[mikegug]

This was covered in a thread earlier this year. However, this gets more and more interesting to me. Anyone else?:

NoahsArkSearch.net - Breaking News of Noahs Ark Search Network

I'll reveal a little bit of my interest in this: I've loved the idea of an ark discovery since I was a kid. I had always HOPED for something like this, but never really felt there was much possibility. Because of my long held interest in this topic, I feel that the credibility I am giving this may be tainted. Have any of you skeptics looked at this website and its pics and videos taken on site and from in the ark itself?

The main selling point for me is this: the elevation at which such a mammoth structure was found.

If this discovery is real, then that means that one of the most incredulous stories in the Bible (the one that athiests point to and laugh) is real. Has anyone else looked into this discovery beyond the MSNBC hit piece or "news stories" generated from the press releases?

[Kentl]

Originally Posted by mikegug

This was covered in a thread earlier this year. However, this gets more and more interesting to me. Anyone else?:

NoahsArkSearch.net - Breaking News of Noahs Ark Search Network

I'll reveal a little bit of my interest in this: I've loved the idea of an ark discovery since I was a kid. I had always HOPED for something like this, but never really felt there was much possibility. Because of my long held interest in this topic, I feel that the credibility I am giving this may be tainted. Have any of you skeptics looked at this website and its pics and videos taken on site and from in the ark itself?

The main selling point for me is this: the elevation at which such a mammoth structure was found.

If this discovery is real, then that means that one of the most incredulous stories in the Bible (the one that athiests point to and laugh) is real. Has anyone else looked into this discovery beyond the MSNBC hit piece or "news stories" generated from the press releases?

Atheist don’t laugh about the flood just so you know
they lauhg that 2 of evrey anamil was on the Ark


many scicneitst agree that there was a huge flood on earth many years ago


i dont think its the ark

and just becuse it is just not mean it proves the bible


some sotrys form other relijions are "tweaked" to included a god

(this is what some athist will say)

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Kentl

many scicneitst agree that there was a huge flood on earth many years ago

There was not a single, world-wide (nor indeed near-world-wide) flood of water on the Earth going back at least tens-of-millions of years. Your closest would likely be the tsunami related to the Shiva and Chicxulub impacts around 65m years ago. (which is not to say there hasn't been some very large flooding since: especially related to the melting and rising sea-level post ice-age... just that it's not worldwide).

The Noah's ark story, if it has an historical basis, is likely of the flooding of the Black Sea by the Med after the rupture of the Bosporous portal around 5600 BCE. One can trace the story of Noah, via the story of Gilgamesh, to people who appear to have migrated from the area of the flood: and the timing is reasonably consistent with the age inferred from the poem.

As to the website... these people need to read this, it will make this dangerous multi-year, very expensive (please donate if you love Jesus) relatively trivial: Helicopter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

There was not a single, world-wide (nor indeed near-world-wide) flood of water on the Earth going back at least tens-of-millions of years. Your closest would likely be the tsunami related to the Shiva and Chicxulub impacts around 65m years ago. (which is not to say there hasn't been some very large flooding since: especially related to the melting and rising sea-level post ice-age... just that it's not worldwide).

The Noah's ark story, if it has an historical basis, is likely of the flooding of the Black Sea by the Med after the rupture of the Bosporous portal around 5600 BCE. One can trace the story of Noah, via the story of Gilgamesh, to people who appear to have migrated from the area of the flood: and the timing is reasonably consistent with the age inferred from the poem.

Right, the ancient near eastern "world" was flooded several millennia ago and this is reasonably the source of the many ancient near eastern flood stories.

As far as finding a boat that made it through this flood, I mean, it's always tremendously impressive to be in the presence of a massive artifact of momentous historical significance, but I can't say that as a non-archaeologist this is a priority to me.

[mikegug]

I'm not looking to debate worldwide vs. regional floods, how could all animals fit on an ark... All that is rhetoric as far as I'm concerned.

One large 5 x 12 meter room, six smaller rooms, two stair large cases both partially frozen in solid ice at 4000 meter elevation doesn't cause anyone to scratch their head?

Did the locals spend millions of dollars to move literally tons of lumber up a mountain where men can barely walk, freeze it in ice and hope for the best to create tourism? If that kind of money was available for construction, why do it in the first place? The average tourist can't walk that elevation! They didn't think about that?

[mikegug]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

As far as finding a boat that made it through this flood, I mean, it's always tremendously impressive to be in the presence of a massive artifact of momentous historical significance, but I can't say that as a non-archaeologist this is a priority to me.

OK. Thanks for that insight. Maybe my personal / childhood interest is tainting the significance(?).

Even if it was proven to be Noah's?.. not much interest?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by mikegug

I'm not looking to debate worldwide vs. regional floods, how could all animals fit on an ark... All that is rhetoric as far as I'm concerned.

The problems with the idea are... significant beyond the mere number.

One large 5 x 12 meter room, six smaller rooms, two stair large cases both partially frozen in solid ice at 4000 meter elevation doesn't cause anyone to scratch their head?

That question is vague. So I attempted to look up what you are referring to. I found nothing that matched those criteria on the provided website.

Did the locals spend millions of dollars to move literally tons of lumber up a mountain where men can barely walk, freeze it in ice and hope for the best to create tourism? If that kind of money was available for construction, why do it in the first place? The average tourist can't walk that elevation! They didn't think about that?

Google "Straw Man Fallacy" (or look it up in my "Discussion 101" link below)

[mikegug]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The problems with the idea are... significant beyond the mere number.

That question is vague. So I attempted to look up what you are referring to. I found nothing that matched those criteria on the provided website.

Google "Straw Man Fallacy" (or look it up in my "Discussion 101" link below)

1/3 of the way down this page, you'll see an illustration of "Seven spaces"

NoahsArkSearch.net - Breaking News of Noahs Ark Search Network

Here's a good set of video answers: See the links on the right hnad side of the page

NoahsArkSearch.net - Breaking News of Noahs Ark Search Network

Some GREAT video and pics used to be on the site, but the site has changed substanially since the last time I visited the site. It was also on Youtube (I wonder if they got their own channel on YouTube). I'll look for that in a second. Hey, Jerry, thanks for engaging in this discussion. I really want to know what others think.

I'll look up "Straw Man Fallacy" and get back to you.

EDIT: RE: Straw man - Hey, I wsan't attacking you or a position. Now that I look back at how it was worded, it sure could have been taken that way. I didn't mean it that way. I wasn't directing the question at you directly, I was just thinking out loud.

[mikegug]

OK. Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgziO...eature=related

[Ax]

Originally Posted by mikegug

OK. Thanks for that insight. Maybe my personal / childhood interest is tainting the significance(?).

Even if it was proven to be Noah's?.. not much interest?

100% disinterested. I'm a Christian, I fully believe there was a flood and Noah made it through with the Ark. I do not, however, believe that this is the Ark, neither that, nor do I believe that the Ark is lying around somewhere waiting to be discovered. Not only that, but I have no interest in quantifying God or proving anything, the Bible says it and I believe the Bible is true. And that's all I have to say about that.

However, since we're on the subject, the architecture is not suggestive of a ship. The architectural techniques and redness of the wood also suggest it was built much much much later than what is being suggested. 3000 years ago, maybe. 4500? No.

I do understand that whatever pre-flood technology there might have been would have been lost, but I honestly don't think it would have been too much farther advanced than Biblical Israel, circa David and Solomon. (based off the fact that the timeline God gives us from creation would have been slightly over 1,000 years, and unless they developed technology super fast, I sincerely doubt that they would have even made it past bronze.

[mikegug]

Originally Posted by Ax

100% disinterested. I'm a Christian, I fully believe there was a flood and Noah made it through with the Ark.

huh! I couldn't be more interested! It's not proving anything for me, but it excites me that, if proven to be Noah's, people may re-consider their disbelief. Maybe at least a couple hundred thousand will turn their hearts toward Christ through belief(?). That's exciting!

A friend of mine had an athiest (a hard-headed one) on his deathbed refusing to believe in the Bible. He would discuss things as an "intellectual", but no proof was ever enough. I'm not sure this would have been the straw to break the camel's back, but... it will for someone, if proven to be true.

You're right, the architecture isn't that of a ship as we know it. Every ship you've ever seen was designed to part the water and move toward a destination. The ark was meant to hold animals, food, people and to float. I don't think it was meant to perform any other function. No port holes, no smoke stack, no rudder, no sail or masts, no crow's nest etc...

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by mikegug

OK. Thanks for that insight. Maybe my personal / childhood interest is tainting the significance(?).

Even if it was proven to be Noah's?.. not much interest?

You're definitely right, I would be interested, for sure. But just in the same way that I would be interested to see Stonehenge, St. Basil's, or the Forbidden City. Maybe this is your own personal interest though; some people like cars or watches, other people like dinosaurs or constellations, other people like Noah's Ark or the Ganges. The best guess I could venture out there is that there was definitely a flood that deluged the ancient near-eastern world, and some people definitely survived it to tell us about it, so that's not at stake for me. But you might be particularly jazzed about a specific boat that weathered the storm, whereas I'm not much of a boat guy personally.

The apologetic issue, i.e. whether this would make people reconsider disbelief, doesn't seem like a good bet to me, but that might just be my own cynicism talking.

[Ax]

Originally Posted by mikegug

huh! I couldn't be more interested! It's not proving anything for me, but it excites me that, if proven to be Noah's, people may re-consider their disbelief. Maybe at least a couple hundred thousand will turn their hearts toward Christ through belief(?). That's exciting!

A friend of mine had an athiest (a hard-headed one) on his deathbed refusing to believe in the Bible. He would discuss things as an "intellectual", but no proof was ever enough. I'm not sure this would have been the straw to break the camel's back, but... it will for someone, if proven to be true.

You're right, the architecture isn't that of a ship as we know it. Every ship you've ever seen was designed to part the water and move toward a destination. The ark was meant to hold animals, food, people and to float. I don't think it was meant to perform any other function. No port holes, no smoke stack, no rudder, no sail or masts, no crow's nest etc...

For the doubting, "proof" will never be enough. We have no "proof" that this is the Ark, and we never will. If "proof" can't make Christians believe the Dinosaurs romaed the earth more than a million years ago, then why, conversely would it make a single Atheist believe in God. Even if there were proof of a global flood, and this Noah guy really did build a ship and save all the animals, that still isn't proof that God exists. It simply means one story in the Bible was somewhat true in the aspect that he built an Ark and survived. It does not mean that God told Noah to build the Ark.

[mikegug]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

You're definitely right, I would be interested, for sure. But just in the same way that I would be interested to see Stonehenge, St. Basil's, or the Forbidden City. Maybe this is your own personal interest though; some people like cars or watches, other people like dinosaurs or constellations, ...

The apologetic issue, i.e. whether this would make people reconsider disbelief, doesn't seem like a good bet to me, but that might just be my own cynicism talking.

Yeah, this seems to be my interest. I figured there'd be almost universal a "WHAO! That's incredible!" Don't worry, I'm not feeling dis'ed if anyone doesn't. I really wanted to get other points of view. That's almost as interesting.

Posted by AX:
For the doubting, "proof" will never be enough. We have no "proof" that this is the Ark, and we never will. If "proof" can't make Christians believe the Dinosaurs romaed the earth more than a million years ago, then why, conversely would it make a single Atheist believe in God. Even if there were proof of a global flood, and this Noah guy really did build a ship and save all the animals, that still isn't proof that God exists. It simply means one story in the Bible was somewhat true in the aspect that he built an Ark and survived. It does not mean that God told Noah to build the Ark.

For fence sitters though, you never know. Maybe their heads will drag their hearts along.

Regarding the structure, I'm impressed by where it is. 4000 meters is pretty high. So if Noah looked around and saw nothing but water, the flood was higher than that mountain, or it was at least 4000 meters high. Thanks for checking it out though!

[roscoestring]

I have always found archeological finds interesting. I do believe that dinosaurs roamed the Earth. While I have not touched the bones or fossils, I have seen the evidence presented by reputable persons from that field.

For someone that does not believe then I doubt that finding the ark would convince them otherwise. Just as I can not be convinced to change my belief.

I am skeptical about this being the true ark also. I am not able to explain the existence of whatever it is though. The Egyptians did unbelievable things when they built the pyramids. Maybe that happened with this new "ark" find (although it may not be an ark at all).

I would be very excited to have it proven to be an ark. I, too, believe what is written in the Bible and it would be nice to have something physical to provide support to back up what it says.

I have never seen George Washington either but I do believe he is real. He lived in a time long before I was born. But through books and pictures and what has been passed down through history I can see that he was there. The fact that his bones exist in a grave further strengthens the history. That's how I look at the Bible too. Who know's? Maybe these timbers are the bones in the grave.