Noah's Ark

[East of Eden]

Anyone want to speculate how a large boat got on top of a 13,000' mountain?




Has Noah's Ark Been Found on Turkish Mountaintop?

FOXNews.com

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


printemailshare recommend (17)
Noahs Ark Ministries International

An explorer examines wooden beams inside what some are nearly certain is the remains of Noah's Ark.

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."

There have been several reported discoveries of the remains of Noah's Ark over the years, most notably a find by archaeologist Ron Wyatt in 1987. At the time, the Turkish government officially declared a national park around his find, a boat-shaped object stretched across the mountains of Ararat.

Nevertheless, the evangelical ministry remains convinced that the current find is in fact more likely to be the actual artifact, calling upon Dutch Ark researcher Gerrit Aalten to verify its legitimacy.

The significance of this find is that for the first time in history the discovery of Noahs Ark is well documented and revealed to the worldwide community, Aalten said at a press conference announcing the find. Citing the many details that match historical accounts of the Ark, he believes it to be a legitimate archaeological discovery.

Theres a tremendous amount of solid evidence that the structure found on Mount Ararat in Eastern Turkey is the legendary Ark of Noah, said Aalten.

Representatives of Noah's Ark Ministries said the structure contained several compartments, some with wooden beams, that they believe were used to house animals.The group of evangelical archaeologists ruled out an established human settlement on the grounds none have ever been found above 11,000 feet in the vicinity, Yeung said.

During the press conference, team member Panda Lee described visiting the site. In October 2008, I climbed the mountain with the Turkish team. At an elevation of more than 4,000 meters, I saw a structure built with plank-like timber. Each plank was about 8 inches wide. I could see tenons, proof of ancient construction predating the use of metal nails."

We walked about 100 meters to another site. I could see broken wood fragments embedded in a glacier, and some 20 meters long. I surveyed the landscape and found that the wooden structure was permanently covered by ice and volcanic rocks."

Local Turkish officials will ask the central government in Ankara to apply for UNESCO World Heritage status so the site can be protected while a major archaeological dig is conducted.

The biblical story says that God decided to flood the Earth after seeing how corrupt it was. He then told Noah to build an ark and fill it with two of every animal species.

After the flood waters receded, the Bible says, the ark came to rest on a mountain. Many believe that Mount Ararat, the highest point in the region, is where the ark and her inhabitants ran aground.

[Angel]

]The site that you linked to is a blog site which is hardly a reputable source to credit or discredit any claim. The author of the blog claims to have a copy of an email from a student (the name is not given) that the latest claims of discovering Noah's ark are fake.

If you bothered to follow the link to Randall Prices web site, he admits that is his email, and that is the truth to the best of his knowledge.

Considering all the fraud that had gone on before, do you have anything more than wishful thinking? How about access to the actual 'c14' dating, and all that wonderful stuff needed for good science?

I did follow the link and my point about the email was addressed in my last post. From what I've read he mentions that he needs to "confirm" his "opinion". I asked you for "verifiable evidence" that the recent Noah Ark discovery claim was a "hoax" and you jump to conclusions even beyond what Randall Price, the one archaeologist who was actually on one of the expeditions, jumps to. As I've been saying for several posts now, I draw no conclusions here until verification from independent sources is established. Dr. Randall Price requests for the same thing on that very website that you're referring to.

[lao tzu]

Angel, let's consider the sources here.

On the one hand, we have blogs put together by competent, qualified, and well-known archaeologists writing about material pertinent to their field. On the other hand, we have a claim made at a press conference to journalists with no such experience. In fact, the original coverage, repeated verbatim by FOX, was done by The Sun, the British tabloid best known for its "page 3 girls."

You claim you checked. What, you read the link? What do you think I did? I googled "Dr. Price noah's ark" and posted up a few of the findings, but by no means all, and followed up with a couple more searches on what I found in them. I didn't mention the archaeological organizations weighing in against the hoaxers, or the investigation launched by the Turkish government, or any of the detailed analyses of the video that come up in the search, further detailing the hoax. But you don't need anyone else's analysis of that video with its changes of clothes and styrofoam snow, and melting ice dripping onto a / change camera angle / dry floor. There's ice on that wood. Ice. Imagine what a thousand years of freezing and thawing would do to your patio deck. Why didn't you find these things?

No, you did not check.

Dr. Cargill, whose blog you dismiss because it's a blog while withholding judgment on evident con men who are not amateurs as you suggest, but professional hucksters who are already marketing their video " Lost in the Noah's Ark " has since been on Good Morning America and FOX. Do his appearances there make him a better archaeologist? Why didn't you discover these things? Why didn't you check?

This is all publicly available information you too could have found with a few minutes of searching. But you didn't bother. Why not?

Are you sure you want to stick with the idea of a regional flood that could have deposited an ark at 13,000 feet? If you do, I suppose I could go to the little bit of extra trouble necessary to debunk that one, too. To begin, you might ask yourself what kind of precipitation occurs at that altitude, rain or snow? But I think it would be better for you, personally, to debunk that one on your own. It doesn't hold water, if you'll pardon the pun.

I understand your wish for additional qualification of my statement that Christians have a reputation for being gulled, but I don't see the necessity and I dispute your inference. The modifer "all" was not included, and its insertion would make the statement nonsensical.

Now, I've met my share of agnostic theists, and overall I've been well impressed with them. But I don't acknowledge any virtue in remaining unbiased in the face of overwhelming evidence. Facts matter. Truth matters. And the truth is, it's a blatant hoax. If there's any cause for optimism, it lies with us skeptics, knowing that no matter how many of these hoaxes are debunked, there'll be another crowd of theists willing to credit the next round of frauds coming out next year.

As ever, Jesse

[Angel]

Angel, let's consider the sources here.

On the one hand, we have blogs put together by competent, qualified, and well-known archaeologists writing about material pertinent to their field. On the other hand, we have a claim made at a press conference to journalists with no such experience. In fact, the original coverage, repeated verbatim by FOX, was done by The Sun, the British tabloid best known for its "page 3 girls."

You claim you checked. What, you read the link? What do you think I did? I googled "Dr. Price noah's ark" and posted up a few of the findings, but by no means all, and followed up with a couple more searches on what I found in them. I didn't mention the archaeological organizations weighing in against the hoaxers, or the investigation launched by the Turkish government, or any of the detailed analyses of the video that come up in the search, further detailing the hoax. But you don't need anyone else's analysis of that video with its changes of clothes and styrofoam snow, and melting ice dripping onto a / change camera angle / dry floor. There's ice on that wood. Ice. Imagine what a thousand years of freezing and thawing would do to your patio deck. Why didn't you find these things?

No, you did not check.

What I claimed to check was not only the link I posted from National Geographic but also the link that you posted about your claims. I understand there are archaeological organizations weighing in against the team at the site but have any of them actually examined the site or samples of it as Dr. Randall Price requested? Is the Turkish investigation over and if so what are the findings?

Dr. Cargill, whose blog you dismiss because it's a blog while withholding judgment on evident con men who are not amateurs as you suggest, but professional hucksters who are already marketing their video " Lost in the Noah's Ark " has since been on Good Morning America and FOX. Do his appearances there make him a better archaeologist? Why didn't you discover these things? Why didn't you check?

Please refer to my last couple of posts. I DON"T draw any conclusions here. Your attempt (if I'm assuming correctly) to lead me to draw a conclusion that it's a hoax will NOT work until the standards that I mentioned and that Dr. Randall Price mentioned are met.
You've sent me supposed evidence before from an email which it turned out you jumped to conclusions since you failed to mention that it was someone's "opinion". So I hope you can understand where I'm coming from when I feel you're trying to push me into a conclusion rather than allowing me and others the time to examine BOTH sides or at least wanting MORE investigation of the issue before drawing any conclusions.


I've factored in your point about the some of the researchers or team themselves, but as I mentioned before, I'm not looking for WHO's doing the research or WHY their doing it. Show me the EVIDENCE from Independent analysis from other researchers just as Dr. Price requests.

Are you sure you want to stick with the idea of a regional flood that could have deposited an ark at 13,000 feet? If you do, I suppose I could go to the little bit of extra trouble necessary to debunk that one, too. To begin, you might ask yourself what kind of precipitation occurs at that altitude, rain or snow? But I think it would be better for you, personally, to debunk that one on your own. It doesn't hold water, if you'll pardon the pun.

This is why I'd rather wait until verifiable evidence, otherwise, we'll be both arguing based on our assumption that it's the ark or that it isn't.

I understand your wish for additional qualification of my statement that Christians have a reputation for being gulled, but I don't see the necessity and I dispute your inference. The modifer "all" was not included, and its insertion would make the statement nonsensical.

It's not a matter of additional qualification, that's part of the standard qualification, period. That's exactly what the one archaeologist who was actually there is requesting. He himself admits that some of his doubts are based on hearsay and "opinion", the two he needs to confirm. If there's a group of explorers who are actually ONSITE of this supposed structure, then I don't see a problem in requesting that they provide samples and if they are caught lying then I'm for putting all of them in jail.

Now, I've met my share of agnostic theists, and overall I've been well impressed with them. But I don't acknowledge any virtue in remaining unbiased in the face of overwhelming evidence. Facts matter. Truth matters. And the truth is, it's a blatant hoax. If there's any cause for optimism, it lies with us skeptics, knowing that no matter how many of these hoaxes are debunked, there'll be another crowd of theists willing to credit the next round of frauds coming out next year.

As ever, Jesse

I've heard your facts but the fact may also remain that there is a structure or claims of a structure that researchers are on site at. I need ALL the facts, not just what you're telling me.


Do you deny that there is a team on Mt. Ararat and that they're in a structure? Have you or any of the skeptics that you're citing gone to the site or examine any of the samples that these researchers need to send out? Have the Turkish officials gone to the site and conduct their own investigations and come up with anything?

[lao tzu]

What I claimed to check was not only the link I posted from National Geographic but also the link that you posted about your claims. I understand there are archaeological organizations weighing in against the team at the site but have any of them actually examined the site or samples of it as Dr. Randall Price requested? Is the Turkish investigation over and if so what are the findings?

Go check. That's what I've been pressing you to do all along. Don't sit around waiting to be spoon fed articles you could just as easily discover on your own. Discover the context and discern the credibility of the different sources. Weigh the motivations. Consider the consequences of the scenarios that have been presented. Act like you want to discover the truth, rather than as if the truth were somehow dangerous and threatening, something you should accept only under pressure.

And above all, do not allow yourself to discard evidence. What did Price say in the private email he has since acknowledged was his own? What did he say about the pictures that were published? Where did he say they were taken?

Please refer to my last couple of posts. I DON"T draw any conclusions here. Your attempt (if I'm assuming correctly) to lead me to draw a conclusion that it's a hoax will NOT work until the standards that I mentioned and that Dr. Randall Price mentioned are met.

A find which, if real, would be the greatest archaeological discovery known to the modern world has been presented without sufficient evidence to verify it. Their lead archaeologist has been discovered making private claims that it is a fraud.

What do you want? Choirs of angels singing it from the heavens?

There will never, ever, be an analysis by the scientific community to verify this fraud because the frauds know better than to release enough data to make it possible. If Ron Wyatt could figure it out why he needed to hide the data, so can they. The "we've had it carbon-dated already, but we won't say by whom" trick is vintage Wyatt.

You've sent me supposed evidence before from an email which it turned out you jumped to conclusions since you failed to mention that it was someone's "opinion". So I hope you can understand where I'm coming from when I feel you're trying to push me into a conclusion rather than allowing me and others the time to examine BOTH sides or at least wanting MORE investigation of the issue before drawing any conclusions.

Examine both sides? I can only dream. It would be lovely if you'd at least examine one of them. We'll work on both when that's done.

There's no question that Price backed off from his private claims in his public statement. But the public statement is so entirely ambiguous we cannot tell what opinions he's addressing. List for yourself the claims he made, and ask yourself which of these he could or could not verify himself. It's absurd to believe it's only his opinion that he has photos of the black sea location showing the cobwebs in the corners, or that it's only his opinion that he didn't join the expedition the following year. Is it only his opinion that they're still in possession of a hundred thousand dollars that came from him and his sponsors?

I've factored in your point about the some of the researchers or team themselves, but as I mentioned before, I'm not looking for WHO's doing the research or WHY their doing it. Show me the EVIDENCE from Independent analysis from other researchers just as Dr. Price requests.

Right, like that will ever happen. Con men aren't that stupid.

Are you sure you want to stick with the idea of a regional flood that could have deposited an ark at 13,000 feet? If you do, I suppose I could go to the little bit of extra trouble necessary to debunk that one, too. To begin, you might ask yourself what kind of precipitation occurs at that altitude, rain or snow? But I think it would be better for you, personally, to debunk that one on your own. It doesn't hold water, if you'll pardon the pun.

This is why I'd rather wait until verifiable evidence, otherwise, we'll be both arguing based on our assumption that it's the ark or that it isn't.

No assumption on this end. It's a physical impossibility. It couldn't get there without a global flood and the global flood didn't happen, for all of the reasons I've detailed and more. If we were to expand the discussion to the textual criticism, we'd find that it's even worse than that. The claimed location originates in the 10th century, the flood tale itself to two thousand years prior to the composition of the Hebrew bible, and describing an entirely different location as well. If any "actual" ark were ever to be found, it would be found in the alluvial plane south of Baghdad between the Tigris and Euphrates, downstream from the Sumerian city of Shurrupak.

I understand your wish for additional qualification of my statement that Christians have a reputation for being gulled, but I don't see the necessity and I dispute your inference. The modifer "all" was not included, and its insertion would make the statement nonsensical.

It's not a matter of additional qualification, that's part of the standard qualification, period. That's exactly what the one archaeologist who was actually there is requesting. He himself admits that some of his doubts are based on hearsay and "opinion", the two he needs to confirm. If there's a group of explorers who are actually ONSITE of this supposed structure, then I don't see a problem in requesting that they provide samples and if they are caught lying then I'm for putting all of them in jail.

Non sequitur. This is not in any way a response to what you're quoting.

I've heard your facts but the fact may also remain that there is a structure or claims of a structure that researchers are on site at. I need ALL the facts, not just what you're telling me.

Then go find them.

The hoaxers assume there are those who will transform their pious hopes into suspension of disbelief, and in the meantime they'll keep raking in the dough on DVD sales.

Do you deny that there is a team on Mt. Ararat and that they're in a structure?

Price denies it. He says the structure is near the Black Sea, and that wood from that structure was transported up into a cave on the mountain. The video is filmed at both locations.

Have you or any of the skeptics that you're citing gone to the site or examine any of the samples that these researchers need to send out? Have the Turkish officials gone to the site and conduct their own investigations and come up with anything?

Surprise, surprise, they're keeping the location secret. And the samples secret. And to whom they sent the samples out for dating secret. But they were quite willing to bring what the Turks would undoubtedly consider national treasures, if real, right out of the country, even going so far as to bring a few Turkish officials with them for the press conference, from where the wood chips and photos will no doubt find their way into a featured exhibit at the theme park, to pay off the costs of their acquisition.

As ever, Jesse

[Angel]

What I claimed to check was not only the link I posted from National Geographic but also the link that you posted about your claims. I understand there are archaeological organizations weighing in against the team at the site but have any of them actually examined the site or samples of it as Dr. Randall Price requested? Is the Turkish investigation over and if so what are the findings?

Go check. That's what I've been pressing you to do all along. Don't sit around waiting to be spoon fed articles you could just as easily discover on your own. Discover the context and discern the credibility of the different sources. Weigh the motivations. Consider the consequences of the scenarios that have been presented. Act like you want to discover the truth, rather than as if the truth were somehow dangerous and threatening, something you should accept only under pressure.

Reading different articles is what you've been doing as well. I'm waiting for analysis of the actual site itself. I think that's very reasonable when you have a group claiming to be on the actual site of an alleged archaeological discovery. You can sit here and worry about motivations, but when you can show me evidence that any of these skeptics or supporters of this claim have been to the site or examine some sample of it, I will not draw any conclusions.

And above all, do not allow yourself to discard evidence. What did Price say in the private email he has since acknowledged was his own? What did he say about the pictures that were published? Where did he say they were taken?

Should I also question your motivation here when post after post you refuse to acknowledge that the very man and email you're speaking about mentions that it's an OPiNiON. An opinion that the very author of the email admits to being unverified but he's seeking that as we speak? I could easily ask what are your "motivations" for ignoring the simple fact that Dr. Randall Price clearly asserts an "opinion" but I don't care about your motivations. Bring me hard facts from the site, then we can go from there.

Please refer to my last couple of posts. I DON"T draw any conclusions here. Your attempt (if I'm assuming correctly) to lead me to draw a conclusion that it's a hoax will NOT work until the standards that I mentioned and that Dr. Randall Price mentioned are met.

A find which, if real, would be the greatest archaeological discovery known to the modern world has been presented without sufficient evidence to verify it. Their lead archaeologist has been discovered making private claims that it is a fraud.

Sufficient evidence has not been submitted yet. On your other point, are you
referring to Dr. Price again? I'm beginning to question your validity seeing that you ignore that Dr. Price asserts that he has NOT verified his "opinion". He is pushing for INDEPENDENT verification/confirmation of the team's findings. You wanna rush and draw conclusions and ignore keypoints from the very man you sight and who's actually been on the site, then that's your choice. Just don't sit here and try to dictate to me how to think when you can't even acknowledge what the word "opinion" means.

What do you want? Choirs of angels singing it from the heavens?

There will never, ever, be an analysis by the scientific community to verify this fraud because the frauds know better than to release enough data to make it possible. If Ron Wyatt could figure it out why he needed to hide the data, so can they. The "we've had it carbon-dated already, but we won't say by whom" trick is vintage Wyatt.

This is speculation on your part. I want what I think fair-minded people would want. If someone is claiming to be on the actual site of an archaeological find, why would I make a conclusive judgement before they have a chance to submit a good sample from the site or until someone Independent research/group gets to the site and analyze it themselves?

You've sent me supposed evidence before from an email which it turned out you jumped to conclusions since you failed to mention that it was someone's "opinion". So I hope you can understand where I'm coming from when I feel you're trying to push me into a conclusion rather than allowing me and others the time to examine BOTH sides or at least wanting MORE investigation of the issue before drawing any conclusions.

Examine both sides? I can only dream. It would be lovely if you'd at least examine one of them. We'll work on both when that's done.

There's no question that Price backed off from his private claims in his public statement. But the public statement is so entirely ambiguous we cannot tell what opinions he's addressing. List for yourself the claims he made, and ask yourself which of these he could or could not verify himself. It's absurd to believe it's only his opinion that he has photos of the black sea location showing the cobwebs in the corners, or that it's only his opinion that he didn't join the expedition the following year. Is it only his opinion that they're still in possession of a hundred thousand dollars that came from him and his sponsors?

It's his opinion not because I say so but because Dr. Price himself said so. I can't trust someone who deliberately keeps ignoring what "opinion" means, especially when the same guy is calling for independent analysis of the site and samples of it.

I've factored in your point about the some of the researchers or team themselves, but as I mentioned before, I'm not looking for WHO's doing the research or WHY their doing it. Show me the EVIDENCE from Independent analysis from other researchers just as Dr. Price requests.

Right, like that will ever happen. Con men aren't that stupid.

Only time and evidence will tell.

Are you sure you want to stick with the idea of a regional flood that could have deposited an ark at 13,000 feet? If you do, I suppose I could go to the little bit of extra trouble necessary to debunk that one, too. To begin, you might ask yourself what kind of precipitation occurs at that altitude, rain or snow? But I think it would be better for you, personally, to debunk that one on your own. It doesn't hold water, if you'll pardon the pun.

This is why I'd rather wait until verifiable evidence, otherwise, we'll be both arguing based on our assumption that it's the ark or that it isn't.

No assumption on this end. It's a physical impossibility. It couldn't get there without a global flood and the global flood didn't happen, for all of the reasons I've detailed and more. If we were to expand the discussion to the textual criticism, we'd find that it's even worse than that. The claimed location originates in the 10th century, the flood tale itself to two thousand years prior to the composition of the Hebrew bible, and describing an entirely different location as well. If any "actual" ark were ever to be found, it would be found in the alluvial plane south of Baghdad between the Tigris and Euphrates, downstream from the Sumerian city of Shurrupak.

The flood version mentioned in the Bible does mention that the ark landed in an ancient kingdom of Turkey. It's true that no one associated the specific location in Turkey as being a mountain range until the 10th century so at least it should be in the general region that the Bible mentions even if it's not specifically mentioned as being Mt. Ararat. But the fact still remains is that there is a team claiming to be on the site of a structure. I can't 100% rule out that it's not the ark until what Dr. Price has asked for has at least been met in some way.

I understand your wish for additional qualification of my statement that Christians have a reputation for being gulled, but I don't see the necessity and I dispute your inference. The modifer "all" was not included, and its insertion would make the statement nonsensical.

It's not a matter of additional qualification, that's part of the standard qualification, period. That's exactly what the one archaeologist who was actually there is requesting. He himself admits that some of his doubts are based on hearsay and "opinion", the two he needs to confirm. If there's a group of explorers who are actually ONSITE of this supposed structure, then I don't see a problem in requesting that they provide samples and if they are caught lying then I'm for putting all of them in jail.

Non sequitur. This is not in any way a response to what you're quoting.

I'm asking for evidence that any real objective empiricist would ask for. If this team wants to actually claim that their actually on the SITE of a major archaeological find, then I'm not going to dismiss them before they have a chance to send samples and/or are joined be independent researchers. I make no inferences because I haven't drawn any conclusions. I'm just asking for tangible evidence to be submitted and examined just as Dr. Price is.

I've heard your facts but the fact may also remain that there is a structure or claims of a structure that researchers are on site at. I need ALL the facts, not just what you're telling me.

Then go find them.

The hoaxers assume there are those who will transform their pious hopes into suspension of disbelief, and in the meantime they'll keep raking in the dough on DVD sales.

I don't care who or what they think, just let the evidence for this claim speak for itself. For all I know maybe this team did really find something significant this time and of course they will use it to make money off of it. I'd rather just let the evidence from the site speak for itself when it is submitted or visited by independent researchers. That's the most certain way to know.

Do you deny that there is a team on Mt. Ararat and that they're in a structure?

Price denies it. He says the structure is near the Black Sea, and that wood from that structure was transported up into a cave on the mountain. The video is filmed at both locations.

Dr. Price denies it based on opinion. He's actually calling for independent analysis of his teams claims and request that samples be submitted to independent researchers. I can easily sit here and go personal and question your motives seeing that you couldn't even decipher between opinion and fact from a simple email, but i figure what's the point when there's opportunity for good evidence for a potentially major archaelogical find to be had.

Have you or any of the skeptics that you're citing gone to the site or examine any of the samples that these researchers need to send out? Have the Turkish officials gone to the site and conduct their own investigations and come up with anything?

Surprise, surprise, they're keeping the location secret. And the samples secret. And to whom they sent the samples out for dating secret. But they were quite willing to bring what the Turks would undoubtedly consider national treasures, if real, right out of the country, even going so far as to bring a few Turkish officials with them for the press conference, from where the wood chips and photos will no doubt find their way into a featured exhibit at the theme park, to pay off the costs of their acquisition.

As ever, Jesse

Keeping it secret for now and perhaps until the results get back or until they can be established as the founders of the site. In that popular website that me and you keep referring to, Dr. Price is scheduled to go back to the site in the Summer and hopefully other researchers will accompany him then or even before then so it won't be long before the truth all comes out. If this team making the claim of discovering Noah's ark are lying, they can't hide it for long.

[Greatest I Am]

How does the purported discovery of an old boat prove Jesus?

I don't know if this is a response to my post since it came right after mine, but isn't your question a red-herring? I haven't see anyone claim that Noah's ark would prove that Jesus exists. It would at least provide some archaeological evidence for some parts of what the Bible mentions about Noah's ark.

Strange to think that Jesus/God, who would not stone a prostitute in the N T, did a complete flip from his earlier persona who would drown innocent children and babies.

I guess he got his fill of murdering us in the O T.

Thank that stupid God for that.

Regards
DL

Isn't that a bit off-topic? The discovery of Noah's Ark is an archaeological matter, and not necessarily theological issue like what you're bringing up.

Could not help myself.
I guess I wanted to show the immorality of genocide.

If we ever do prove Noah's Ark then to me, that would just prove that Bible God is a genocidal maniac and an unjust God who would rather kill those He considers defective, when He has the power to just cure them.

We would have to charge Him with war crimes in absentia and we would find that genocidal fool guilty.

Regards
DL

[Crazy Ivan]

Angel, you relate to the expression "skeptical Christian". May I ask what you associate exactly with "Noah's Ark"? By being "optimistic" about finding the Ark, what do you acknowledge follows this find? Everything in the OT relating to the Ark?

[East of Eden]

Could not help myself.
I guess I wanted to show the immorality of genocide.

You mean like when we nuked Japan in WWII?

If we ever do prove Noah's Ark then to me, that would just prove that Bible God is a genocidal maniac and an unjust God who would rather kill those He considers defective, when He has the power to just cure them.

He gives us free will, which many misuse. Would you want the love of someone who was forced to love you?

We would have to charge Him with war crimes in absentia and we would find that genocidal fool guilty.

IMHO the judging will be the other way around.

[Zzyzx]

.

Could not help myself.
I guess I wanted to show the immorality of genocide.

You mean like when we nuked Japan in WWII?

I do not understand what dropping atomic bombs on Japan has to do with bible tales of genocide by "gods" -- UNLESS the worship of a genocidal "god" inspires or encourages worshipers to be similarly genocidal.

I was alive but not of voting age when the US dropped atomic bombs on Japan. However, from my perspective it was a horrid decision and a terrible mistake -- even if the Christian "god" is said to have done comparable (or worse) things to those who did not worship him.

[Angel]

Angel, you relate to the expression "skeptical Christian". May I ask what you associate exactly with "Noah's Ark"? By being "optimistic" about finding the Ark, what do you acknowledge follows this find? Everything in the OT relating to the Ark?

The only thing I'm wanting to know is if this is some remains of Noah's Ark. The story is fascinating to me, so it would be an fascinating find if that's what it turns out to be. If this team of researchers do not start to release sufficient/good samples from the site or aren't joined by an independent team of researchers some time soon (within a month) then I will start to doubt myself, but I won't draw anything conclusive. I'm also an agnostic so I guess sometimes it's hard for me to reach any position of real certainty in areas of science, philosophy, and beliefs.

In light of Lao Tzu has told me, I'm not so optimistic but I still won't draw any conclusions. I just want samples submitted to independent researchers, that is, if this team of researchers are actually ONSITE of a real archaeological find. Either that, or have more researchers go to the site and try to verify the structure there. If it turns out that the remains of Noah's Ark is indeed what's been discovered then all that means to me is that an the ark exists and whatever else the evidence speaks for in relation to the Bible. but I won't attribute the FULL story of Noah and the ark unless archaelogists/geologists believe the evidence is sufficient.