Noahs Ark Found!?!?

While there are several historical references to a great flood, and some references to an ark, I don’t believe that they all mention the various animals that were supposedly taken onboard.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]SpnKick540 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
I don’t know what is more hilarious, that they think they can convince anyone they’ve found Noah’s Ark, or that an adult without any obvious mental handicaps would believe in such a ludicrous story.[/quote]

I’ve read about many archeological digs which confirm many of those so called ludicrous stories. [/quote]

Sources or it didn’t happen.[/quote]

There are plenty of sources if you google. Here’s one that I’ve seen as I said there are many others:

If you have trouble with the above link just google “prevail magazine archeology proves bible” and something will come up.[/quote]
Christian websites are not reliable sources. Case in point:

The section cites this Wyatt Archaeological Research as it’s source for confirming the find back in 1959. However, a quick google check (as you so recommended) turns up papers like this A Great Christian Scam which brings to light the fraud of the entire incident.

Next time you list a source, find an independent, accredited source…like an archaeology journal.

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
I don’t know what is more hilarious, that they think they can convince anyone they’ve found Noah’s Ark, or that an adult without any obvious mental handicaps would believe in such a ludicrous story.[/quote]

I’ve read about many archeological digs which confirm many of those so called ludicrous stories. [/quote]

Please enlighten me. Which archeological dig confirmed that Noah took several animals from each species (including all the ones he couldn’t have possibly known about) and then repopulated the entire human race, with all it’s genetic diversity, in a few thousand years?[/quote]

If you look really closely at my one sentence above you’ll grasp its full meaning. Then if you look at the link that I have in an additional post you’ll see the various archeological digs that have supported various biblical stories.

[quote]SpnKick540 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]SpnKick540 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
I don’t know what is more hilarious, that they think they can convince anyone they’ve found Noah’s Ark, or that an adult without any obvious mental handicaps would believe in such a ludicrous story.[/quote]

I’ve read about many archeological digs which confirm many of those so called ludicrous stories. [/quote]

Sources or it didn’t happen.[/quote]

There are plenty of sources if you google. Here’s one that I’ve seen as I said there are many others:

If you have trouble with the above link just google “prevail magazine archeology proves bible” and something will come up.[/quote]
Christian websites are not reliable sources. Case in point:

The section cites this Wyatt Archaeological Research as it’s source for confirming the find back in 1959. However, a quick google check (as you so recommended) turns up papers like this A Great Christian Scam which brings to light the fraud of the entire incident.

Next time you list a source, find an independent, accredited source…like an archaeology journal.[/quote]

Yes, forget about the evidence that they offer and attack them directly. I’ve been this route with others before. Have you read what they’ve discovered or just dismissed it out of hand? Now tell me does it work the opposite way? If there is an atheist archeological group who denies hard evidence of bible findings will you say that it’s an atheist group so it isn’t accurate? As I said that’s called attacking the messenger without ever looking at the message.

With that said here is one more link for you.

http://auburnjournal.com/detail/167831.html

Keep in mind that there is no archeological dig that I am aware of that is able to prove the existence of God, or any of the spiritual happenings of the Bible. And I never said that there were. Nor do I need such proof to be a Christian.

Faith is not science and science is not faith. We get into all sorts of debates on PWI because those who worship science demand solid proof that God exists. There will never be enough evidence to convince an atheist of this. As it says in the Bible it is impossible to please God without faith. Hence, why do some think that it can or should be done? What makes any atheist think that God will allow himself to be measured in human terms so that even the staunchest of doubters would bow their heads? It is about faith - faith, not science.

I merely find it compelling when there is an archeological dig, any dig whether it be this one or the many others listed on the two sites that I furnished which coincide with what is stated in the Bible. I’ve also learned that a message board is a very poor place to try to convert people and I’ve long since given that up. T Nation is a place where (mostly) young men dig in their heels, I get it. However, those interested in new evidence such as the archeological dig in question should not be intimidated by anyone claiming to be brighter or more sophisticated then they simply because they want God to fit in their scientific box. I know it takes little to get atheists upset and that’s not my intent. They are entitled to their beliefs. So I will beg off this thread at this point to honor gregon’s request that it not turn into a religious debate.

All The Best,

Zeb

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]SpnKick540 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]SpnKick540 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
I don’t know what is more hilarious, that they think they can convince anyone they’ve found Noah’s Ark, or that an adult without any obvious mental handicaps would believe in such a ludicrous story.[/quote]

I’ve read about many archeological digs which confirm many of those so called ludicrous stories. [/quote]

Sources or it didn’t happen.[/quote]

There are plenty of sources if you google. Here’s one that I’ve seen as I said there are many others:

If you have trouble with the above link just google “prevail magazine archeology proves bible” and something will come up.[/quote]
Christian websites are not reliable sources. Case in point:

The section cites this Wyatt Archaeological Research as it’s source for confirming the find back in 1959. However, a quick google check (as you so recommended) turns up papers like this A Great Christian Scam which brings to light the fraud of the entire incident.

Next time you list a source, find an independent, accredited source…like an archaeology journal.[/quote]

Yes, forget about the evidence that they offer and attack them directly. I’ve been this route with others before. Have you read what they’ve discovered or just dismissed it out of hand? Now tell me does it work the opposite way? If there is an atheist archeological group who denies hard evidence of bible findings will you say that it’s an atheist group so it isn’t accurate? As I said that’s called attacking the messenger without ever looking at the message.[/quote]

I read your paper, and the source that it cited. And even though I could dismiss them immediately based on their bias, I didn’t. However, the reason I know you didn’t read what I linked (which is rude considering I read yours) is that the paper that denoted the original finding as a fraud was written by a Christian, not an Atheist.

[quote]Zeb wrote:
With that said here is one more link for you.

http://auburnjournal.com/detail/167831.html[/quote]
No mention whatsoever of Noah and the Ark. Just a generality that is supported by an appeal to authority of a source from 1963.

I checked on the authority they appealed to, though. Here’s an interesting quote from Dr. Nelson Glueck:

[quote]Dr. Nelson Glueck said:
Although he worked to develop a historical understanding of biblical events, Dr. Glueck always maintained that his faith was not based on a literal interpretation of the bible. To do that, he once said, would be to “confuse fact with faith, history with holiness, science with religion.”[/quote]

Good point of view, if you ask me. But I digress.

The rest of your response is just a bunch of unnecessary defense of your faith–something that I never attacked or even brought up. This isn’t about the validity of a religion. It’s about the validity of a “find” that’s being used to try and prove the validity of a supposed historic document, not a religion.

The story never happened. If anything even close to it happened, it was on a localized scale, much smaller than the Bible depicts.

On top of that, what piece of fucking wood that’s not been petrified is going to last two thousand years…

I’m still waiting to find the talking snake. He’d be my best bud.

[quote]SpnKick540 wrote:

Next time you list a source, find an independent, accredited source…like an archaeology journal.[/quote]

Stop being a dipshit. Archaelogy is fake. Everyone knows the world is only 5,000 years old.

You guys are such suckers.

The story of Noah’s Ark is a derivation of an older Mesopotamian flood myth. For extremely obvious reasons, literalist interpretations of the Ark story specifically, and the entire Old Testament in general, have been abandoned by all respectable contemporary science and archaeology.

Anyone claiming to have found Noah’s Ark (as in the actual vessel into which the Biblical Noah stuffed two of every living thing on Earth) is, to use the scientific term, full of shit.

That being said, the ubiquity of the flood story in ancient myth and folklore has led many researchers to the conclusion that there probably was a catastrophic flood somewhere in or around the Mediterranean Basin at some point in human history. Some have even gone as far as to argue that the Mediterranean itself was a huge dry valley until plate shifts opened a rift between Iberia and Northern Africa, allowing the Atlantic to come flooding in. Other theories argue for tsunamis, comets, etc.

Whatever the cause of the event, one thing is certain: you may find an old boat in the area and it may have been used to weather the storm. You may even find an ark that was built by a man who called himself Noah. But you sure as shit will not find the Old Testament’s Noah’s Ark.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]SpnKick540 wrote:

Next time you list a source, find an independent, accredited source…like an archaeology journal.[/quote]

Stop being a dipshit. Archaelogy is fake. Everyone knows the world is only 5,000 years old.

You guys are such suckers.[/quote]

5,000?! I thought it was 6,000! Damn it!

[quote]SpnKick540 wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]SpnKick540 wrote:

Next time you list a source, find an independent, accredited source…like an archaeology journal.[/quote]

Stop being a dipshit. Archaelogy is fake. Everyone knows the world is only 5,000 years old.

You guys are such suckers.[/quote]

5,000?! I thought it was 6,000! Damn it![/quote]

I think it was 5,000, but then they had to take into account the time in which man had dinosaurs for pets, as depicted in such landmark documentaries as “The Flintstones.”

The average atheist gets angry over stuff like this?

I’m an atheist and really couldn’t care less what the rest of the world believes.

[quote]therajraj wrote:
The average atheist gets angry over stuff like this?

I’m an atheist and really couldn’t care less what the rest of the world believes. [/quote]

I find that newborn atheists are usually the angry ones. The longer they’ve been that way, the more even tempered they become. Maybe they become desensitized to the idiocy of the world.

The only motherfucking thing I know for certain is that the dude in the upper right hand of this photo has a mustache that is 100 times more significant to history that that motherfucking Ark.

Noah’s Ark is a classic example of the hyperbole that plagues oral tradition and is vehemently defended by different cultural / religious beliefs.

Noah’s Ark MAY have happened–man creates a boat, saves some neighbors and a few pets–but obviously impossible on the scale that the religious texts describe.

I remember my grandfather and relatives (mostly Muslim) saying, “Noah lived 900 years! 900!” and I thought, “That’s not possible.”

One day, I read an article that said in Biblical times, many people called each lunar cycle a “year,” so that Noah’s 900 year life span was really 70 something years–much more plausible.

Again, we have oral tradition plus observer bias–e.g. archaeologists thirsting for a big “find” that either proves historic accounts or reconciles ancient lore with scientific and medical rationale.

Example:

I have breakfast with a devout Mexican Catholic. Friend says, “Amigo! Mira! La Virgen!” pointing to my Fruity Pebbles. I say, “No, Diego, esta es mi desayuno!” Finger pointing, tears shed, and plenty of cursing ensue. We’re both “righ” depending on what we want to see.

[quote]smh23 wrote:
The story of Noah’s Ark is a derivation of an older Mesopotamian flood myth. For extremely obvious reasons, literalist interpretations of the Ark story specifically, and the entire Old Testament in general, have been abandoned by all respectable contemporary science and archaeology.

Anyone claiming to have found Noah’s Ark (as in the actual vessel into which the Biblical Noah stuffed two of every living thing on Earth) is, to use the scientific term, full of shit.

That being said, the ubiquity of the flood story in ancient myth and folklore has led many researchers to the conclusion that there probably was a catastrophic flood somewhere in or around the Mediterranean Basin at some point in human history. Some have even gone as far as to argue that the Mediterranean itself was a huge dry valley until plate shifts opened a rift between Iberia and Northern Africa, allowing the Atlantic to come flooding in. Other theories argue for tsunamis, comets, etc.

Whatever the cause of the event, one thing is certain: you may find an old boat in the area and it may have been used to weather the storm. You may even find an ark that was built by a man who called himself Noah. But you sure as shit will not find the Old Testament’s Noah’s Ark.[/quote]

I might be way off, but isn’t another theory that the “great flood” was caused by the ending of the last ice age (massive glacial melts, global ocean levels rising)?

As I said, my timeline could be wrong though.

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m an atheist and really couldn’t care less what the rest of the world believes. [/quote]

Yeah… except it is the clowns who believe this bollocks that decide what the rest of us can and can’t do.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
The story never happened. If anything even close to it happened, it was on a localized scale, much smaller than the Bible depicts.

On top of that, what piece of fucking wood that’s not been petrified is going to last two thousand years…

I’m still waiting to find the talking snake. He’d be my best bud.[/quote]
this

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
The story of Noah’s Ark is a derivation of an older Mesopotamian flood myth. For extremely obvious reasons, literalist interpretations of the Ark story specifically, and the entire Old Testament in general, have been abandoned by all respectable contemporary science and archaeology.

Anyone claiming to have found Noah’s Ark (as in the actual vessel into which the Biblical Noah stuffed two of every living thing on Earth) is, to use the scientific term, full of shit.

That being said, the ubiquity of the flood story in ancient myth and folklore has led many researchers to the conclusion that there probably was a catastrophic flood somewhere in or around the Mediterranean Basin at some point in human history. Some have even gone as far as to argue that the Mediterranean itself was a huge dry valley until plate shifts opened a rift between Iberia and Northern Africa, allowing the Atlantic to come flooding in. Other theories argue for tsunamis, comets, etc.

Whatever the cause of the event, one thing is certain: you may find an old boat in the area and it may have been used to weather the storm. You may even find an ark that was built by a man who called himself Noah. But you sure as shit will not find the Old Testament’s Noah’s Ark.[/quote]

I might be way off, but isn’t another theory that the “great flood” was caused by the ending of the last ice age (massive glacial melts, global ocean levels rising)?

As I said, my timeline could be wrong though.[/quote]
Possibly, many cultures have a flood story though. Not sure if the times are the same though.

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m an atheist and really couldn’t care less what the rest of the world believes. [/quote]

Yeah… except it is the clowns who believe this bollocks that decide what the rest of us can and can’t do.[/quote]

And if you don’t like it… you’re a heathen and we’ll kill you because you’re wrong!

[quote]RSGZ wrote:

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m an atheist and really couldn’t care less what the rest of the world believes. [/quote]

Yeah… except it is the clowns who believe this bollocks that decide what the rest of us can and can’t do.[/quote]

And if you don’t like it… you’re a heathen and we’ll kill you because you’re wrong![/quote]

I hear you guys about the control. Here in Canada we have this awful controlling bitch who somehow managed to get her face all over our currency.