Noah's Ark Found!

[kimmy]

Not in a single flood event, but on longer timescales stuff from the sea can be brought to the tops of mountains. For example, fossilized sea creatures have been found on/near mountain summits on occasion. Specifically, this can occur through geological events, glacier movement, or transportation by other living organisms.

(...)

That being said, there are other ways that "the Ark" could have ended up at a high location due to natural events, namely glacier movement (I don't actually have any idea if there have ever been any glaciers in that area, just saying).

Geological events can turn sea-level stuff into mountain tops... but even the world's youngest mountain ranges are millions of years old... not relevant to this ark question.

As for glaciers... the information I have on hand indicates that even at the peak of the ice-age, Turkey remained a toasty warm location, free from the sort of glaciation that would be required to put a boat on top of a mountain, if such a thing were possible. (the only way we can have massive glaciers covering large portions of the earth is if warmer climates remain warm enough for water to evaporate and be precipitated in colder regions, yes? If it's cold enough to form glaciers in Turkey, then the atmosphere isn't going to be carrying enough water to actually form glaciers in Turkey.)

Glaciers move... but I am of the belief that they move due to gravity. It might be possible for a glacier to move up one peak if it is being pushed by ice coming down a taller peak elsewhere... but Ararat is the tallest thing in the entire region.

I'm aware of one Biblical-type deluge, which took place in the ice age in Washington state. Glacial movement created a dam that resulted in a huge lake forming high in the mountains in western Montana. Eventually the weight of the water broke the glacial dam and the lake drained, all at once, dramatically changing the landscape as it did. (and this repeated dozens of times during the ice age.) Those flood waters filled the Columbia valley to heights of hundreds of meters, briefly. But again, the water still came from someplace higher... and Mount Ararat is the highest thing in the entire region, so this doesn't suggest a possibility either.

-k

[Guest TrueMetis]

Challenging beliefs can be a good thing as long as one's mind is open about the process. However, those who make claims that it could never have happened because it just doesn't make sense (today) are as bad as the fundamentalists who claim God told them so..... IN order to properly challenge anything , one has to have the mind that the event could or could not have taken place in the way it has been presented.

Uh no. Null hypothesis, until you prove the whole world was flooded it didn't happen. Why do I have to think it could have happened in order to refute it? Do I have to accept unicorns before I can say the don't exsist?

[charter.rights]

Uh no. Null hypothesis, until you prove the whole world was flooded it didn't happen. Why do I have to think it could have happened in order to refute it? Do I have to accept unicorns before I can say the don't exsist?

Because there is evidence that suggests it might have happened.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Because there is evidence that suggests it might have happened.

There's evidence the world flooded? That Noah even exsisted? Uh no actually there isn't. That some random place flooded and a guy survived on a boat with a few chickens ya sure, but who cares?

[charter.rights]

There's evidence the world flooded? That Noah even exsisted? Uh no actually there isn't. That some random place flooded and a guy survived on a boat with a few chickens ya sure, but who cares?

Sure there is.

There is a story that crosses cultural boundaries on opposite sides of the earth about a flood that occurred. We have geological evidence of massive floods taking place around the world. And now we have a claim of Noahs boat being found. It is all evidence which can be examined and questioned. Is it complete Not likely. Does it confirm the presence of a world-wide flood? We can't tell until all the other evidence is examined.

Scientist keep an open mind about such evidence and questions. Only fanatics would deny it at such an early stage. Even skeptics would at least examine the evidence and place their doubt, but never deny the evidence.

Considering that your present day frame of reference would not be reliable for historic events what would be your reason to dispute the evidence and what proof do you have that a flood did not take place as recorded?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Sure there is.

No there isn't.

There is a story that crosses cultural boundaries on opposite sides of the earth about a flood that occurred.

And unicorns have been seen in hundreds of places. You believe in them to?

We have geological evidence of massive floods taking place around the world.

There is no evidence of a global flood if there was it would be blindingly obvious to all geologists.

And now we have a claim of Noahs boat being found.

Noah's Ark is found all the time like all of those times this one is bogus. My link

It is all evidence which can be examined and questioned.

It has been examined no world wide flood.

Is it complete Not likely. Does it confirm the presence of a world-wide flood? We can't tell until all the other evidence is examined.

Again it has been.

Scientist keep an open mind about such evidence and questions. Only fanatics would deny it at such an early stage. Even skeptics would at least examine the evidence and place their doubt, but never deny the evidence.

It not an early stage, people have been claiming this crap for hundreds of years. It has always been proven fake, there is NO evidence of a global flood.

Considering that your present day frame of reference would not be reliable for historic events what would be your reason to dispute the evidence and what proof do you have that a flood did not take place as recorded?

Because there is no eveidence. A global flood would leave MASSIVE amounts of evidence.

[WIP]

Sure there is.

There is a story that crosses cultural boundaries on opposite sides of the earth about a flood that occurred. We have geological evidence of massive floods taking place around the world. And now we have a claim of Noahs boat being found. It is all evidence which can be examined and questioned. Is it complete Not likely. Does it confirm the presence of a world-wide flood? We can't tell until all the other evidence is examined.

There are always claims about Noah's Ark being found! I've heard them ever since I was a kid. They're no different than the endless discoveries of Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, UFO's etc.

The evidence for a worldwide flood has already been examined by geologists who've made a career of studying the record in the rocks, and the results are negative. There have been large floods, but none covering the entire Earth. There are some geologists who believe they have evidence for some massive floods that occurred at the end of the last ice age, when receding glaciers released flood waters. TalkOrigins has loads of background material to explain why a worldwide flood may have mythical value, but cannot be seriously regarded as an historic event.

[charter.rights]

Ah, you don't understand what evidence is then.

Maybe the stories, the geological signs and the claim a boat has been discover high in the mountains may not be entirely empirical, but anecdotal evidence and historical evidence is valid just the same. The key is that it must undergo a greater amount of scrutiny but you don't get to discount it just because you donn't like it.

That facts i that during the melting of the ice-age glaciers, southern Ontario - like many other places - was flooded out well beyond what the current lake levels are. It was estimated that Lake Iroquois basin had a loaded depth of between 1000 and 1500 feet with the ice sheet being as deep as 3000 feet thick. Could the massive melting of such a glacier raise the water even higher? There are lots of reasons why this might be plausible.

[wyly]

Ah, you don't understand what evidence is then.

Maybe the stories, the geological signs and the claim a boat has been discover high in the mountains may not be entirely empirical, but anecdotal evidence and historical evidence is valid just the same. The key is that it must undergo a greater amount of scrutiny but you don't get to discount it just because you donn't like it.

That facts i that during the melting of the ice-age glaciers, southern Ontario - like many other places - was flooded out well beyond what the current lake levels are. It was estimated that Lake Iroquois basin had a loaded depth of between 1000 and 1500 feet with the ice sheet being as deep as 3000 feet thick. Could the massive melting of such a glacier raise the water even higher? There are lots of reasons why this might be plausible.

a look at the topography of the region Ararat is a volcano a lone mountian not a mountian range there is just nowhere to create a flood/ice damn of that type, and not enough water on the planet to raise sea levels to that depth on Ararat...

and now this follow up article from one member of the archeological team that it was faked

Edited May 3, 2010 by wyly

[kimmy]

And unicorns have been seen in hundreds of places. You believe in them to?

And to carry that a little further... if I announce that I'm going searching for unicorns, go out into the woods and find hoof-prints, and declare that I've found proof that unicorns exist... would my claim have merit?

Noah's Ark is found all the time like all of those times this one is bogus. My link

Nice find!

Maybe the stories, the geological signs and the claim a boat has been discover high in the mountains may not be entirely empirical, but anecdotal evidence and historical evidence is valid just the same. The key is that it must undergo a greater amount of scrutiny but you don't get to discount it just because you donn't like it.

There have been thousands of floods all over the world... that different folklores and mythologies also feature floods is not surprising at all.

That facts i that during the melting of the ice-age glaciers, southern Ontario - like many other places - was flooded out well beyond what the current lake levels are. It was estimated that Lake Iroquois basin had a loaded depth of between 1000 and 1500 feet with the ice sheet being as deep as 3000 feet thick. Could the massive melting of such a glacier raise the water even higher? There are lots of reasons why this might be plausible.

This has been covered already. No, the melting of all the glaciers of the ice-age was not enough to raise the sea levels very much. Guess where the water to form those huge glaciers came from in the first place? The sea. You can't raise the sea level to the top of Mount Ararat by melting ice that came from the sea in the first place. You can return the sea level to where it was during a warmer era.

For the Biblical flood it to be plausible (from a scientific perspective) we'd need a plausible explanation for where all the water came from, and where it went afterward.

-k

[wyly]

as silly as the idea of a great flood and a 900yr old man built a ship for two of every specie on the planet and fed them for 150 days...an ABC News poll found 60% of Americans still believe it's true ...

[ToadBrother]

Sometimes large stories and/or tales come from much smaller realities (ie, somebody saves his family and others with a boat). And surely you realize that there have been many other actual religious archaeological discoveries? I'm not sure what they've found, but it must be something of archaeological and historic importance. But don't let that stop you from your present exercise in pseudo-supriority. I'm sure you feel quite brilliant and important right now!

Considering that the Flood story found in the Bible is pretty much a knockoff of the Sumerian Gilgamesh story, and considering that the Tigris and Euphrates would have had any number of massive floods, I'm sure there's some possibility that the story might actually be a greatly exaggerated retelling.

But as to the rest of it, well, yes, some archaeology has confirmed some aspects of ancient myth (ie. Troy), but that hardly means that you can declare every account in your favorite holy book true. There are plenty of aspects of the Pentateuch which appear to be fabrication, and believe me, no matter how you spin it, a global flood is impossible.

Oh, and I love the way you and your ilk choose when and when not to apply science. When it comes to some tale from 2000 years ago that doesn't affect you in any way, SCIENCE, SCIENCE, SCIENCE! But when it comes to the killing of an unborn baby, you shrug your shoulds and claim a choice.

This is a pretty extreme red herring. And when exactly did you stop beating your wife?

Well, perhaps its their choice to characterize what they've discovered! Surely you believe in their right to choose!

Oh, they can characterize it any way they like. Maybe the foolish people who gave them money might not be so happy. Providing it isn't taught as fact in my kids' science class, I don't really care what they do.

[ToadBrother]

That facts i that during the melting of the ice-age glaciers, southern Ontario - like many other places - was flooded out well beyond what the current lake levels are. It was estimated that Lake Iroquois basin had a loaded depth of between 1000 and 1500 feet with the ice sheet being as deep as 3000 feet thick. Could the massive melting of such a glacier raise the water even higher? There are lots of reasons why this might be plausible.

First of all, a lot the Great Lakes region was formed because of the vast weight of the glaciers which basically pushed the land down, and as the glaciers receded they left behind basins that filled with water.

But the claims in Genesis are pretty clear. No land was left above water. That means Mount Everest, K2, any number of very high mountains were supposedly submerged. The amount of water required is staggering. It had come from somewhere and it had to go somewhere. It just did not happen.

And then we get to the ark. Such a vessel, made purely of wood, would have been torn to pieces by the force of the water. It's dubious that you could hope for it to stay afloat long even in calmer waters, but if we're talking about enough rain falling to cover every mountain in just a few weeks, even modern vessels might have a problem, but a wooden vessel that size would be destroyed.

The story is a myth. Maybe, just maybe, it might be based on some vast flood in the Tigris-Euphrates basin. But extrapolating from that possibility the truth of a global flood is like confirming that there was probably some sort of Trojan War during the Greek Dark Age and then declaring that the Olympian Gods exist.

[Shady]

no matter how you spin it, a global flood is impossible.

Yes, but global to that time period meant that small specific area. It wasn't global as in what we now know the earth consists of.

[ToadBrother]

Yes, but global to that time period meant that small specific area. It wasn't global as in what we now know the earth consists of.

But that's really a post-hoc explanation. Sure I'd buy that maybe the Flood myth was based on a major flood event in Mesopotamia (there have been several in the last 10,000 years). But it's difficult if not impossible to name any such single event, so the most you can say is that it's not unreasonable that it could have been based on a small geographically restricted flood. You can't say with any certainty that it was, nor can you pinpoint with any accuracy a particular event that you can associate with the myth.

Like I said, it's like declaring that because there was a Troy that was destroyed as part of some war against Dark Age Hellenes, that it in fact confirms that Achilles was the son of a nymph and a man.

[wyly]

But that's really a post-hoc explanation. Sure I'd buy that maybe the Flood myth was based on a major flood event in Mesopotamia (there have been several in the last 10,000 years). But it's difficult if not impossible to name any such single event, so the most you can say is that it's not unreasonable that it could have been based on a small geographically restricted flood. You can't say with any certainty that it was, nor can you pinpoint with any accuracy a particular event that you can associate with the myth.

Like I said, it's like declaring that because there was a Troy that was destroyed as part of some war against Dark Age Hellenes, that it in fact confirms that Achilles was the son of a nymph and a man.

flooding rivers are common events it's why river valleys became the cradles of civilization annual floods are what replenishes the soil...and Mesopotamia is potenial source for the biblical flood, the marsh arabs in the region cope by having not only their homes(arks?) but entire villages that can float on water...but then the eruption of Thira and the resulting tidal wave and the evacuation(many arks) of the Greek Isle of Santorini could have been the source as well... Edited May 3, 2010 by wyly

[kimmy]

Yes, but global to that time period meant that small specific area. It wasn't global as in what we now know the earth consists of.

Indeed, and it might well be plausible that there was an actual local event rather than a global one. But that still does not reconcile with the version that's presented in the scripture, or the version that these "researchers" are asking us to believe.

Again, these "researchers" are telling us that they've found the ark near the top of the tallest mountain in the entire region. A flood that could float the ark to that location would *have* to be global in scale, by definition.

And scripture itself tells us that the great flood covered the peaks of even the tallest mountains, which even if it were just referring to the tallest mountains in the region, would still require a global flood.

-k

[GostHacked]

Indeed, and it might well be plausible that there was an actual local event rather than a global one. But that still does not reconcile with the version that's presented in the scripture, or the version that these "researchers" are asking us to believe.

Again, these "researchers" are telling us that they've found the ark near the top of the tallest mountain in the entire region. A flood that could float the ark to that location would *have* to be global in scale, by definition.

And scripture itself tells us that the great flood covered the peaks of even the tallest mountains, which even if it were just referring to the tallest mountains in the region, would still require a global flood.

-k

It can reach the top of a mountain if the tectonic plates have had enough time to collide. But giving the time frame of a biblical flood does not give it enough time to migrate up a mountain. So it seems no matter how you slice it, it does not seem plausible.

[ToadBrother]

It can reach the top of a mountain if the tectonic plates have had enough time to collide. But giving the time frame of a biblical flood does not give it enough time to migrate up a mountain. So it seems no matter how you slice it, it does not seem plausible.

The tectonic plate nonsense was debunked years ago. Basically, the Creationist claim was that the Earth was a lot flatter four thousand years ago, and the Flood caused the tectonic activity which lead to the formation of high mountains.

Of course, the amount of energy required to lift mountains and create rifts and subduction zones is huge, and compressing that down into a few days, or even a few thousand years would be so great that it would basically vaporize the surface of the planet. YOu can't turn 4.5 billion years of geological activity into the space of the Noah story. Noah's ark wouldn't have been floating on water, it would have been floating on magma.

[GostHacked]

The tectonic plate nonsense was debunked years ago. Basically, the Creationist claim was that the Earth was a lot flatter four thousand years ago, and the Flood caused the tectonic activity which lead to the formation of high mountains.

Of course, the amount of energy required to lift mountains and create rifts and subduction zones is huge, and compressing that down into a few days, or even a few thousand years would be so great that it would basically vaporize the surface of the planet. YOu can't turn 4.5 billion years of geological activity into the space of the Noah story. Noah's ark wouldn't have been floating on water, it would have been floating on magma.

The reason I put that in, is because there has been ancient fossils found up in mountains that should not be there. did not seem to match the rest of the fossils in that region. Like I said, the Ark story does not fit in with the time scale needed for plates to collide and make mountain ranges. That took millions of years, the Ark is still only a few thousand years. Less than 10,000 if I recall correctly.

Either way it is debunked.

[WIP]

There are always claims about Noah's Ark being found! I've heard them ever since I was a kid. They're no different than the endless discoveries of Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, UFO's etc.

The evidence for a worldwide flood has already been examined by geologists who've made a career of studying the record in the rocks, and the results are negative. There have been large floods, but none covering the entire Earth. There are some geologists who believe they have evidence for some massive floods that occurred at the end of the last ice age, when receding glaciers released flood waters. TalkOrigins has loads of background material to explain why a worldwide flood may have mythical value, but cannot be seriously regarded as an historic event.

We've covered this topic a number of times before, and I already mentioned floods caused by retreating glaciers; but the theory of a Black Sea Flood flooding out the entire Mesopotamia Valley is proposed by one geologist and not widely accepted by other colleagues -- therefore it's an hypothesis, but not something bankable that can be used as factual evidence yet. I'll go by expert consensus when it comes to science, rather than run off with the ideas of an outlier who may be a crackpot. Even some of the most brilliant scientists like Nikola Tesla and Fred Hoyle had some crazy ideas that they refused to give up on when evidence piled up against them.

When it comes to geology, the history of earth science began with early geologists who assumed that a worldwide flood 4000 years ago was a fact. Their efforts to find evidence for the universal flood 200 years ago ended up with the discovery that the Earth was much older than previously believed, and at no time in Earth's history was the entire land mass covered with water at the same time! If you check through the Talkorigins pages devoted to responding to creationist claims and so called Flood Geologists, it becomes clear that real geologists have numerous lines of evidence to prove that a recent worldwide flood of the earth is impossible.

[M.Dancer]

The reason I put that in, is because there has been ancient fossils found up in mountains that should not be there. did not seem to match the rest of the fossils in that region. Like I said, the Ark story does not fit in with the time scale needed for plates to collide and make mountain ranges. That took millions of years, the Ark is still only a few thousand years. Less than 10,000 if I recall correctly.

Either way it is debunked.

Mosty likely because when the creatures that died and left their remians to be fossilized, the mountains were not there.

[ToadBrother]

Mosty likely because when the creatures that died and left their remians to be fossilized, the mountains were not there.

Best example is the Himalayas and the Hindu Kush. When most of the fossils were formed, what is now those mountain ranges was a shallow sea between Asia and the Indian continent. The Asian and Indian plates crashed (and are still crashing), lifting the seabed thousands of feet into the air.

That kind of gives you an idea of the sheer amount of energy involved in such a process, and if that were compressed down into a few months or years or even centuries, that amount of energy being released in such short order would surely have melted vast chunks of the planet in the process.

[WIP]

Mosty likely because when the creatures that died and left their remians to be fossilized, the mountains were not there.

Funny thing that creationists propose an alibi and never bother to follow up and see if it could any real scientific merit! Sure there are examples of mountain ranges rising from the sea floor (the Himalayas for example), but the problem with a worldwide flood and the alibi that creationists use to explain the record in the rocks (hydrological sorting) is that there is overwhelming evidence from all around the world for the"Geologic Column," which demonstrates that animals and plants are layered according to the eras that they lived on Earth, not from the sorting of some giant flood.

[ToadBrother]

Funny thing that creationists propose an alibi and never bother to follow up and see if it could any real scientific merit! Sure there are examples of mountain ranges rising from the sea floor (the Himalayas for example), but the problem with a worldwide flood and the alibi that creationists use to explain the record in the rocks (hydrological sorting) is that there is overwhelming evidence from all around the world for the"Geologic Column," which demonstrates that animals and plants are layered according to the eras that they lived on Earth, not from the sorting of some giant flood.

Just as importantly, how did the koalas get to Australia.