science. For one thing, I don’t see how that even makes sense.

            Also, and more importantly, you not only completely misunderstand the theory you are criticizing, you don’t even understand what field of science it concerns.

            Evolution is a biological theory. It has to do with the origins of species. It has nothing to do with the origins of life. It has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. The origins of life would be abiogenesis. The origins of the universe would be physics/cosmology.

            Evolution is about life evolving over time using processes like natural selection. Abiogenesis is about life developing from chemical reactions. Physics/cosmology is about what we can learn about things like inflation, in the early times in the universe based on things like cosmic microwave radiation, the Hubble effect, etc. Theoretical Physics is about theories of what happened before that.

            As far as your comment: “In light of this, which sounds more like religion and which sounds more like science?” I would just say there is no light involved on your part, you seem completely in the dark on this.

          • Daniel Rand

            Jim, I believe you understood that I when I wrote Word, that I was referring to the person of Jesus Christ. Whom the Bible informs us was in the beginning with God and that all thing were made by Him. We don’t need an instruction on Stoic philosophy and Hellenistic Judaism to understand the point I was trying to convey.
            The same is true with my use of the word Evolutionists as a general term. I mean, I’ve never heard of anyone using anything else in common discussion. I think you got my meaning really well and are just being unreasonable at this point, especially on how you turned negative towards me personally at the end. It’s a pity because I thought we were having a respectful conversation on the Internet, which is quite rare. Take care of yourself Jim. All the best.

          • Jim H

            “when I wrote Word, that I was referring to the person of Jesus Christ. Whom the Bible informs us was in the beginning with God and that all thing were made by Him.”

            Your sentence hardly made that clear.

            ‘In fact, my bible says, “In the beginning was the Word”. This means matter and energy in the first cause of creation,’

            For one thing I had to assume you meant ” This means matter and energy is (not “in”) the first cause of creation,’. If I was wrong please explain what that sentence meant by “matter and energy in the first cause of creation”.

            What I was pointing out is that the Logos is not matter and energy.

            John 1:1-3 simply says:

            “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.”

            There is no reference to the Word/Logos used anything to make everything. That would mean that matter would have been created, or come from, nothing. That is exactly what you decried accused “evolutionists” for supposedly saying.

            I apologize for presenting the fact that John didn’t invent it and that non-Christians used that term long before John put it in the Christian scriptures, but I’m not sure why you were offended.

            “The same is true with my use of the word Evolutionists as a general term. I mean, I’ve never heard of anyone using anything else in common discussion. ”

            I’m not trying to be ignorant, but that just shows how little information you, and the people you discuss evolution, actually know about the subject.

            “I think you got my meaning really well and are just being unreasonable at this point, especially on how you turned negative towards me personally at the end.”

            The only point I got was that your comment was really off base. Saying that evolutionist wants you to believe the universe came from nothing is like saying your otolaryngologist (ears nose and throat doctor) advises you to get your prostate removed.

            I turned negative towards you personally at the end, because I was amazed and disappointed that you would make a comment like that. I expected better of you.

          • Jim H

            “Same with many species of animals, where God would only require two (young animals I’m sure) in order to maintain the species after the flood.”

            Are you not aware of Genesis 7:2, which says:

            “Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate.”
            That is a lot more animals.

            Also, apparently, whoever wrote that verse realized that Genesis 9:3 said: “Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

            If you just took two as soon as you ate one the species go extinct. I guess whoever wrote Genesis 6:19-20, what you reference, didn’t think of that:
            “And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.…”

          • Daniel Rand

            Jim, it would appear that Noah and his family were pretty faithful to God and his commandments, otherwise they would not have been part of His rescue plan to save man and the animals from the very real flood that is well documented amongst hundreds of cultures. They would not have eaten the animals that were only spared in twos, as that would have been silly and self defeating. I believe that if Noah believed God enough to spend 100 years faithfully building the ark then he would have also been smart enough to pack some supplies for the trip. I mean, I do that when I pack for a weekend trip with my family and I’m not half the man that Noah was. He packed enough for his family to remain in the ark for the trip.
            Also, why was the command given to take only the “clean animals” in 7 pairs? Was it for sacrifice? Consumption? Was God was making preparation for the giving of the law after the restoration of man. Either way, God always provides my friend.
            It has been estimated that the ark would have been able to contain 180,000 full sized sheep, which most of the animals were nowhere near. If you judge by how precise the universe and the perfect balance we see in nature, I would imagine that God would have called young animals on the ark to make this work logistically. It has been estimated that the high estimate of animals in pairs representing the species in Noah’s day, along with 5,000 clean animals, would have totaled 75,000 or 42% of the total estimated capacity. Again, room to spare.

          • Jim H

            Could I ask who exactly developed the estimate that there were 75,000 animals on the Ark?

          • Daniel Rand

            Only air breathing animals needed to be on the ark. I’ve read this estimate numerous times by authorities on taxonomy, who have estimated that there are less than 18,000 species of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians today. To estimate high numbers taken on the ark, the number was doubled to allow for extinct animals to 36,000 species. Multiply by two and add the clean animals.

          • Jim H

            The reason that I asked you who made those estimates, is that they seem very low.
            According to Science Daily:
            That is a new, estimated total number of species on Earth — the most precise calculation ever offered — with 6.5 million species found on land and 2.2 million (about 25 percent of the total) dwelling in the ocean depths.

            Announced today by Census of Marine Life scientists, the figure is based on an innovative, validated analytical technique that dramatically narrows the range of previous estimates. Until now, the number of species on Earth was said to fall somewhere between 3 million and 100 million.

            Furthermore, the study, published by PLoS Biology, says a staggering 86% of all species on land and 91% of those in the seas have yet to be discovered, described and catalogued.

          • Daniel Rand

            Those are definately interesting numbers. I have also seen those numbers but the estimates that I’m referring to are limited to those species that are suggested to have been brought on the ark. Those are air breathing creatures and are limited to mammals, birds, reptials and amphibians. It is debated whether other kinds would have required a passenger ticket. I appreciate the information and will continue to investigate truth in science.

          • Jim H

            There are also close to I,000,000 species of insects, that equates to 2,000,000 of them. I’m not sure why you didn’t include them. They don’t each take up much space, but 2,000,000 of them certainly would. Also, it isn’t just a matter of the space the animals took up. Noah and his family, along with the animals, were in the ark for over a year. They needed a years worth of daily meals for each animal on the Ark. That would take up a lot more room than his family and the animals did. If you (or an animal) ate just 1% of your bodyweight daily (dogs, for example, actually eat about 2%), you would need a space large enough to accommodate the amount of space you yourself take up in 100 days. In a year you would need approximately 3 1/2 times your space to store food for you.

          • Daniel Rand

            What we’re not considering is the element of the miraculous. I mean, this isn’t a story told in Reader’s Digest. This story is told in the Bible and its author is God by divine inspiration. Just allow this thought for a moment. Just believe for the sake of argument that if He could part the Red Sea, stop the sun from setting and raise the dead, then he could also arrange this event without the animals going hungry and dying, couldn’t He? I obviously wasn’t there but all I’m trying to show is that the story of the ark is possible from a logistical standpoint instead of the comments I was reading in that it was absolutely rediculous based on the size of the ship, the number of species, etc. God did it, not Noah and His family. This is critical to understand. What is also critical is the prophetic meaning of the ark itself. The ark is a representation of the church age and salvation in Christ. Noah preached and preached but in the end, not many people listened and got in, which unfortunately is what will happen at the end.

            The Bible says that it was God himself that shut the door to the ark when the time was at hand and that will happen again. The message is that there is a way of escape but we must listen, repent, and “get in” Christ before the door to this life is shut.

            If you have the time, look up “Noah – It Begins” by Trey Smith on YouTube. He gives a better presentation of the facts then I ever could. I think it’s worth the time.

          • Jim H

            “There was 50% of the ark remaining for these insects and supplies.”

            That wouldn’t be enough at just 1% of bodyweight you would need 3 1/2 times as much space for your food as yourself.

            “What we’re not considering is the element of the miraculous.”
            If we are going to look at it that way, why bother to make a case of it at all?

            “all I’m trying to show is that the story of the ark is possible from a logistical standpoint.”

            Based upon what I just said about space for food , I don’t think you can make that case. Consequently, you probably just want to go with the miracle.

          • Taylor the Sturdy

            But if god only saved a couple of beetles, why do we have so many different species of beetle now? And do you know what the word species means?

          • Daniel Rand

            I’m not sure how many beetles were on the ark Mr. Sturdy. I would have no way of knowing that. But one thing is certain that we do in fact have many species of beetles now, which brings us to an interesting thought, the concept of species. I do know what the word species means but I see a problem where the term is not used the same way in every discussion. What most people would call separate species may still be able to reproduce with one another. There are cases in which two “species” are close enough to allow for reproduction, which is where we get variations (microevolution), or what the Bible calls, “kinds”. Do beetles fall into this category? Interesting idea. What evolutionists do is that they point to examples of microevolution and try to use that to prove macroevolution, which has never been observed in the known history of humanity. Yet, more and more people put their faith in this this religious idea than in any other.

          • Taylor the Sturdy

            Can you provide a link to where you found the information about two different species being able to successfully mate, where the offspring is not infertile?

          • Daniel Rand

            I posted a link but it wasn’t allowed. Just look up the Pseudoscorpion or the spider-scorpion for an example.

          • Taylor the Sturdy

            That is an arachnid that has been around for millions of years. Both scorpions and spiders are in the arachnid class. It is a species in the arachnid class. What does that prove?

          • Daniel Rand

            My point was that hybrid “kinds” can be used as evidence for evolving “species” when the word “species” is too loosely used. I was making the case of variation within a distinct species.

          • Taylor the Sturdy

            That is an example of a species, nothing more. There is the animal kingdom, then the phylum, then class, order, family, genus, and finally species. Pseudoscorpions are in the arachnid class, that means that they are separated from scorpions and spiders so much that they can never reproduce together. That’s what a species is, an animal that cannot successfully breed with something because they aren’t similar enough. Get it?

          • Daniel Rand

            What I get is that I’ve been answering these questions for 3 days now and it hasn’t improved the quality of my life experience yet. Since I’m getting tired, I’m going to paste some information on hybrids that may be of some interest. If this does not help you to understand my point then I don’t know what else to say. I’m just getting weary of this. If not, please research on your own and let me know what you find. Over and out Mr. Sturdy. I wish you well.

            ” First of all, you must bear in mind that clear-cut definitions do not exist in nature – they are man-made. We classify things for our own convenience, and try to make those classifications solid, but animals don’t care how we classify them. They do as they will, regardless of what we think should or shouldn’t work.

            In order for two species to be able to interbreed, they must be closely related. Just being in the same family does not necessarily make two animals closely related enough to be able to breed – for example, you couldn’t cross a lion and a domestic cat (both in the family Felidae), or a wolf and a fox (both in the family Canidae), as they are too distantly related. Generally, animals within the same genus can interbreed, like lions and tigers (both in the genus Panthera) and horses and donkeys (both in the genus Equus). What this basically means is that they diverged from each other relatively recently in evolutionary terms – they share an ancestor with each other more recently than with other species, and therefore share much of the same genetic material. Whilst this allows them to produce hybrids, in many cases those hybrids will be sterile because the parents have different numbers of chromosomes – this means that the hybrid cannot produce functional sex cells.

            Inter-genus hybrids are rarer, because animals of different genera are more distantly related, but they do occur. Once you get beyond family level, two animals have so little genetic material in common that interbreeding becomes impossible. This is why you can’t breed, say, a dog and a cat. A dog sperm simply wouldn’t be able to fertilise a cat egg, and vice versa.

            Where two different species can interbreed and always produce fertile offspring, it is an indication that they are very closely related. For example, members of the genus Canis can all interbreed and produce fertile young – this includes wolves, coyotes, jackals, dingos and domestic dogs. According to the old system, which classifies any two animals that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring as the same species, this would make a wolf and a jackal the same animal, which is clearly not the case – this classification is too simplistic. Physically, behaviourally and genetically, these are different animals, but they are related closely enough to be able to produce fertile young.

            You mention mules, hinnies, ligers and tigons. All these hybrids are usually sterile. Occasionally a female will be fertile, and can be bred back to a male horse or donkey in the case of mules and hinnies, or a male lion or tiger in the case of ligers and tigons. However, there is no record of fertile male mules, hinnies, ligers or tigons. Presumably this has to do with differences in the way eggs and sperm are produced.”

  • Wayne McLaw

    no one dout that hundreds of people can fit on a cruise plus noah does not need all the different dogs or cat on the ark there species can produce multiple kinds and there is evidence for the flood large amount of sea and land creatures have been found o mountains how did they get their need an explanation apart from the global flood

    • John N

      I thought your deity put them there just to fool scientists? After all, those mountains couldn’t have been seabeds in the past, could they?

      • Martin Smit

        Do you mean that the flood actually covered the mountains? That would certainly make them part of the seabed. Interesting.

        • John N

          No, I don’t say that, that’s your holy book saying that.

          For which, by the way, no scientific evidence exists.

          • Martin Smit

            No, you did say it: seabeds! Shallow seas everywhere! So also says your holy theory, for which, by the way, no evidence exists. Shallow seas, shallow theory. (And bizarrely you qualify “evidence” with “scientific”. There is no such thing as “unscientific evidence”. Science is about understanding evidence, not about labeling it. Science is not part of the evidence, but systematic deductions from evidence. Labeling evidence is just stamp collecting.)

          • John N

            Martin, these mountains were once the seabed. In fact, they were formed by remains of organisms that lived in shallow seas hundreds of millions of years before your fictional flood story is supposed to have happen. Long before humans appeared on earth, these seabeds rose above the sealevel to from mountains, driven by plate tectonics. We know this, because the evidence tells us that.

            As you can see, the theory of evolution is not holy, but it is supported by actual evidence. Evidence coming from i.e. biology, paleontology, geology, and physics. Yes, I qualify this ‘evidence’ as ‘scientific’, because it was discovered, collected, analysed and validated by scientists and according to the scientific principles and methods.

            But if you have got any evidence for your story, please show us.

          • Martin Smit

            There is one body of evidence: seabeds on mountains. There is only one truth. The evidence supports the truth. The evidence does not support clever stories, which is why the stories must be so very clever. As new evidence is uncovered, new stories are made up to oppose the truth and support the stories. Not everyone loves the truth.

    • Mark Bouckaert

      How did he also fit all the fish? And those whales!

      • Becky

        They didn’t the ark…they’re water creatures.

        • Jim H

          Fish in seas and oceans can only live in oceans are salt water. Fish in in lakes, rivers. and streams can only live in fresh water. One or the other, possibly both would be killed off as all that extra water would drastically effect saline levels one way or the other.

          • Martin Smit

            Pity the poor modern fish that live at river mouths – how hard they must swim to keep your theory afloat – seeking that perfect salt balance that somehow failed to kill their ancestors. You must know about fish fossils: plenty of fish died in the flood. The salt was the least of their problems. There’s a paper you should read entitled, “Salt-tolerance of Fresh-water Fish Groups in Relation to Zoogeographical Problems” – from that I learn that your claims of killing of fish by saline intolerance are just stupid. To suppose that the sea was then as uniformly salty as it is now is not based on evidence.

          • Jim H

            As always, spoken in the spirit of true Christian love and charity. Thank you Mr. Sh*t. Oh, sorry. I mean Smit.

          • Jim H

            Thank you for pointing out that paper. It was very interesting. I have to ask, when you read the paper did you miss the following:

            “Primary fresh-water fishes may be taken as the starting-point, since they form the bulk of fresh-water fishes. They are widely distributed and abundant on all the continents save Australia, which has only two species of ancient type (one dipnoan and one osteoglossid). Their inter-continental relationships show that they have been distributed wholly by means of land and drainage-basin connections, never by sea. They have never reached Madagascar, the West Indian islands, or any oceanic island, save by human introduction. Except for the primitive lung-fishes and osteoglossids, they have never been able to pass Wallace’s Line, except for a very few species which have gained a slight toe-hold to the east of it. Everything about their distributional pattern demonstrates that they cannot cross barriers of sea-water. Only a single [[p. 321]] species out of the six thousand or more forming this division has been demonstrated to survive in sea water (Acahara hakonensis of Japan).”

            Please note only 1 in 6,000 species has been demonstrated to survive in salt water. Exactly how does that prove my claims of killing of fish by saline intolerance are just stupid?

          • Martin Smit

            The paper, contrary to what you said (“can only live…”), says there are a great number of fish that are tolerant to a range of saline levels. It then proceeds to concentrate on the fresh-water fish, but not before flatly contradicting what you wrote. You see hope of support for your position in a “1 in 6000 species”, but you didn’t read properly. This is 1 in 6000 species that are fresh-water-only. Of the fish that are restricted to a fresh water, there remains to this day the ability to survive in salt water in 1 in 6000 species! This is no help for your position. You claim that fish would not survive a global flood, but you know little about fish, even less about fish a few thousand years ago, and very little about the historical salinity of the oceans. You cannot know these things, and yet you are certain. You have to be certain, because you’re wrong.

          • Jim H

            If only 1 species of fresh water fish in a total of 6,000 species of freshwater fish can survive in salt water, that means 99.98% cannot. Are you really gloating that I was right about only 99.98% of the species of fresh water fish? I don’t see how that hurts my position at all.

            You have apparently not studied statistics and are unaware that in the empirical sciences the so-called three-sigma rule of thumb expresses a conventional heuristic that “nearly all” values are taken to lie within three standard deviations of the mean, i.e. that it is empirically useful to treat 99.7% probability as “near certainty”. 99.98% is even a slightly level of certainty than three standard deviations.

            I do not need to know these things for certain, only those who claim divine revelation need to be completely certain about anything. I deal in what is most likely true. I don’t need to be certain, because I can be wrong and change my opinion without destroying the basis of how I understand things. Can you sat the same?

    • Michael C

      Is it your opinion that all of the different types of tigers, lions, cheetahs, leopards, pumas, panthers, lynx, bobcats, jaguars, etc evolved from the same ancestor in just a few thousand years? Wow.

    • Steven Thompson

      To take, e.g. the Himalayan mountains as an example (they do have marine fossils on and in them), they used to be part of the sea floor, but they were raised up when the tectonic plate carrying India crashed into the tectonic plate carrying China a few tens of millions of years ago. Other mountains with fossils of sea life are explained similarly — plate tectonics and mountains formed by colliding plates. Note that the movement of these plates can be measured in real time (it’s quite slow — a centimeter or so per year — but it adds up over time), as can the resulting rise of the Himalayan mountains.

  • FoJC_Forever

    Unbelievers keep considering the Great Flood and the command by God to build an ark in natural, scientific terms, claiming it’s impossible. It was supernatural, not scientific. God required Noah and his family to participate, but it was His power which carried them through it.

    God changed the ecosystem when He caused the earth to give up its water and rain to fall. Unbelievers continue to squabble in their little sandbox, completely devoid in understanding the knowledge and power of God.

  • maxine

    In the discussions on the number of animals on the ark, remember there is no place that states the animals are full grown. As far as the food required to feed them, have you thought of hibernation? They could have slept the entire time which I believe is entirely likely. How did Noah collect all the animals? There are many animals today that migrate from one place to another. Where did that instinct come from? How do we explain it? It’s very possible that God caused the animals to migrate to the ark. I think it would be wonderful if the ark was found but I believe it is possible Noah and his descendants used the wood over the years for building shelters.

    There are many questions we all have but that doesn’t stop my belief in the infallibility of the Bible. It all happened as written whether we can explain it or not. : )

    • Steven Thompson

      Throw in enough miracles and anything is possible — although if you throw in enough miracles, the Ark hardly seems necessary (could not the God Who kept Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego safe in the fiery furnace keep all life except sinful humans alive through the Flood, without resorting to seemingly naturalistic means like a big boat with food stores?). I note that a lot of animals don’t hibernate (again, God could have caused them to miraculously hibernate — but then, God could have caused them all to miraculously be able to breathe under brackish water).

    • Jim H

      Regarding food, Genesis 6:19-21 says:
      “You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.”You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.”

      • maxine

        Thanks for the correction. : )

  • Steve Dustcircle

    This myth has been thoroughly debunked.
    Next sci-fi adventure.