[Rupert]

THE remains of Noah's Ark have been discovered 13,000ft up a Turkish mountain, it has been claimed.

A group of Chinese and Turkish evangelical explorers say they have found wooden remains on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey.

They claim carbon dating proves the relics are 4,800 years old — around the same time the ark was said to be afloat.


The rest of the story is here.
'Noah's Ark' found in Turkey | The Sun |News

Could it be?

I hope it is not the same "scientists" that found that damn lizard. If so, it could just be a 1974 Chris Craft.....they will discover most anything for an opportunity to pop a cork on some cheap Champagne.........
Regards

---

Last edited by Rupert; 04-27-2010 at 03:19 PM. Reason: spell

[Ratmagiclady]

I hope it is not the same "scientists" that found that damn lizard. If so, it could just be a 1974 Chris Craft.....they will discover most anything for an opportunity to pop a cork on come cheap Champagne.........
Regards

All hail the Bat Boy!

Barring citation of sources not from the Brit 'Weekly World News,' I think we've about run out of 'scienceyness' to deny, though.


I'm going to say 'Looks like a scam,' probably with a photo of something else (perhaps a sincere attempt at re-creation) used to 'corroborate' a made-up story.


Also, for the record, Javier's previously-non-functioning link and all references on his own part to such seem to have been deleted. My own references to such were real-time and in context of both of us having problems.

I still have not seen the data or original cited article (except perhaps in Chinese graphical format) besides the Sun article treatment, (And photo claimed to be 'the find' though.)

Besides, by '74, weren't Chriscrafts already gussied-up-but still just not built like they 'used to be?' Hardly a boat to last a sidereal 'age. '

Still looks more like what a tomb of that place and time (among the horse-tribes, anyway: Plains. Why's that *ice* level, anyway? Also why do the joints get looser-fit the lower you look down, anyway? For seagoing, this should be the other way around, if any plastering was acceptable to begin with: come to think of it, why is that ice shaped that way? What formed it there, what rounded it, and what was supposedly holding it up? Photoshop? ) ) was 'supposed to look like,' that, just newer. The previous Mt. Ararat 'find' was at least timber that looked like it'd been up there a while. Not exactly ark-shaped: more like a bier, and with some fraud about it, IIRC, anyway, but hey.

[bombo]

Right, it is a scam because there is/was no such arch.

Noah's Ark found? Not so fast - Cosmic Log - msnbc.com

Keep in mind that this only undermines the plethora of nonsense coming from the bible, but it does not represent any harm to whatever interpretation you make out of such an ambiguous book written by men during the iron age. Relax, it is just a book, not a scientific paper.

You Tube

You Tube

[jgredline]

But what if it really is the Noahs ark? If it could be proven 100%, Would you believe?

[Parallax]

Javier, believers already believe and non believers aren't likely to be swayed by facts. Belief isn't belief because of facts. Belief is belief absent facts.

EDIT: I believe that made sense, didn't it?

[jgredline]

Javier, believers already believe and non believers aren't likely to be swayed by facts. Belief isn't belief because of facts. Belief is belief absent facts.

Oh I know this and I agree with you. To us it makes no difference if it is or is not, but what if"

[GingeM]

To us it makes no difference if it is or is not, but what if

It would be prudent to also ask "But what if not"... Just a thought...

[jgredline]

It would be prudent to also ask "But what if not"... Just a thought...

If not it makes no difference to a believer. Not a bit.

[wlachan]

They claim carbon dating proves the relics are 4,800 years old — around the same time the ark was said to be afloat.

I am not sure if this is a stupid question to ask, but would 4800 years be enough for a single race of human (how many human beings were onboard btw?) to be evolve into so many different colour of skins we have today? My understanding is that humans have not changed in the last 3000 years at least, that leaves like 1800 years? Any experts?

[Ratmagiclady]

But what if it really is the Noahs ark? If it could be proven 100%, Would you believe?

But... It isn't even close, especially compared to all the other evidence that methods 'Young Earth Creationists' claim have to be invalid (Unless I guess a Brit National Enquirer or other preacher wants to use them selectively) ....even to not have millions of other observations invalidate their own premise...

If you accept carbon dating, then you have to accept that things are much, much older than this.

Otherwise, well.

Even if the date were sourced, attributed, and peer-reviewed, it wouldn't support the premise you claim is corroborated.

All it would mean is there's definitely some very old wood (Which that 'find' as pictured, to all appearances is *not* in any way.) ...On a mountain long held to be sacred in the area it is in, by people who used timber... To bury their dead...

I think you're skipping past the point *that* you would appear to have been *taken in* and attempted to claim it *proved* something it does not. To back up a lot of *other* irrational demands that are *also* interpretations of translations of other pronouncements that happen to appear between the same book covers an awful lot.



It also *would not.*

Even *if* incontrovertible evidence were found that there was somehow a seagoing vessel built within fourty days with materials and technology that would have not existed, or at least been beyond the royal budget of any kingdom, which then gathered all the macroscopic species (A task even the National Geographic Society would be hard-pressed to actually do in a month with all the money in the world) on Earth and then survived a cataclysmic flood, only to retain structural integrity on a mountaintop...


Well, Javier, it simply wouldn't mean anyone told the true story about it even then. Or that it connected to or authoritated any of your other demands.

Just wouldn't. Besides, we know the same sort of deluge myth exists in pre-Hebraic contexts... Hardly a case for literalism... 'Even if.'


Ever consider the fact that 'even if' there was actually a structure as depicted on Mount Ararat, ....It's a *mountain?* Glaciers are unkind to even the stoutest wooden structures. (Not that that structure would hold any torsion if part of a vessel on water)

Ever consider that you're ....Just making demands that contravene even what you yourself trumpet as 'evidence' and claim, "Well, what if I'm right?"

Well, what if you're *not?*

You wouldn't be the first, certainly.

You may not believe me, Javier, when I say I'm not an enemy of your faith.

Bullshit, scammery, and literalism is an enemy, not just of what actually is there in your faith, but so many other things which depend on humans knowing stuff and communicating.

"What if" is a lame excuse for defending blindness.

I don't believe in your book or your world or your excuse for science, but if I can be a friend of your *faith....*


Look what you just did.
Why did you 'need' to do that?

'What if' it wasn't just academic in some circumstance. 'What if' no one was around to point out how *lame* what you were claiming 'Proves all I say!' was?

'What if,' you know.

'What if,' even *your* idea of 'God' is bigger than this?

So why'd you put up this National Enquirer article, man?

[bombo]

But what if it really is the Noahs ark? If it could be proven 100%, Would you believe?

Hi. The only thing that can potentially be proven here is the existence of a vessel (presumably a person persuaded by any of the abrahamic faiths would consider it to be the much acclaimed biblical Ark of Noah) located in that mount in Turkey.

Sure I would belief this once such discovery is published on a peer-reviewed scientific journal, such that there is a consensus on the world's scientific community about such finding.

Notice that such discovery would give no credence to further issues depicted in the passages of the books you are eloquently referring to. For instance: such a vessel carrying all species at that moment in time is highly unlikely to say the least -> hundreds of species (birds and insects mostly) are discovered every year nowadays and in fact the hypothesis of such vessel (the Ark) would not explain the geographical position of species that we see today.

So yes, the times for believing *anything* without sufficient evidence are long gone.

[Ratmagiclady]

Bombo's put it more succinctly in some ways.

I don't devalue myths and visions, far from it.

'What ifs' are great.

It's the 'therefores' that someone'll try to getcha with.

Like I've said, if people will ignore the reality of my own experience *right here and right now in person,* ...why believe it was somehow different in the past, no matter what skeletons might be found in a 'What if?'

Know what I'm saying?

[GingeM]

If not it makes no difference to a believer. Not a bit.

I believe I will live through tomorrow but I still have life insurance, don't you?

[Rupert]

If you area Believer, the discovery of the Ark, with Noah still at the helm will not make any difference....and if you are not, it still won't. It is more interesting than that lizard skeleton the cat drug up........All those "scientists" that peed in their panties with excitement....over a damn lizard! Hilarious!
Regards!

[Driver3]

This is interesting!


[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBrgL_I6eto&feature=player_embedded[/YT]