Brett89

Hasnt the "ark" apparently been spotted on top of mt. arat? i heard this from several people, and seen pictures where it seems to be wood on top the mountain

Amedeo

Unidentified flying objects have been sighted, too. If Noah's ark had been sighted, then it is an identified resting object and can be sought after easily.

By the way, in translation the Bible says that it was made out of cypress. The translator says that "cypress" is an uncertain translation of the Hebrew term. So, when somebody is going to test the wood, he will never know if it is what the Hebrew term says that it is.

However, ask people who know Hebrew for the Hebrew word for OAK. This kind of wood does not rot in water and might withstand the rains between Noah and us. A cypress ark would have gone long ago -- something ark-fans have not seriously considered.

Ask also for the Biblical term in the Noah story. Thereafter you may be able to decide whether to climb Ararat or not.

For a start: Plants in Bible
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12149a.htm

Good luck!

Julian

No, the ark has not been spotted nor will it ever. Some people claim that it has but they are either lying or severely misguided. The story is impossible and unsupported by evidence. Besides, a wooden boat of that size is not seaworthy.

Julian

GenesisNemesis

It would be great if the pictures were clearer.

Brett89

look at the boats the Romans built though....they were wood and were able to stay afloat

Avatar

But none of the boats the romans built were the size or shape the Ark supposedly was. Any engineer could tell you that any wooden vessel the size and shape of the Ark would have broken apart and sank as soon as it hit the water.

The "Ark" that people claim to see is a large natural rock formation on the mountain. Delusional frauds like Ron Wyatt notwithstanding, there has been no Ark ever found anywhere.

Diogenes the Cynic

There is a natural rock formation that looks vaguely elliptical or "ark-shaped" in some arial photographs. A lot of fundie whack-a-doodles like to refer to this unremarkable feature as the "Ararat anomaly." It's actually less convincing than the face on Mars. It's certainly not taken seriously by anyone other than religious kooks.

Incidentally, even if it wasn't an obvious rock formation, it could still be definitively ruled out as Noah's Ark simply by virtue of the fact that there wasn't any flood and there wasn't any Noah.

RED DAVE

Gentle suggestion. Start doing your homework. Just google "Noah's Ark" and see what you get.

Ron Wyatt, the primary ark finder is a well-known fraud.

RED DAVE

David B

Brett, one of the best known creationist apologetics websites, Answers in Genesis, has sufficient integrity (and it don't have much!!!!) to advise against creationists using some arguments, and the ark being found is one of them.

If AIG says something that seemingly supports creationism, you can treat it with more than a pinch of salt.

If it says a claim that seemingly supports creationism is false, then AFAIK it is always right.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/ark.asp

You might look at this - and, indeed, check through the other arguments it suggests creationists shouldn't use.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...q/dont_use.asp

David B

EthnAlln

So it's been found again, has it? Ho hum.