Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 3/16/2006 1:02:58 PM EDT
Just saw a video at Comcast's homepage. ( link - not sure it will work) Basically, someone convinced a commercial satellite to retask it's position to take a picture of that object on that mountain in Turkey that supposedly is Noah's Ark. According to an intelligence analyst, the (now much clearer than what we had before) object is decidedly "boat-shaped". More interestingly, they have confirmed that the object has pretty much the exact same dimensions as the Ark did as listed in the Bible, which roughly equates to a ship the size of an aircraft carrier. It is also important to note that Turkey is roughly the region Noah would have been believed to end up in with his ark.

So either:

A) The boat shape/dimensions/relative location is just a big coincidence, and there is some other unexplained object on top of that mountain

B) Some ancient civilization built a boat the size of an aircraft carrier and carried it to the top of an inhospitible mountain for no apparant reason

or

C) This IS Noah's Ark


I tend to believe it is the Ark, although I am entirely also open to the possiblity that it is something else. Remember, even if this specific object is someday proved to not be the Ark, that still doesn't mean it didn't exist. What say you?
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 1:38:52 PM EDT
Hard to say. Noah's ark is/was real. Is this it? Dunno! Especially since I can't see any pictures.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 5:21:18 PM EDT
Parable! To believe the story, you must believe all of it, not re-create it to fit current knowledge of how much of it would even have been possible.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 5:28:02 PM EDT
tag for when I'm at a real computer.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 5:41:26 PM EDT
If it's not, why are the Turks being so secretive and not allowing access to it?
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 5:52:43 PM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 7:15:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/17/2006 7:17:07 AM EDT by Dino]
This is from answersingenesis.org, a Christian apologetics site

from an article titled
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use
www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp


Ron Wyatt has found Noah’s Ark’ This claimed Ark shape is a natural geological formation caused by a mud flow.



link to their report exposing the hoax

www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/report.asp

it has in depth info exposing the lies about this supposed finding.

Link Posted: 3/17/2006 3:14:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Langadune:
Noah's ark is/was real.



How do you know?

­


It's the Ark from which all the Halo installations can be remotely fired, destroying all life of sufficient biomass to sustain the Flood.
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 7:05:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/18/2006 7:06:07 AM EDT by WildBoar]
My answer. Who cares? What does it matter? Personally it does not matter to me. Second it is not a requirement for belief. From a Christian perspective Jesus did not say "go and make people believe I existed or find physical proof of the stories in scriptures" HE gave us simple instructions. I dont see why we need to focus all that attention on something that is so debatable among even the believers, let alone the outsiders. It seems like a huge waste of time and effort.

It was more than likely scavenged for parts to rebuild. Within 50yrs it was probably all used to build structures for folks to live in..
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 7:12:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:
This is from answersingenesis.org, a Christian apologetics site

from an article titled
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use
www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp


Ron Wyatt has found Noah’s Ark’ This claimed Ark shape is a natural geological formation caused by a mud flow.



link to their report exposing the hoax

www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/report.asp

it has in depth info exposing the lies about this supposed finding.




I did not want to register on the comcast site, but I see Ron Wyatts name here. Anything involving that huckster is pure garbage. That dude was the WWF of religious archeology. Such a shame there are people like that out there and an even bigger shame that people are so eager to believe the stuff from these con men.
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 7:43:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By WildBoar:
Who cares?



It's not a prerequisite for my believe, but it's interesting. The discovery of the ruins of the city of Jericho is interesting. The discovery of salt deposits around the area believed to be Sodom is interesting. It doesn't make me believe more or less, but it's nice to see and discuss things that appear to be tangible evidence of the things I hold to be true.
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 1:17:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Langadune:

Originally Posted By WildBoar:
Who cares?



It's not a prerequisite for my believe, but it's interesting. The discovery of the ruins of the city of Jericho is interesting. The discovery of salt deposits around the area believed to be Sodom is interesting. It doesn't make me believe more or less, but it's nice to see and discuss things that appear to be tangible evidence of the things I hold to be true.



+1

Like I said in the original post, whether or not this is in fact the Ark does not prove that it didn't exist. It's simply interesting to wonder if it's really still up there on that mountain or not.
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 11:19:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/18/2006 11:22:47 PM EDT by ljtag]
Hisory channel has a show on that. Goes over it all. Has been out a while. Comcast is way behind the 8 ball with this one. And is for sure NOT Noahs ark. They have sent 2-3 expeditions up to the mtn looking and the wood they found at that spot is not even close to being old enough. They tested the wood samples.

"TLC" channel also has a great special on Noah's Ark and the flood.
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 11:26:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/18/2006 11:27:13 PM EDT by ljtag]

Originally Posted By WildBoar:
My answer. Who cares? What does it matter? Personally it does not matter to me. Second it is not a requirement for belief. From a Christian perspective Jesus did not say "go and make people believe I existed or find physical proof of the stories in scriptures" HE gave us simple instructions. I dont see why we need to focus all that attention on something that is so debatable among even the believers, let alone the outsiders. It seems like a huge waste of time and effort.

It was more than likely scavenged for parts to rebuild. Within 50yrs it was probably all used to build structures for folks to live in..




What does it matter, are you serious? If there is one lie, wrong info, falsehood in the bible, then there sure as hell are more. And who is to say which are false and which arent?
What a cop out to say why does it matter. If there is one mistake it can all be suspect.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 12:40:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2006 12:41:44 AM EDT by OBird]

Originally Posted By ljtag:

Originally Posted By WildBoar:
My answer. Who cares? What does it matter? Personally it does not matter to me. Second it is not a requirement for belief. From a Christian perspective Jesus did not say "go and make people believe I existed or find physical proof of the stories in scriptures" HE gave us simple instructions. I dont see why we need to focus all that attention on something that is so debatable among even the believers, let alone the outsiders. It seems like a huge waste of time and effort.

It was more than likely scavenged for parts to rebuild. Within 50yrs it was probably all used to build structures for folks to live in..




What does it matter, are you serious? If there is one lie, wrong info, falsehood in the bible, then there sure as hell are more. And who is to say which are false and which arent?
What a cop out to say why does it matter. If there is one mistake it can all be suspect.





Are you serious?

Um....you're forgetting one tiny, minor little detail.....even if this isn't the real Ark, that is NOT proof in the slightest that it never existed. The Bible just says it came to rest on "a mountain", we can simply guess/project that Turkey roughly fits the general area where this might have been. The Bible says nothing about this specific mountain, that it can be seen at X altitude, etc. It doesn't matter if this specific sighting on this mountain is disproven....it only matters if it's proven. The Bible doesn't say what happened to the Ark after it "dry docked" on that mountain, it could've been eaten by termites in a couple years for all we know.

This point has already been covered multiple times in this thread, I should not have to waste time covering it again. In the future, please think before you post.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:00:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By OBird:
Originally Posted By ljtag:
Originally Posted By WildBoar:
My answer. Who cares? What does it matter? Personally it does not matter to me. Second it is not a requirement for belief. From a Christian perspective Jesus did not say "go and make people believe I existed or find physical proof of the stories in scriptures" HE gave us simple instructions. I dont see why we need to focus all that attention on something that is so debatable among even the believers, let alone the outsiders. It seems like a huge waste of time and effort.


What does it matter, are you serious? If there is one lie, wrong info, falsehood in the bible, then there sure as hell are more. And who is to say which are false and which arent?
What a cop out to say why does it matter. If there is one mistake it can all be suspect.



No da to the "its not proof if you dont find it," Pay attention please. You do however in your "why does it matter" bring everything else into the discussion when you talk about jesus and what he says or does not say about finding physical proof. I mean what kinda ignorant guy talks about Noahs ARk and Jesus. Dont forget Muslims and Jews all believe in the old testament and Noahs ark as well. The reason everthing matters goes back to my point which you need to reread. I was talking more about the flood. Which I might add there is much physical evidence that it did not happen like the bible says. So if you want to ignore all the physical evidence which shows that there was no flood that covered every bit of the world let alone enough water to get the boat up to Mount Arrarat then go for it. Have fun behind the
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 3:18:41 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 8:47:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ljtag:

No da to the "its not proof if you dont find it," Pay attention please. You do however in your "why does it matter" bring everything else into the discussion when you talk about jesus and what he says or does not say about finding physical proof. I mean what kinda ignorant guy talks about Noahs ARk and Jesus. Dont forget Muslims and Jews all believe in the old testament and Noahs ark as well. The reason everthing matters goes back to my point which you need to reread. I was talking more about the flood. Which I might add there is much physical evidence that it did not happen like the bible says. So if you want to ignore all the physical evidence which shows that there was no flood that covered every bit of the world let alone enough water to get the boat up to Mount Arrarat then go for it. Have fun behind the






Slowly step away from the bong.....
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 11:50:28 AM EDT

The main issue is this. If you take a objective stance and look at it and it still does not seem to be anything. Any one with a hopeful biased view can look at any shadow and claim it’s the ark. Same deal with seeing the virgin mary's face on toast or on some tree.

Even if all the glaciers and polar caps melted it would still not be enough to reach that height. There is not enough water in the world to raise the high any way. If there was then where did it go?

I guess to each his own.
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 6:42:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By WildBoar:
It was more than likely scavenged for parts to rebuild. Within 50yrs it was probably all used to build structures for folks to live in..



+1

This is a good point.

It makes sense that Noah and his family most likely lived in the ark for some time before building their homes and stables for the domesticated animals. Using the materials from the structure of the ark would have been easier than harvesting raw materials from the land. No doubt they could have built a small village with that much lumber.

Something is up there on that mountain. Ark or not, I highly doubt that any material left over from the scavange would have survived decomposition and erosion over the last several thousand years (unless it is God's will).
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 6:54:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ljtag:
...... there is much physical evidence that it did not happen like the bible says. So if you want to ignore all the physical evidence which shows that there was no flood that covered every bit of the world let alone enough water to get the boat up to Mount Arrarat then go for it. Have fun behind the



Evidence Shmevidence! Check this out --->Luke 1:37 "For nothing is impossible with God."


[Darth Vader]I find your lack of faith disturbing![/Darth Vader]
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 5:17:23 PM EDT
No. The story of the great flood is hugely exaggerated.

Think how some new orleans residents would describe what they went though, if they had ZERO knowledge of science, and communicatinos consisted ONLY of walking over to tell your neighbor something. A better example would be the floods of '93 - abnormal rains, abnormal flooding.

Basically, the "world was flooded" story is a joke. The ark will never be found, because it DIDN'T EXIST.


So you left off an option:

"No, its not the ark, its a hunk of rock casting a shadow"

Not an "as-of-yet unexplained object".
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 10:22:24 AM EDT
Its been found what, 5 times in the last 10 years? We will never truly know until someone brings it down off the mountain.
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 12:18:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By nf9648:
Its been found what, 5 times in the last 10 years? We will never truly know until someone brings it down off the mountain.



no, we truly know it is a geological formation, not the remains of a boat.

unless we plan to bring the chunk of mountain down, there is no way to bring it with us. sorry

Link Posted: 3/28/2006 4:56:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By nf9648:
Its been found what, 5 times in the last 10 years? We will never truly know until someone brings it down off the mountain.



no, we truly know it is a geological formation, not the remains of a boat.

unless we plan to bring the chunk of mountain down, there is no way to bring it with us. sorry




Maybe Noah's Ark petrified?
Link Posted: 3/29/2006 6:43:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By nf9648:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By nf9648:
Its been found what, 5 times in the last 10 years? We will never truly know until someone brings it down off the mountain.



no, we truly know it is a geological formation, not the remains of a boat.

unless we plan to bring the chunk of mountain down, there is no way to bring it with us. sorry




Maybe Noah's Ark petrified?



petrified wood is easily identifiable.

I posted some links to a Christian Apologetics site that analyzes the claims. Here is a cut and paste from the article I linked


Walls of the Boat
It is Alleged That

In the walls that define the outline of the boat-shape is evidence of a former ship’s ribs, presumably the timbers that formed part of the original keel structure/hull (‘a few beams protruding out’).
In Reality

These walls, in places standing 20-30 feet (69 metres) sheer above the immediately surrounding terrain, certainly give the impression of the outer hull of a boat. However, that is where all similarity ends. These walls are simply hardened mud, containing boulders of the various local rock types. They contain no petrified wood holding in the mud in any way reminiscent of the outer planking of a wooden hulled vessel.

Furthermore, closer examination of the photographic ‘evidence’ of a ship’s ribs reveals that erosion gullies cutting into the walls at fairly regular intervals, mainly in one area, have given the appearance at a distance of thick beam structures; however, they are merely the hardened mud left behind between these erosion gullies.

As the burden of proof rests with those who claim that these are a ship’s ribs, one would have thought that they would have sampled this material and submitted it for scientific tests. However, there is no indication that it has ever been sampled by Wyatt or Roberts to see what they really are. On the other hand, all the other eye witnesses who have been to the site insist that they only ever saw mud, containing boulders (mudflow debris), forming these walls.

Trainloads of Petrified Wood?
It is Alleged That

‘There are trainloads and boatloads of petrified wood out there and it is all in the boat structure.’ Furthermore, the prized exhibit Wyatt shows to visitors, and photographs of which are regularly displayed, is a sample of “petrified” wood identified as pecky cypress-removed from inside the “hull” in the presence of the Governor of Agri.’
In Reality

No trained scientist of the many who have visited the site has ever seen any sign of these ‘trainloads’ of petrified wood. GeologistDr Bayraktutan has collected one or two small fragments of semi-petrified wood which in his opinion have flowed on to the site within the mud from elsewhere. He confirms that none of the regular rock types of the site are petrified wood. Not one of the other scientists (including geologists familiar with petrified wood) has ever once seen any. Yet Wyatt continues to show untrained people samples of what he claims is petrified wood from the site.

His prize sample, reportedly dug up in the presence of the Governor of the Turkish province of Agri, is not only claimed to be petrified wood, but alleged to be ‘laminated’ and ‘deck timber’. Roberts too has made much of this sample, being photographed with it, and claiming that this ‘petrified laminated timber’ is of major significance, since the Ark was made of gopher wood which, he says, could mean laminated wood.

Both Wyatt and Roberts claim support for the identification of this sample by citing Galbraith Laboratories of Tennessee, yet the laboratory assay certificate shows that they only analysed for three elements-calcium, iron and carbon-no basis at all for calling the sample petrified wood! When telephoned, the laboratory was adamant that they were not asked to give an opinion on what the object was and they were unable to do so.

The only other supportive evidence revealed by Roberts privately was a typewritten statement claiming that the sample (which is said to have no growth rings*) had been ‘identified visually as pecky cypress by John Mackay’. That is all. No one should make such an identification without a microscope thin section which would show, if the sample really was petrified wood, the cellular wood structure. No such thin sectioning has been done, and when urged by Roberts’ group Ark Search to do so (after Creation Science Foundation pointed this out), Wyatt refused to submit the sample for such sectioning and proper scientific testing and assessment. (*Ark Search literature has a photo of one of Wyatt’s specimens of ‘petrified wood’ which, in contrast to the above mentioned, shows what look like growth lines. That specimen is also claimed to show a ‘tenon joint’. To our knowledge, there is a total absence of supportive documentation on that alleged find, which may explain why it is rarely mentioned, in stark contrast to the other.)

A Christian who was researching these claims writes (in a document forming part of Ark Search’s ‘written evidence’) that when he was shown this ‘petrified laminated wood’ sample, Wyatt told him that he had had it analysed by Galbraith Laboratories and the tests indicated that it was silicate replacement (that is, the wood had been replaced by a silicon compound). This cannot be truthful, since the laboratory report, also in Ark Search’s possession, shows that silicon was not even analysed for by Galbraith! No future compliance by Wyatt to have the sample sectioned is feasible without the safeguard of eye-witnesses who are familiar with this so-called ‘laminated’ ‘pecky cypress’.

On the other hand, there are lots of chunks of basalt on the site and buried in the surface mudflow material. Those people we know of with a trained eye who have seen this particular sample of Wyatt’s have all identified it as basalt. Furthermore, their testimony, plus photographic assessment and microscopic examination of basalt samples from the site, strongly suggest the alleged ‘petrified adhesive’ is actually calcite veining.



Link Posted: 3/29/2006 12:21:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/29/2006 12:23:08 PM EDT by scuba_ed]

Originally Posted By OBird:
Just saw a video at Comcast's homepage. ( link - not sure it will work) Basically, someone convinced a commercial satellite to retask it's position to take a picture of that object on that mountain in Turkey that supposedly is Noah's Ark. According to an intelligence analyst, the (now much clearer than what we had before) object is decidedly "boat-shaped". More interestingly, they have confirmed that the object has pretty much the exact same dimensions as the Ark did as listed in the Bible, which roughly equates to a ship the size of an aircraft carrier. It is also important to note that Turkey is roughly the region Noah would have been believed to end up in with his ark.

So either:

A) The boat shape/dimensions/relative location is just a big coincidence, and there is some other unexplained object on top of that mountain

B) Some ancient civilization built a boat the size of an aircraft carrier and carried it to the top of an inhospitible mountain for no apparant reason

or

C) This IS Noah's Ark


I tend to believe it is the Ark, although I am entirely also open to the possiblity that it is something else. Remember, even if this specific object is someday proved to not be the Ark, that still doesn't mean it didn't exist. What say you?



___

Returning to the orignial post.

It's interesting that this crops up from time to time. As many (Christians, primarily) are seeing the forthcoming end-of-times tied-in with the problems in the Middle-East, I would add that in the Christian tradition, Noah and his generation prefigure the end of time: Only those who take refuge in faith will escape judgment (Sefer ha-Yashar), and similarly the water of Baptism represents salvation brought through water to Noah and his family (Mathew 24:37 and Luke 17:26).

The end-times phenomena that many seek within the Hebrew Torah, and the search for the Ark, is in itself a misleading though apparently comforting avenue for many. Many don’t understand it; though many more apparently relish in it.

The Hebrew Torah was written in the context of the times. Biblical humankind saw the hand of G-d in the Flood, just as was seen in other natural phenomena. The Flood is said to have lasted 364 days indicating that the very cyclical nature of the world was interrupted.

While there have been many who have posted on this topic, there are still many whose faith still permits them to see a warning in every lightning bolt and a retribution of G-d in every natural disaster; these pundits are on the news frequently, and do a great disservice to humankind in general, and to lay blame upon G-d.

B’Shalom,

Ed
Link Posted: 3/30/2006 5:32:56 AM EDT
Well since the basic premise of the Jewish and Christian religions is historicity as opposed to mythology (The Jews believe there really was a guy named Abraham, who really did have a son, Isaac, who really did have decendents who went to Egypt...whose decendents really did get liberated by a dude named Moses who really did bring them out with miracles etc.... and so theoretically you would EXPECT that there be evidence for all this...)

So finding a big ship on that mountain would be a HUGE ratification of Genesis.

Look at it this way.... for centuries if not millenia most civilizations had legends about creatures called "dragons"...until "modern" men who claimed the banner of "science" pooh poohed the whole thing as completely baseless myth... then fossils of dinosaurs started getting dug up and viola, suddenly it doesn't become so far fetched and BASELESS to suppose that early man also discovered fossils or bones of huge beasts and concluded, entirely logically that since such creatures existed, they MIGHT STILL BE AROUND.

Finding an Ark would be to the Bible what finding dinosaur fossils was to the legend of Dragons - it wouldn't necessary make people believe in the religion, but it would make belief less a question of gullability and more a question of 'based on something solid'.

Top Top