Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

This is so exciting! Archeologists have been providing proof of Biblical stories but this new find is monumental! The ark that Noah built when God flooded the Earth has been FOUND! I have posted multiple different sources so that you can pick whichever source you believe most credible.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/2 7/noahs-ark-found-turkey-ararat/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/20 10/04/27/2010-04-27_noahs_ark_found_atop _mount_ararat_in_turkey_evangelical_grou p_claims.html

http://www.helium.com/items/1816865-grou p-claims-to-have-discovered-noahs-ark-on -mount-ararat-turkey

http://www.examiner.com/x-27339-Cincinna ti-Pop-Culture-Examiner~y2010m4d27-Noahs -Ark-believed-to-have-been-found-by-arch aeologists

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/articl e/801041--noah-s-ark-found-researchers-c laim

"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".

I bet all of you who were dissing the Bible and saying it has no proof are eating your words right now huh. Noah's Ark existed and wound up atop Mount Ararat (the highest mountain in the region). Obviously, the story is true and God really did flood the Earth. Of course, to those educated on the Bible this comes as no surprise, archeology and science have long since been in support of the Bible as seen in examples below,

Sodom and Gommorah:

http://www.wyattnewsletters.com/sodom/s&
g.htm

"Now, brimstone is brimstone, even though used in a miracle. And a region on which brimstone was rained will show brimstone. Well, it does; we picked up pure sulfur, in pieces as big as the end of my thumb. It is mixed with the marl of the mountains on the west side of the sea, and now is to be found scattered along the shore of the sea even on the east side, some four or five miles distant from the ledge that contains the stratum. It has somehow scattered far and wide over this Plain." (Explorations at Sodom", by Dr. Melvin Grove Kyle, 1928, pp. 52-53.)

Jesus Christ & New Testament:

http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar29.ht m

"At the 2, 000th anniversary of Christianity, then, we should be ready to tell everyone that the sum total of the literary, historical and archaeological evidence from the ancient world dramatically supports the New Testament record on Jesus. Those who claim it does not are sadly misinformed, tragically closed-minded, or dishonest".

Therefore, to all of you nonChristians out there, GET EDUCATED!!!

Discuss

At 4/27/10 01:16 PM, Otto wrote: So it's proof of a big, ancient boat. Prove the story surrounding it.

Easy. How did it wind up atop the largest mountain in the region? No known human settlements were ever recorded above 11,000 feet according to the archeologists in the article, and a massive boat like that is a difficult thing for people in the ancient world to lug up a mountain.

I'm Christian so it's all good.

Although I doubt it's Noah's Ark.

The key word is 'claim'
It hasn't been proven.

At 4/27/10 01:23 PM, Otto wrote:

At 4/27/10 01:18 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

At 4/27/10 01:16 PM, Otto wrote: So it's proof of a big, ancient boat. Prove the story surrounding it.

Easy. How did it wind up atop the largest mountain in the region?

A lot of modern-day land was previously under water.

If the top of the highest mountain in the region was close to sea level than the vast majority of Asia would have been a spattery of islands. This is obviously not a reasonable assumption/explanation.

It could be anybody's ark!

I know I shouldn't engage in retarded discussions about bible artifacts, but I'm bored and I've got nothing better to do so:

At 4/27/10 01:18 PM, studmuffin7 wrote: Easy. How did it wind up atop the largest mountain in the region? No known human settlements were ever recorded above 11,000 feet according to the archeologists in the article,

Doesn't mean they never will find one, or that this isn't the first one to be found.

and a massive boat like that is a difficult thing for people in the ancient world to lug up a mountain.

They don't even know it's a boat. They've found some wooden beams, for fuck's sake. They don't even know if they are arranged in the shape of a boat yet. If it reallt is the ark, there'd be things like nails, waterproofing, animal remains, feedstocks and so on. Bits of wood alone do not equal a legendary ship.

Also, just out of interest: what does the bible say about the number of people on board the ark?

For every myth, there is a metaphor. Was there actually a ship, or is it simply an allegory? The story has already proven to be far beyond impossible, essentially super-impossible. Many christians already believe this to be true. I find it sad that a bunch of fundamentalists are trying to validate a myth, it vaguely reminds me of that one annoying kid in class who tries to prove to the teacher that he read last night's homework, despite not knowing the material enough to discuss it, by showing her the dog-ear flaps he left on the pages or whatever.

I guess I'm going too far into it, I haven't actually read the story in its entirety. It's a touchy subject.

"It's not 100 per cent that it is Noah's Ark, but we think it is 99.9 per cent that this is it,"

So it could be, doesn't mean it is.

I can believe that it is the real 'Noahs Ark'. Doesn't mean that it's a holy thing and that we should be praising God for whatever. I just believe that when the Bible was written this ark was made due to mass flooding, and the people saw it as a great truimph. 'Noah' probably stored it with as many animals as he could house for food purposes and that it is. It was just written about like it was some idea from a greater good.

So yeah I don't not believe that it could really be Noahs ark. It certainly is someones ark that's for sure, you can't deny that. You can though not believe the actually story of the ark. Still if this is the ark that the story Noahs Ark was based on then I must admit, that it's a very good find. I hope to see more pictures of it in the future.

At 4/27/10 01:50 PM, Sheizenhammer wrote: I know I shouldn't engage in retarded discussions about bible artifacts, but I'm bored and I've got nothing better to do so:

By making that statement, you have already proven that you are close-minded and uneducated. Either educate yourself here, or please leave the forums.

At 4/27/10 01:18 PM, studmuffin7 wrote: Easy. How did it wind up atop the largest mountain in the region? No known human settlements were ever recorded above 11,000 feet according to the archeologists in the article,

Doesn't mean they never will find one, or that this isn't the first one to be found.

Mount Ararat is the largest mountain in that area. Don't you think the air would get a little thin above 11,000 feet? And that is just the height of the highest known settlement on the mountain. If that is the highest mountain in the region, it must be MUCH higher still.

and a massive boat like that is a difficult thing for people in the ancient world to lug up a mountain.

They don't even know it's a boat. They've found some wooden beams, for fuck's sake. They don't even know if they are arranged in the shape of a boat yet. If it reallt is the ark, there'd be things like nails, waterproofing, animal remains, feedstocks and so on. Bits of wood alone do not equal a legendary ship.

First of all, the carbon dating confirms it is 4800 years old, around the time Noah is believed to have built this ark. Given that it is THAT old it does not surprise me that they did not find any animal remains or feedstocks as these things would most likely have decomposed a looooong time ago. Second, the archeological team is pretty sure it is Noah's ark,

"It's not 100% that it is Noah's Ark, but we think it is 99.9% that this is it," Yeung Wing-cheung, a Hong Kong documentary filmmaker, told AFP".

But hey, I guess arrogant atheist types like yourself just know it all and have no need to listen to anyone else. Forget the fact that he and his team have degrees in archeology and scientists to perform the carbon dating, you know it all don't you?

Also, just out of interest: what does the bible say about the number of people on board the ark?

Sorry, just have to point some things out.

1. "It's not 100 percent that it is Noah's Ark, but we think it is 99.9 percent that this is it."

This is assumptions and speculations, not fact.

2. The remains of Noah's Ark have been discovered 13,000 feet up a Turkish mountain -- according to a sensational claim byevangelicalexplorers.

It appears there could be some bias behind their claims.

Would be interesting to see if they're right, but until it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is the real ark, i'm not holding my breath.

Maybe it flew there

At 4/27/10 01:50 PM, STEM wrote: For every myth, there is a metaphor. Was there actually a ship, or is it simply an allegory? The story has already proven to be far beyond impossible, essentially super-impossible. Many christians already believe this to be true. I find it sad that a bunch of fundamentalists are trying to validate a myth, it vaguely reminds me of that one annoying kid in class who tries to prove to the teacher that he read last night's homework, despite not knowing the material enough to discuss it, by showing her the dog-ear flaps he left on the pages or whatever.

I guess I'm going too far into it, I haven't actually read the story in its entirety. It's a touchy subject.

Not everything is myth and allegory. Archeology has already backed up the story of Jesus, the brimstone rained down upon Sodom & Gomorrah, the existance of the Hitites, and now Noah's Ark. I don't know you personally, so I can't say if it is true of you or not, but I find that a lot of people who don't want to accept or believe the truth will try to write it off as symbolism/allegory/myth/whatever in an attempt to run from it.

At 4/27/10 02:00 PM, studmuffin7 wrote: First of all, the carbon dating confirms it is 4800 years old, around the time Noah is believed to have built this ark. Given that it is THAT old it does not surprise me that they did not find any animal remains or feedstocks as these things would most likely have decomposed a looooong time ago. Second, the archeological team is pretty sure it is Noah's ark,

You're an idiot.

4800 years is enough to decompose EVERYTHING?

Ever heard of fossils? You know from around 200 million years ago. They aren't all bones either, and a lot are on top of high mountains.

Also, just because one mountain may have been below sea level 5000 odd years ago doesn't mean the rest of the continent was. I mean, it's already proved that some mountains in America, Europe, Asia, Africa etc. were below sea level at some point.

By your reasoning, the entirety of the world is moving slowly away from the core and eventually all land masses will be floating in space.

At 4/27/10 02:03 PM, goofleberries wrote: Maybe it flew there

Sadly, I think many atheists would sooner believe that than the truth.

At 4/27/10 02:05 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

At 4/27/10 02:03 PM, goofleberries wrote: Maybe it flew there

Sadly, I think many atheists would sooner believe that than the truth.

*cough*

Literal interpretation of the Bible does not work.

At 4/27/10 02:05 PM, Hoeloe wrote:

At 4/27/10 02:00 PM, studmuffin7 wrote: First of all, the carbon dating confirms it is 4800 years old, around the time Noah is believed to have built this ark. Given that it is THAT old it does not surprise me that they did not find any animal remains or feedstocks as these things would most likely have decomposed a looooong time ago. Second, the archeological team is pretty sure it is Noah's ark,

You're an idiot.

4800 years is enough to decompose EVERYTHING?

I never said it was enough to decompose everything, if it did they would not have found anything. Animal remains (be it dung or dead animals) would definately have decomposed in that time. Live animals would most likely have left the site in search of a more hospitable area to live in or died and decomposed if they stayed. You also mentioned feedstocks, which I believe would have also decomposed in that time. The ship, however, is still there.

Ever heard of fossils? You know from around 200 million years ago. They aren't all bones either, and a lot are on top of high mountains.

Usually fossils are frozen or encased in amber or some other thing that inhibits decomposition. And even if I am wrong, it would STILL not be surprising not to find any after 4800 years as fossils are very rare. The area may have been picked clean of animal remains by keen scavengers of the region.

Also, just because one mountain may have been below sea level 5000 odd years ago doesn't mean the rest of the continent was. I mean, it's already proved that some mountains in America, Europe, Asia, Africa etc. were below sea level at some point.

1) Provide proof
2) Even if I take you at your word, the fact remains that if a region that high is below water then lower areas in that same region would have to have been submerged as well.

By your reasoning, the entirety of the world is moving slowly away from the core and eventually all land masses will be floating in space.

Reducto ad absurdum arguments are not tolerated in any serious debate and are a sure sign of low IQ. You cannot argue with me, so you distort my argument then attack the distortion you created in an attempt to make me appear ridiculous. It is a pathetic and dishonorable tactic and really quite low brow.

At 4/27/10 02:00 PM, studmuffin7 wrote: Mount Ararat is the largest mountain in that area. Don't you think the air would get a little thin above 11,000 feet? And that is just the height of the highest known settlement on the mountain. If that is the highest mountain in the region, it must be MUCH higher still.

Mount Ararat = 16,854ft.
The town of Wenzhuan, China: 16,730 feet high. Been there for over 50 years, and doing fine. So no, the elevation alone is not a real obstacle for settlements to form, even at the very top of Mount Ararat.

First of all, the carbon dating confirms it is 4800 years old, around the time Noah is believed to have built this ark. Given that it is THAT old it does not surprise me that they did not find any animal remains or feedstocks as these things would most likely have decomposed a looooong time ago. Second, the archeological team is pretty sure it is Noah's ark,

The organic matter would have rotted away, but it doesn't disappear entirely. The soil that forms from decomposing animals is of a different chemical make-up to soil formed from decomposed plant material. If you know what you're looking for, you can carbon-date the resultant soil (provided it hasn't been disturbed by things like farming and building work) to see how long the animal has been dead for.

Or you could just find and carbon-date the bones. That's much easier, as the abscence of bones in an undisturbed area pretty much proves no animals were ever there, carbon-dating or not.

"It's not 100% that it is Noah's Ark, but we think it is 99.9% that this is it," Yeung Wing-cheung, a Hong Kong documentary filmmaker, told AFP".

I distinctly remember the exact same thing being said about the last boat-shaped anomaly to be found on Mount Ararat, and the one before that, and before that too. This gets repeated every time anything bearing even the slightest chance of being a boat is found up there.

But hey, I guess arrogant atheist types like yourself just know it all and have no need to listen to anyone else. Forget the fact that he and his team have degrees in archeology and scientists to perform the carbon dating, you know it all don't you?

Hmm, let me think. Do I trust a bunch of people who all have a vested interest in proving that Noah's Ark existed...?
Yeah, no. It doesn't matter how well-qualified they are, it doesn't stop this being at best bad science (and probably just random proclamations about some old junk they found on a mountainside). I'll believe it (AS THEY SHOULD) when they excavate the whole lot and prove that it was actually a boat that had enough space to carry some 40 million animal species that would've otherwise drowned, but until then, yeah fuckin right.

And I do love it when religious people scream " arrogant know it all" comments...

Also, just out of interest: what does the bible say about the number of people on board the ark?

... and then fail to answer even simple questions about the story they're defending. XD

First, I would like to state that I am indeed a Christian.

Second, I'm not so sure that this is Noah's Ark. I'll start to consider entertaining the notion of believing it if the story remains alive after they continue excavation.

At 4/27/10 02:06 PM, Hoeloe wrote:

At 4/27/10 02:05 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

At 4/27/10 02:03 PM, goofleberries wrote: Maybe it flew there

Sadly, I think many atheists would sooner believe that than the truth.

*cough*

Literal interpretation of the Bible does not work.

Once more, you need to watch those reducto ad absurdum arguments. Archeologists and scientists have explored and carbon dated many sites pertaining to Biblical events. Large hunks of sulfur can be found in a 4-5mile radius on the ground where Sodom and Gomorrah were believed to stand. Jesus could have easily avoided the most horrible fate in human history if He ceased His teachings yet He continued out of principle. Now we have the ark. At some point, you have to stop running from the truth so we can move forward.

At 4/27/10 02:13 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

At 4/27/10 02:05 PM, Hoeloe wrote: You're an idiot.

I stand by this comment.

Also, just because one mountain may have been below sea level 5000 odd years ago doesn't mean the rest of the continent was. I mean, it's already proved that some mountains in America, Europe, Asia, Africa etc. were below sea level at some point.

1) Provide proof
2) Even if I take you at your word, the fact remains that if a region that high is below water then lower areas in that same region would have to have been submerged as well.

But other regions in the world would be above sea level when they are not any more. The land mass in total remains roughly constant in that respect, why does it matter if areas in the same region would be submerged, is it impossible?

By your reasoning, the entirety of the world is moving slowly away from the core and eventually all land masses will be floating in space.

Reducto ad absurdum arguments are not tolerated in any serious debate and are a sure sign of low IQ. You cannot argue with me, so you distort my argument then attack the distortion you created in an attempt to make me appear ridiculous. It is a pathetic and dishonorable tactic and really quite low brow.

How is it absurd? You're saying that for any part of the world to be underwater, everything connected to that landmass must also have been underwater (which is not true, by the way, if you look at plate tectonics etc.) As such, it can be concluded, through the known fact that much of the current land mass was once underwater, that the world was originally ALL underwater. Since it is not like that any more, it can also be assumed that the land is rising OUT of the ocean. If this continues, it will eventually leave the ocean altogether and enter the outer atmosphere.

This is why combining bad science and the literal Bible DOES NOT WORK.

wow so people ware actually looking for this ? i knew it was there but thought no1 gives a fuck

At 4/27/10 01:14 PM, studmuffin7 wrote: "The group claims that carbon dating proves the relics are 4,800 years old

Sure, we can carbon date a crappy old boat but when we start carbon dating dinosaur fossils its all "OMG NO THEY DONT EXIST LOL"

lolchristians.

Like others have already said. The ark is an impossible feat of construction. And even if he did build this ark and found 2 of every animal. How would Noah have ever properly distributed the animals properly around the globe? How did he know where each animal needed to go to survive? Bull....shit..

At 4/27/10 02:42 PM, Cyprus wrote: Like others have already said. The ark is an impossible feat of construction. And even if he did build this ark and found 2 of every animal. How would Noah have ever properly distributed the animals properly around the globe? How did he know where each animal needed to go to survive? Bull....shit..

Not to mention putting a gazelle on the same boat as a lion is bound to cause some problems.

Hurp derp I simply refuse to give any acknowledgment of even the slightest possibility of anything even related to the Bible being even slightly historical because I'm a stuck up jackass.

At 4/27/10 02:35 PM, Hoeloe wrote:

At 4/27/10 02:13 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

At 4/27/10 02:05 PM, Hoeloe wrote: You're an idiot.

I stand by this comment.

Because you cannot argue with logic so you resort to name calling.

1) Provide proof

2) Even if I take you at your word, the fact remains that if a region that high is below water then lower areas in that same region would have to have been submerged as well.

But other regions in the world would be above sea level when they are not any more. The land mass in total remains roughly constant in that respect, why does it matter if areas in the same region would be submerged, is it impossible?

What I am saying is that the boat would have had to be built a great distance away in order for your original theory to hold water. If a mountain is underwater, the nearest point of land would likely be VERY far away from that point. So much so that I deem it an unlikely explanation, especially for the nautical limitations of Noah's time.

How is it absurd? You're saying that for any part of the world to be underwater, everything connected to that landmass must also have been underwater (which is not true, by the way, if you look at plate tectonics etc.) As such, it can be concluded, through the known fact that much of the current land mass was once underwater, that the world was originally ALL underwater. Since it is not like that any more, it can also be assumed that the land is rising OUT of the ocean. If this continues, it will eventually leave the ocean altogether and enter the outer atmosphere.

I am not saying that at all, I am saying if something really really high (like a mountain) is underwater, then the region around it would be underwater as well. That is not to say land is rising out of the ocean, that is more of your distortion. Land masses shift somehow. What I am saying, is that for your theory to be true, the nearest point of land would have been a considerable distance away as the region around the mountain would have to be underwater as well. Given the nautical limitations of 2800 B.C. I don't think that likely at all.

This is why combining bad science and the literal Bible DOES NOT WORK.

Carbon dating is NOT bad science, or do you think all science that doesn't fit your premature conclusions must be bad science?

At 4/27/10 03:30 PM, studmuffin7 wrote: A load of crap.

You talk about nautical limits as though it makes sense that a ship can carry millions of animals and yet not be able to sail far from land. If I am right, the story goes he stayed for a number of weeks afloat with the entire planet flooded.

Your whole theory totally falls down here.

At 4/27/10 01:14 PM, studmuffin7 wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/2 7/noahs-ark-found-turkey-ararat/

lol.