Noah's Ark remains 'discovered.'

[Blinger$]

i hate to boast about it, but I think i found some too... ! Here's a picture as proof. As you can see, i have used ma nickname (blinga) as proof that I found it.



I'm getting some tests done now, i'll upload the results later.

[GommeInc]

A bunch of evangelical Christians (no bias there then) find some wood that happens to be dated back to the time the ark was supposedly made (as if there wasn't much wood in those days) at the place it supposedly landed.

Yeah, totally believable

To be fair though, dragging a huge wooden boat up a mountain is quite a good feat if it isn't the Ark

I think it's possible. I like to think most events in the Bible happened and that over-excited writers, theologists and people around at that time have scewered the information to make it more fascinating, like Jesus might have existed but was only a good teacher, doctor and overall person, but obvs that would be too believable Besides, the language it was translated from has about 1/50th of the amount of words we have, so obviously interpretation varies.

Speaking of which, hasn't the Ark been "found" before? The only significance with this particular vessel is that it is on the place it was believed to have landed after the flood.

[Inseriousity.]

Speaking of which, hasn't the Ark been "found" before? The only significance with this particular vessel is that it is on the place it was believed to have landed after the flood.

I'm sure they said the age was of a similar time, there are 'compartments' that could have held animals 'two by two' lol. tbh, it looks to me like the classic case of 'scientists' trying to prove themselves right, therefore finding evidence to fit with the bible.

Also for fundamentalists, they're not very good. The type of wood is completely different to the wood it states is used to build the ark in the Bible, which, (as far as I'm aware) according to fundamentalists, is the exact word of God and cannot be false.

So no I don't think it's the ark. most stories in the bible are symbolic rather than fact, I'd say.

[GommeInc]

So no I don't think it's the ark. most stories in the bible are symbolic rather than fact, I'd say.

Indeed, some seem to be illustrations for teachings too, which is fine provided people don't go crazy. It's one of those things you just wish you could go back in time and see what happened, might shut both sides up

What wood did they use? I didn't think the Bible mentioned any of this sort of thing :S Heck, as far as the Bible is concerned, the area it is set in was barren so finding trees is quite impressive!

[Nixt]

To be fair though, dragging a huge wooden boat up a mountain is quite a good feat if it isn't the Ark

I think it's possible. I like to think most events in the Bible happened and that over-excited writers, theologists and people around at that time have scewered the information to make it more fascinating, like Jesus might have existed but was only a good teacher, doctor and overall person, but obvs that would be too believable Besides, the language it was translated from has about 1/50th of the amount of words we have, so obviously interpretation varies.

Speaking of which, hasn't the Ark been "found" before? The only significance with this particular vessel is that it is on the place it was believed to have landed after the flood.

It's just wood though - there is no distinct vessel shape or anything. Just some wood.

[GommeInc]

Just ordinary flat wood or any curvature? There must be a got wood joke in there somewhere

[Misawa]

Since Noah's Ark never existed, no.

[HotelUser]

They discovered Noah's Ark for the first time again!

[jackass]

Since Noah's Ark never existed, no.

Your constant naive 'factual' posts annoy me intensely. What's that based on exactly?

[Black_Apalachi]

To be fair though, dragging a huge wooden boat up a mountain is quite a good feat if it isn't the Ark ...

If you're suggesting that the people who claim to have found it actually brought it there themselves, then I don't believe this is the case at all. There's no doubt they found the wood on the mountain, but it could easily be the remains of somebody's house ot anything that was once built there.

On the other hand, if you're just wondering how a boat would have got up the mountain - wouldn't that just be down to the height of the water during the so called flood?

Vaguely on the topic; has anybody ever calculated exactly how big a boat would have needed to be in order to house two of every species for whatever the specified amount of time was?