http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...turkey-arafat/

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."

That must mean the flood was world wide and not local if its on top of a mountain. Can you show other evidence of a world wide flood with water levels up to where they found the boat?

Even if it was that old, its it proportionately sized to fit 2 of every single animal on earth at that very time?

If this actually proves to be an boat or "Ark" used during a flood 4,800 years ago, it will be annoying to hear all the theists shouting "this proves the Bible is true!!"

So, did they purposely leave it intack so that it could be found later? I mean, you think after disembarking in the aftermath of a global 40 day flood they would have dismantled the ark and put the wood and materials to other uses. And I wonder what leads them to be 99.9% sure, but I'm sure the History Chanel will do one of their pseudo/specualtive shows on it.

wow they found some wood /clap

Bahahahaha....this is great.

But wait, according to biblical literalists carbon dating doesn't work.

It only works when it dates things to the right date.

You would be right that this would be strong evidence against a local flood if this were shown to be Noah's Ark. But then you (as an atheist) would have to account for how a boat got on top of that mountain without a worldwide flood, which of course everyone claims that there was not in fact ever a worldwide flood.

They are claiming its a boat, it could be a house for all we know. They found noah's ark in 2006, did you forget. Also, they found it again in a different spot in 2008. Once every other year or so someone claims to have found this thing.

They built it up there.

But yeah, the article is skimpy as **** on the details. They found something built by human hands on top of a mountain, with no other settlements nearby.

Sounds like a small monastery.

please go back and re-read my post (and the post mine was responding to) so you can see why your post does not apply.

Even if there was a big flood and a boat what does that prove?

Let's say there was some huge disastrous ice-age tomorrow that wiped out 95% of the world's population.

The Westboro Church write about it after the event and say "God was angry with all the **** and *** enablers so he decided to wipe out the world and start afresh".

Point being, people can write about any huge natural disaster and claim God was ****in' things up, but it doesn't mean it's true.

Of course, if you're saying it adds to the credibility of the Bible's accuracy... well yes. But not by very much.

Some cultures would bury people in boats as a part of burial ceremonies in all kind of weird places away from water.

Or maybe Noah was a nut or some other nutter thought it was the end times so he/they built their boat on top of a mountain to avoid some worldwide flood that they thought was coming.


A flood to the top of Mount Ararat would mean huge amounts of scientific evidence could be found. All im asking for is some because afaik that much water covering the earth couldn't hide its mark. And afaik there isn't enough water on earth to cover it up to were they found the boat.

The article seems to imply that people lived on this mountain (I'm pretty ignorant on mountains, I assume some are habitable, and some are not - at least not without modern ski-lift technology). I always assume that most of the legends in the OT were based loosely on real events. If people were living up there while a flood devastated the encampments below, but the poeple who lived on the mountain were survivors, you could see how a legend of a small number of people surviving a great flood could form.

I'm not in any way suggesting that's what happened, but just to say there are plenty of reasons to find relics up on mountains, and in particular this mountain. The mere fact that they had only previously found settlements lower down does not entail that there could not have been structures up above - perhaps it was used for hunting, etc.

The article didn't say what about the remnants indicated it was a boat aside from it looking like there were compartments for animals.

Also, lol at being 99.9% sure it's Noah's Ark. We've got some real scientists here. I hope they do get some real archaologists working on this.

its not noahs ark lets be real.. the bible is a book.. a book of fiction.. based on word of mouth... religion is an idealism... get real people

but it will be fun pointing out that there are other religions with flood myths... all of them could be true as well.

And you wonder why I get so pissed at the atheist on this board sometimes.

NEVER ONCE DID I CLAIM THIS WAS NOAH'S ARK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look at the posts.

You claimed that this would mean that it could not have been a local flood. I agreed that if this were actually Noah's Ark that it would be strong evidence against the local flood theory. But that if you want to say that I can no longer hold to the local flood theory, then you have to account for Noah's Ark being this high up on a mountain.

This CANNOT be evidence against a local flood theory, but not evidence for the biblical Noah's Ark and a global flood.

I don't think this is Noah's Ark. Nor do I expect to ever find Noah's Ark as I believe in the local flood theory, which would mean this would not be on top of a giant mountain. Also, I would expect that because it would not be on a giant mountain that the Ark would probably be torn apart and all salvageable pieces reused. Not just abandoned and left intact.

when did he claim that you claimed that this was Noah's ark?

Look all im saying is if this is Noah's ark there should be other evidence that the earth flooded up to where it was found. Where is it?

rofl. this is why certainty is scary. its not Noah's Ark, and you could never argue against this guy that is isn't.

It's a common trend

When a theory exists with very little evidence people try to take what they can get and be happy with it

Doesn't have to prove anything, does it?

Still quite interesting though.

If its a boat, and its not a fraud, then it certainly IS interesting, whatever the real story.