Noah's Ark Web-Page (http://www.arkdiscovery.com/noah's_ark.htm)

Welcome to Noah's Ark National Park.

Check out this Video, it's quite impressive:

Short Video Movie of Science Team's Investigation (http://www.pilgrimpromo.com/WAR/realvideo/smallnoah.ram)

Longer Video of Details (http://www.pilgrimpromo.com/WAR/realvideo/fullnoah2.ram)

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/narkvisitsign.jpg

The Park really exists, but what is this supposed ark structure? Is it a geological oddity formed by a lava flow that just happens to match the 300 Egyptian cubit description in Genesis? This structure was recently revealed by an earthquake.

What about the relics -- are they forgeries? I could possibly believe the iron studs, but what about the aluminum work? Are these pictures actually forgeries cooked up by a man of questionable reputation? What about the others on the team and the alignment of the supposed "anchor stones" with the ark?

How about the laminated petrified wood? Can lava cause wood to petrify?

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/arkrivet4.jpg

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/vertribs.jpg

These are the vertical ribs on the side of the formation.

More Nice Pics. Kinda quiet around here.

Supposedly 300 Egyptian Cubits in length -- what is it?


http://www.pilgrimpromo.com/WAR/noah/images/color/w_ra/05.jpg

Documentation (http://www.pilgrimpromo.com/WAR/noah/html/n03.htm)

The royal Egyptian cubit was 20.62 inches. Now, if we consider the Biblical statement that Moses was "learned in all the wisdom of Egypt" - Acts 7:22, as the author of Genesis, he would have been referring to the only cubit he knew. 300 cubits = 515.5 feet. 50 cubits = 85.9 feet. The measurement of the length of the boat, taken in August, 1985 by Maylon Wilson and Baumgardner of Los Alamos Laboratory with sophisticated measurement devices, showed the inside length of the boat to be 515.7 feet! David Fasold's measurement of the same was exactly 515 feet!

How about these claims:

2. Twelve years of electronic and mechanical probing has positively identified it as a boat.

3. Repeated chemical analysis of many different samples, taken at different times by different people and analyzed at different laboratories, positively prove it to be composed of very ancient wood and metal.

4. Samples of petrified wood have been located and taken from the structure in the presence of many witnesses. In addition to previous tests, I have additional samples which have metal brackets and rust, which were videoed as they were retrieved from the boat. I will have them tested at various testing facilities in the future and in the presence of witnesses.

5. A large number of ancient and medieval inscriptions near the site positively identify it as Noah's Ark. There will be more on these inscriptions in our later book, which will include photographs.

6. Its 515 foot length, its 138 foot width (splayed) are the measurements of Noah's Ark as recorded by Moses (educated to use the ancient Egyptian cubit) in the Book of Genesis. See an explanation under "Questions I Am Most Frequently Asked About Noah's Ark".

7. It is located in the mountains of Urartu (Ararat) as specified in the Bible.

8. Its location at an elevation of 6300 feet above sea level is above any possible height reachable by a "local flood" but is below the maximum water level that would result from all the water of our planet washing the earth's surface (7000-8000 feet).

9. Its location, many miles from any present or ancient body of water that would support it, defies any other explanation.

10. Its massive size and weight make it impossible that it could have been "trundled" (dragged) this distance from water, and its altitude above present and past sea levels defies any other explanation.

11. Contrary to a touched up photograph, which has been widely circulated, it's the only formation of its kind on planet earth, other than remains of other ancient boats of much smaller size.

12. Your writer, in the presence of Turkish authorities and other observers, performed an electronic survey of a site that some of our critics said resembled the boat formation (the similarities were vague at best, nonexistent in actuality); the metal detectors and sub-surface radar scans showed nothing in the site that were not present anywhere in the area.

13. A careful electronic survey of the area around the formation showed none of the structures present in the formation.

14. Chemical analysis of the area around the formation showed only normal traces of the metallic oxides and organic carbon which are present in large amounts in the formation.

15. Train-loads of petrified wood are present in the formation, but there is little to be found in the rest of eastern Turkey.

16. Many ancient historians record that the remains of Noah's Ark were to be visited in this area.


6) What do the scientists and other experts you have taken to the "boat" say; do they believe it is the Ark?

Answer: One who is totally convinced is David Fasold. David has written a book entitled "The Ark of Noah" which details much of our research, and while we disagree on some matters I don't feel are significant or cause for doubt as to the identity of the boat, I highly recommend it. He is meticulously thorough in his research and recording of the data. I must give David a great deal of credit in the research and wish to add he was the most enjoyable person I have ever worked with. He knew the first time he laid eyes on it that it was a boat. And he's an expert in shipwrecks.


It could be a fraud. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0419arkdiscovery.asp)

The main claims at a glance
Turkish Government says it’s a boat……FALSE
There is a regular metallic pattern……FALSE
Lab tests show petrified laminated wood……FALSE
Turkish scientists found metal rods……FALSE
Metal artifacts have been proved by lab……FALSE
There are ‘ship’s ribs’ showing……FALSE
There is lots of petrified wood……FALSE
Radar shows man-made (boat) structure……FALSE
Why do we mention these articles on our Web site again? Gray’s advertising insert Discovery Times has appeared in major secular newspapers in Australia and may appear in other newspapers, increasing the likelihood that Christians will be asked questions about these claims.

http://users.netconnect.com.au/~leedas/images/ark%20lines.jpg

What do you think -- gimmickry or science?

Somew say he (Ron Wyatt) was a complete fraud (http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/)

Interesting, but none the less, I believe it's a gimmick.

A crater, and all they found is a damn wood.
A damn wood without digging :D
Without digging deep. :m:

Chance is very high that some dude put it there.

I say, let the scientists do their job.

Do you believe this is Noah's ark, Woody?

Let's also not forget the incomprehensible amount of rain that fell over that comical 40 day period...

40 days = 960 hours

Mt. Everest = 29,035 ft

+20 bonus feet (Genesis 7:19)

Divide 29,055 feet by 960 hours...

That's equal to 30.26 feet of rain per hour which also translates to 6.052 inches of rain per minute. Trust me, there was NOBODY pounding on the outside of that ship trying to get in. Why? They were hydraulically pinned to the ground. That's like standing underneath a waterfall that surrounds the entire circumference of the planet.

Let's pretend that Mt. Ararat was the only mountain around and plug our numbers back into it:

40 days = 960 hours

Mt. Ararat = 16,945 ft

+20 bonus feet (Genesis 7:19)

Divide 16,965 feet by 960 hours...

This is now equal to 17.67 inches of rain per hour and 3.5 inches of rain per minute. This is still enough to strip all organic matter from on top of any layer of bedrock.

See? Creationists deserve to be laughed at... :D

Let's also not forget the incomprehensible amount of rain that fell over that comical 40 day period...

40 days = 960 hours

Mt. Everest = 29,035 ft

+20 bonus feet (Genesis 7:19)

Divide 29,055 feet by 960 hours...

That's equal to 30.26 feet of rain per hour which also translates to 6.052 inches of rain per minute. Trust me, there was NOBODY pounding on the outside of that ship trying to get in. Why? They were hydraulically pinned to the ground. That's like standing underneath a waterfall that surrounds the entire circumference of the planet.

Let's pretend that Mt. Ararat was the only mountain around and plug our numbers back into it:

40 days = 960 hours

Mt. Ararat = 16,945 ft

+20 bonus feet (Genesis 7:19)

Divide 16,965 feet by 960 hours...

This is now equal to 17.67 inches of rain per hour and 3.5 inches of rain per minute. This is still enough to strip all organic matter from on top of any layer of bedrock.

See? Creationists deserve to be laughed at... :D

The argument that goes with the flood is that Mt. Everest was not 29K feet in elevation at the time of the flood. Also fossil material can be found on Mt. Everest.

As said before, the majority of the water is proposed to come from the fountains of the deep. Less than 5% of the earth's water is at its surface. Were you aware of that? Perhaps you are too busy laughing to care about this fact.

I say, let the scientists do their job.

Do you believe this is Noah's ark, Woody?

Probably not Noah's ark.

God doesn't use people with questionable reputation to be his witness -- unfortunately Ron Wyatt falls in this category. I think he had good intentions, but when you look at all his other wild claims involving the ark of the covenant, blood of Christ, etc. it fits a pattern of deception.

You notice that Ron Wyatt is the only one making the claims, and an archaeological find of this importance shouldn't be touched by an amateur. I've been to an archeological excavation. Nothing ticks them (archaeologists)off worse than treasure hunters and the like coming in and disturbing the site.

Ther are plenty of trustworthy archaeologists that would be willing to do this site. I watched in horror as Ron and his taxi driver scraped away the rib timbers.

In summary-- it's probably a creationist's equivalent of piltdown man.

Earthflow (http://noahsarksearch.com/AvciMurat/TelcekerEarthFlow.pdf)

Its good that woody appears to agree that Wyatt was a con artist and woody has already provided a link to the TentMaker website, but here are some specific links that those that might be interested can check.

I provide them because sciforums topics are so easily googled and the gullible tend to find their way here. Its good that the info is available.

The site is a geologic feature called a syncline. http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/bogus.html

More detailed page of the one Woody already linked to that disputes the late Ron Wyatt's claims: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/report.asp

the rocks in this formation were once molten, cooling to become an "ophiolite belt," meaning the Durupinar site contains rocks and dirt that have been altered due to the molten process.2 It is this phenomenon that has elevated the carbon percentage of the Durupinar site's soil. This same chemical process is also responsible for deceiving Wyatt into believing he has found "metal brackets and rust." According to Morris the site has many manganese nodules which are high in iron, which by the unknowing could be mistaken for iron.3

Previous explorers of the site concluded that since the Durupinar site did not contain wood, petrified or otherwise, it must be only an unusual natural rock formation. Wyatt, on the other hand, claims that the Durupinar site contains "train-loads" of petrified wood (p. 13, no. 5). The problem, according to Wyatt, is that the "petrified wood" of the Durupinar site is different from any other petrified wood. It has no growth rings. -- http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/HasNoahsArkBeenFound2.html (I couldn't resist the emphasis on "ophiolite").

http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/BaumgardnerLetter.html

Ron Wyatt: just another asshole who was trying to make a buck and get his 15 minutes. The Ron Wyatt Archaeological Research website is still taking donations! http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/index.html

A Great Christian Scam (http://www.tentmaker.org/Dew/Dew7/D7-AGreatChristianScam.html)- A christian speaking out against the obvious con-job that Wyatt perpetrated and others are continuing use as they defraud the gullible. Favorite quote from that site: Perhaps more incredible to me than the fact this con could go on as long as it has, is the response of many Christian leaders to this perpetration. I think the most honest response I got in this whole investigation came from a non-believer from a television studio. He said, "I became involved for the money." Thank you, non-Christian for a little honesty.

Fact or Forgery
Neither, it's mythology
which is written in the language of poetry not prose.
Religious christian folk bang their heads against a metaphor thinking it to be fact.

I love this quote from the arkdiscovery.com site:
Contains high-tech metal alloy fittings, as proven by separate lab analyses paid for by Ron Wyatt, then later Kevin Fisher of this web site. Aluminum was found in the fittings which is a MAN-MADE metal!
I wonder how Noah refined the aluminium ore. Electrolysis?

The argument that goes with the flood is that Mt. Everest was not 29K feet in elevation at the time of the flood. Also fossil material can be found on Mt. Everest.

Mount Everest, like the rest of the Himalayas, rose from the floor of the ancient Tethys Sea. The range was created when the Eurasian continental plate collided with the Indian subcontinental plate about 30 to 50 million years ago. Eventually the marine limestone was forced upward to become the characteristic yellow band on the top of Mount Everest. Beneath the shallow marine rock lies the highly metamorphosed black gneiss (foliated, or layered, rock) of Precambrian time, a remnant of the original continental plates that collided and forced up the Himalayas.

The sea didn't rise, the mountain did. Not because god wished for it, but because two tectonic plates collided and pushed the himalayas upwards towards the blue sky. No, god didn't make the sky blue.

You seem to think woody that if we disprove one aspect of the Noah story you can happily move on to the next one. NO... woody...NO. If one aspect is impossible the whole story is impossible. Logic... woody...Logic...it is your best friend.

Since this is pseudo-archaeology, I propose that the topic be moved to the Pseudoscience sub-forum where it can be properly addressed.

Neither, it's mythology
which is written in the language of poetry not prose.
Religious christian folk bang their heads against a metaphor thinking it to be fact.

You missed it.

Spurious said,

You seem to think woody that if we disprove one aspect of the Noah story you can happily move on to the next one. NO... woody...NO. If one aspect is impossible the whole story is impossible. Logic... woody...Logic...it is your best friend.

As I said before, if I can believe the supernatural, then the impossible becomes possible. How about christ being resurrected from the dead?

Since this is pseudo-archaeology, I propose that the topic be moved to the Pseudoscience sub-forum where it can be properly addressed.


whatever, I don't really care where it goes -- religion forum or otherwise.

The sea didn't rise, the mountain did. Not because god wished for it, but because two tectonic plates collided and pushed the himalayas upwards towards the blue sky.

Why did they collide? Why did they move in the first place, what causes them to move? Also, they couldn't collide without the magnetic energy within matter, so what causes that energy?

In the end, when you dive deep enough, you'll realize that "god did it".

How about christ being resurrected from the dead?

That is like saying "How does the cyborg in Terminator 2 change shape?"... BECAUSE ITS FICTION.

I think people just don't want to give up the idea of God, even if empirical investigation reveals that there is nothing for Him to do.

magnetic energy within matter, so what causes that energy?

Magnetic energy within matter? :bugeye:

If you dig deeper you will see that it is possible to explain everything with natural processes.

Magnetic energy within matter? :bugeye:

yes, the electromagnetic force creates what you feel as resistance in matter.

If you dig deeper you will see that it is possible to explain everything with natural processes.

yet you can't even explain magnetism.

yet you can't even explain magnetism.

yet you can't show god.

Yet there are theories on the nature of magnetism.

yet you can't show god.

i have already showed it before, but i'll show it to you: god is the only existence which we recognize as the self. now you have 'seen' god, because you know you exist. the self is nowhere, yet somewhere (everywhere)

old words lose their meaning and they are replaced by new words which the new people understand.

Yet there are theories on the nature of magnetism.

they never explain the cause because they don't explain the thing which they say causes it. they go in circles. to them, effects are causes and causes are effects. they don't 'see' the present creation where nothing is recognizable -- the 'nothing' where everything comes from.

you see... everything that is visible is an effect. hence, the cause cannot be visible.

How many oceans must you explore before you conclude Mermaids do not exist?

i have already showed it before, but i'll show it to you: god is the only existence which we recognize as the self. now you have 'seen' god, because you know you exist. the self is nowhere, yet somewhere (everywhere)

old words lose their meaning and they are replaced by new words which the new people understand.

That is just a bunch of bullshit.

Noah's Ark -- Fact or Forgery?

Fact!. But not as told in Genesis.

The nomad Hebrews stold this old tale from The Epic of Gilgamesh written hundreds of years before these desert nomads, ever learned to read or write, anyhow, they deceivedly conjured up this story as their own, but a flood did take place many hundreds of years ago, and this animal trader was cought in a flood and rode the tide of the flood with his family. The flood is believed to be locally to Asia, like the Tsunami that hit not long ago. I searched for the damn story in the history channel, that's where I saw this interpretation of the Noah story, though I couldn't find it. However did find the similarity of Gilgamesh and this story. here (http://www.magickalshadow.com/gilgamesh.html)

But really Woody, do you think that that thing they found in Mt. Ararat could possibly hold every creature in the world, it's food, it's excrement, which accumulated enclosed for 40 days and nights? the stinch must of been beyond awfull, lol..

Other similar stories of Noah's Ark here (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16827)

This is why I conclude that something to this nature must of happened, however not at all like it's told in the BuyBull!!. ;)

Godless

Wood takes millions of years to fossilize, and requires an oxygen-free environment, otherwise, it just rots.

How many oceans must you explore before you conclude Mermaids do not exist?

Do mermaids exist if I paint one, do they exist if I artificially create one? But if universe and time are infinite, what limits are there?

That is just a bunch of bullshit.

the universe exists because people don't accept the truth. if particles would accept the truth, the negative and positive forces, fear and love, would unite, so all particles they would stop moving and existing. this is impossible, our own fear resists it.

love exists because we fear, fear exists because of infinity. we fear the truth but still we seek and find more and more about that infinity.

the universe exists because people don't accept the truth. if particles would accept the truth, the negative and positive forces, fear and love, would unite, so all particles they would stop moving and existing. this is impossible, our own fear resists it.

love exists because we fear, fear exists because of infinity. we fear the truth but still we seek and find more and more about that infinity.

That is just more bullshit.

That is like saying "How does the cyborg in Terminator 2 change shape?"... BECAUSE ITS FICTION.


How about this image coming from the Quick-Bird satellite? (this is the first time it has been shared with the public):

http://www.livescience.com/images/060308_ark_quickbird_02.jpg

This is like Noah's ark candidate #3?

Somebody is really sinking big money into this project. KennyKC perhaps you should be their financial advisor since you are so confident you have the answer. Help them save millions.

Here's the Current News Story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060309/sc_space/exclusivesatellitesleuthclosesinonnoahsarkmystery)

a direct quote:

"I'm calling this my satellite archeology project," Taylor said. It's an effort that has now included use of QuickBird, GeoEye's Ikonos spacecraft, Canada's Radarsat 1, as well as declassified aerial and satellite images taken by the various U.S. intelligence agencies.

http://www.livescience.com/images/060308_ark_cia_02.jpg

Declassified Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Keyhole-9 satellite image of a panoramic shot of Mt. Ararat, taken on Dec. 20, 1973. The "anomaly" is circled in red by researcher Porcher Taylor. Several years ago, the CIA declassified over 55,000 satellite images of various places around the world, including this image. Credit: CIA/Porcher Taylor

OK so here's what the CIA has been "hiding." Wasn't it Skin Walker that said I was having schizophrenic delusions about CIA information on Mt. Ararat? Well maybe not! :D

Images with red shapes tend to make shapes where there are no such.
Here, I took out the red line and considerably increased the image size:

<a href="http://img458.imageshack.us/my.php?image=arkquickbird021ig.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img458.imageshack.us/img458/253/arkquickbird021ig.th.jpg" border="0" alt="Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us" /></a>
(notice the change in altitude)

So.., how do you suggest this apparent cliff formation to be a ship?
With the same credibility you could say that clouds that look a bit like air-ships are alien spacecraft.

I don't see it even with the red lines.


[Renrue]

I'm willing to consider the possibility that this image represents some man-made object. It's worth futher investigation.

I see a photoshoped banana.

I think it is that whale from the bible stranded on top of the mountain because he got stranded there when the global flood retreated.

How about this image coming from the Quick-Bird satellite? (this is the first time it has been shared with the public):

To be truthful Woody, I have not read your post beyond this. Perhaps if this thread is idle for the next day or so I will come back and say something further...

But the reason I have not read your post is because we have already establised that Noah's Ark is impossible.

I feel insulted that I have to debate such a childish fantasy, because we as a species have acheived so much. But you and much of humanity treat these ancient stories as fact. When backed into a corner you simply say it's magic. That totally ends the debate there Woody. Therefor the argument is at an end - You have lost.

Wait a minute, the Noah's ark story could still be partially true. Now Woody has presented some serious evidence in the form of a photo of a strange formation near the mountain of legend. This evidence deserves consideration, I think that is in keeping with the scientific method. Most legends have their origin in a kernal of truth.

If it turns out that the mountain formation is just rock, then Woody needs to find other evidence. Since it is not in our power to do the actual investigation, I guess all we can do is wait.

Wait a minute, the Noah's ark story could still be partially true. Now Woody has presented some serious evidence in the form of a photo of a strange formation near the mountain of legend. This evidence deserves consideration, I think that is in keeping with the scientific method. Most legends have their origin in a kernal of truth

Yes and the face on Mars was made by aliens waiting for us to solve the puzzle before they engage with us...

A man-made ship of that size can surely not look so natural. A ship of that size and no artifacts found except 3 shapes that sort of look like bolts? This is even ignoring the fact that the version of Noah's Ark in the Bible is clearly impossible... Unless you believe in magic to support your idiotic beliefs.

That's a different location. I don't buy the first "ship" tourist attraction one bit. The second location was mentioned on CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/03/13/satellite.noahs.ark/index.html) today.

To be truthful Woody, I have not read your post beyond this. Perhaps if this thread is idle for the next day or so I will come back and say something further...

But the reason I have not read your post is because we have already establised that Noah's Ark is impossible.

I feel insulted that I have to debate such a childish fantasy, because we as a species have acheived so much. But you and much of humanity treat these ancient stories as fact. When backed into a corner you simply say it's magic. That totally ends the debate there Woody. Therefor the argument is at an end - You have lost.


And from my perspective you are lost.

What? A ridge? I sure haven't seen one of them before. It must be Noah's Ark.

I will bet my house that you can dig forever on that site and you will find no artifacts that resemble a man-made object... Nevermind a ship described in Genesis to carry all of Earths creatures.

If a ship can survive for hundreds of years under the ocean and still resemble something man-made, it should surely survive underground and resemble as such. Circling a ridge with a red circle is just laughable. Shame on you.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/38/Martian_face_viking.jpg

See the face? Even we aren't immune to the deficiencies of human pattern recognition. The key is to be aware of our own limitations, imo.
And the "face on Mars." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_on_mars :lol:

That's a different location. I don't buy the first "ship" tourist attraction one bit. The second location was mentioned on CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/03/13/satellite.noahs.ark/index.html) today.

That's a copy of the same report I threaded. I think this might be ark prospect #3.

And from my perspective you are lost.

From the perspective of a person who retorts with "it's magic", that is a compliment.

From the perspective of a person who retorts with "it's magic", that is a compliment.

I state my own beliefs, and you take it as a retort of your own. If you really don't believe any of it then why even bother to say anything? :bugeye:

I believe you are made of swiss cheese. Prove me wrong.

What? A ridge? I sure haven't seen one of them before. It must be Noah's Ark.

I will bet my house that you can dig forever on that site and you will find no artifacts that resemble a man-made object... Nevermind a ship described in Genesis to carry all of Earths creatures.

If a ship can survive for hundreds of years under the ocean and still resemble something man-made, it should surely survive underground and resemble as such. Circling a ridge with a red circle is just laughable. Shame on you.

Who is "you" -- your imaginary friend?

I believe you are made of swiss cheese. Prove me wrong.

So you not only converse with imaginary friends but also with swiss cheese, do you also have visions?

I converse with imaginary friends made of swiss cheese.

Devil in queen elisabeth II canadian dollar !

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Canadiandollar_devilshead.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

Interesting mini-article. Anyone ever seen the movie White Noise? What a trivially obvious case of pareidolia (and the movie actually purports to be "based on a true story. :D

Devil in queen elisabeth II canadian dollar !

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Canadiandollar_devilshead.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

Interesting mini-article. Anyone ever seen the movie White Noise? What a trivially obvious case of pareidolia (and the movie actually purports to be "based on a true story. :D

A sign of true artistic intelligence! Have you ever taken a Rorschach ink blot test?

http://xai.com/jnebula/images/Cone1-Animate-Small.gif

I am a believer, Halleluja!

I got to admit, it feels good!

I converse with imaginary friends made of swiss cheese.

DSL spelled backwards spells LSD. :m:

Yeesh, not again! Actually rock formations of this kind are not all that uncommon. A laccolith is an intrusion of magma that thursts up never quite reaching the surface. The ignious rock, being harder than the surrounding sedementary rock, is left exposed after erosion does its work.
This is one explanation for the rock formation, there may be others.

Noah's arc. Naaa, no way. That's just another silly story.

Yeesh, not again! Actually rock formations of this kind are not all that uncommon. A laccolith is an intrusion of magma that thursts up never quite reaching the surface. The ignious rock, being harder than the surrounding sedementary rock, is left exposed after erosion does its work.
This is one explanation for the rock formation, there may be others.

Noah's arc. Naaa, no way. That's just another silly story.

I'd give it maybe a 5% chance of a manmade structure.

http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/2466/elvisonark1kt.jpg

I FOUND ELVIS !

lets not forget this one of Mary
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/americas_miracle_or_mistake0/img/laun.jpg

Found Jesus?
http://j-walkblog.com/images/jesusindoor.jpg

People are nuts

I'm as skeptical as anyone, but until someone goes to the site and determines if it just rock or the remains of a large ship, so one really knows. It is with doubt, not certainty, that knowledge proceeds.

It is written in the Bible that the ark came to rest near the mountains of Ararat which could possibly be referring to Mount Ararat in Turkey. Yet, there is a huge problem with that conclusion and it is this: There are "no" surviving remnants, not one kind, of hundreds of "foreign" animals from other continents, not even their ancient remains, (no wild lemurs, grizzlies, kangaroos, penguins, or even wild turkeys, etc!) neither within nor surrounding the whole Mediterranean region, which covers thousands of miles - especially in Turkey, which also borders the Black Sea! Those animals did not leave an ark and then simply vanish from there without a trace, Poof! In other words, no population of wild koalas or wild armadillos, etc. have ever lived in the Middle East in the past or in the present. :eek: Next, let's examine the fact that only one pair (a male and its mate) of every unclean animal were to have ever boarded the ark. There was absolutely no guarantee that either one of them was even going to be fertile in the first place. So, since at least one of the males or females out of the thousands would have been either sterile or barren, the whole premise for saving only one pair of each kind is a bad one. It is also far below the level of a God's infinite wisdom. Because with only one barren animal the whole premise self-destructs and we are left with a myth. The only one logical conclusion is that the story of Noah's Ark is a myth of epic proportions. It is only a fictional story! :bugeye:

Now it is time to apply this myth to the rest of the Bible. - The alarming fact is that this one myth alone proves that the whole Bible is nothing more than a compilation of myths and fictional stories framed around a central genealogy. - This is true because the whole Bible is completely and totally interlinked and interconnected from one book to the next. - For instance, the book of Genesis is entirely dependent on the credibility of the story of Noah's Ark to have any credibility of its own. - The book of Exodus is entirely dependent on the credibility of Genesis to have any credibility of its own. The book of Leviticus also is entirely dependent on the credibility of Genesis to have any credibility of its own. - So on and so forth, all the way through to the last book of Revelation. :rolleyes:

As said before, the majority of the water is proposed to come from the fountains of the deep. Less than 5% of the earth's water is at its surface. Were you aware of that? Perhaps you are too busy laughing to care about this fact.


If that much water was to come up from the ground Noah would not have been able to even build a boat, he'd have sunk into the quicksand surface

- The aforementioned facts do indeed prove that the story of Noah's Ark, written word for word in the Bible's book of Genesis, is only a myth. - Therefore, the Bible's God, Jehovah, along with the Quran's God, Allah, are both the very same mythical God of Noah. - These facts also prove that Jesus Christ is only the mythical son of the biblical God of Noah, thereby disproving Christianity as being the best religion in the world. - All of this proves that the big three world religions - Judaism, Islam, and Christianity - are all based on ancient myths and ancient oral traditions that are written inside of an old religious book, which will never be able to change the minds of unbelievers who are only seeing greedy clerics and televangelists taking money from gullible hard-working believers in order to stay in business.- The biblical Noah along with the biblical God are only fictional characters.

It doesn't matter if the story is true or not. The moral of the story is that if people in general act badly, God will punish them and spare the animals and a few good people to start the human race over again. 2000 years ago, this was an effective method of maintaining social order.

- But, religious scholars inform me that no mere mortal, such as myself, could ever disprove the existence of their God nor could I ever disprove the Bible as being the true Word of their God. - Well, excuse me, but the only way that these indignant religious fanatics can be correct is if they totally disregard every single sentence that is written about Noah within these chapters of the Bible: -
- Genesis 5, Genesis 6, Genesis 7, Genesis 8, Genesis 9, 1 Chronicles 1, Isaiah 54, Ezekiel 14, Matthew 24, Luke 3, Luke 17, Hebrews 11, 1 Peter 3, and 2 Peter 2, but also alluded to here: 2 Peter 3:5-8.
- When anyone connects all of those chapters of the Bible together, then the only possible conclusion is that those so-called religious scholars are the ones who are wrong. - It's too bad that most of them don't have the clear consciences to admit that their holy book, which is the only physical evidence that gives their religion any credibility, whatsoever, contains mostly fictional nonsense that only describes a fictional God, the biblical God of Noah can only be a fictional character. - If a God really did exist then that God would be the most visible character the world had ever seen and every single person would learn everything that they ever desired to know from being taught directly by God with no ignorant person getting in God's way who would only be able to teach a limited personal opinion about God. ;)

So what I have seen here is that there is that geological feature which disproves the story of Noah's arc. After all, the story was obviously someones speculation about what that natural geological feature might have once been in relation to a flood myth that he heard told of in the story of Gilgamesh.

Besides, for all you know we are already members of the Family of God who are already living in some sort of Heaven and this is simply its lowest level, which most enlightened ones refer to as being the physical dimension.

Is it total nonsense for me to make such statements about God? - No, if it is anything it is proof of one thing. - Either it is proof that a physical world of atoms and molecules is doing the impossible: - Starting with nothing but simple lifeforms and then having only "one" of its species out of the millions of different species within it acquiring extraordinary intelligence on its own that not even one of the other species could ever acquire. - Or else it is proof that there really is something "greater than us" out there, which is in a higher dimension of existence that is past the range of physical reality and that hasn't made itself known to the public for the "whole" world to see.