There have been news all over the internet of the probable discovery of Noah Ark, However if this is legitimate, It could have a profound affect worldwide. Here is the article and youtube videos

Here is some articles over the net.

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/evangelical-christian-group-says-it-has-found-noahs-ark-in-turkey/19456378

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

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2949640/Noahs-Ark-found-in-Turkey.html

As i write this now, the news is generating all over the World. I will get the video from youtube of the so called possible discovery, I am still a little skeptical.

the video


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1Q1lDNwRU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjpeQU7GIZc

Even with the videos i still skeptical, so what do you think, Can this be it, Is this actually Noah's Ark. I want to here your opinion about this find.

so i heard

Since you heard about it, what is your opinion about the find? are you skeptical like myself or you believe this in face value?

This is the press conference


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wrBLXcFGeM

whaooo. what would happen to the ignorance of Toneyb, mazaje and other theists if and when this claims are substantiated?

noetic16:

whaooo. what would happen to the ignorance of Toneyb, mazaje and other theists if and when this claims are substantiated?

very few doubt the historical events of a global flood and scientist have retrospectively drawn conclusions that the world was at a time covered (at least 90%) with water.

So finding Noah's ark is a logical possibility

lagerwhenindoubt:

very few doubt the historical events of a global flood and scientist have retrospectively drawn conclusions that the world was at a time covered (at least 90%) with water.

So finding Noah's ark is a logical possibility

This same scientific findings/facts have been largely misinterpreted by mazaje, toneyb, tudor et all . . . . .all in effort to ignorantly proclaim that God does not exist.

Chineke!!!!!!!! D bible is real

This claim was defeated the next day by the exhibitions main investor J. Randall Price in a letter[32] saying,

I was the archaeologist with the Chinese expedition in the summer of 2008 and was given photos of what they now are reporting to be the inside of the Ark. I and my partners invested $100,000 in this expedition (described below) which they have retained, despite their promise and our requests to return it, since it was not used for the expedition. The information given below is my opinion based on what I have seen and heard (from others who claim to have been eyewitnesses or know the exact details).

To make a long story short: this is all reported to be a fake. The photos were reputed to have been taken off site near the Black Sea, but the film footage the Chinese now have was shot on location on Mt. Ararat. In the late summer of 2008 ten Kurdish workers hired by Parasut, the guide used by the Chinese, are said to have planted large wood beams taken from an old structure in the Black Sea area (where the photos were originally taken) at the Mt. Ararat site. In the winter of 2008 a Chinese climber taken by Parasut’s men to the site saw the wood, but couldn’t get inside because of the severe weather conditions. During the summer of 2009 more wood was planted inside a cave at the site. The Chinese team went in the late summer of 2009 (I was there at the time and knew about the hoax) and was shown the cave with the wood and made their film. As I said, I have the photos of the inside of the so-called Ark (that show cobwebs in the corners of rafters – something just not possible in these conditions) and our Kurdish partner in Dogubabyazit (the village at the foot of Mt. Ararat) has all of the facts about the location, the men who planted the wood, and even the truck that transported it."
—J. Randall Price, PaleoBabble


Noah's Ark Ministries are nothing but a scam.

^^^

Bastage:

This claim was defeated the next day by the exhibitions main investor J. Randall Price in a letter[32] saying,

J. Randall Price did not 'defeat' the claim, and any such conclusions of 'defeating' any such claims are merely Randall's puerile conjecture. This is especially the case when he admits that his conclusions are based on secondhand reports and NOT on actual firsthand experience -

Bastage:
I was the archaeologist with the Chinese expedition in the summer of 2008 and was given photos of what they now are reporting to be the inside of the Ark. I and my partners invested $100,000 in this expedition (described below) which they have retained, despite their promise and our requests to return it, since it was not used for the expedition. The information given below is my opinion based on what I have seen and heard (from others who claim to have been eyewitnesses or know the exact details).

Randall's conclusions are his "opinions" and based on what he heard "from others", not to mention that he leaves far too many gaping holes in his report/opinion. See this in the vid response:

           ^^^^^^
           [flash=450,370]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-27rqG7OMg&hl=en_GB&fs=1&[/flash]

In all this, however, the point is that Randall's argument above cannot be used to draw any conclusions for or against the subject of the Ark. This other article may help to shed a ray of light to tyhe background of Randall and his associates' enthusiasm and subsequent disenchament.

ababda:

This is the press conference


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wrBLXcFGeM

^^^
Interesting. However, I wonder who the speakers at the conference were; and how cogent/significant were their announcements.

In my eyes, he doesn't even have to defeat the claim.
It is logically impossible that Noah's Ark existed as depicted in The Bible.

Not only that but the whole Flood story is just a direct lift from the older Epic of Gilamesh and older myths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_%28mythology%29

As for knocking him for the comment about repeating the words of others. What do you think that the Bible does then?


Cobwebs? How do cobwebs get 13000 feet up a mountain? Mountaineering spiders?

noetic16:

whaooo. what would happen to the ignorance of Toneyb, mazaje and other theists if and when this claims are substantiated?

. . .The Noah's flood remains a plagiarized MYTH. . . .First there any scientific evidence of a catastrophic flood that rose to near the top of Ararat 4,800 years ago? Is this not the second or third "Noah's Ark" that has been found by the ark hunters? . . . .

From one of the sources it says:

The finders, led by an evangelical group, say they are "99.9 percent" that a wooden structure found on the mountainside was part of a ship that housed the Biblical Noah, his family and a menagerie of creatures during a giant flood 4,800 years ago.

Evangelical are now finding Noah's ark eh?. . . .

But researchers who have spent decades studying the region – and fending off past claims of ark discoveries – caution that a boatload of skepticism is in order.

"You have to take everything out of context except the Bible to get something tolerable, and they're not even working much with the Bible," said Paul Zimansky, an archaeologist and historian at Stony Brook University who specializes in the Near East - and especially the region around Ararat, known as Urartu.

Cornell archaeologist Peter Ian Kuniholm, who has focused on Turkey for decades, was even more direct - saying that the reported find is a "crock.

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/04/27/2280442.aspx

I love how they use Carbon Dating as "proof" that the wood is 4800 years old.

Since when did Creationists ever believe in Carbon Dating?

Bastage:

In my eyes, he doesn't even have to defeat the claim.

Yada-yada. You already drew that conclusion before apologising now, no?

Bastage:
It is logically impossible that Noah's Ark existed as depicted in The Bible.

No conclusions have been drawn yet - that is the point. Your haste in drawing on Randall to "defeat" the claim was what I focused on, and left a comment in my subsequent post that I was not drawing any conclusions from anywhere - not even from the news conference link.

Bastage:

As for knocking him for the comment about repeating the words of others. What do you think that the Bible does then?

I did not knock him - I showed there were far too many gaping holes in his report as admitted in what you excerpted, and which I highlighted.

Bastage:

Cobwebs? How do cobwebs get 13000 feet up a mountain? Mountaineering spiders?

Randall does not present anything from where you lifted your excerpts to argue anything. I would personally be interested in how Randall claims the beams were transported to the location, and yet he is the same dude who claims there were 'cobwebs'. Not only so, but having inferred that his report were his opinions based on secondhand info, he yet leads us to believe he was in that excavation - and then again turning round to make claims about these things.

It was for this reason that I left a link that might have been helpful to see the background of Randall's "opinions". Not that anyone has to pay attention to him in the first instance, but the guy most probably was a bitter loser whose motive does not seem coherent. Therefore, quoting him as "defeating" the claims of the Ark is laughable at best - for Randall's opinions do not serve as finality of issues around claims one way or another.

Bastage:

I love how they use Carbon Dating as "proof" that the wood is 4800 years old.

Since when did Creationists ever believe in Carbon Dating?

As long as carbon dating does not state that the earth is billions of years old. . . . .

ababda:

Even with the videos i still skeptical, so what do you think, Can this be it, Is this actually Noah's Ark. I want to here your opinion about this find.

There's always been hype about the Ark, no doubt. And like you, I'm somewhat skeptical about the hype, especially because reports seem to be either conflicting or serious questions are ignored. Certainly, my skepticism on the hype should not be how it works out for anyone else - I'm just not really finding significance in them strong enough to point to the real thing.

From one of the links already referred to in this thread, two issues stand out for me:

Zimansky said he would welcome hearing more about the site. "It would be nice to know what they have found - if there's a scientific publication in the offing," he told me. "Press releases are not the way archaeology advances."

He was doubtful about the linkage to the Bible story, however. "It's not inconceivable to me that they've found pieces of wood at that level, but that doesn't mean they've found an ark," he said.

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/04/27/2280442.aspx

Although there may be reports here and there that certain structures (including wood, etc) are found between times at the sites, what really do these point to? How is it that such a significant find is very quickly given the status of press conference before any indepth studies are conducted on any finds or artifacts?

This is why enthusiasts like Randall Price (not just him, there are many others) do not add anything fresh either way (positively or negatively) to the whole subject. It does not mean that I had drawn any conclusions elsewhere; but we all have to be careful about the substance of reports around subjects like this one. Just my view.

You already drew that conclusion before apologising now, no?

Apologise!!!!

That's the best joke I've heard for ages.

No. Perhaps you should apologise for perpetuating a myth lifted from a book of fairy tales that was copied from somewhere else as fact.

And you still haven't answered my question. How are eye-witness reports no good when the whole of the Bible is purported to be nothing more than the same? That seems to be peurile hypocrosy.

Noah's Ark discovered in Iran. . . . Christians are "discovering" the mythical Ark every where LOL. . .

High in the mountains of northwestern Iran, a Christian archaeology expedition has discovered a rock formation that its members say resembles the fabled Noah's ark.

The team discovered the prominent boat-shaped rocks at just over 13,000 feet (4,000 meters) on Mount Suleiman in Iran's Elburz mountain range.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060705-noahs-ark.html

Here are some interesting read  from National geographic Noah's Ark Quest Dead in Water -- Was It a Stunt?

"Noah's Flood" Not Rooted in Reality, After All? and lastly this one from the same site Noah's Ark Found in Turkey?

I found this piece to be very interesting. . . . .

"Noah's Ark" Found in Right Country, on Wrong Mountain?

Another reason scholars are skeptical of the latest Noah's ark discovery claim is that Genesis—the forst book of the Bible—never specifies which peak the vessel supposedly landed on in Turkey.

"The whole notion is odd, because the Bible tells you the ark landed somewhere in Urartu,"—an ancient kingdom in eastern Turkey—"but it's only later that people identified Mount Ararat with Urartu," said Jack Sasson, a professor of Jewish and biblical studies at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee.

Stony Brook's Zimansky agreed. "Nobody associated that mountain with the ark" until the tenth century B.C., he said, adding that there's no geologic evidence for a mass flood in Turkey around 4,000 years ago.

T[b]he Noah's Ark Ministries International explorers are "playing in a very different ballpark than the rest of us," Zimansky said. "They're playing without any concern for" the archaeological, historical, and geological records.[/b]

Bastage:

Apologise!!!!

That's the best joke I've heard for ages.

Your joke, yes - and no one's struggling to laugh. You drew a very laughable conclusion that went nowhere, so no biggy there. Point was simple enough: Randall "defeated" nothing, live with it.

And you still haven't answered my question. How are eye-witness reports no good when the whole of the Bible is purported to be nothing more than the same? That seems to be peurile hypocrosy.

Minus the typo, the hypocrisy could be yours. You did not attempt answering any questions in my reply, did you? Randall drew a conclusion based on what - secondhand report, thanks. And by that you were so gleeful he had "defeated" any claims about the Ark, no?

Please go back and see the point I made: I did not draw any conclusions either way, and we're quite aware that some are too hasty to have drawn conclusions here and there. It was not my call, but Randall's and yours to be chancing on reports that are very questionable. The irony is that Randall made claims that he came back to disavow - in other words, he was countering his own claims. That was why I left a link for the background - did you bother to check? It's no big deal if you didn't, but drawing on Randall's opinions does not in any way make any conclusions about the Ark.

@ Viaro. How r u? long time o. Hope all is well. Was just reading thru this thread and have a question. It's not related to this exact topic but opening another thread for this wouldn't make sense.

Since most Christians tend to view the OT as sort of out-dated, and, to some extent, it's teachings even inconsequential as far as the central beliefs of Christianity goes; in your opinion, how come the views of adherents of Judaism (Jews), at least in it's orthodox expression, are almost never considered when OT issues are being debated; and do u think this is positive or beneficial? Jews take it as authoritative, it describes their "history", is their tradition, so I would assume that it is reasonable to believe that they may have some insight that others may not.

viaro:

Randall drew a conclusion based on what - secondhand report, thanks.

Yet you're drawing on the conclusion based on what? Thirdhand? Forthhand? Thousands of years worth of editing and tweaking.
You don't see the irony there?

I don't have to struggle to laugh either. The very premise that someone believes that Noah's ark is a factual story as told in the Bible has me wetting my pants, let alone that someone may have "found" the ark.

And don't try escaping by stating that you made no conclusions. The very fact that you give the story a single piece of credence is enough to have you written off.

@Bastage,

viaro:

Randall drew a conclusion based on what - secondhand report, thanks.

Bastage:

Yet you're drawing on the conclusion based on what? Thirdhand? Forthhand? Thousands of years worth of editing and tweaking.

What conclusions have I drawn, Bastage? This was what I have said several times:

(1)

viaro:

Please go back and see the point I made: I did not draw any conclusions either way, and we're quite aware that some are too hasty to have drawn conclusions here and there.

(2)

viaro:

This is why enthusiasts like Randall Price (not just him, there are many others) do not add anything fresh either way (positively or negatively) to the whole subject. It does not mean that I had drawn any conclusions elsewhere; but we all have to be careful about the substance of reports around subjects like this one. Just my view.

(3)

viaro:

No conclusions have been drawn yet - that is the point. Your haste in drawing on Randall to "defeat" the claim was what I focused on, and left a comment in my subsequent post that I was not drawing any conclusions from anywhere - not even from the news conference link.

Would it help to please carefully consider what I have said and not argue your misgivings into my rejoinders? If it does not help you, no worries - at least, it might just help to leave you making unfounded insinuations that do not appear in my posts. Thanks.

Howdy Krayo my man! Yes, quite an age ... life's good - and I hope same to you.

Krayola:

@ Viaro. How r u? long time o. Hope all is well. Was just reading thru this thread and have a question. It's not related to this exact topic but opening another thread for this wouldn't make sense.

Since most Christians tend to view the OT as sort of out-dated, and, to some extent, it's teachings even inconsequential as far as the central beliefs of Christianity goes; in your opinion, how come the views of adherents of Judaism (Jews), at least in it's orthodox expression, are almost never considered when OT issues are being debated; and do u think this is positive or beneficial? Jews take it as authoritative, it describes their "history", is their tradition, so I would assume that it is reasonable to believe that they may have some insight that others may not.

Perhaps we could exchange views by email (loads of things occupy me these busy days and I can only manage limted time on the forum).

Nonetheless, I agree with you that "most Christians" tend to give less regard to the OT. Another thing is the question of who exactly is almost never considering the views of adherents of Judaism?

My views on these things are just that - my views. However, I don't think it is beneficial to ignore any view expressed on any Biblical subject(s), although not all views are necessarily carried or weighty (even more so in view of so-called academic authorities priding themselves to be 'scholars'). Yet, I'm not one of those who views the entire OT as mainly focusing on Jewish history and tradition to the large exclusion of non-Jewish history.

For example, BEFORE the emergence of Judaism and the people of Israel, there were non-Jewish histories that highlight foundational tenets and concepts which are carried over into the Jewish faith. The first mention of a priest is not Jewish but was rather Gentile in the person of Melchizedec (Genesis 14). We also find that Moses' father-in-law Jethro was a priest (the priest of Midian - Exodus 3:1), and though himself not part of the Jewish covenant, he nonetheless rejoiced in the welfare from God that attended the people of Israel (Exodus 18:9).

It is for reasons like these that I don't count among those who give less regard to the OT, or even among those who assume that the OT is Jewish. Indeed, the OT speaks largely of the Old COVENANT (and this old covenant is what many understand as Judaism); yet, we find within the same OT that there are several other covenants (such as the Abrahamic and Noahic covenants).

Perhaps we might have the fortune of discussing more offline ... or, if you can endure me not being online as often as in the past, then online on the forum here would be okay by me.

What conclusions have I drawn, Bastage? This was what I have said several times "baaa, baa, baaaa".

Are you usually this stupid?

Let me remind you what I said in my last post.

And don't try escaping by stating that you made no conclusions. The very fact that you give the story a single piece of credence is enough to have you written off.

Let me also repeat my question yet again:

How are eye-witness reports no good when the whole of the Bible is purported to be nothing more than the same?

Bastage:

Are you usually this silly?

I wasn't being silly - you are and it shows so well. I outlined for you the statements I already made earlier that I did not draw any conclusions on what the thread discusses - I quoted those quotes just incase you might be so forgetful. I would like to see you draw on your silliness and deny the fact.

And I'll repeat my statement yet again.

And don't try escaping by stating that you made no conclusions. The very fact that you give the story a single piece of credence is enough to have you written off.

Which part of that don't you understand? The very fact that you are giving the story some credence means that you have come to the conclusion that the literal Bible story is true.

So for all your denials, my assertion that you have made a conclusion is correct.
Got it?

By the way. I love how you've avoided answering my question three times now whereas I've answered yours three times (even if you're too dumb to understand that answer). Why won't you answer?

Bastage:

And I'll repeat my statement yet again.

Which part of that don't you understand? The very fact that you are giving the story some credence means that you have come to the conclusion that the literal Bible story is true.

So for all your denials, my assertion that you have made a conclusion is correct.
Got it?

By the way. I love how you've avoided answering my question three times now whereas I've answered yours three times (even if you're too dumb to understand that answer). Why won't you answer?

Please slow down. I did not make any "denials" but pointed out to you several times what I focused on. Should I remind you, or you would yet again just not be interested in being reasonable?

If you care, here again:

Bastage:

And I'll repeat my statement yet again.

And don't try escaping by stating that you made no conclusions. The very fact that you give the story a single piece of credence is enough to have you written off.

I made no conclusions - that was why I posted at least 3 of my quotes where I showed that I did not draw any conclusions (see post #24 above). It should be easy enough to see, and I would appreciate your acknowledgement of that simple fact rather than your attempts to force your own misgivings into my post to the contrary - that's not mature on your part.

Then again, let me help to clarify your misgivings here:

Bastage:

And don't try escaping by stating that you made no conclusions. The very fact that you give the story a single piece of credence is enough to have you written off.

As can be seen, I focused on the excerpt you made from Randall - and even at that, I did NOT draw any conclusions. I guess you have reasons why you want to ignore the fact I already stated that point; but see again this quote:

(3)

viaro:

No conclusions have been drawn yet - that is the point. Your haste in drawing on Randall to "defeat" the claim was what I focused on, and left a comment in my subsequent post that I was not drawing any conclusions from anywhere - not even from the news conference link.

So, what was the "claim" in question - it is simply that which is expressed in the title of this thread - "Noah Ark Have Been Discover On The Mountains In Turkey" (sic). That has been the point on 'claims', and that has been the very same thing that I focused on with particular reference to Randall's gaping opinions - which again was what drew my first response to your initial entry into this thread. This was what you said:

(a)

Bastage:

This claim was defeated the next day by the exhibitions main investor J. Randall Price in a letter[32] saying,

. . . and this was what I said in response:

(b)

viaro:

^^^
J. Randall Price did not 'defeat' the claim, and any such conclusions of 'defeating' any such claims are merely Randall's puerile conjecture. This is especially the case when he admits that his conclusions are based on secondhand reports and NOT on actual firsthand experience -

The 'claim' in this thread was about having discovered the Ark - Randall's opinion has no substance whatsoever because his report was mischievously couched and self-contradictory (and I left a link for background checks). Further, I highlight the fact that he explained absolutely nothing and only grumbled about people moving beams to the top of Ararat while yet acknowledging that was his opinion based merely on other people's info. One way or another, Randall's opinions have absolutely no weight/substance to any "claims" - which particularly is a 'claim' on the DISCOVERY of the Ark.

The point, as I said earlier, is that no one has drawn any "conclusions" anywhere - this is why archeological work is on-going. This should be simple enough for you to see; and if you are not satisfied, you can do as you please. It would have been interesting to see you deny the fact that I thrice over did NOT draw any conclusions (see post #24 again) - but for some reason you choose to deliberately misread your unfounded insinuations into my posts. Enjoy.

A long meaningless post consisting of nothing but semantics.

Here's my post where I accuse you of making conclusions.

Yet you're drawing on the conclusion based on what? Thirdhand? Forthhand? Thousands of years worth of editing and tweaking.

As you can see, it has nothing to do with Randall. It has everything to do with this:

And don't try escaping by stating that you made no conclusions. The very fact that you give the story a single piece of credence is enough to have you written off.

The very fact that you are giving the story some credence means that you have come to the conclusion that the literal Bible story is true.

The conclusion has nothing to do with Randall. It regards your belief in the literal Bible Flood story.


Why are you still deliberately ignoring my question?

Bastage:

Cobwebs? How do cobwebs get 13000 feet up a mountain? Mountaineering spiders?

There are spiders who live that high.