Noah's Ark found.

[cali]

Again.

A group of Chinese and Turkish evangelical explorers say wooden remains they have discovered on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey are the remains of Noah's Ark.

The group claims that carbon dating
proves the relics are 4,800 years old, meaning they date to around the same time the ark was said to be afloat. Mt. Ararat has long been suspected as the final resting place of the craft by evangelicals and literalists hoping to validate biblical stories.

Yeung Wing-Cheung, from the Noah's Ark Ministries International research team that made the discovery, said: "It's not 100 percent that it is Noah's Ark, but we think it is 99.9 percent that this is it."

There have been several reported discoveries of the remains of Noah's Ark over the years, most notably a find by archaeologist Ron Wyatt in 1987. At the time, the Turkish government officially declared a national park around his find, a boat-shaped object stretched across the mountains of Ararat.

Nevertheless, the evangelical ministry remains convinced that the current find is in fact more likely to be the actual artifact, calling upon Dutch Ark researcher Gerrit Aalten to verify its legitimacy.

<snip>

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/27/noahs-ark-found-turkey-arafat/

[Aristus]

1. Any link other than Faux Snooze?

I'm not clicking on that...

[Kalyke]

2. Here's one from the Toronto Star:

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/801041--noah-s-ark-found-researchers-claim

[HopeHoops]

6. Same here. I want a link to a NEWS site.

Besides, who knows what sort of viruses and malware you could pick up from a FOX site. Ewww.

[gcomeau]

35. Why?

Not to dispute the "don't go to Fox news for information" part of you post... but why would you want a link to any other news site as an alternative? I want a link to someone competent to tell me what is actually going on. I want a scientific report.

The popular media is the last place I'm going for accurate reporting on something like this. The only thing going through most of their little reporter and editor brains is "Ooooh! "Noah's Ark Found" will make a great headline and bring in the readers! Woohoo!"

I will place my bets now though. Either:

1. This is a hoax.
2. They actually did find something wood, and it turns out to be about the size of... a regular old boat. That would not POSSIBLY fit all the breeding pairs of animals on it. and yet they're going to call it the Ark anyway because it's wood... and kinda boat sized... on Mt Ararat!!!!!

In other words, they're idiots.

[HopeHoops]

60. I didn't say "any other news site", I said "a NEWS site".

At least then there would be the remote chance that it was based on at least some facts - like your point #2 - it was made of wood and shaped like a boat.

[Mojeoux]

177. This Story has Been "In the News" for Over 20 YEARS!

Holy Macaroni

So anyhow, there is a boat shaped hunk on the side of Mount Ararat.
The reports, (about 20 years ago) said it was made of petrified wood.

This was back when it was just another "Atlantis is Found," "Bigfoot is Real" and the ever popular, "Ancient Alien Ancestors."

Now the story is NEW? and proof of evangelical biblical interpretation. Ha ha

[HopeHoops]

178. Um, yeah. Apparently this is a DIFFERENT hunk of wood than the one 20 years ago.

And we *ALL* know that Earth is only 6,000 years old and that Noah's flood created the Grand Canyon. :sarcasm:

[Mojeoux]

195. And my car turns on because of a holy intervention

Because carbon dating is false and so the carbon combustion of an automobile is a miracle.

O8)

[HopeHoops]

196. Is that how it works? I always figured it was the hamster on the treadmill doing it all.

It was either that or magic.

[n2doc]

3. Suuuuure.......

Some chunks of wood prove the ark story. Somehow all that flooding didn't disturb any of the surrounding communities....

[Kalyke]

19. The story of Noah's Ark is an allegory.

We know there were world-wide floods; however, there is no geological record that humans existed during this time.

The "Ark" is used to convey the passage of time, i.e. flooding after the comet that killed the dinosaurs and the time passage that brought forth new species, including humans.

[YOY]

33. Try telling that to an evangelical...

They'll jeebity-jeebity so much in counter reaction their head may explode.

[Toasterlad]

71. No, The Story Of Noah's Ark Is Now CLAIMED To Be Allegorical By Religious People...

...who can't justify the blatant ridiculousness of the old testament.

Like everything in the bible - old testament or new - it's an imaginary story that was meant to be taken absolutely literally by the people of the time; who, as David Cross so succinctly puts it, "were even DUMBER than we are today." NOTHING in the bible was meant as allegory; it was all meant to be taken literally.

So what's more pathetic: the people who STILL take it literally after thousands of years, or the people who try to pretend it was NEVER supposed to be taken literally, because they want so desperately to cling to their sham beliefs, but can't intellectually justify stories about giant boats and talking snakes?

[Touchdown]

82. +1

For the heathens in the World.

[SoCalDem]

112. Earthquakes created massive "floods"

and people DID have boats back then:)

Logically, if one had a boat, and happened to have livestock, one might just start loading up every animal they could manage to load.

and when the flooding subsided, the landscape would be entirely different..

Natural disasters are hard to understand if one is uneducated, and since the priests were supposed to be intelligent, it fell on them to "explains" these things... "how conveeeeeenient"..."God did it to punish you or to make a point.. now give me more money and god will be happy"

[Kalyke]

149. You know what's even more pathetic?

Lecturing people and calling their faith "idiotic" or "pathetic" and still claiming to be a tolerant liberal!

:think:

Besides, your argument is incorrect. I was taught that many stories in the Bible were allegories since I was small. My mother was also taught that as a child growing up in the Catholic faith, and so was my father, as a child growing up in the - get this - Southern Baptist faith. So were my grandparents and great-grandparents.

As with any tale of yore, the stories serve as a message, not an exact accounting of things that may or may not have happened. The message of in the story of Noah's Ark is God's promise, mankind's adherence to God's law and God's power.

The notion that the stories are NOT allegories and should be taken literally is a more recent manifestation of the evangelical movement that occurred in the late 90s and early 2000s on the heels of Tim LaHaye's "Left Behind" series.

[Toasterlad]

156. I Have Never Claimed To Be Any More Tolerant Of Religion Than It Is Of Me

As with any tale of yore that people for some reason want to claim is relevant to the realities of today, the stories of the bible, which were intended to be taken literally when written, have been termed allegorical by later readers.

Of COURSE you and your parents and grand-parents and great-grandparents were taught that the bible is allegorical. So was I. That's because the bible is centuries old, and, stupid as most people are today, very few people are going to buy stories about god-sent whales swallowing people whole and a loving god who drowns everyone on Earth for not praising him enough, any more than we'd buy the story of how Dionysus rose from the dead or Athena sprang fully grown from Zeus' brow...which were ALSO stories that were taken literally when they were first introduced. When I was a boy in catholic school, it was becoming the fashion to claim that even Jeebuz's miracles were allegorical (some bullshit about how he didn't really multiply the fishes and loaves, but got people to share what they'd been hiding for themselves, through the "miracle" of generosity). I'll bet your parents and grandparents didn't get THAT version.

Being a liberal does not mean that I have to respect your ludicrous beliefs, which is a damn good thing, because I don't. I doubt if I was walking around claiming an earnest belief in the Greek gods, that you'd feel compelled to call anyone lecturing ME a poor liberal. Or scientology, for that matter, or voodoo. You're not really interested in people respecting other faiths. Like most christians, you're mainly interested in people respecting YOUR faith.

[Kalyke]

166. Like most knee-jerk reactionaires, you have no idea what I believe.

My first husband is Muslim.

My husband now (and my last) is Jewish.

I am interested in people respecting other faiths - or lack, thereof.

And, your premise is still INCORRECT.

Of course, you believe that all women WANT to be Hooters waitresses. Or that people are prudes because they believe in monogamy. You seem to be railing against any conventional belief. How old are you? 19? 20?

You'll learn.

[Toasterlad]

171. Oh, I Remember You Now!

You're the chick who would cut off her husband's dick if he went to a strip club!

With such immature attitudes about sex, it's no wonder that you're a deeply religious person. I'd say YOU'LL learn, but sadly, people like you typically DON'T learn til they die, and by then, it's too late. Because they're DEAD.

And I have just as much respect for your faith as you do for my belief in a giant Japanese robot who sits on the moon and turns a big lever every day to make the sun rise and set. See that? You're as much an atheist as I am! I don't believe in your god, and you don't believe in mine.

BTW, just saying, "Your premise is still incorrect" doesn't actually MAKE it incorrect, no matter what your god tells you.

[AsahinaKimi]

184. Can we please leave Japanese robots out of this?

They are our friends.. :P

[Toasterlad]

185. My Apologies. I Realize That Japanese Robots Are a Deeply Held Belief For Some

[npk]

191. It's a small world

You and I believe in the same god. Except mine is red with four eyes and spits fireballs out of his mouth when angry. Weird. :P

[Toasterlad]

193. Blasphemer!

The One True God has THREE eyes! Now we will go to war, which is the correct response of religous people when someone mocks their all-loving deity!

[npk]

194. LOL.

I will take your resources and use them to grow my army of tru believers. :rofl:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

221. "Some of my best friends are..."

[Atman]

219. Hmmm...you don't seem to read very well.

Toaster said that the bible was meant as literal truth at the time it was written, but today some people still have realized the absurdity of that now, so it is most frequently taught as allegory today.

You said "Besides, your argument is incorrect. I was taught that many stories in the Bible were allegories since I was small." Which means, in essence, you are proving Toaster to be absolutely correct. TODAY (don't take it literally -- your parents and grandparents live in the societal "today" considering the timespan we're talking about), people know better, and thus you and your parents, etc, are taught the allegory model. Exactly as Toaster stated.

So back off on the "lecturing" b.s. He made his case, you misinterpreted and got it wrong. :shrug:

Deal.

.

[Dogtown]

200. Excellent post, Toasterlad.

Nailed it.

[Marr]

128. You're kidding, right?

Pardon me, it's early. My humor detector is a bit dull as yet.

[Kalyke]

151. No.

Why would I kid about this?

It's an allegory and the Catholic Church has taught that for many, many, many years. It's only been taken "literally" by nutcases and/or those in the heated evangelical movement of recent years.

[Marr]

159. I wonder-- how do they determine which physically impossible feats are allegory, and which are not?

Noah's ark? Just an allegory, obviously. The virgin birth? Fact.

C'mon.

[Toasterlad]

160. "Let's See....I'll Take the Mac & Cheese, the Virgin Birth, and some Grape Jello..."

[Kalyke]

167. There you are again... proving your intolerance.

Albert Einstein was much, much, much, much, much, much, much smarter than you - and he believed in the spirtual world.

He also didn't resort to name-calling and childish behavior when asked his opinion.


FWIW: I know your QB very well. He's a very nice Christian boy who attended UT at the end of my studies there. If you're so intolerant of his faith, I'd suggest that you nix the horseshoe. No... football ain't church, but you're QB believes in God.

[Toasterlad]

169. Albert Einstein Was An Atheist.

And, for the record, he was only much, much, much, much, much, much smarter than me.

And what the fuck do I care if Peyton Manning believes in god? As long as he can throw a football to a receiver, he can believe the Easter Bunny makes it rain by hopping on the clouds.

Your faith must be extremely weak if it's so threatened by an anonymous poster on the internet.

[Kalyke]

170. I never said you made me question my faith.

And, I also never said Einstein believed in God - I said he was spiritual:

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

Do you not know how to read?

Peyton would be ashamed that you're a fan. He's smarter than you, too. He reads.

[Toasterlad]

172. Einstein Was Talking About the NATURAL World

He found beauty and mysticism in the structure of the NATURAL world. He didn't need to believe in the spiritual world, because the REAL world held enough mystery for him.

How sad it must be to go through life only THINKING you know things.

I know Peyton Manning reads defenses. Beyond that, I couldn't give a shit. However, I hope for his sake that he reads better than YOU do. Perhaps Eli is a better role model for you.

And don't worry; you don't have to be so defensive. It's GOOD that I made you question your faith! If you think about it long enough, you might actually evolve a little.

[phasma ex machina]

224. You feel that the man famous for saying "God does not roll the dice" was an atheist?

You need to re-read your Einstein.

My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance - but for us, not for God. - Albert Einstein

[Kalyke]

168. I wonder.

Do you?

Apparently not.

Just so you know: Those of us who questioned were told "virgin" was the translation. The world could also have been translated as "young."

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

222. While we're talking about interpretations, here's one I actually think has value:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

[Xithras]

138. Actually, it's probably a reference to a genuine ancient disaster.

The Christian and Moslem versions of the story likely originated from the Epic of Gilgamesh, which itself borrowed from the Epic of Atrahasis...a story that the ancient Sumericans considered to be a "current event".

The story basically says that a guy was warned by god that the world was going to flood, and he built a boat and moved his livestock on board. The flood in his story was described as inundating the world from horizon to horizon, but it also makes clear that it was a regional flood and that it was strictly a local event. It may have been a once per thousand years flood event in lower Sumeria, or even the sudden draining of a lake into the rivers due to earthquake activity upstream. There is even some evidence of a catastrophic influx of water from the Persian Gulf, extending over a hundred miles into modern day Iraq. There is also evidence that the previous shoreline may have been further out than it presently is, and that some of the inundation may have been permanent. Around 3000 BC, for reasons not yet understood, the Persian gulf rushed inland (destroying many towns and probably tens of thousands of early humans in the process), and then receded again to its current position. The location of Atrahasis in the epic corresponds perfectly to the geological and archaeological evidence for this flood.

There is also an alternate theory that the story itself may be far older. Like the Black Sea, the Persian Gulf was not full of water during the last ice age. On the contrary, it would have been an idyllic marshy grassland crossed by four flowing rivers, with local forests, surrounded by game filled grassy plains, with a small salt sea at one end. There is growing evidence that a "Sill Event" occurred roughly 10,000 to 12,000 years ago, where the Arabian Sea rushed into the valley in a massive flood, wiping out the humans who lived there. The residents, and their relatives who lived far enough upstream to survive or escape the deluge, were the direct ancestors of all the middle eastern peoples who came later with their flood myths. There's also a theory, with a little bit of evidence behind it, that the inundation may be the origination of the Eden myth as well. The sill event may have occurred folowing an asteroid or meteor strike in the Arabian Sea (there are flood chevrons on the African and Arabian coasts suggesting a tidal event larger than anything recorded by modern humans). The theory is that the comet strike may be the "flaming sword" mentioned in the Bible and other ancient texts describing the middle easterners expulsion from "paradise".

Was there a global flood? No. Was there a really huge flood that inundated a vast area, wiping out whole villages and killing untold numbers of people, while leaving only a handful of survivors on a single boat? Probably. The story is an echo of an ancient, but regional, disaster. If you put the religious aspects aside and look at some of the more recent discoveries, and read up on some of the currect secular theories on the myths, you'll find some really interesting stuff.

[Kalyke]

152. Thank you.

I've always pointed out that the story COULD be true, but that's not the point. The point is the message of the story - not whether the event actually occurred or occurred in the fashion of the Noah's Ark story.

:thumbsup:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

220. "I've always pointed out that the story COULD be true"

Yeah, and there COULD be an integer fraction equal to the square root of 2.

And somebody COULD find a way to turn another metal into gold just with beakers and a wooden fire.

Uh-huh.

[spin]

141. The Noah's Ark story may come from a Babylonian myth ....

the Epic of Gilgamesh. Since myths often are based on events, a flood may have occurred, someone in a boat survived with his family and some animals.

A good story deserves retelling and a little updating to better fit the latter society.

The story of Noah and the Ark, as recounted in Genesis, is the most famous flood story in Western Society. "But the flood legend on which the story of Noah is based had its origins among the peoples of ancient Mesopotamia, in the epic Gilgamesh." ("Creation/Flood")

***snip***

In the story, Utnapishtim told Gilgamesh that the great god of the city Shurrupak was aroused by the clamour of the many people of the world. Enlil, the gods' counselor heard the clamour and complained about it to the gods of the council. He told the gods that mankind's uproar was intolerable and prevented him from sleeping. (Gilgamesh 37)

Utnapishtim told Gilgamesh that the God Ea warned him of the flood and told him to tear down his house of reeds and build a boat. When Utnapishtim asked Ea what he should tell the people, Ea replied that he should tell them that Enlil will rain down abundance. (Gilgamesh 37)

Utnapishtim continued to tell Gilgamesh how he built the boat, slaughtered bullocks for the people and killed sheep, gave shipwrights wine to drink, and feasted with them. The boat was built on the eleventh day. Utnapishtim loaded it with his gold, his family, his kin, the wild and tame beast of the field, and all the craftsmen. That evening, the rain began. (Gilgamesh 37)

"For six days and six nights the winds blew, torrent and tempest and flood overwhelmed the world, tempest and flood raged together like warring hosts. When the seventh day dawned the storm from the south subsided, the sea grew calm, the flood was stilled" (Gilgamesh 38). Utnapishtim told Gilgamesh "I looked at the face of the world and there was silence, all mankind was turned to clay. The surface of the sea stretched as flat as a roof-top; I opened a hatch and the light fell on my face" (Gilgamesh 38).

Utnapishtim said he then looked for land and for fourteen leagues distance there appeared to be a mountain, and there the boat grounded. After staying there for seven days, Utnapishtim sent a dove loose, but it returned when she found no resting place. He did the same with a raven who saw that the waters retreated and did not come back. He "heaped up wood and cane and cedar and myrtle" as an offering to the gods. Ishtar came and told the gods to gather around the sacrifice, except Enlil. (Gilgamesh 38)
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/117023/a_comparison_of_noahs_ark_and_gilgamesh_pg2.html?cat=9

[Art_from_Ark]

176. Then there was Deucalian's flood

Humans had become evil and wicked because Zeus had unleashed evil and wickedness on them through Pandora's box, so Zeus decided to punish them by flooding them to death. But Prometheus knew what Zeus was up to, so he informed his son Deucalian, who was married to his brother's daughter, Pyrrha, and together they rode out the flood, which lasted for 9 days and 9 nights. After the flood, they repopulated the world by throwing rocks over their shoulders.

[hobbit709]

212. Yep. they cribbed the Gilgamesh story.

Filed off the serial numbers and claimed it as their own invention. Of course if you look at the Bible and compare it to other mythologies, there are many similar stories.

[drm604]

4. I'm sure

that Dutch "ark researcher" Gerrit Aalten has some whizbang high tech sciency ark verification equipment and techniques that'll answer the question. :eyes:

[pinboy3niner]

30. Are you questioning the accuracy of his world-famous "Ark Detector"?

:rofl:

[RKP5637]

66. +1, n/t

[PurityOfEssence]

192. What, you mean JOAN? She's NEVER wrong...

Ya give 'em a cubit and they take a mile...

[hatrack]

59. Well, there were those remains of a Bronze Age "Ark Welder" they found on site . . .

:rofl:

[lame54]

79. so once he verifies it - will he be out of a job?

[Aristus]

5. So they used carbon dating to show how old the thing is.

I thought they didn't believe in science... :eyes:

[HopeHoops]

9. Did they find 4,800 year old dinosaur bones near the ark?

[Tesha]

77. No, but they did find the last unicorn. (NT)

[HopeHoops]

122. Along with empty BBQ sauce bottles?

[fishwax]

25. carbon dating only works on biblical artifacts

of course, the scientific community doesn't want you to know that ...

:)

[BurtWorm]

7. Must be the piles of petrified elephant, kangaroo and stegasaurus poop

found in the vicinity.

[Richard D]

8. it's just been reported . . .

. . . that a plaque was found on the wood that said: Noah's Ark - 4800 BCE - Pat. Pend.

[HopeHoops]

11. "Made in China"

[fishwax]

26. .

:rofl:

[RKP5637]

58. +1, n/t

[Shell Beau]

12. lol

It must be true then.

[mstinamotorcity]

16. Good One

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[spinbaby]

18. Hey, you can take a tour

Here's a four-year-old article from World Nut Daily about tours to the ark:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50307

[spinbaby]

10. Wasn't this thing found like 20 years ago?

I remember a TV show about it.

[HopeHoops]

13. Yeah, but that was a Noah from a different version of the bible.

[pinboy3niner]

32. That was Noah Smelnick nt

[HopeHoops]

61. Wasn't he from Newark, NJ?

[deutsey]

87. There was also a cheesy "documentary" that came out in the mid-'70s

[RKP5637]

68. Yeah, it magically reappears every so often! LOL n/t

[donco6]

69. Like Brigadoon. Except without the great score. N/t

[RKP5637]

74. +1000, n/t

[Xenotime]

95. They keep losing it in a snow storm.

[county worker]

14. Yeah sure and all the remains of every kind of animal on earth that fit into the ark were found too!

In other news, scientists found Goldilocks grave. They could tell by the color of the corpse' hair.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

125. LOL

"Goldilocks grave"


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[brooklynite]

15. So they'll accept carbon dating for the Ark...

...but not for million-year old skeletons?

[Soylent Brice]

76. pretty awesome of them, huh? n/t

[Incitatus]

114. Those were placed by Satan to trick us

:rofl:

[chrisa]

17. How do they know that it's just not a very old ship?

Who's to say that Noah was even real?

[cali]

20. they're evangelicals. Of course they think it's Noah's Ark.

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. It's not a very old ship, it is the remains of a very old building.

The biblical flood was the flooding of the Black Sea basin about 5600 years ago, which displaces an entire culture. The story of it was related in the tale of Gilgamesh, then adapted by the Jewish elites who had been transported to Babylon in the 6th century BCE, at the time they invented their religion.

[alfredo]

130. Any wooden structure found on the mountain could be

mistaken for the ark.

These people must be of such little faith that they need concrete evidence that the stories are true.

[killbotfactory]

21. This all sounds very scientific

They're using carbon dating and everything!

[SidDithers]

22. K&R for comedic value...

:rofl:

Sid

[JuniperLea]

45. I'm pretty sure it was offered as such...

I'm having a blasphemous blast with it myself!

:rofl:

[SidDithers]

78. Oh, I'm 100% sure cali was giving us a laugh...

and it was much appreciated :)

Sid

[Liberal In Texas]

23. Did they verify the registration number or something?

Otherwise what make some old pile of wood proof it's Noah's Ark?

The ark and the flood are old mythic archetypes. I'd have to see them produce Noah's captains license or something.

[old mark]

63. It's painted across the stern: "Noah's Ark, Miami Fla", only it's not wood, it's fiberglass.....nt

[RKP5637]

70. Maybe Arizona could help verify Noah's captain's license or something. LOL n/t

[LibertyLover]

24. When I was in college some Ark researchers brought a piece

of wood they claimed was from the Ark on Mt. Ararat to the Oriental Institute. They wanted it to be carbon dated and were willing to pay. The OI had the tests run and dating came to roughly 3,000 years old or 1,000 plus or minus 100 BC. The ark researchers were not happy. I recently watched a program on the ark on National Geographic. Some of the yaboos they had on were funny as hell. One guy was poking at what was clearly rock and claiming it was petrified wood that had come from the ark. It had, he claimed, gotten flash petrified when lava from the nearby volcano had flowed over it. My husband and I just looked at each other and at the same time said something along the lines of "hot lava on wood equals incineration, not petrification". And yes, the ark person said it with a perfectly straight face and convincing tones.

What I want to know is how in the hell do you verify the find's legitimacy? Do they think they are going to find a plaque written in Sumerian or Akkadian saying "This Ark hand built to the specifications from God by Noah"? Personally I'd love for them to find a plaque that read "Utnapishtam made me." That would be outstandingly cool.

[arthritisR_US]

27. they verify it through faith and if you doubt me you're going to hell ;-) n/t

[hayu_lol]

36. Faux link claims that the ship remains were discovered...

at 13,000 feet of altitude. Almost all of the animals/birds/humans would have frozen to death almost immediately. Many would have died from the lack of oxygen. All would have been solidly encased in ice at that altitude including the wall of water at that height.

Faux and ministries claims are not noted for accuracy however.

Hmmm...next?

[cali]

40. far be it from me to defend faux, but what you find at the faux link

is what you find at every link reporting this nonsense. I'm amused because Noah's Ark gets found over and over again.

[petronius]

108. But if the ark floated there, it would have been sea level at the time, right?

Anyway, 13,000 feet isn't that high - there are permanent settlements higher than that in parts of the world. Which is not to say that this isn't BS, of course...

[RKP5637]

72. And they start with the premise everyone else is by default a sinner and going to hell

anyway... just makes for less paperwork, keeping track of all of the sinners. Then if that doesn't work, well, you know, "god works in mysterious ways."

[zeemike]

28. Never the less an interesting picture. at the article

Can't past it here.
And if this was at 11,000 feet it is interesting to say the least.

[YOY]

31. Picture brought to you by "Noah’s Ark Ministries International"

Yeah...no chance of them pushing spin or nothing...I'm sure they have not one iota of bias or are in any way questioning with an answer already well cemented in their minds.

[zeemike]

34. so you think they faked it?

Time will tell that.

[YOY]

39. No. I think they found a 3000 year old building in the mountains.

They just HAVE to believe and formulate things around it being "Noah's Ark".

They're evangelicals...streatching the truth to comfort belief is standard practice. Unless you actually think this country is loaded with satanists as I have heard them profess before.

[zeemike]

46. Well at 13,000 feet that would still be interesting.

What is a wooden structure doing there?...and why?

[YOY]

48. Now that could be interesting...but they've already gotten the answer they seek.

and all empirical evidence otherwise will not disuade them.

If it turned out to be a Persian military outpost or some Thracian shrine...it might prove to be just as interesting...but they don't even consider those possibilities.

I'm also not ruling out that this is just some scheme to get their fellow fundies to send them more money for "research".

[zeemike]

92. Does not matter really

They will dig it up and it will reveal what it is. You could not mistake a shrine or outpost for an ark.

[YOY]

100. They know what they want to find.

A square building will be what they want it to be.

[foxfeet]

105. Even if it turns out to be an outhouse.

[YOY]

113. or some Persian military outpost way in the mountains...

Remember that they dislike carbon dating...unless they think they can make it work for them. Chances are they misplaced the date by about 2000 years or so.

[Touchdown]

86. I'm holding out for a biblical ski lodge.

:woohoo:

[Silent3]

88. Is there a stupid religious idea you won't defend?

Just wondering.

[zeemike]

126. I will not defend any stupid religious idea.

But I also won't defend blowing off all evidence to the contrary just to make the stupid ideas seem more stupid.
And just look at this thread...am I the only one here that thinks this is interesting regardless of whether some religious group thinks it proves something for them?
Sorry but if they have any evidence to show that their was a flood and an arc then let's see it and not just ridicule the idea because we think we know all about it.
We don't know shit and this is evidence of something.

[Marr]

129. It's evidence of 5,000 year old wood, that's all.

That's not interesting in itself. People are mocking this because we've seen it many times. "Biblical archaeologists" go out to find something specific, and soon announce that the first ancient *anything* they find is the object they were looking for. It's backwards, sloppy thinking by people pushing an agenda-- not engaged in an honest discovery of data.

[zeemike]

134. What is the difference between this

And someone finding fragments of scull and claiming that they have found the missing link?
Or someone finding scratches on a human bone and declaring it is because that race of people were cannibals?

Seriously I would like an answer to that.
If people want to speculate that is fine, but be fair about it, and don't complain when the speculation goes against what you believe.

[Silent3]

140. First of all the idea of a "missing link"...

...is much a popular cultural idea, not a current scientific concept. From Wikipedia:

A popular term used to designate transitional forms is "missing links". The term tends to be used in the popular media, but is avoided in the scientific press as it relates to the links in the great chain of being, a pre-evolutionary concept now abandoned. In reality, the discovery of more and more transitional fossils continues to add to knowledge of evolutionary transitions, making many of the "missing links" missing no more.

Secondly, there's a well-developed science of human anatomy that allows a trained expert to make strong claims based on tiny fragments of bone even if those pieces look pretty nondescript to the untrained eye. There is no such science for identifying pieces of wood as unmistakably pieces of large boats that carried many animals during a flood.

The equivalent to identifying a fossilized piece of bone as part of a particular human ancestor is more analogous to identifying a fossilized piece of wood as a part of a particular kind of tree, not as a part of a particular legendary boat.

[zeemike]

143. so these trained experts have special insight.

they can tell you what a whole culture was like from scratches on a bone.
I would bet a trained expert in ship building could look at those planks and declare whether or not it looked like a shipwright made them....don't you think?
But to my eyes they do, because that long ago wooden houses were much to much labor to make if you had to saw planks or hue them just to make a wall. Especially if you had to haul them up a mountain 13,000 feet where there was no way to make a living up their.

[Silent3]

144. Show me a specific case where you think scientists...

...said so very much based on so very little as you claim. If they did, then in those cases they're being ludicrous too. One scientist overstating what his or her evidence proves or suggests doesn't make another scientist doing so more believable.

If you say "I found Noah's Ark!" that's not the same thing as saying "I found evidence that suggests a mysterious wooden structure that might be a boat in an odd place".

If you claim "I found Noah's Ark!" (even with the very immodest disclaimer of 99.9% certainty) then you are claiming that your evidence proves:

1) That you've found wooden fragments that conclusively belong to a boat.
2) That these fragments can be dated to a time period consistent with the Biblical story of Noah's Ark.
3) That said boat was big enough to house at least two of every "kind" of animal (seven pairs of each "clean" kind by some versions of the story).
4) That said boat was built by a man named Noah, or at least by someone closely matching the Biblical character.
5) That said boat performed the task of carrying all of those animal afloat during a world-enveloping flood.
6) That you have evidence of a world-encompassing flood that occurred within the incredibly geologically short period of the past few thousand years that is strong enough to refute a mountain of contrary geological evidence.
7) That the existing living animals of the world can trace their lineage to a very small population of animals dispatched from a single geographical location a mere few thousands of years ago.

Even proving a much lesser case, proving that you'd found something that could at least definitively be considered the starting point for an exaggerated legend, a boat that held a large number of animals and was used to keep them alive during a significant local flood, would take much much more specific evidence than any of the Biblical archeologists have ever produced.

If you want to equate proof of any of the above to generally much less modestly stated scientific claims like, "the evidence suggests an early agricultural community that performed burial rituals", when the scientists have not just bone fragments, but two or more dating techniques that agree with each other, related physical artifacts like tools or pottery shards, chemical and DNA analyses, etc., then you are engaging in a ridiculous farce of pretended equivalence.

[zeemike]

148. What you are doing there is piling on.

you take every claim made by both legitimate and illegitimate theorists and say that if you say it is the ark you also say that every claim ever made must be proven.
the only claim that must be proven is that it was a sea going vessel of great size sitting on a mountain top.
That alone is powerful evidence for a massive flood.
And there is already evidence that their was one...from such diverse sources as Homer, the bible, Native American tradition and other cultural references.
The Hopi indians say they escaped from the flood by sealing themselves in wooden tubes that landed in the 4 corners of the US....and they had no contact with the bible.
so this is not at all as crazy as you make it sound...but you can use crazy to discredit it.

[Silent3]

153. You're going to have, pardon the pun, "water down"...

...what exactly is sufficiently Noah's Ark-ish to justify the paltry evidence being brought forward with a boastful claim of 99.9% certainty of finding Noah's Ark. Noah's Ark isn't just a boat, but a boat that has to fit into a pretty specific story line of events to be Noah's Ark. Anything less is just a mysteriously placed boat, nothing more.

Further, as I already said, I don't think the evidence is even good enough to support a very scaled-back ark purported to have served a much less grandiose mission.

No, a large boat on top of a mountain combined with diverse tales of large floods (which are easily accounted for as I've said in another post without them all being about the same capital-F Flood), even if you can prove that much, is well short of good reason to claim 99.9% certainty of finding Noah's Ark.

so this is not at all as crazy as you make it sound...

Yes, yes it is.

but you can use crazy to discredit it.

I'm not bringing the crazy, I'm just pointing to the crazy that's already there.

[zeemike]

157. Well everyone is entitled to their own opinion and he is entitled to his

He believes it is...so what..does that mean that everyone else is guilty of his optimism?

But that has become the problem with evedence...it can be accounted for, and so you account for theirs and they account for yours and it becomes an ass kicking contest to see who can heap the most on the other and "win". And the truth is that the only winner is ignorance and conflict.
Science should not be a game.

[Silent3]

163. When the "ass kicking" is all based on consistent rules about quality of evidence...

...then bad ideas should indeed get there metaphorical asses kicked. Whether you want to characterize that process as a "game" or not because yes, there are winners and losers, doesn't make the process less valid.

By the way, overstating the certainty of your evidence by saying things like you're 99.9% sure you've found Noah's Ark isn't "optimism", it's hubris.

[Marr]

161. The difference is this:

An archaeologist gathers evidence, then reads that evidence as objectively as possible to form a picture of the past. They build a case-- and they don't build elaborate arguments around one small bit of ambiguous evidence, as you suggest.

A "biblical archaeologist" sets to find evidence that supports a story they already believe. They dismiss the things that don't support their narrative, and are inclined to interpret anything ambiguous as supportive of their story. They aren't scientists, or at the very least, practice very bad science.

[Silent3]

132. I might find it interesting if someone found an unusual...

...scrap of metal too, but if they immediately claim not only that this metal is proof of extraterrestrials, but a piece of a specific spacecraft that took Elvis and Amelia Earhart to Alpha Centauri, I'm going to get a laugh out of that.

[zeemike]

136. so is it the immediacy of it that bothers you or the claim?

If there were ancient books in many cultures in our world claiming space craft came to the earth and then then they dug up a hunk of metal would that make a difference?

[Silent3]

139. I find the Noah's Ark claim and my hypothetical alien spacecraft...

...example equally ludicrous. Both are examples of trying to use meager evidence to support a highly unlikely pre-existing narrative that would require much more evidence. I don't see where "immediacy" enters into that, or why you're asking about that.

[zeemike]

142. Because you said it.

except that there is a lot more evidence of a flood than a spacecraft.
there are stories about it in every culture around the world...including the native American culture that had no contact with the others.

[Silent3]

147. There is abolutely no good supporting evidence...

...for a single capital-F Flood of the Biblical kind.

It is not surprising that many cultures have stories of great floods because many cultures are based around great rivers. Some of the best farm land in the world is good farm land precisely because it's exposed to repeated periodic flooding, and such land naturally attracts people to settle there.

When the geological record doesn't support anything at all like a world-encompassing flood within the last thousands, tens of thousands, or even millions of years, and when the geophysics of such a flood makes very little sense (where all the water would have come from, where it would have gone to, how it would appear and disappear so quickly), you need a whole lot more than a bunch of vaguely similar stories from different cultures as proof.

[zeemike]

150. Well it is not true that there is no explanation for the flood.

There is this thing called Methane hydrate that is an ice like substance made up of Methane and water.
And until recently they thought it would only exist on some cold moon of Jupiter but they found that the bottom of the sea has a lot of it due to the tremendous pressure. and if this hydrate was suddenly released it would shoot up into the atmosphere a huge amount of water that would fall as rain...don't take my word for it look it up.
and then the source of the flood is covered in the bible....it says "And the fountains of the deep were opened up"
A fracturing of this layer of methane hydrate would cause all that water locked in solid form in the rocks of the sea flore would indeed be a catastrophic event...and that water would return to the rock after a while.
So it is not as clear cut as you think

[Silent3]

155. When you've located these "fountains of the deep"...

...and explained a mechanism for them suddenly releasing and then reabsorbing massive quantities of water...

when you've found solid evidence of all of this water covering all of the planet all at the same time within the past few thousands of years...

when you can explain how this wasn't far more devastating to the world's ecology than could be undone with a boatload of livestock...

when you can explain the great variety of living species now existing which are far more numerous than the number of "kinds" that could fit into any conceivable wooden boat...

when you can explain the survival of a vast array of flooded vegetation...

when you can explain the survival of many fish species which have very specific salinity and temperature requirements...

when you can explain the survival of species that would have to trek through inhospitable climates bereft for a long time of suitable vegetation or prey until they reached their proper ecospheres...

when you can explain the current degree of genetic diversity that shows no signs of massive inbreeding problems or a genetic bottleneck a few thousands years ago for all living animals...

...well, I could go on and on, but the point is made: You're doing science backwards. You're starting with the conclusion you want to reach, and cherry picking any little thing you think might prop it up, and hand-waving away the huge problems your pre-desired conclusion suffers from, and discounting all conflicting evidence.

You claimed you don't defend stupid religious ideas, but here you are, trying to defend a claimed discovery of Noah's Ark based on the most feeble of evidence, and pulling out the even more ludicrous notion of a world-wide Biblical-style flood as a supposed defense. If you're trying to be a parody of what I claimed, you couldn't do a better job.

[zeemike]

158. Well yes I can with one stroke.

Because all of these concerns come from a false dichotomy that says it covered the whole world to the tops of all the mountains because it says so in the bible...
but you do not recognize that the story Noah told was from his perspective...and indeed from that perspective that he saw, the waters covered the mountains...How tall were the mountians in his land?
Now could the other stories ALSO be true?...could others have escaped? How many that lived in the mountains like Tibet and that region survived by moving to high ground?
So with all due respects to Noah he did not know what happened to the whole world....just HIS whole world and one could not expect him to....and when he took all the animals it was all the animals in HIS world.

But life is reseliant...and seeds and fish eggs do to and my guess is that it would only take 100 or so years for the earth to be replenished because nature has done it before.

[Silent3]

162. There is no false dichotomy here because I offered the alternative...

...of a "watered down" Noah's Ark. Not only did I offer that alternative, but I said that the evidence isn't great for that either -- the problems just aren't as glaringly large as a claim that includes a total global flood.

The odd thing is that it still sounds like you want to hedge your bets that something as ridiculous as the world-wide (not just "Noah's world") flood could have happened too, when you add disclaimers like "But life is reseliant (sic)" and bring up methane hydrates.

Hear me now and believe me later: There was no simultaneous world-wide flood any time in at least the last few millions of years. Life itself may be "reseliant", or even resilient, but biodiversity and complex ecosystems are fragile. A world-wide flood would disrupt many fragile biological relationships. Numbers of species would plummet and new ecosystems would have to be rebuilt from the heartiest of the survivors, with diversity taking a long time to be reestablished. We simply are not living in a world that's a mere few thousand years out from such a devastating event.

DNA tests like studies of genetic drift and diversity in mitochondrial DNA clearly show "genetic bottlenecks", when a species has been reduced to a small number of individuals from which all future individuals must descend. If many species had gone through a bottleneck at the same time, which would necessarily happen with a world-encompassing flood, the genetic fingerprint of such an event would stand out clearly and plainly. There should even be a regional fingerprint like that for any local flood severe enough to lift a boat far into the mountains of a particular region -- and there is none.

[zeemike]

164. not recognizing the complexities can lead you to simple answers

The world is a very large place and my guess is that some of every race survived....at least their own traditions say they did. And the same is true for the animals and plants. But if you insist that only Noah survived with a few animals and plants then your hypothesis could be correct....but that is not what I am saying...so there is the false dichotomy.
Thousands of people survived it and so did most of the plant and animal life, and should such a catastrophe happen again the same would happen.

But I presume you know where the story of Atlantes came from...Homer learned it from Salon who learned it from a priest in Egypt...what that priest told him is that the world had been destroyed by the flood and that is why there was no knowledge of the previous civilization....save the information saved by them in the great library in which Salon went to study.

The problem with science is that they are afraid to ask the question of could it be true.
And their fear is justified because should they even ask that question they would face the same ridicule that you see heaped on this thread, and would ruin any chance that they had for a job in science....and we all know that is true.
so it forces science to continually reinforce the status quo.
If Science agrees that there was no flood no evidence for that flood can be looked at in any serious way and if it is it must be ridiculed and de bunked whether it is worthy of it or not because science as an institution cannot allow itself to loose face. And this has always been the case because the institution takes precedence over the science and discovery.

I am for letting free thinkers be free and let the evidence lead us where it may.

[Silent3]

165. Trying to make evidence fit an existing legend is just the opposite...

...of "free thinking".

Let's put it this way: Suppose the Bible didn't exist, or somehow it was lost long ago and no one remembered the stories from it today. Do you think a totally "free thinking" approach to the known archeological and geological data would ever, ever lead to someone recreating a story that looks like the story of Noah and the Ark? All based on an unbiased approach to the evidence?

You keep conveniently ignoring that I've I also stated there's no solid evidence to support anything like the Biblical flood story. Your own caveats that many clusters of animals and human groups could have survived here and there don't save the story, especially if you're trying to support a simultaneous flood, however incomplete you're willing to go, all around the world.

Why don't you spell out what you think is an absolute minimum scenario that justifies calling a particular old boat "Noah's Ark"? At the rate this has been going so far, I'll never find out how far you're willing to retreat and duck and dodge about what exactly the OP is supposed to be 99.9% certain proof of.

As an aside, it would be very interesting if this "group of Chinese and Turkish evangelical explorers" is as willing to back away from Biblical literalism as you are.

[zeemike]

179. Well those are interesting questions.

But had the bible not existed I think we would be much more open to the idea of a great flood than we are now....it is this bible literalism that drives the other side to make questionable arguments against it....both sides through up the walls and try to control the message.
But the bible is only one source, but it is the mane source of irritation because they include all kinds of articles of faith that are not well founded in the text....for instance the insistence the only Noah survived it...or something like the earth was created 6000 years ago....and so it then becomes an ass kicking contest between the two sides...and science feels compelled to discredit anything and everything that they say, and they tend to through out the baby truth with the bath watter.
The burden of this evil is less on the scientific community than it is on religion, but both sides play the game.

Had there only been Homer's tale and other writings from around the world that did not insist on articles of faith science may have already uncovered the truth.

But what would be convincing evidence with respect to the OP would be a very large structure made of wood that could have floated on the sea...remembering the dimensions described would make it as large as a tanker ship...so no "boat" would do, although it would still be interesting and require explanation of how it got there.

But as to the Evangelicals my guess is that they will never back away from their position because they have lost all objectivity through the mechanism of irrational faith.

[Silent3]

180. You're weighting the importance of the supposed need...

...to have to come up with a good explanation for what might be (actually, only may have been, past tense: looks like the OP story was a fraud) an oddly large old boat found oddly high on a mountain top way too high compared to the explanatory problems of using a global and/or very large local flood to solve the first problem.

If you have an unsolved bank heist where it seems the only possible solution is ninja thieves who can walk through solid walls, the fact that you "solve" your mystery by suggesting such a solution doesn't outweigh the problems of explaining why these ninjas haven't been discovered before or how such an ability, obviously greatly useful for many applications other than robbing banks, hasn't become well known over time.

When a supposed solution causes more problems than it solves, despite the annoyingly insistent way some people will harp, "Well, do you have a better answer!?", as if any bad answer is better than no answer at all, the best answer is to say "I don't know", without raising the bad answer to the prominence of a tentative but somehow respectable best solution.

It is not "close minded" to reject a solution that causes more problems than it solves. You seem incapable of understanding or accepting the clear geological and biological record that such a gigantic flood would have caused, and the enormous inconsistencies that would have to be explained for why the geological and biological record of that flood hasn't been found before, and in fact, that the contrary has been found and is already well supported.

Suppose we ever do find such a big old boat (and the OP's evidence, now looking like fraud, wasn't even all that conclusive on that one small fact, even if taken as given) high up in a mountain. Regardless of any religious or romantic predilection you might have toward how wonderful it would be to have an ancient legend confirmed, proposing a flood as the solution for how the boat got there creates a huge new set a problems that would also demand explanation.

In light of those problems, it would be a far more likely solution, no matter how difficult a task it would have been for ancient peoples (who did, after all, build things like the pyramids) to build such a large boat so high on a mountain, that some crazy eccentric ruler decided to build a boat-shaped fortress, either because he just liked boats or he thought, ultimately incorrectly, that a giant flood was coming and his boat would be launched when the imagined flood arrived.

If you're thinking something like "You think ancient people would have wasted time and resources on a crazy task like that for no good reason! Boy, you're desperate to avoid admitting the Bible might be right!" then your problem is that you place way, way more significance on the unlikelihood of eccentric behavior compared to the far, far greater unlikelihood of a giant flood not having left unmistakable evidence that would have already been discovered.

[zeemike]

189. Well first of all it was not a boat.

It was an arc which translates to a box or container....and based on the description in the bible of how it was built it would look noting like a boat, not to mention it's size....so if they find a boat then that is not it.
and I know it is being called a hoax....it only took a few hours after the story came out for them to declare it that...they could not have seen the evidence in that short of time to justify that claim....and that link did not work for me, but I saw it elese where.
But there is noting that has been found that someone cannot find problems with. that is the nature of the game.
By the way here is a site that has more pictures....http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/27/noahs-ark-found-evangelis_n_553999.html#s85521...and unless they are fake beg to be explored.

But sure I would agree that it may have ben constructed up their after the time to fool people into thinking it was biblical...but there are great problems with that as well...but no need to talk about that because we have little facts to go on.
But as far as the geological and biological evidence that you say proves it never happened because if it had there would have ben evidence in the geological record...I submit to you that their IS evidence in the geological record that has long been known but has been explained away by equally far fetched explaination....Do you want to discuss that evidence?

Edited to add....here is a viedo of it at this site...http://news.spreadit.org/noahs-ark-found-in-turkey/

[Silent3]

197. If it's designed to float on water, it's a boat

Or do you have a new theory of the Ark that involves a seal shipping container loaded onto an even larger boat? :)

At any rate, if you're going to offer evidence of a great flood of truly Biblical proportions, it will do no good for you to merely site this and that reference to something that may or may not prove something here or there was once covered in water. Describe exactly what you think this flood you're talking about is first: the minimum and maximum extent that you think your evidence supports, the minimum and maximum depth of water, the minimum and maximum duration, whether it was local or global, etc., as well as how long ago this flooding is supposed to have happened.

I can't evaluate the quality of your evidence until I know what exactly it's supposed to be evidence of. It probably suits your argument to be vague about all of that, but I have no reason to be patient about that kind of vagueness.

[zeemike]

198. That's fair enough

So here is what i think happened.

The methane layer in the deep Atlantic ocean fractured, probably due to tectonic of the plates moving, and this released a huge amount of Methane gas that had been accumulating under the sea that shot up into the upper atmosphere and the condensing watter turned to rain....the expansion of the watter in the sea from the methane gas alone would have raised the sea level by hundreds or even thousands of feet and adding in the rain made it even higher.
this created a hugh surge of water that would travel around the globe but would have been deepest and most destructive to the western world.

Now looking at the geology of the American continent for starts.....what we see is that at one time there was a great inland sea in the state of Utah and the great salt lake is the remnants of that sea...this sea would have been filled to overflowing by this surge of water, and when water levels dropped there would be drainage, and consequently drain channels...and I am suggesting that the Grand Canyon is that drainage channel...

How is that for starters.

[Silent3]

199. The time period this is supposed to have happened?

And the evidence of concurrent massive global warming that would have accompanied the release of such a massive amount of a very potent greenhouse gas?

Also, are we talking about so much flooding that the waters of many lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands would have ending up being mixed with sea water of much different temperature and salinity?

[zeemike]

202. Only a guess but somewhere 10k ago.

And I have no idea how long methane persists in the air but my guess is not long enough to create a permanently warmer world.

And yes it would have been devastating to life all over the world, but it would not have ended it...and some things like the Salmon could have rebounded quickly because they laid their eggs in high mountain streams that may not have been reached by the surge of water.
And there would have been similar stories of survival among most creatures and plants.

[Silent3]

204. Like I said before, there's a difference between life in general...

...surviving and biological diversity surviving. There is simply way too much biological diversity right now (even aside from the species loss that human development is causing) for a significant extinction event to have occurred within the last 10,000 years. A flood of the type you describe would have indeed been a significant extinction event. Imagining to yourself this kind of fish or that laying eggs in a protected place doesn't solve the problem.

Methane persists for a long time. I'm not sure of the exact rate of dispersal, breakdown, or re-absorption, but current release of methane from things like cattle farming would be as nothing compared to a release of gas so enormous that it changes sea levels, yet even that comparatively small amount of methane has to be figured into global warming calculations. Enough methane to displace the quantity of water we're talking about here wouldn't be mere trace amounts like we have now (which are still enough for a warming effect), but choking quantities of it. I can't think of anything other than burn off (and that would result in a lot of C02) that would get rid of a lot of methane quickly. It's a fairly stable chemical compound, and the processes that trap methane in permafrost are slow.

At any rate, so far all you've done is propose a questionable mechanism for your alleged flood. Where is the evidence that this flood actually did indeed happen? Concurrent sedimentary formations all dating to the same time within the last 10,000 years? Concurrent tree ring evidence? Chemical signatures in Antarctic ice cores?

[zeemike]

205. But the evidence is there

but most of science do not believe in catastrophic events....there whole theory is based on slow steady change....like the grand canyon...their answer to that is that the Colorado river made that canyon because if flowed their for millions of years and slowly ate away at the rock formation....and this is where the evidence is interpreted to fit the theory.
It is an easy cheep explaination...you calculate how much material is eroded away ever year and calculate the amount moved and then say the river has flown here for 50 million years unchanged by geological events.

I can point to many things like this but I will relate one that I came across many years ago when I lived in NW Florida...in those days they paved roads with oystershells...and I wondered where they got them all...surly not from shucking oysters...so I found that there ar hugh shoals of oyster shells in beds hundreds of feet thick in the Gulf and they take out barges and use a clamshell lift to fill them up for cheep paving.
Now if you calculate how long it would take oysters to make a bed that deep you would have to say that oysters grew there for millions of years....but think about that a minute...is that logical?..eather the ground would have to gradually sink ot the water level gradually rise to keep the shells from getting to close to the surface to continue the oyster population.
but the more logical explanation is that a tsunami like wave washed them into shoals as such events do.
And there are a lot more geologic structures that can be considered in that light...like the petrified forest in the SW. where there are petrified trees in vertical positions in the strata....that could not have happened with slow steady change.

[Silent3]

208. You're not offering evidence...

...you're handwaving away the entire notion of "slow steady change", then substituting mere speculation, and calling it "more logical", about how things could have happened in faster, more recent events.

Where are the dating techniques that prove your speculations? Off-the-cuff calculations about how such in such could have happened via a big tsunami aren't evidence, especially considering the body of existing contrary data you have to go up against.

Current science acknowledges some episodes of rapid flood damage, by the way. There's geology in the "scablands" of the northwest US which is best explained by a very sudden release of a large quantity of water, most likely very large lakes of glacial melt water released when an ice damn containing that water gave way.

Such events, however, don't match up with anything like the Biblical flood. It sounds like you're pushing so-called "Flood geology" that I've heard before, and it doesn't add up. Dating of sediments doesn't match such scenarios, the very ordered layering of sediments doesn't match, including the segregation of species into different layers of sediment.

And again, you're given no answer to why we don't see evidence of a mass extinction occurring in the time period you're speaking of.

[zeemike]

213. no I am not denying slow steady change.

that is obvious to everyone.
what I am waving off is the notion that catastrophe can not be considered when examining the evidence.
And there is a lot of evidence for catostrofy....I took a little time to hear the evidence from the flood believers and they do make points and have questions that require answers that make sense....I could post some of them if you want but you can find that for yourself in this age of Goggle.

But you did cause me to find out more about methane hydrates and it seems that the greenhouse argument you made is more complicated than probably ether of us thought.
And I found this site... http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/FutureSupply/MethaneHydrates/about-hydrates/chemistry.htm ...that does a great job of explaining them even to chemistry dummies like me...so I thought I would share it.

But that is the question is it not?
Of why we don't see the evidence, because we don't want to?
Because to admit that there was the possibility of a flood 10k years ago would also lent credence to the bible...and if we keep the faith of those that do not believe we must not look....and on the other side...those that believe make the unbelievers even more resolute in their faith by saying outlandish things and scourging them with their self righteousness.
And the game continues.

I am of the opinion that almost every legend has an element of truth in it, and science must start to consider this when they make assumptions about how things are and have been.

[Silent3]

214. So you really don't have any evidence...

...just a lot of suppositions and conjectures and the assumption that the evidence you want isn't there because people aren't looking for it, are even actively trying not to see it, blah, blah, blah.

And you're the brave rebel, crying out for the establishment to be more "open minded" because they're afraid of your Truth.

I've seen this movie before.

[zeemike]

216. I personally do not cary it around with me.

I rely on the internet for it....and it is so easy....just search for what you want like I did..on evidence for the flood.
Lots of stuff their like this

"One line of evidence in favor of the Flood comes from the preponderance of turbidites, which the Flood would have generated. Kurt wrote an excellent article on turbidites which revealed that 30-50% of all the world's strata are turbidites. Turbidites, also known as graded beds, are quickly deposited from rapidly moving, widespread, sediment-laden turbidity currents. A turbidity current is an underwater landslide of sorts. Turbidity currents occur when huge, underwater piles of unconsolidated sediments break loose and begin rushing down the slopes of ocean floors and lake beds. Turbidites are called graded beds because there is a continuum of particle sizes within a turbidite layer going from bottom to top, gradually decreasing in size. Before geologists recognized the true nature of turbidites, it was assumed that they were formed by gradual deposition over thousands or millions of years. This faulty assumption is the fruit of uniformitarian thinking. If this were true, no appreciable fossilization could take place, because animal remains must be quickly buried before scavengers, decay, and chemical decomposition can destroy them. For instance, what happened to all the buffalo bones on the Great Plains of the United States? "
http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/Articles/Cyclothems.html

Now if you dismiss this argument as crazy shit I think you are missing the point of science.

[Silent3]

223. Part of the "point of science" is sorting out the "crazy shit"...

...and that site you linked to is stuff that deserves to be sorted out.

Christ on a crutch, the article starts out referring to Velikovsky?

Most of the reference material cited goes back to the 1960's or earlier.

They talk about dating strata, but only to say "The other scientists do it this way. Here's how we do it." with no other justification, apparently, than to get their story in tune with the Bible.

Where's the chemical, radiological, or biological dating evidence for their time lines?

Where's the explanation for current biological diversity and a distinct lack of a 10,000 year old genetic bottleneck that many living species should have in common if any of this is true?

[zeemike]

227. Perhaps that is the problem.

science thinks it's job is to sort out crazy shit.
But not so...it's job is that of discovery.
And not much discovery goes on when they are busy sorting out the crazy stuff...and there is a lot to sort through because they have limited what can be used for fear of seeming crazy.

And really there is no better example than that of Velikovsky. I read his Worlds in Collision many years ago and I remember how viciously he was attacked, and remember how he was ridiculed...but his theories were backed up by real evidence that he presented well, but science chose not to answer the evidence because it would shoot to hell the uniformatism that they had wholly accepted as a mater of faith.

But I can't answer the technical details of there evedence...I am no scientist....but it is up to science to tell us if their methods are correct or not.

But I can give you an answer to the bio diversity thing...because that is part of the false dichotomy.
You insist that all species must have been destroyed and then ask how they could have came about through evolution in 10k years.
That is not how it worked....many survived on their own...imagin a beaver in a mountain stream the was suddenly inundated with water washing trees and debris with it as it came,, and imagining the beaver clinging to the tree and riding out the surge of water.
And in the big earth with high and low places and many of each kind of everything, it is not hard to imaging some of everything finding themselves a safe place that would preserve their kind.

And if we look at this flood from Homers description this happened in the Atlantic ocean and then look at the present day geology....the surge of water that went westward would encounter the Rocky mountains and in the east would have encountered the alps but the Mediterranean would be wide open and the surge of water would defiantly reach Mt Arrat...So there is no reason to presume it covered every mountain even though from Noah's perspective it did.

[Silent3]

231. "I am no scientist"

That's the most sensible thing you've said so far.

"imagin (sic) a beaver in a mountain stream"

Imagine that their are currently over 2000 known species of mammals alone. Thousands upon thousands of bird, reptile, amphibian, and fish species. Millions of insect species. You frankly don't know what the hell you're talking about when you play little games in your own head imagining just one member of one of these species grabbing hold of a branch and riding out a flood.

Some species simply could not survive a great flood, no matter how many scattered unflooded mountain tops you imagine. Many species can only survive in very narrow ecological niches. If forcibly and suddenly displaced from those niches, they will die. All of them will die. Some species are utterly dependent on certain flowers blooming at certain times. Others have fixed breeding grounds or otherwise very picky mating behaviors (think of the many species zoo keepers have great difficulty breeding in captivity) and would fail to breed if a gigantic flood interrupted their breeding season or left a muddy wreck of drowned vegetation in what had been their former habitat, provided they didn't starve to death because their food supply had been destroyed.

You clearly have no clue as to the devastation that would be caused to river, lake, pond, and wetlands ecosystems if nearly all of them were suddenly mixed with seawater, undergoing huge sudden changes in temperature, salinity and exposure to sunlight, not to mention the sudden introduction of alien species, from large predators to microbes.

Even when individuals survive, many creatures aren't going to get that lucky in numbers sufficient enough and dense enough to reestablish a breeding population. If a hugely reduced population does manage to successfully breed and reestablish itself, the effect of only a few individuals originally surviving creates an observable genetic bottleneck -- any species reduced to a small number of members, after rebounding from that small population, exhibits a much lower diversity of mitochondrial DNA sequences. The rate of mitochondrial mutation is sufficiently consistent to serve as a rough genetic clock.

science thinks it's job is to sort out crazy shit.
But not so...it's job is that of discovery.

Those two functions are inseparable. Science is like solving a crime. There is a time when considering many possibilities is what's necessary for seeking out a solution to a crime, but then the time comes to winnow down the list of suspects, to discover who is truly guilty. Endlessly keeping all suspects in play is useless.

That you don't even recognize the utter ridiculousness of Velikovsky's ideas makes me think this discussion is pretty hopeless, however. He was "savaged" because his ideas were, frankly, amazingly stupid. If you can't see the enormous problems of imagining planets bouncing around the solar system like gigantic billiard balls, and that there's absolutely nothing that needs to be solved by Velikovsky's "solution" (unless you want to prove Bible passages about the sun stopping in the sky to be literally true -- and that's hardly something crying out in desperate need of any explanation other than being a story), then I suppose you're a hopeless case for understanding the problems of your imaginary Flood.

[zeemike]

234. Like solving a crime?

Who said that we had to have an definitive answer to what went before in the vast history of the world?...I do not look to science to give me any definitive answers to that I want them to discover all that they can, and if that evidence conflicts with present theory to change that theory to answer the anomalies in it.
this is not at all like solving a crime.

But as too your biological argument I would point out to you that there are millions of square miles of this earth that may not have been destroyed by the flood...in the North American continuant we had an estimated heard of Buffalo estimated to number 60 million before white man came....what are the odds that some of them would have survived?
Again the false dichotomy is to assume that mass reduction of populations equals mass extinction.

And too some extent Velikovsky has been vindicated by evidence discovered by modern science....the atmosphere and surface of Venus is just as he predicted it was....and now astronomers have speculated about dark matter and dark stars of massive gravity that just might explain such an upheaval in a solar system...so that is still open as far as I am concerned because we are just starting to understand the universe.

[Silent3]

236. I was right...

...you are hopeless. I could keep trying, and perhaps if I don't you'll take some smug satisfaction that you must have somehow defeated me with your persistence, but I'm giving up because the blind, stubborn idiocy you're exhibiting is, by all appearances, insurmountable.

Congratulations, you've successfully become impenetrably thick.

[zeemike]

237. I understand completely.

And it is OK for both of us to be thick.
but I enjoyed the conversation anyway.

[uberllama42]

207. You mentioned the pyramids

I don't see how building a giant boat on the side of a mountain in Turkey is any more rational than building the pyramids. The pyramids were a tremendous white elephant project that wasted a vast amount of resources that could have been used for something productive by an early civilization.

With the pyramids as an example, no one should consider the ancients, as a rule, too practical to do something ludicrous. That's been demonstrated and is well within the realm of existing human knowledge. A claim that there was a worldwide (or even regional) deluge has to contend with a mountain of contradictory evidence, as you've said repeatedly.

[zeemike]

209. I don't question that possibility

But that is why we need to dig it up...and find the truth even if it embarrasses us.

[Silent3]

215. Of course, you don't have to contend with contradictory evidence...

...if you try very hard to ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist. :)

[uberllama42]

206. So do you believe the Flood covered North America

as Hopi lore supposedly claims? If it did, we should find in North America all the same geological and ecological evidence Silent3 listed. If you think that areas of the world were largely unaffected, what about all those flood stories you listed? If the Flood happened in all those areas at the same time, there should be a great deal of evidence showing that at a certain date a few thousand years ago, those areas were rapidly inundated and then that the waters dissipated quickly. That's evidence we don't have.

I don't see what good it does to your case to say that some areas were not entirely covered by the Flood. The world's ecosystems and various incipient cultures would have been enormously disrupted by a major flood event of the kind you are describing. Yet it seems that various cultures and the world's ecosystems continued uninterrupted during the time of the supposed flood.

[zeemike]

210. I think it covered most of the Continent.

And there is the evidence for it.
But this flood would have started from a central point on the earth and spread out from that point like a wave....on the other side of the earth that wave would have spent most of the energy and it's depth....so yes there would have been lots of places not flooded on the earth.

[uberllama42]

228. What evidence is there that North America was covered by a massive flood

sometime in the last 10,000 years? What details about very recent geological strata reflect the continent having been flooded? Is there anything about various terrestrial ecosystems in North America to suggest that they all formed after some flood event that wiped out the earlier terrestrial ecosystems, some time in the last 10,000 years? What about the topology of the continent? Does that in any way reflect a massive, recent flood event?

Is there any archeological evidence to support the Hopi story about surviving a giant flood? What about other Native American groups? Did they survive independently, or did they branch off from the Hopi that supposedly survived this flood? Whatever you hypothesize, there should be evidence to support it.

To my knowledge, there isn't any evidence to support any of that. I'm not a biologist or a geologist, but from what little I know, it seems that the normal process of sedimentation has gone on uninterrupted all over the continent for much more than 10,000 years, and that the ecosystems in North America did not all develop simultaneously in the wake of a catastrophe around 10,000 years ago.

In short, from what I know, the evidence utterly fails to support the claim that a flood covered North America.

[zeemike]

230. Well you can easily get the evidence with goggle.

I did a brief search and found a lot.

But the Hopi story I do know something about...they say they landed at the 4 corners in the US and then were told to migrate in the 4 directions and when they could go no further to turn right....this is the original symbol of what we now call the Swatsika...but is the symbol of their migration that they say repopulated the continent. but there is always the possibility that they encountered other survivors of the flood....there is a lot about them on line that is interisting...including their prophisies....I happen to know about it because I met a guy some time back that was adopted by the tribe and spent some time with them....I learned a lot of fascinating things from him.

A little research and an open mind is what is required.

[uberllama42]

232. "I did a brief search and found a lot"

And yet you didn't bother to present any of it.

Hmm.

[zeemike]

235. Well I did to Silent3

And I could do the same for you if you really are interisted...but I think your take is more like most here...to ridicule it.

[spanone]

211. zealots will do anything to promote their cause

[Blue-Jay]

37. It's a yearly money-making scam.

Each summer, a group of religious grifters visit backwater churches to raise money to finally provide incontrovertible PROOF that the story of Noah is real. They tell the parishioners every year that Noah's ark has been located (again! no, this time it's really the real one!) in order to get money to "fund an expedition" to Turkey to finally bring back proof that the bible is correct. They'll show some aerial pictures of a slightly ark-shaped rock formation in order to encourage people to donate for this very important expedition. It costs a lot, you see, because they'll need to bribe the right Turkish officials, buy the right equipment, etc.

[csziggy]

117. But think of all the money the Turkish guides get to make off the idiots!

[Cali_Democrat]

38. They're probably just on a really bad acid trip

They didn't find shit.

[piratefish08]

43. or a really GOOD acid trip.

either way - yeah - didn't find shit.

[Cali_Democrat]

111. lol

good point

[geardaddy]

41. If you're an evangelical and you're looking for Noah's Ark

you're gonna find Noah's Ark, no matter what "evidence" you find.

It's ass-backwards scientific research.

[Adsos Letter]

42. Ron Wyatt (now deceased) should hardly be considered a legitimate archaeologist...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyatt

http://www.isitso.org/guide/wyatt.html

:eyes:

.

[JuniperLea]

44. Oh goodie... again...

Can you feeeeeeel the spirit moving you? Can I get an amen? Halleluuuuuujah!

Please pardon my blasphemy; it has evolved to a knee-jerk state in this phase of my Fundy recovery... say amen!

I'm only half joking...

I can't help but think this very, very old news is being trotted out to fuel the fire of the almighty JAYSUS! Oh, sorry... I meant to fuel the Fundy fire aka The Moving of the Spirit... gets 'em all riled up, and if "they" play it right, it can get the anger meter clicking too.

Abortion, check.

Immigration, check.

JAYSUS!!! CHECK... Hallelujah!



**blanket apologies to all Christina DUers that take the Gospel for Gospel and are good people... I know many of you and I don't mean to belittle your faith... but this is what a very evil branch of so-called Christianity did to me. I apologize to you, not to them. They are TeaBaggers now you know. I'm serious. Oh, I mean, I'm series!

[NoPasaran]

47. I won't believe it until they produce Noah's birth certificate

[MGKrebs]

53. Or maybe Obama now only needs to come up with an

appropriately aged piece of wood from Hawaii.

[asjr]

49. I still maintain it was Mt. St. Helens.

[mainer]

50. 4800 years old isn't old at all

There are Bronze Age ships far older. Egypt was in its early dynasties. If there was a worldwide flood, you'd think the Egyptians would have some record of it.

[MilesColtrane]

51. Just wait til they find those two unicorn skeletons in the locked stall that somebody forgot about.

Noah, you got some splainin' to do!

[geardaddy]

56. You mean Gary?

Flanders (as God): Ohhhh, my unicorn! Oh, what have they done to
you, Gary?

[ladjf]

52. The key piece of information, namely, the elevation above sea

level, has not been mentioned. There are very precise geological records of the Earth's sea levels during the recent past.

[underseasurveyor]

54. Again

geez... How many arks did noah make?

[Evasporque]

I've seen it....was there....!!

[geardaddy]

57. Is the the Dells?

[Evasporque]

121. No it is Mt. Ararat...!!

lol

[trekbiker]

55. found at 13,000 ft??

lets see. If all the ice in all the glaciers and mountains of the world melted sea levels would rise what, about 100 or 200 ft? And this "Ark" was floating on water at 13,000 ft? Or maybe the bible thumpers can accept carbon dating to 4,800 years ago but plate techtonics is bullshit if scientists point out that there is no way Mount Ararat was thrust up to an altitude of 13,000 ft in only 4800 years...

[KatyMan]

62. Whatever one's beliefs regarding Christianity and Judaism,

surely you have to be totally batshit crazy to actually believe in Noah. Or Moses for that matter, but jeezy chreezy, Noah? Might as well believe in Gandalf.

[phleshdef]

64. I'm not so sure about that. Many cultures have a similar story.

If you look past all the grand, unbelievable parts of the story, there could be something there that really did happen. I'm pretty sure there probably was a great flood that hit that area of the world. I don't see as an impossibility that a group of people some how figured out that they were about to get hammered with water and maybe packed up a floating vessle of some sort with some of their livestock and lived in it for a few weeks.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

67. Many cultures have stories you'd have to be batshit crazy to actually believe.

"I'm pretty sure there probably was a great flood that hit that area of the world. "

Yeah, yeah, yeah. The black sea flood hypothesis.

Except it's total overkill. If you're some pre-literate second millenium B.C. peasant, any flood you witness is going to appear as if the whole world has flooded.

[phleshdef]

75. Thats exactly what I'm saying.

I believe there is a possibility that there is a real, realistic event behind all the myth and exaggeration.

[eShirl]

97. Have you ever read Jung? n/t

[calico1]

65. Again? n/t

[spanone]

73. was al qaeda's #2 man the captain?

[jgraz]

83. Bastard... beat me to it.

:P

[spanone]

91. gotta get up early! bwahahahahaaa

[foxfeet]

106. Somali pirates.

[bvar22]

80. I don't care if it is or isn't "Noah's Ark".....

If this fitted planking is indeed 4.800 years old, and is at 13,000' on a mountain top, I'm interested.

If NOT a hoax, this is an important and valuable archeological find.
Time to get some REAL archeologists and scientists up there....ASAP, before the cuckoos try to build a TV Ministry on that spot.

[zeemike]

127. you and me babe.

If true this is an important find and we need to jump on it.
I just hope the fear of the truth of what this may be does not stop one side or the other from investagating and excuvating it.

[Dogtown]

203. Money > Mouth

I hope you've donated an extra tithe to researching this "important find", zee mike.



:patriot:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

217. I'm mortally afraid that pi might actually be equal to 3. -nt

[formercia]

81. ....and the Shroud of Turin is really one of Frank Zappa's old sheets

that he slept under after a long gig.

[krabigirl]

84. People are weird..they find old pieces of wood and think it's some mythical ark. lmao

[gatorboy]

85. Wouldn't Noah have used the boat materials to rebuild?

From a practical sense, it would seem unlikely that Noah would simply abandon this huge boat on the top of a mountain. If the planet was indeed flooded, the ark would have the only available wood to rebuild with. Regardless of what you believe it seems unlikely to me that the materials of Noah's ark would have gone unused.

[greencharlie]

89. good point... nt

[zeemike]

94. Actually that is an interesting question.

But my feeling is that if they landed on top of a mountain that they could no live there permanantly...they would have to move into the lower land surrounding it pretty quickly. I doubt that they would have taken the time to make permanent shelters up there.
Plus the ark was enormous in construction and the people were few...so they would have needed only a little of the material.

[RedCappedBandit]

90. You can't prove it ISN'T the ark!!!111!111

[Silent3]

99. Well, there's a pic for my Facebook page. :) n/t

[donco6]

104. LOL! Hilarious. And true. n/t

[flvegan]

93. Before Noah, it belonged to Jon Voight.

[RagAss]

103. LOL....The Dentist.

[dorkulon]

96. "Noah's Ark Ministries International research team." What an astounding coincidence.

Gee, who'd have thought they'd be the ones to find it? It must be part of Gawd's plan.

[Angry Dragon]

98. The fanatics will not accept the find

They reject the use of carbon dating as not being reliable so if they accept the find using carbon dating then they open up all other carbon dating time lines.

edit: spelling

[pinniped]

146. The devil created carbon so he could trick them with carbon dating.

.

[Better Believe It]

101. Anyone find the Garden of Eden yet? I'd like to vacation there with my wife.

I understand clothing is optional but we'd have to wear fig leafs.

[mmonk]

102. Again? How many are there?

[foxfeet]

107. Have they found Gilligan and the other castaways yet?

They've got to be there somewhere.

[malaise]

109. I'm not buying it unless they have also found some

dinosaur crap in that ark. :evilgrin:

[DearAbby]

110. Well, for me

I would need Roxella Van Impe, or Pink Haired Jan Crouch, there sifting through the relics, with their dainty painted fingers, then I will believe it.

Doubting Momma, I cain't help it.

[MadHound]

115. Question, how do they know it is Noah's?

There are many inundation stories in various mythologies and faiths, to the point where it seems rather likely there was a large regional, if not global flood in the far distant past. There are also several figures who take on the role of Noah. So this could be the ark for any one of those folks, it doesn't necessarily have to belong to Noah.

[Forkboy]

116. Tough to get donations by telling people it's Bob's Ark.

:)

[cali]

120. I dunno. I personally like the sound of that

"Bob's Ark"- it has a certain ring to it.

:rofl:

[Forkboy]

137. Bob was a lesser known biblical character.

:)

[itsrobert]

181. Who smiled a lot

He is often creeping people out in commercials in present day.

[scarletwoman]

118. How many square cubits is it? nt

[IDemo]

119. It was consumed by the progeny of the two termites on board

[LynneSin]

123. They can showcase the ark with the Shroud of Turin

I'm a Christian but even i'm not that gullible!

[myrna minx]

124. What gave it away? The gift shop?

The Starbucks? :D

[guitar man]

131. If they did indeed find something up there

The idea of a tourist trap is not a new one. The stories of Noah and Gilgamesh were probably wildly popular in the ancient world. Some enterprising hucksters very well could have built the "Ark" up there so they could cash in on leading people up there to see it ;)

[Stevenmarc]

133. "evangelical explorers " Who wants to make a bet the remains won't be a day over 6,000

[upi402]

135. did they find the rib that made 'woman' too? n/t

[pinniped]

145. I've seen indisputable evidence that Noah's son circumnavigated the globe....

collecting animals on a flying dinosaur.

Here is proof for you heathens:

[Warren DeMontague]

154. More proof that bullshit floats.

And has incredible staying power.

[Swamp Rat]

173. I thought evangelicals did not believe in carbon dating?

The evangelicals I know do not believe carbon dating is good for anything. They often argue against evolution based on their belief that carbon dating is commie scientist nonsense.

[goodboy]

226. +1+1+1!!!!!!!!!!!! (nt)

[SwampG8r]

174. what suckers

i have most of it disguised as a shed and deck in my yard the rest is under the pool
they wont find it here

[SwampG8r]

175. and i just noticed

the guy leading them is chinese?
so a guy from a culture that is what...10000 years old is proving the world was depopulated by flood 5000 years ago?
anyone else see the math problem here?

[itsrobert]

182. Noah was Chinese

Very good breeding genes to populate the Earth again.

[SwampG8r]

187. i did not know that

[bikebloke]

183. I'll just have to hide it better next time.

I'm getting tired of those damned cristo-nutters crawling all over my boat.;)

[Hubert Flottz]

186. I think there was a recall on that Ark...

Bad brakes or something.

[TK421]

188. Here's a picture of how they thought it used to look

[phasma ex machina]

225. .

:rofl:

[Codeine]

190. 'Noah's ark just tried to kill my family!" nt

[ChickMagic]

201. My first thought when I read the subject line was, "Again?"

I especially like the rock formations they claim as petrified wood from the ark. For people who rely on faith, they sure are anxious to use science to lend credibility to their stories. Like Mark Twain said, "Faith is believing something you know ain't true." Seems to me they need actual artifacts to prove their faith to themselves.

[alarimer]

218. Bullshit.

No such thing as Noah's Ark.

In any case, this is likely someone's delusion.

[Old Troop]

229. Did they find any travel brochures?

[panzerfaust]

233. Again

Just for fun, read the description given of The Ark in the Christian Bible and then compare that with the usual Christian illustration of the vessel. I mean it is the Sun's (sorry, the Son's) Day so you really should either be in Church or Studying The One True Holy Book.

Then you might think about how all the animals got sorted into such appropriate environments since getting off the boat on Mt Ararat about 5,000 years ago. Long swim for the polar bears, even longer trip for the marsupials to Oz, and how fast do South American sloths move (and how well do they swim)?
Yep. I have no doubt that the one True Ark has been found.

Praise God!

[alfredo]

238. I have a piece of the true cross I could sell them if they are interested.

It's autographed by JC himself so you know it is authentic.

[JNelson6563]

239. Pointing and laughing at these fools.

:rofl: