Noah's ARK FOUND IN TURKEY!

[giantkiller]

Uh, What's rain?

Regardless of beliefs here we are all intelligent enough to the see and understand the immensity of the macro/microcosm, the infinite range outside the range of our spectral existance. From that vantage point we look at our reality and gasp at the minisculity. And we have the power to encompass the grandness of it all with our puny minds? A small subset would be ants building Mt. Ararat and understanding the concept that this could be the next tower of Babel but bigger than that. And even grasp the concept of flying around it?

The human mind has the capability of labelling everything it understands but is not at ease at making everything work. Everything is just too big!

The single celled organisms have no concept of the scientist but go about their lifetime agressive behavior like their environment is all there is. Kind of like us.

[the_big_m_in_ok]

Bunch of boards above 11,000 ft.....gimme DNA samples of animals that were on board and you'll make a believer out of me...
and they ruled out a Human Settlement why?
call me agnostic.

ketone has a point.
I usually don't comment on potentially religious subjects unless they're made known first.  A cable news anchor interviewed a scientist, and that scientist had the same opinion as ketone.
1) The group claims radiocarbon dating to 4,800 BCE.  Where were the samples?
2) Why didn't the group write a research paper first with the help of a degreed scientist?  It's their word against the rest of worldwide orthodox science.
3) Lastly, a cable TV documentary (possibly the Discovery Channel?) by scientific professionals tested wooden and plastic scale models with the same physical proportions as the Bibical Ark, and found the design unstable in rough seas--on camera.  Lacking inherent flotation stability, too--especially if the top deck was left uncovered.  The model sank in about 30 seconds.

Was a full size vessel any more stable, or not?  Rather doubtful, IMHO.

--Lee

[Bruce_TPU]

ketone has a point.
I usually don't comment on potentially religious subjects unless they're made known first.  A cable news anchor interviewed a scientist, and that scientist had the same opinion as ketone.
1) The group claims radiocarbon dating to 4,800 BCE.  Where were the samples?
2) Why didn't the group write a research paper first with the help of a degreed scientist?  It's their word against the rest of worldwide orthodox science.
3) Lastly, a cable TV documentary (possibly the Discovery Channel?) by scientific professionals tested wooden and plastic scale models with the same physical proportions as the Bibical Ark, and found the design unstable in rough seas--on camera.  Lacking inherent flotation stability, too--especially if the top deck was left uncovered.  The model sank in about 30 seconds.

Was a full size vessel any more stable, or not?  Rather doubtful, IMHO.

--Lee

I would say that they did not build it to biblical specs...  I have seen replicas as well as many documentaries and they float very well indeed...LOL  Besides it would not have been very nice of the Lord to give directions to a build and have it not work... that is reserved only for members of the OU community... LOL  Sorry, couldn't resist that last one! 

I know the real one was fine!  And with an open top deck?  In a rain storm?  LOL  We are not talking the cruise ship Noah, but an Ark.  Not the little toys they sell in toy stores for babies, but a super efficient, massive carrier, built to weather the storm of the ages...

Cheers,

Bruce

P.S.  Man in Hong Kong built a scale replica of the ark and it floats fine....LOL  and no Carnival Cruise lines open top deck.  I guess they decided to forgo the pool seeing how the earth was flooded and all... ;-)

[TechStuf]

Good points, Bruce.  Those who favor denigration of the Biblical record can usually be counted upon to misinterpret, misconstrue, or even outright misappropriate the ancient texts and their context.

Nowhere does God's Word imply that the measurements given were all static figures without variation and, as any boat builder in Noah's day could understand, the numbers given were quite likely a combination of 'furthest extent' and 'mean' figures.

If one applies the royal egyptian cubit, a measurement with which Noah was likely familiar, the boat shaped remains at Durupinar fit the description very well.

Those 'learned types' who decry the ark site as being a natural result of downhill flow formation don't have an honest leg to stand on as the narrow end is UPHILL, not at the bottom as is required for such 'teardrop' formations to exist.....and there are no horizontal flow identifiers, the ribs stand UPRIGHT.

From what I have seen, the evidence is very compelling for the Durupinar site.


Regards,



TS

[the_big_m_in_ok]

I would say that they did not build it to biblical specs...  I have seen replicas as well as many documentaries and they float very well indeed...LOL 

That's also a point.  The investigators may have used imprecise or inaccurate measurements.

Besides it would not have been very nice of the Lord to give directions to a build and have it not work... that is reserved only for members of the OU community... LOL  Sorry, couldn't resist that last one! 

Well, okay, point taken.  I didn't see that one coming.      (combined smileys, if possible--no software analog)

I know the real one was fine!  And with an open top deck?  In a rain storm?  LOL 

I forgot what the reasoning behind the open top deck design was.  By any reasoning, it seems farfetched.

--Lee