Noah's Ark

Johan

Active member
Tennessee....
I know you are involved in the Wyatt Museum. Personally, for the ark the models that they have always show a boat like figure. This makes no sense to me, I am convinced that the ark was not shaped like a boat, this would not make any sense because it gives less space to work with, and why would Noah build it in that shape? he had no where to go. I am sure it was built as a barge in a rectangular shape.
 

LaoChe

New member
MRA - I just did an internet search based on your claims. I was skeptical of these 'facts' because I didn't know where you got them. However, it seems that 4000 years IS a 'magic' number in our collection of 'oldest' organisms.

The only item that did not factor in was the reef building sponge, which stretched into the tens of thousands of years old. The reef, alternatively, is dated to be the oldest at just over 4000 years, go figure.

I'm definately no creationist. I'm a mythologist, so I believe strongly in the symbolic elements of story and their role in collective unconscious. Noah's story, has been told and retold through the ages from many different cultures. The Greeks have Deucalion and Pyrrha for example. Same story, different cultural attache.

But the 4000 year number is definately interesting, perhaps something did happen back then...
 

Johan

Active member
We don't know the 4000 number for sure...the whole carbon dating system is totally out of whack! I have done a lot of research on the system.
 

LaoChe

New member
The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.

To discover how long an organism has been dead (to determine how much C14 is left in the organism and therefore how old it is), we count the number of beta radiations given off per minute per gram of material. Modern C14 emits about 15 beta radiations per minute per gram of material, but C14 that is 5730 years old will only emit half that amount, (the half-life of C14) per minute. So if a sample taken from an organism emits 7.5 radiations per minute in a gram of material, then the organism must be 5730 years old. The accuracy of radiocoarbon dating was tested on objects with dates that were already known through historical records such as parts of the dead sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb. Based on the results of the Carbon 14 test the analysis showed that C14 agreed very closely with the historical information.
 

Johan

Active member
you know you could of just gave me the website you copied that from. But anyway, you can't go on everything you read especially one sourse. The system is out of whack if...you are a believer in the flood.
The heavy components settled on the bottom of the earth which means EXTREME pressure...which we know causes heat. This would then in turn create carbon. So basically anything dated before the time of the flood is way off. I am sure the earth is not even close to being as old as people say it is.
 

Tennessee R

New member
IndyJohan said:
Tennessee....
I know you are involved in the Wyatt Museum. Personally, for the ark the models that they have always show a boat like figure. This makes no sense to me, I am convinced that the ark was not shaped like a boat, this would not make any sense because it gives less space to work with, and why would Noah build it in that shape? he had no where to go. I am sure it was built as a barge in a rectangular shape.

Thank you for asking about this, for it is indeed a great theory, and question. Also, I love talking about it ;)

Okay, firstly, Moses, (who wrote te account) was educated in egypt, and would have most likely used the 'royal egyptian cubit' for the dimensions of the ark.
Now, this would have made the boat longer; In fact, around 515 feet long. I needn't tell you that that is long. ;)

Secondly, Microevolution (Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspeciesis) is proven, (i.e. mixing a cocker-spaniel with a bulldog will work) and so, all Noah would have had to take was two pairs of dogs. We don't know, but this could have been just two pairs of dogs for the wolves and coyotes and pets.
So, this means that there would not be a need for a 'huge' ship. ceartainly they would need a large ship, but not a huge.

Third, Noah would not need a full grown animal for each pair. Babies would serve the purpose great. Therefore, downsize the boat a little more.

So, I don't believe that space would be a big problem.

Now, I don't know if you believe that the site in Turkey that is a national park is true or not, but is shows the formation in a boat-shaped formation. kind of like this: ()

As a last note, the model that you see on:
http://wyattmuseum.com/noahs-ark.htm
was caulked up, kind of like the tar would have done, on the real deal, and the model was placed in a lake. Speedboats were driven around it, and it would not sink. Note the keel, and two keel-sons on each side, and protruding out of the stern. That is what the formation in Turkey appears to have, and those are known, and used on multi-million dollar sailing vessels for stability.

That is about all I can think of at the moment, please, respond and we can talk about it more.


Oh, and just a tad on the C-14: Some animals have been tested, and one part gives off a greatly different number of a date, than another part.
 

Johan

Active member
I think I could have some fun with you on this subject but anyway...I think the boat is in Northern Iran in a land called Urartu. The bible say's MountainS of Ararat...This is plural and in that point in history the Mountains of Ararat were mapped much more generously than they are today.
Have you heard of the Ed Davis encounter?
Anyway, like myself I am sure that you get your information through various sources and do research so I am always open to hearing more opinions and theories.
 
Last edited:

Tennessee R

New member
IndyJohan said:
I think I could have some fun with you on this subject but anyway...I think the boat is in Northern Iran in a land called Urartu. The bible say's MountainS of Ararat...This is plural and in that point in history the Mountains of Ararat were mapped much more generously than they are today.
Have you heard of the Ed Davis encounter?
Anyway, like myself I am sure that you get your information through various sources and do research so I am always open to hearing more opinions and theories.


Do you have a ceartain place you think is the site? Urartu is a big place. I also believe that it is in the land of Urartu. I believe that it cannot very likely be ON Mt. Ararat itself, because of the glacier that replaces itself every so many years, and because of the fact that the same thing that happened to Mt. St. Helens long ago, and is starting to happen again, has happened to Mt. Ararat.

But, very near N. Iran but still about half a mile inside the border of Turkey, is the site that I believe in (As you probably know.)

Hadn't really looked into the Ed Davis encounter, but I believe that 4' of snow wouldn't have stopped me from looking at it in detail, and ceartainly, if he dreamed about it every night for 20 years (As he says), he would have found a way to go back.

And I'm all for having fun (at least to an extent). So, I'd love to talk more on the subject.
 

Tennessee R

New member
IndyJohan said:
I believe the ark rests on Mt. Sabalon.

Interesting. Could you share with us some of the reasons that you believe that? Or maybe copy and paste an article here, or the like, for those that do not want to do a search on it.
 
Top