Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Noah's Ark Found?Follow

#1 Apr 27 2010 at 10:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Linky.

Quote:
A group of Chinese and Turkish evangelical explorers say wooden remains they have discovered on Mount Ararat
in eastern Turkey are the remains of Noah's Ark.

The group claims that carbon dating proves the relics are 4,800 years old, meaning they date to around the same time
the ark was said to be afloat. Mt. Ararat has long been suspected as the final resting place of the craft by evangelicals and literalists hoping to validate biblical stories.

Yeung Wing-Cheung, from the Noah's Ark Ministries International research team that made the discovery, said: "It's not 100 percent that it is Noah's Ark, but we think it is 99.9 percent that this is it."

There have been several reported discoveries of the remains of Noah's Ark over the years, most notably a find by archaeologist Ron Wyatt in 1987. At the time, the Turkish government officially declared a national park around his find, a boat-shaped object stretched across the mountains of Ararat.

Nevertheless, the evangelical ministry remains convinced that the current find is in fact more likely to be the actual artifact, calling upon Dutch Ark researcher Gerrit Aalten to verify its legitimacy.

“The significance of this find is that for the first time in history the discovery of Noah’s Ark is well documented and revealed to the worldwide community,” Aalten said at a press conference announcing the find. Citing the many details that match historical accounts of the Ark, he believes it to be a legitimate archaeological discovery.

“There’s a tremendous amount of solid evidence that the structure found on Mount Ararat in Eastern Turkey is the legendary Ark of Noah,” said Aalten.

Representatives of Noah's Ark Ministries said the structure contained several compartments, some with wooden beams, that they believe were used to house animals.The group of evangelical archaeologists ruled out an established human settlement on the grounds none have ever been found above 11,000 feet in the vicinity, Yeung said.

During the press conference, team member Panda Lee described visiting the site. “In October 2008, I climbed the mountain with the Turkish team. At an elevation of more than 4,000 meters, I saw a structure built with plank-like timber. Each plank was about 8 inches wide. I could see tenons, proof of ancient construction predating the use of metal nails."

We walked about 100 meters to another site. I could see broken wood fragments embedded in a glacier, and some 20 meters long. I surveyed the landscape and found that the wooden structure was permanently covered by ice and volcanic rocks."

Local Turkish officials will ask the central government in Ankara to apply for UNESCO World Heritage status so the site can be protected while a major archaeological dig is conducted.


Heh. Panda Lee is an awesome name.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#2 Apr 27 2010 at 10:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
How many arks are they gonna find up on that mountain top?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#3 Apr 27 2010 at 10:19 AM Rating: Excellent
At the very least, I hope they find the ones with the unicorn & dragon fossils.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#4 Apr 27 2010 at 10:33 AM Rating: Decent
I'm just curious why you felt the need to leave off the last 2 sections of the story.

Regardless, Faith demands no evidence.
#5 Apr 27 2010 at 10:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Do i really need to explain what Noah's Ark is to anyone?
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#6 Apr 27 2010 at 10:46 AM Rating: Good
Omegavegeta wrote:
Do i really need to explain what Noah's Ark is to anyone?

I find it suspect when the only thing someone leaves out of a cite is a religious reference.
#7 Apr 27 2010 at 10:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Gave Up The D
Avatar
*****
12,281 posts
Samira wrote:
How many arks are they gonna find up on that mountain top?



Depends on how hard it ran into the mountain before coming to a stop.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#8 Apr 27 2010 at 11:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Believe it or not, when linking articles I tend to just try & paste the "important" stuff, which to me revolves around the "facts".

I do believe their was a massive flood "around the time" (give or take about 1000 years) this (these?) arks are dated too, but not because the bible (which is a very interesting, yet I feel very allegorical book) "told me", but because of the evidence supporting it. I find it pretty easy to get around the fact that people tended to live near water & the flood stories from around this time from various cultures, combined with the evidence linked above, could have resulted in massive flooding of the "known" world. I even think a guy named Noah could have built some boats, rode it out with some animals, & a Panda found the boat on Mt. Ararat.

But while I'm certainly open to various theories, "magic" causing said flood isn't one of them.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#9 Apr 27 2010 at 11:06 AM Rating: Decent
Omegavegeta wrote:
Believe it or not, when linking articles I tend to just try & paste the "important" stuff, which to me revolves around the "facts".

I do believe their was a massive flood "around the time" (give or take about 1000 years) this (these?) arks are dated too, but not because the bible (which is a very interesting, yet I feel very allegorical book) "told me", but because of the evidence supporting it. I find it pretty easy to get around the fact that people tended to live near water & the flood stories from around this time from various cultures, combined with the evidence linked above, could have resulted in massive flooding of the "known" world. I even think a guy named Noah could have built some boats, rode it out with some animals, & a Panda found the boat on Mt. Ararat.

But while I'm certainly open to various theories, "magic" causing said flood isn't one of them.

And it's convenient to leave out the portions of an article that don't fit your narrative. I get it.
#10 Apr 27 2010 at 11:06 AM Rating: Good
Funny, I remember reading stories about it being found over 40+ years ago when I was a little kid. The Goverment and the church have kept it under wraps for all this time. It used to be covered in ice.
#11 Apr 27 2010 at 11:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
It used to be covered in ice.


Where did the ice go? It's not like it can suddenly melt unless the whole planet is heating u- oh wait.

So, global warming melts the glacier that was preserving Noah's Ark. I find that rather cool and ironic and wonderful all at once.

I have the same view as you Omegavegeta - there's a grain of truth in every legend and myth, and the flood stories are too widespread to discount. Geological evidence pinpoints a flood around that timeframe, possibly because the land bridge between the Baltic and Mediterranean seas broke.
#12 Apr 27 2010 at 11:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Moe wrote:
And it's convenient to leave out the portions of an article that don't fit your narrative. I get it.


You apparently, have faith enough to believe in a more "divine" explanation. I respect that, as I don't have the same ability to ignore reason & accept the divine, even after 18 years of s Catholic upbringing. I wish I did, it'd make life easier. I'm scared ******** of the "non consciousness" involved in the death of my body, but take comfort in the fact that at least I won't be aware of it after it happens. As I'm sure you take comfort in an afterlife.
Tailmon wrote:

Funny, I remember reading stories about it being found over 40+ years ago when I was a little kid. The Goverment and the church have kept it under wraps for all this time. It used to be covered in ice.


Actually , the Turkish government has a long history of keeping people off the mountain, the Church has always wanted to get it at.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#13 Apr 27 2010 at 11:47 AM Rating: Good
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Omegavegeta wrote:
Do i really need to explain what Noah's Ark is to anyone?

I find it suspect when the only thing someone leaves out of a cite is a religious reference.


Uh...the whole thing is a religious reference. I think you are paranoid, and for that I am deeply sorry.
#14 Apr 27 2010 at 11:49 AM Rating: Good
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:

And it's convenient to leave out the portions of an article that don't fit your narrative. I get it.


Go back and read the original post. Nothing in the article which he could conceivably cut out contradicts his only premise which was that Panda Lee is an awesome name.

#15 Apr 27 2010 at 1:04 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Yeah, I fail to see why him leaving out those two paragraphs is a problem.

[EDIT]

Actually, I would have done the same thing. If I came across an article saying they found a statue of some Roman god believed to have once stood in the Pantheon, I would have quoted the parts pertaining to that. Not the parts that explained what was attributed to this specific god at the time.

Edited, Apr 27th 2010 3:07pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#16 Apr 27 2010 at 1:11 PM Rating: Decent
Omegavegeta wrote:
You apparently, have faith enough to believe in a more "divine" explanation. I respect that, as I don't have the same ability to ignore reason & accept the divine, even after 18 years of s Catholic upbringing. I wish I did, it'd make life easier. I'm scared sh*tless of the "non consciousness" involved in the death of my body, but take comfort in the fact that at least I won't be aware of it after it happens. As I'm sure you take comfort in an afterlife.

I have no faith and profess no belief. I find the religious and the non, the faithful and the skeptic, equally amusing in their choices of expression.
yossarian wrote:
Uh...the whole thing is a religious reference. I think you are paranoid, and for that I am deeply sorry.

Actually, it isn't. It's a story relating to a religious topic. Nuance is a *****.
yossarian wrote:
Go back and read the original post. Nothing in the article which he could conceivably cut out contradicts his only premise which was that Panda Lee is an awesome name.

Again, I think you woke up on the side of the bed your brain chose to vacate today. His only comment was that Panda Lee is an awesome name. That doesn't even begin to suggest that it was the sole premise of the post.
idiggory wrote:
Yeah, I fail to see why him leaving out those two paragraphs is a problem.

It isn't a problem. It amuses me as it is illustrative of the mentality of the skeptic.

For the record, this is a Biblical reference...
t3h article wrote:
The biblical story says that God decided to flood the Earth after seeing how corrupt it was. He then told Noah to build an ark and fill it with two of every animal species.

After the flood waters receded, the Bible says, the ark came to rest on a mountain. Many believe that Mount Ararat, the highest point in the region, is where the ark and her inhabitants ran aground.
#17 Apr 27 2010 at 1:21 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
It isn't really a mentality. He didn't have a deep ulterior motive in not linking that part of the article. It just wasn't relevant to the point he wanted to discuss.

If all he wanted to do was bash the religious myth, he WOULD have linked that part of the article. For instance, I'm skeptical about the existence of free will. When I write an essay about it, or want to discuss it, I quote arguments and try to show why they are invalid or based on false premises. I don't quote (and attack) religious support for it unless that is what the opposition offers me. There's no point to. Then I just obfuscate the issue.

It wasn't relative to what he wanted to discuss. If he's a skeptic, it doesn't make the opposition's side any stronger. It just clouds the issue at hand. If he isn't a skeptic, it *still* doesn't make his claim any stronger.

____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#18 Apr 27 2010 at 1:26 PM Rating: Decent
idiggory wrote:
It isn't really a mentality. He didn't have a deep ulterior motive in not linking that part of the article. It just wasn't relevant to the point he wanted to discuss.

If all he wanted to do was bash the religious myth, he WOULD have linked that part of the article. For instance, I'm skeptical about the existence of free will. When I write an essay about it, or want to discuss it, I quote arguments and try to show why they are invalid or based on false premises. I don't quote (and attack) religious support for it unless that is what the opposition offers me. There's no point to. Then I just obfuscate the issue.

It wasn't relative to what he wanted to discuss. If he's a skeptic, it doesn't make the opposition's side any stronger. It just clouds the issue at hand. If he isn't a skeptic, it *still* doesn't make his claim any stronger.

So it's perfectly acceptable to leave in the section about applying for a world heritage site, while leaving out the explanation of why it might qualify? You argument is apologetic and doesn't wash.
#19 Apr 27 2010 at 1:40 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
idiggory wrote:
It isn't really a mentality. He didn't have a deep ulterior motive in not linking that part of the article. It just wasn't relevant to the point he wanted to discuss.

If all he wanted to do was bash the religious myth, he WOULD have linked that part of the article. For instance, I'm skeptical about the existence of free will. When I write an essay about it, or want to discuss it, I quote arguments and try to show why they are invalid or based on false premises. I don't quote (and attack) religious support for it unless that is what the opposition offers me. There's no point to. Then I just obfuscate the issue.

It wasn't relative to what he wanted to discuss. If he's a skeptic, it doesn't make the opposition's side any stronger. It just clouds the issue at hand. If he isn't a skeptic, it *still* doesn't make his claim any stronger.

So it's perfectly acceptable to leave in the section about applying for a world heritage site, while leaving out the explanation of why it might qualify? You argument is apologetic and doesn't wash.


Sure it is. He linked the article if you wanted to read it for youtself. He just wanted to get to the part about Panda Lee. Anything else is fluff.
#20 Apr 27 2010 at 1:45 PM Rating: Decent
LockeColeMA wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
So it's perfectly acceptable to leave in the section about applying for a world heritage site, while leaving out the explanation of why it might qualify? You argument is apologetic and doesn't wash.

Sure it is. He linked the article if you wanted to read it for youtself. He just wanted to get to the part about Panda Lee. Anything else is fluff.

That's as stupid as saying he quoted the entire Hobbit to prove the smoked on the last page.
#21 Apr 27 2010 at 1:48 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Quote:
So it's perfectly acceptable to leave in the section about applying for a world heritage site, while leaving out the explanation of why it might qualify? You argument is apologetic and doesn't wash.


Yes, because there was nothing to be gained by including it. 1, it had nothing to do with his reason for linking the article. 2, presumably, no one on this board needs Noah's Ark defined for them.

If I link an article talking about the conflicts between Egypt and Britain regarding their artifacts, I'm not going to bother including the part that explains the specific history concerning those items in question. Because it is irrelevant. Sure, it adds emphasis to the reason Egypt may want them. But I expect people would know it already--it doesn't need to be elaborated on.

Talking about King Tut's reign as King wouldn't change the issue at hand--the specific story doesn't matter. For the sake of what we were discussing, it didn't need to be stated. Same thing here. People knew what Noah's Ark is. Defining it adds nothing to our discussion.

Unless, of course, it is something you assume people wouldn't know. But that isn't the case here.

Quote:
That's as stupid as saying he quoted the entire Hobbit to prove the smoked on the last page.


His reason was to open up the discussion regarding the current event, and to make a joke about the guy's name. The two paragraphs he didn't quote in no way influence either of these goals, and simply express common knowledge on top of it. There was no reason to quote them.

The myth wasn't necessary info for that. You're just trying to prove that his skepticism is somehow raging out of hand so he's intentionally trying to cloud issues, which clearly isn't the case.

Edited, Apr 27th 2010 3:51pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#22 Apr 27 2010 at 1:51 PM Rating: Default
idiggory wrote:
Quote:
You argument is apologetic and doesn't wash.

Yes

Perfection.
#23 Apr 27 2010 at 1:53 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Wow, how witty of you.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#24 Apr 27 2010 at 1:56 PM Rating: Good
Someone REALLY dislikes Moe. Smiley: frown
#25 Apr 27 2010 at 1:58 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
If Moe really is dying, I wish whatever is killing him would hurry the **** up.
#26 Apr 27 2010 at 2:02 PM Rating: Good
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Someone REALLY dislikes Moe. Smiley: frown

It's the usual response I get. Someday I should ask Kao for a list of the top 5 offenders.
Bardalicious wrote:
If Moe really is dying, I wish whatever is killing him would hurry the @#%^ up.

You're grumpy. Do the new beads still have some rough edges?
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 297 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (297)