Noah's Ark Found in Iran?!

[Minnesota]

Again, accepting that we could be deceived by hoaxers, it is said that it is already proven to be petrified wood. There are a number of photgraphs of other parts that are in fact wood, or were in fact wood.

I must have missed that. Care to supply a source, or, preferably, a link?

[FreezBee]

I found a really big board alongside the road today.
I think it might be a part of the cross.

Lucky you!

Anyway, why this obsession with biblical artifacts? It's not as if, the Bible mentions that we are supposed to find the Ark of the Covenant, Noah's Ark, or any other ark. This is not Christianity, but fetishism.


- FreezBee

[Dark Knight]

Here is what Jesus said about Noah...

"And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it shall be also in the days of the Son of Man: they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all."

One does not have to have evidence of a lost ark to believe the account of Noah. We have the testimony of Jesus. The question lies in what do you believe about Jesus? Jesus said there was an ark, and all others were destroyed. In my mind, that solidifies it.

[Dee Dee Warren]

One does not have to have evidence of a lost ark to believe the account of Noah. We have the testimony of Jesus. The question lies in what do you believe about Jesus? Jesus said there was an ark, and all others were destroyed. In my mind, that solidifies it.

Exactly. It was said earlier in the thread that there are other "Christian" interpretations of the flood account. Perhaps, but I would say any other "Christian" interpretations have to be consistent with what Jesus said otherwise it is not a "Christian" interpretation. A Christian merely believing something about the Bible doesn't Christianize the belief. If that were the case, finding some Christian who thinks the flood was really about a bad day in the nursery would also be a Christian interpretation.

Therefore, it is completely untenable and unbelievable to me that any Christian would dismiss out of hand the possibility of finding the ark because it did exist, and it might be found. I really don't care if this is it or not. I don't particularly care for artificacts because foolish people then tend to worship the artifact rather than God, but it is bothersome the mockery of the possibility coming from professing Christians. This guy could be a loon and a fraud, I have no idea. But the ark could be found someday by someone.

[FreezBee]

Here is what Jesus said about Noah...

"And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it shall be also in the days of the Son of Man: they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all."

One does not have to have evidence of a lost ark to believe the account of Noah. We have the testimony of Jesus. The question lies in what do you believe about Jesus? Jesus said there was an ark, and all others were destroyed. In my mind, that solidifies it.

Very well said. Pearls to you.

- FreezBee

[The Curtmudgeon]

Therefore, it is completely untenable and unbelievable to me that any Christian would dismiss out of hand the possibility of finding the ark because (a) it did exist, and (b) it might be found. (emphasised tags added)

DD, I doubt you were referring to my earlier post, but just in case there was a misunderstanding, let me clarify my position, because I did say some things that are very close to what you are referring to, without meaning at all what you imply. (Of course, if you're not referring to my post at all but some other, then skip right down to the next post in this thread.)

The two clauses in your statement which I've labelled are a non sequitur; clause (b) doesn't follow from clause (a) [although in logic terms, (b) certainly couldn't follow from ~(a), so (a) is a necessary but not sufficient cause for (b)]. This of course doesn't mean that (b) is false, nor would I so construe it, but granting the truth of (a) -- which I do -- does not require me to accept (b) at all, and I don't.

I fully believe in the historical existence of an Ark created by Noah as described in the book of Genesis and confirmed by Jesus Christ. I believe that the Ark was built out of some species of now-unidentified wood, to the measurements specified in the text, and that Noah and his family and the animals God chose rode out the Flood in that Ark and landed safely and exited therefrom to spread out and re-populate the whole Earth.

The only thing I doubt -- and I strongly doubt it, for theological not practical reasons -- is that following that historical event, God allowed the Ark to remain, either intact or in recognisable pieces, to anything like the present day. I actually do not believe that God allowed it to survive for long at all; I doubt He would have needed to hurry its normal dissolution, but I fully believe that He did not do anything to preserve it or allow it to endure.

This guy could be a loon and a fraud, I have no idea.

The point of my previous posting was that there's some credible evidence that he's one or the other (not even I would claim that he's both), outside of this particular claim. He's already got a back-history (granted, part of it is guilt-by-association since he seems to steal ideas from Ron Wyatt), and it should be important that we not dismiss that when evaluating his current claim.

The (ignoring patterns that exist is just as criminal as seeing patterns that aren't there) Curtmudgeon

[WaterOfOblivion]

Curt,

Dr. Robert Ballard has found intact wooden boats below the "Death Zone" in the Black sea. These are ancient boats. Dr. Ballard favors a "local flood" theory but now actually gives plausibility to the notion of a Biblical flood having some basis in reality and searches for wooden artifacts based on that limited faith in the account. Extreme conditions such as depth, cold, height, etc all combine to preserve what we would think would crumble and pass out of this world in forms that astound. You might check this link. Here's a quote:

The Black Sea has a great potential, since it's anoxic (anaerobic, no oxygen) below c 200 m depth. With no oxygen, deep-sea wrecks can be preserved for millennia. Also, the Black Sea was flooded sometime 5500-5000 BC, and remains of prehistoric settlements have been found underwater.

On the basis of that knowledge Ballard searched and found below the inversion layer quite a lot of things. High Mountain archeology is a bit more limited because few think that many people lived at those heights, and that's probably true. But if you're curious, hike up Everest, one of the main attractions (ick) are all the perfectly preserved dead climbers.

Something is certainly preserved at the site if we are not being hoaxed. The discoverers of the big petrified "whatever" have found pottery and other evidence that the site was frequented for many years. All that stuff got preserved. I do think there is a strong possibility that there is a real wreck that is the Ark somewhere in the rough area of the Middle East. I really hope someone finds it. It would be fun.

[Minnesota]

Again, accepting that we could be deceived by hoaxers, it is said that it is already proven to be petrified wood. There are a number of photgraphs of other parts that are in fact wood, or were in fact wood.

And again, I ask: Care to supply a source, or, preferably, a link? OR did you simply misspeak?

[WaterOfOblivion]

Argh. You can't google? Ok, here you go.

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a...00010000000001

http://www.baseinstitute.org/

http://www.baseinstitute.org/noah.html

http://www.arkfever.com/

http://www.worldviewweekend.com/secu...&ArticleID=813

http://cbs11tv.com/topstories/local_...177234625.html

http://www.watch.org/showart.php3?id...wsubj=1&mcat=1

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?se...rld&id=4319965

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/healthscience/060629a.aspx

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2133311&page=1

http://www.speroforum.com/site/artic...ub=128&id=2424

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=50857

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying this is the ark. This is an interesting archelogical find or it's the proverbial "Piltdown Boat" or whatever. I care and I don't. If it's not a boat, if it's not the ark, it's like the grave of my great great great great great great great grandfather. I know he existed, but if I never find it, I'll keep on keeping on.

[Minnesota]

Argh. You can't google? Ok, here you go.

When any sourced/linked information is contradicted it's normal Tweb posting etiquette to provide a source for the contradictory evidence. Thank you.

[WaterOfOblivion]

"Even more intriguing, they said, some of the wood-like rocks tested this week proved to be petrified wood."

This proves one of two things. It's a Hoax. Or it's wood.

[lao tzu]

Argh. You can't google? Ok, here you go.

I can google, and I've been looking hard for any sign that it's been verified. Let's look at these sources. Many of them are already familiar to me.

1. http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a...00010000000001
2. http://www.baseinstitute.org/
3. http://www.baseinstitute.org/noah.html
4. http://www.arkfever.com/
5. http://www.worldviewweekend.com/secu...&ArticleID=813
6. http://cbs11tv.com/topstories/local_...177234625.html
7. http://www.watch.org/showart.php3?id...wsubj=1&mcat=1
8. http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?se...rld&id=4319965
9. http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/healthscience/060629a.aspx
10. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2133311&page=1
11. http://www.speroforum.com/site/artic...ub=128&id=2424
12. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=50857

Source (1): Seen it already. Here's what it claims:

The B.A.S.E. Institute's samples are being examined at labs in Texas and Florida. B.A.S.E officials concede that there would be no way to conclusively prove that their finding is actually Noah's Ark.

Unnamed labs in Texas and Florida are examining the finds. Wyatt made those claims once, but so long as Wyatt, like the B.A.S.E. people, keep their finds from independent analysts, there's no need to take their claims seriously.

Sources (2) and (3) are the same source, and provide no information. Did you actually read these before posting them? Source (4) gives us the following.

Reg Lyle, oil and gas geologist said the object appears to be a basalt dike ...

Sources (4) and (5) are mirrors. Swap between them and you'll see they are absolutely identical save for the header. I had previously linked to the images given from these sites and explained above why they argue against the claims.

Source (6) is a local Texas news station and is based entirely on an interview with Bonnema. There is no hint of fact checking, merely the unsupported claims. It appears to have made the news only because of the local Texas angle.

Source (7) is an interview by one expedition member of another. No supporting information for a find of petrified wood. He does add gratuitous insults to journalism in the process of writing the story.

From my point of view as a journalist, whether Bob Cornuke found the Ark or whether it was found by someone else some other time is immaterial. Why? Because I believe that the Bible is the infallable and inerrant Word of God and that these pieces of evidence are for those who don’t believe.

Source (8) is yet another Texas television station conducting the very same interview and making the very same claim the finds are being examined in some unnamed labs in Texas and Florida.

Source (9) is the Christian Broadcasting Network, and as might be expected is even more loose with their facts. Samples still being tested are pre-identified as petrified wood.

Researchers from labs in Texas and Florida are testing samples from the petrified wood.

Source (10) is the best of a bad lot, an interview on Good Morning America. Still, it includes no further reason to believe the samples returned were of petrified wood.

Source (11) makes the mark as the most amusing of the bunch. It traces the history of Cornuke's expedition from a vision by an army officer named Davis who served in Iran during the 1940s.

Davis, who passed a lie detector test, claims to have been taken to the Ark's resting place, and was able to offer both a detailed verbal account, and drawings of what he had seen.

It mentions an actual institute testing the samples, and again mentions that no formal results have been released. Separate from that investigation is a short paragraph that places the testing and claims of petrified wood in context.

Evidence of petrified wood was also brought back, and a world-wide team of experts is studying all materials.

Source (12) is the original WorldNutDaily report.

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying this is the ark. This is an interesting archelogical find or it's the proverbial "Piltdown Boat" or whatever. I care and I don't. If it's not a boat, if it's not the ark, it's like the grave of my great great great great great great great grandfather. I know he existed, but if I never find it, I'll keep on keeping on.

Please don't misunderstand me. I understand that a find of this nature is likely to stir up the hopes of those who have faith in a literal Noah and a literal world flood as described in the sacred texts of the ancient tribe incorporated into the christian bible.

But adding in details that are not there to support a story which is not true merely give the rest of the nontheistic horde further reason to scoff at your faith. I would prefer to avoid the necessity. I recommend that you restrain any further urges to post a dozen links you've clearly failed to examine.

As ever, Jesse

[grmorton]

that is my whole point - everyone is talking out their rear

Of course guys like Minn would scoff, they don't think the flood happened or the ark ever existed, but for Christians to rule it out, out of hand seems a bit odd. If the flood did happen and the ark did exist it is possible that some evidence such as this might be found. I find it very interesting.

Darth Dee Dee, I am amazed at how those who don't study geology and really really want to have their ears tickled by hearing that the ark has been found don't want to consider that

1. the wood of the ark might have rotted,
2. might have been burnt for warmth by the initial inhabitants,
3. might have been raided for building material as has the Great wall of China and Hadrian's wall. etc.

No, we know that there must be an ark out there to find, so we discount any disturbing thoughts.

Before you gripe at me for my sarcasm, I have been used as a consultant for one of the ark expeditions for Bill Crouse. Bill asked me to look at a photo of the ark he had taken on Ararat. it was a rock formation. I realised during the time I was with Bill that the entire enterprise of looking for the Ark is an enterprise of fools. I took my leave quickly. What I do for a living is geological analysis of both photos (areal) and images (seismic) So I am a professional at this.

What I see in the photos looks volcanic to me. I have a photo in a book (which scans badly showing that phenomenon. It is Donald W. Hyndman, Petrology of Igneous and Metamorphic Rocks," McGraw-Hill 1972, p.85. But, I have done some searching on the internet (something you could easily do if you had an ounce of interest in seeing the other side of this issue) and some pictures can be found at

http://gore.ocean.washington.edu/cla.../geology_6.jpg

this picture looks similar to the one on that web page which denies anyone copying privileges.

Here is another type of banding that one could mistake for planks.

http://gore.ocean.washington.edu/cla...geology_17.jpg

Looking at pictures on the page named ark 13 nd ark 15 (upper right corner and lower center) one can see that the 'ark' is resistant to erosion. The rock around it has eroded away. For that to be wood requires that the wood be more resistant to erosion and rot than is the surrounding rock. When a tree dies and rots after several years here is what you will find. The tree trunk leaves a hole in the ground where the trunk is. The dirt and rock are not eroded away leaving the trunk sticking up in the air. Yet, here, 4000 years after the flood the ark hasn't rotted and is highly resistant to erosion!

Isn't it the yecs who try to claim that polystrate trees can't happen because the tree would rot way if not buried quickly? Here we have the ark, not buried by the flood because it is at the end of the flood and high on a mountain (where erosion reigns) and yet it doesn't rot? Something is rotten in YEC reasoning when they ignore the one argument when using the other.

[grmorton]

"Even more intriguing, they said, some of the wood-like rocks tested this week proved to be petrified wood."

This proves one of two things. It's a Hoax. Or it's wood.

And exactly what test did they perform? I know how to determine fossilized wood from other rocks, so I would love to hear what they did.

[grmorton]

Curt,

Dr. Robert Ballard has found intact wooden boats below the "Death Zone" in the Black sea. These are ancient boats. Dr. Ballard favors a "local flood" theory but now actually gives plausibility to the notion of a Biblical flood having some basis in reality and searches for wooden artifacts based on that limited faith in the account. Extreme conditions such as depth, cold, height, etc all combine to preserve what we would think would crumble and pass out of this world in forms that astound. You might check this link.

Wood can be preserved if underwater. Above water it rots in a few years unless constantly painted.