Noah's Ark Discovered ... Again and Again

Started by Shakyamunison5 pages

Noah's Ark Discovered ... Again and Again

Here is an interesting article I found on LiveScience.com
http://www.livescience.com/othernews/060905_noahs_ark.html

What do you think?

Noah's Ark Discovered ... Again and Again

By Benjamin Radford

In this world there are things that seem on the verge of being discovered every so often, yet never quite materialize. The "Lost City" of Atlantis, for example, has been "found" at least a half dozen times. One researcher is pretty sure it is in Bolivia; another says it is Antarctica; a third claims that Bimini beachrock may be from the lost civilization.

So it is with Noah's Ark.

The difference is, of course, that the implications of Noah's Ark actually being found extend far beyond archaeology. The weight of all the paired animals in the world is nothing compared to the religious freight that the Ark carries.

The Ark story is scientifically implausible; there simply wouldn't be enough space on the boat to accommodate two of every living animal (including dinosaurs), along with the food and water necessary to keep them alive. Furthermore, constructing a vessel of that scale would take hundreds of workers months to complete. Still, Biblical literalists—those who believe that proof of the Bible's events remains to be found—have spent lives and fortunes trying to validate their beliefs.

The search goes on

Before discussing the recent claims regarding the whereabouts of Noah's vessel, a history of Ark "finds" is instructive.

Violet M. Cummings is the author of several books on Noah's Ark, among them "Noah's Ark: Fable or Fact?" (1975), in which she claimed that Noah's Ark was found on Turkey's Mount Ararat. According to the 1976 book and film "In Search of Noah's Ark," "there is now actual photographic evidence that Noah's Ark really does exist.... Scientists have used satellites, computers, and powerful cameras to pinpoint the Ark's exact location on Mt. Ararat."

This is a rather remarkable claim, for despite repeated trips to Mt. Ararat over the past thirty years, the Ark remains elusive.

Undeterred by a lack of evidence, in 1982 Cummings issued a book titled, "Has Anybody Really Seen Noah's Ark?," published by Creation-Life Publishers. The subtitle, "An Affirmative Definitive Report," hints at Cummings's conclusion.

Interest in Noah's Ark resurfaced in February 1993, when CBS aired a two-hour primetime special titled, "The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark." (Little did CBS know that they were using incredible in its accurate, proper meaning: "not credible."😉

As Ken Feder describes in his book "Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries," the special "was a hodgepodge of unverifiable stories and misrepresentations of the paleontological, archaeological, and historical records." It included the riveting testimony of a George Jammal, who claimed not only to have personally seen the Ark on Ararat but recovered a piece of it. Jammal's story (and the chunk of wood he displayed) impressed both CBS producers and viewers. Yet he was later revealed as a paid actor who had never been to Turkey and whose piece of the Ark was not an unknown ancient timber (identified in the Bible as "gopher wood"😉 but instead modern pine soaked in soy sauce and artificially aged in an oven.

Red-faced CBS, which had done little fact-checking for their much-hyped special, said that the program was entertainment, not a documentary.

Recent claims

More claims surfaced periodically, including in March 2006, when a LiveScience writer reported on yet another incarnation of the Ararat claim. A team of researchers found a rock formation that might resemble a huge ark, nearly covered in glacial ice. Little came of that claim but a few months later, in June, a team of archaeologists from the Bible Archaeology Search and Exploration (BASE) Institute, a Christian organization, found yet another rock formation that might be Noah's Ark.

This time the Ark was "found" not on Ararat but at 13,000 feet in the Elburz mountains of Iran. "I can't imagine what it could be if it is not the Ark," said team member Arch Bonnema. They brought back pieces of stone they claim may be petrified wood beams, as well as video footage of the rocky cliffs.

The team believes that, within the rock formation, they can see evidence of hundreds of massive hand-hewn wooden beams laid out in the presumed size and shape of the Ark.

The Biblical archaeologists seem to have experienced pareidolia; seeing what they want to see in ambiguous patterns or images. Just as religious people will see images of Jesus or the Virgin Mary in toast, stains, or clouds, they may also see images of Noah's Ark in stone cliffs. (In New Mexico's Sandia National Forest there is a large rock formation called Battleship Rock, which—from a certain angle—does indeed look like a battleship. One wonders what the BASE team would make of that.)

Other researchers remain certain that the Ark is in fact on Mt. Ararat. Noah's Ark enthusiasts are therefore in the somewhat awkward position of deciding which (if any) of several scientifically "definitive" Ark finds is the real one.

The BASE claims, as with all previous reports of finding the Ark, have yet to be proven. Ultimately, it may not matter, because, as BASE president Bob Cornuke states, "I guess what my wife says my business is, we sell hope. Hope that it could be true, hope that there is a God."

Yet the question is not about faith, hope, or God; the question is if Noah's Ark is real and has been found. Like Atlantis, the ever-elusive Ark will continue to be "found" by those looking for it—whether it exists or not.

I don't think so.. If the ark is real (which I don't think it is) and on mount Ararat it would have been found a long time ago.

I don't see anything in this story other than what it says about them wanting to see it so much they will see it.

Originally posted by T.M
I don't think so.. If the ark is real (which I don't think it is) and on mount Ararat it would have been found a long time ago.

I don't see anything in this story other than what it says about them wanting to see it so much they will see it.

When I read the article, I got a totally different view.

I'm betting that if the ark survived the flood, it was used for scrap wood following it, searching for it seems to be a waste, imo.

Originally posted by Regret
I'm betting that if the ark survived the flood, it was used for scrap wood following it, searching for it seems to be a waste, imo.

agreed, people seem to scavenge whatever's available when they build something new.

I grew up surrounded by fence posts that were just scavenged rail road ties.

Originally posted by Regret
I'm betting that if the ark survived the flood, it was used for scrap wood following it, searching for it seems to be a waste, imo.

Well, if it did ever really exist, it must have survived the flood otherwise there'd be no people or animals. You bring up a good point about it's timber being recycled for other uses though.

But seriously, can you imagine how big of a boat it would have had to have been to carry two of every animal and enough food and water to support those animals? How much human labor would be required too feed and clean the stalls of every animal pair? Just another far fetched Bible story I think that is solely based on faith and not on facts.

Originally posted by Robtard
Well, if it did ever really exist, it must have survived the flood otherwise there'd be no people or animals. You bring up a good point about it's timber being recycled for other uses though.

But seriously, can you imagine how big a boat it would have had to been to carry two of every animal and enough food and water to support those animals? How much human labor would be required too feed and clean the stalls of every animal pair? Just another far fetched Bible story I think.

Unless of course it was only that land was submerged, and thus symbolically baptized. How many animals are indigenous to the area where Noah was? Might have been a relatively small number.

Originally posted by Regret
Unless of course it was only that land was submerged, and thus symbolically baptized. How many animals are indigenous to the area where Noah was? Might have been a relatively small number.

Or it could have been a retailing of an older story. They may have gotten the facts wrong without knowing it.

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Or it could have been a retailing of an older story. They may have gotten the facts wrong without knowing it.

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/

Yes, especially considering the writing took place sometime around the time of Moses if I remember correctly. Prior to that it was verbal tradition. But then, I believe it is fairly accurate due my beliefs.

Originally posted by Regret
Yes, especially considering the writing took place sometime around the time of Moses if I remember correctly. Prior to that it was verbal tradition. But then, I believe it is fairly accurate due my beliefs.

There may have been a flood that covered what they thought was the world, but what they thought was the world my have been only regional.

Noahs Ark... Easily one of the most ridiculous stories i've ever heard.

Re: Noah's Ark Discovered ... Again and Again

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Here is an interesting article I found on LiveScience.com
http://www.livescience.com/othernews/060905_noahs_ark.html

What do you think?

Noah's Ark Discovered ... Again and Again

By Benjamin Radford

In this world there are things that seem on the verge of being discovered every so often, yet never quite materialize. The "Lost City" of Atlantis, for example, has been "found" at least a half dozen times. One researcher is pretty sure it is in Bolivia; another says it is Antarctica; a third claims that Bimini beachrock may be from the lost civilization.

So it is with Noah's Ark.

The difference is, of course, that the implications of Noah's Ark actually being found extend far beyond archaeology. The weight of all the paired animals in the world is nothing compared to the religious freight that the Ark carries.

The Ark story is scientifically implausible; there simply wouldn't be enough space on the boat to accommodate two of every living animal (including dinosaurs), along with the food and water necessary to keep them alive. Furthermore, constructing a vessel of that scale would take hundreds of workers months to complete. Still, Biblical literalists—those who believe that proof of the Bible's events remains to be found—have spent lives and fortunes trying to validate their beliefs.

The search goes on

Before discussing the recent claims regarding the whereabouts of Noah's vessel, a history of Ark "finds" is instructive.

Violet M. Cummings is the author of several books on Noah's Ark, among them "Noah's Ark: Fable or Fact?" (1975), in which she claimed that Noah's Ark was found on Turkey's Mount Ararat. According to the 1976 book and film "In Search of Noah's Ark," "there is now actual photographic evidence that Noah's Ark really does exist.... Scientists have used satellites, computers, and powerful cameras to pinpoint the Ark's exact location on Mt. Ararat."

This is a rather remarkable claim, for despite repeated trips to Mt. Ararat over the past thirty years, the Ark remains elusive.

Undeterred by a lack of evidence, in 1982 Cummings issued a book titled, "Has Anybody Really Seen Noah's Ark?," published by Creation-Life Publishers. The subtitle, "An Affirmative Definitive Report," hints at Cummings's conclusion.

Interest in Noah's Ark resurfaced in February 1993, when CBS aired a two-hour primetime special titled, "The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark." (Little did CBS know that they were using incredible in its accurate, proper meaning: "not credible."😉

As Ken Feder describes in his book "Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries," the special "was a hodgepodge of unverifiable stories and misrepresentations of the paleontological, archaeological, and historical records." It included the riveting testimony of a George Jammal, who claimed not only to have personally seen the Ark on Ararat but recovered a piece of it. Jammal's story (and the chunk of wood he displayed) impressed both CBS producers and viewers. Yet he was later revealed as a paid actor who had never been to Turkey and whose piece of the Ark was not an unknown ancient timber (identified in the Bible as "gopher wood"😉 but instead modern pine soaked in soy sauce and artificially aged in an oven.

Red-faced CBS, which had done little fact-checking for their much-hyped special, said that the program was entertainment, not a documentary.

Recent claims

More claims surfaced periodically, including in March 2006, when a LiveScience writer reported on yet another incarnation of the Ararat claim. A team of researchers found a rock formation that might resemble a huge ark, nearly covered in glacial ice. Little came of that claim but a few months later, in June, a team of archaeologists from the Bible Archaeology Search and Exploration (BASE) Institute, a Christian organization, found yet another rock formation that might be Noah's Ark.

This time the Ark was "found" not on Ararat but at 13,000 feet in the Elburz mountains of Iran. "I can't imagine what it could be if it is not the Ark," said team member Arch Bonnema. They brought back pieces of stone they claim may be petrified wood beams, as well as video footage of the rocky cliffs.

The team believes that, within the rock formation, they can see evidence of hundreds of massive hand-hewn wooden beams laid out in the presumed size and shape of the Ark.

The Biblical archaeologists seem to have experienced pareidolia; seeing what they want to see in ambiguous patterns or images. Just as religious people will see images of Jesus or the Virgin Mary in toast, stains, or clouds, they may also see images of Noah's Ark in stone cliffs. (In New Mexico's Sandia National Forest there is a large rock formation called Battleship Rock, which—from a certain angle—does indeed look like a battleship. One wonders what the BASE team would make of that.)

Other researchers remain certain that the Ark is in fact on Mt. Ararat. Noah's Ark enthusiasts are therefore in the somewhat awkward position of deciding which (if any) of several scientifically "definitive" Ark finds is the real one.

The BASE claims, as with all previous reports of finding the Ark, have yet to be proven. Ultimately, it may not matter, because, as BASE president Bob Cornuke states, "I guess what my wife says my business is, we sell hope. Hope that it could be true, hope that there is a God."

Yet the question is not about faith, hope, or God; the question is if Noah's Ark is real and has been found. Like Atlantis, the ever-elusive Ark will continue to be "found" by those looking for it—whether it exists or not.


Very good post.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There may have been a flood that covered what they thought was the world, but what they thought was the world my have been only regional.

I agree that it may have been regional.

Originally posted by Jim Reaper
Noahs Ark... Easily one of the most ridiculous stories i've ever heard.

Lol, easy there. Some people said the same about flight and some still say that about evolution. Some even say it about the moon landing.

Originally posted by Regret
Unless of course it was only that land was submerged, and thus symbolically baptized. How many animals are indigenous to the area where Noah was? Might have been a relatively small number.

Does the O.T. say God flooded the world?

Originally posted by Robtard
Does the O.T. say God flooded the world?

Yes, but it could be stating it from the perspective of Noah, it could refer to what he knew as the world, which would have been a relatively small area.

Originally posted by Regret
Yes, but it could be stating it from the perspective of Noah, it could refer to what he knew as the world, which would have been a relatively small area.

Also, the Bible gives the measurement of depth as under 30 feet. This would lead one to believe it more likely that it covered a smaller area, and not the entire planet.

I would love for people to find a boat, have it be the totally wrong dimensions, and have room for only like 10 people.

Then we can have centuries of inconclusive debate 🙂

There are also a few discrepancies in the Bible about the ark story, further leading proof that there is most likely nothing to find in the first place.

How many of each animal and what animals did God command Noah to take?

Genesis:

6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh , two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

6:20 Of fowls after their kind , and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind , two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

and then it says...

7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens , the male and his female: and of beasts that [are] not clean by two, the male and his female.

7:3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

How long did the flood last?

7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth ; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.

7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

taken from (http://www.blueletterbible.org)

When my lab started flooding during a freakish storm...I yelled "Save two of every genotype!"