Someone else made that same claim about 30 years ago. Then the story went away as fast as it came. I wonder what ever happened to those people. It was said to be in Turkey too.
I know they've found timber not native to the area around this area. Of course I'm sure there are various reasons the timber could be there.
I find it ironic that carbon dating (which has been called junk science by Christians) was used to determine how old this "ark" is.
True, I just thought it was ironic. I'm sure the Vatican will send someon to investigate it though, as is standard procedure for them.
I'm going to come out and say it. This is total BS. No way is this the mythical Noah's Ark. Remember last year when a couple of idiots claimed they had Bigfoot's body? It was a Chewbacca suit in the freezer. This is very similar, IMO. Every so many years, some jackass claims to find Noah's Ark. The fact is that the ******s looking for Noah's Ark are no different than the garden variety Bigfoot hunter. Pathetic.
There have been sightings of a wooden structure conforming to the ark shape in that area for decades. Some through aerial photographs and some through expeditions. Pieces of wood that shouldn't be in the area have been recovered and tested. But due to the difficult conditions and altitude nobody has ever been able to find it and then go back and show it to others.
meh theres no way to prove whose ship (if its indeed from a ship) anyways find the covenant of the ark and that would excite me
If they find evidence in the compartments of droppings from animals that could not have lived there, that would be pretty hard evidence.
It would have to be a wide variety of species. Ships from then till now, have always had live animals as cargo. In fact, if they find animal feces and its ONLY typical livestock, I'd say it was pretty solid evidence that it wasn't Noah's Ark.
Eh, every once in a while this claim is made, though the term is "came to rest on the Mountains of Ararat" not "Mt Ararat". AFAIK, the Turkish Govt has refused to allow any expeditions up the Mtn Side and to the glacier for at least 20 yrs, so chances are good...
Do stories like this, if proven true via SCIENTIFIC FACTUAL findings, lend credence to the BIBLE STORY and many other aspects held within THE BOOK from a faith standpoint. Does it increase those that profess FAITH in the stories of the Bible? Does it increase the DOUBTING THOMAS's to lean toward the other stories of the bible? Does it not change the non-believers, as perhaps small facts of HISTORICAL records only, won't change or influence faith toward other aspects of THE BIBLE? interesting for sure....
If it turned out to be Noah's Ark, it would probably change a few people. For me though, it wouldn't change anything. IMO, the existence of the Ark, would only prove someone tried to load up a bunch of animals on a boat. It says nothing about if a god told Noah to do it. It also doesn't verify anything else in the Bible. Many things in the Bible were true or co-opted from other true events. The same however, can be said of Forrest Gump.
If the ark is almost as big as the mountain then I would believe that 2 of each species of animal and food required to feed them would have fit in it.
As well as evidence of how they kept the predatory animals from eating the prey animals. AND.... According to D7 (remember him?) they'd have to find evidence of DINOSAUR EGGS on the ark! Sorry, but I remember him making that claim on the old site, and it still gives me a chuckle.
I thought they found it years and years ago up there but it was on the Russian side and they would not let them investigate?
D7 was a radical Christian from FH. He and Pagan had some epic battles. Maybe someone can dig up some of his posts (if that's allowed).
Ok, but valid point??? How is it a valid point regarding the time of Noah and time of Dinosaurs as if they overlapped or co-existed?? Extinction is Extinction from Dinosaurs to Dodo birds...not following extinction of Dinosaurs to the time of Noah and the Ark?
There was a huge discussion about the earth only being 6,000 years old, according to the Bible. It was brought up that if the earth was only 6,000 years old, and dinosaurs DID exist (due to fossil finds) why were there no mention of dinos in the Bible? D7 came back with one VAGUE passage that referenced a large animal (which could easily have been an elephant) and said it was proof that man and dinos existed together, even though NO human fossils were ever found amongst dino ones. Then when the topic of the ark came up, and he was questioned as to how it was physically possible to have 2 of every dino species on board, given the dimensions of the ark, D7 came back with "They were either babies or eggs." Cause of course we all know that Noah had a crack team of egg hunters that scanned the planet looking for dino eggs! The saddest part is that he isn't alone. Alot of the radical creationists are actually insane enough to believe man and dinosaurs not only co-existed, but got along swimmingly, as this photo from the Creation Museum shows in one of it's displays: Little girls and t-rex babies always play together! *EDIT* Wow, just reading the review of the museum where I got that picture and came across this: Wow...
If nature is not “red in tooth and claw,” where are they getting all that footage of lions ****ing up all those zebras?
It could. In fact there are many who believe that like religion stories myths and tales we have heard also hold some truth in it, for example Plato's story of Atlantis many believe is actually about the true Minoan eruption of Thera that practically wiped out their civilization. Now if this is Noah's Ark it doesn't mean God talked to him or he had animals of every kind but perhaps simply someone named Noah did build an ark of some kind to avert a flood.
Samarians also have a myth of an ancient flood and many old civilizations have myths of advanced civilizations that were destroyed.
It wouldn't change my views. I believe the bible is a collection of stories meant to teach. Some of the stories are based on factual events and some aren't. Some of the stories are exaggerated or changed to better illustrate a lesson or point. None of it should be read literally. So finding an ark and even somehow proving it was Noah's (I'm picturing a "Noah was here" carving in the wood) would not be inconsistent with my beliefs about the bible.