Noahs Ark soon to be discovered?

Indy87

New member
I watched a History Channel Program about Noahs Ark and they said archeologists are negotaiting with the Turkish government to excavat Mt. Ararat

whats the state of negotaions now?

[Edited by Indy87 on 05-31-2003 at 01:48 pm]
 

VALIS

New member
Are you sure it was Morocco? Mount Ararat is in Turkey near the borders with Iran and Armenia.
Also, both Turkey and Iraq claim to be home of the resting place of Noah's Ark.
 

bob

New member
I personally do not believe that Noahs Ark ever has or ever will exist....however even taking the Biblical Story at face value:

1. It has been thousands of years since the flood events and the wood would have rotted away
2. Wouldnt the survivors of the flood have needed wood to start building again
3. Wood will rot over time, and even by some magical means the wood survived the boat would have collasped due to the lack of modern joining techniques the boat would have fallen apart especially if it was as big as it is supposed to be.
4. No one has managed to find it in thousands of years - someone would have noticed an enormous boat in the hills!
 

Kill Cavalry

New member
It's all a very complex thing, the Ark. It may have existed until this time, but being an Arabic nation Turkey did not allow people to climb the mountain for decades. I've been told this is because the Quaran places the Ark somewhere else. Two expeditions from this century produced pieces of wood they claim to be from the Ark. Tests showed these two seperately funded expeditions had produced the same kind of wood, of the same age. Carbon-14 dating supposedly disproved this, but the very creator of Carbon-14 said that in the conditions in which these pieces were found his system would be unreliable in dating.
It's an enigma. Do I think it exists? Hell, I don't know, but it's certainly something worth looking into.
 

VALIS

New member
Mythology from cultures across the planet from each other talk of a great flood, which implies that there may have been a significant warming period thousands of years ago that was remembered by folklore.
If the wood was in a cold or dry place, or covered by sediment or other debris, then it could have been preserved. As to whether or not such a boat existed or still exists is something that will be hard to prove one way or another.
 

raider84

New member
No i dont think the Ark will ever be found. After about 2,500 wood would rot. Even if it were metal i still think there might not be a trace it was there.I'm not saying i dont beleve in Noah's ark. It just i think it would be fary hard to find it.:rolleyes:
 

bob

New member
VALIS said:
Mythology from cultures across the planet from each other talk of a great flood, which implies that there may have been a significant warming period thousands of years ago that was remembered by folklore.
If the wood was in a cold or dry place, or covered by sediment or other debris, then it could have been preserved. As to whether or not such a boat existed or still exists is something that will be hard to prove one way or another.

Just because there are common myths about floods does not mean the Noahiac Flood occured in fact the hundreds of myths and legends detract credability from the idea of a single flood engulfing flood event.

Now the Ark is something that would be impossible to build anyway; wooden ships can only float upto a certain weight that is why we have iron ships now. The Ark would have sunk!; the idea that then this Ark could survive unfound and unseen on Arrat for 3000 years or so is one that is frankly ludicrious and relies more on faith than on sound scientific method.

If you want to believe in the Ark then that is fine with me...but dont expect to find it in the real world.
 

VALIS

New member
bob said:
Just because there are common myths about floods does not mean the Noahiac Flood occured in fact the hundreds of myths and legends detract credability from the idea of a single flood engulfing flood event.

Now the Ark is something that would be impossible to build anyway; wooden ships can only float upto a certain weight that is why we have iron ships now. The Ark would have sunk!; [/B]

I fail to see how multiple cultures having a legendary flood story would detract from the possibility of there having been a period of significant flooding, which the geological record supports.
While the dimensions of the Ark in the Old Testament is not large enough to hold two of every animal, nor the food needed to feed them for forty days, it would be possible to float a wooden ship of those dimessions.
 

Aaron H

Moderator Emeritus
I want to drop a word in here, the story of the Flood is found in every major culture. From the Hebrews to the Aztecs to the Chinese, they all have a story about one man and his family (and animals) suriving a flood that wiped out all known life and eventually coming to rest on a mountain. Doesn't this say something? Surely there had to have been an event that inspired these "stories", remember that many of these peoples never met or had any sort of interaction.
bob, there is a lack of evidence to prove such an event happened, but there is an equal lack to prove that it didn't. Who knows maybe one day we will find an "Ark" or at least the proof that one did/did not exist. Until that day comes at least we can create theories.:)

[Edited by Aaron H on 06-07-2003 at 05:01 pm]
 

StarFire

New member
raider84 said:
After about 2,500 wood would rot.


Where did you get this number? In a frozen enviromnemt, the wood would be completely preserved. In a woodland environment, the number would only be a few hundred years at best. The stories (and I stress they are just that), say that that Ark rests above the thaw line, meaning very little deterioration would have occured since it's deposition. I'll dig into my arch notes, but I believe around 5000 years ago, sea levels were as much as 13 metres higher (global average) than today. I don't have any info on past sea-levels in the Ararat area: the levels would have to have been catastrophically higher than the global average to get it up to the 14,000+ ft level the stories say the Ark is at!
 

bob

New member
StarFire said:
raider84 said:
After about 2,500 wood would rot.


Where did you get this number? In a frozen enviromnemt, the wood would be completely preserved. In a woodland environment, the number would only be a few hundred years at best. The stories (and I stress they are just that), say that that Ark rests above the thaw line, meaning very little deterioration would have occured since it's deposition. I'll dig into my arch notes, but I believe around 5000 years ago, sea levels were as much as 13 metres higher (global average) than today. I don't have any info on past sea-levels in the Ararat area: the levels would have to have been catastrophically higher than the global average to get it up to the 14,000+ ft level the stories say the Ark is at!


I must admit that i dont think any of us can really prove whether Noahs ark would have rotted or no after thousands of years as we lack...erm precedent for a football pitch sized ship sitting on top of a mountain. If it was Frozen however it WOULD have broken up and you would probably need a whole Glacier to freeze that. However i dont think Arrat has an iceberg on top of it if i can remember the pictures ive seen of it!

Taking the story at face value i reckon the suvivors would have salvaged a lot of the wood of the Ark, nails etc
The ship would have soon broken up even if frozen probably leaving only trace remains of wood after thousands of years
 

westford

Member
One possible origin for flood myths could be the creation of the Black Sea.

Research has shown that until around 6,000 years BP*, the Black Sea was a landlocked freshwater lake, with a level 140m below that of the Mediterranean. Today, there is a narrow channel connecting the Black Sea to the Aegean - around 6,000 BP, the natural barrier must have collapsed, allowing salt water to rush into the Black Sea basin, leading to displacement of the shoreline by an estimated 1 foot per day.

It has been suggested that this flood event was what prompted the migrations of the Linear Band Keramik (LBK) peoples across Europe during the Neolithic. If so, wouldn't they have carried on the tale of a great flood which caused them to leave their homeland?


* BP = 'before present', or prior to 1950 (generally used to express radiocarbon dates)
 

Indy H

New member
Hey Bob,the ark was supposed to be covered in picth could'nt that have perserved it,anyhow you other guys,and Bob,don't be so narrow minded it's not in the indy spirit.

[Edited by Indy H on 07-03-2003 at 03:12 am]
 

Venture

New member
The specs to which the ark was built (a 1:6 width-length ratio) are the same dimensions used by navies and commercial ship-builders today. And if you calculate the volume of the ark, it was more than sufficient to house two of each kind of land-roving species. Have you considered the percentage of species that are insects or water-dwellers? Archaeologists are finding today that the Bible is the most reliable archaeological handbook in existence, and have yet to disprove even one of its accounts. To the contrary, most have been borne out. A big boat and a big flood are well within the realms of possibilty and probability.
 

bob

New member
Indy H said:
Hey Bob,the ark was supposed to be covered in picth could'nt that have perserved it,anyhow you other guys,and Bob,don't be so narrow minded it's not in the indy spirit.

[Edited by bob on 07-04-2003 at 01:52 pm]
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
I like you bob, I really do. I don't want this to come out the wrong way.

Do you believe in pangeia? If so how might you account for the separation if not for a flood? If you don't then I guess this might be a moot point.
 

bob

New member
Ok the forum ate my previous post but i really dont want to get into this anymore why?

I really dont want to take on faith because then things get ugly, because with faith a lot is possible and then the hypotheticals come 'this could have occured' 'what if...'

Looking at it from a purely scientific viewpoint there is no evidence for Noah's Ark (the flood is an entirely different kettle o'fish that i dont want to get into); and the story takes place in the parts of the Bible that i would consider pure myth (but i dont want to get into a slanging match about the validity of the Bible)

Until there is evidence for the existance of Noah's Ark outside of the Bible the possibility of its existance will not convince me.
 
Top