English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

first im not bashing other religions im asking a questio if you dont like it then dont ANSWER SIMPLE AS THAT

ur proof
More claims surfaced periodically, including in March 2006, when a LiveScience writer reported on yet another incarnation of the Ararat claim. A team of researchers found a rock formation that might resemble a huge ark, nearly covered in glacial ice. Little came of that claim but a few months later, in June, a team of archaeologists from the Bible Archaeology Search and Exploration (BASE) Institute, a Christian organization, found yet another rock formation that might be Noah's Ark.

This time the Ark was "found" not on Ararat but at 13,000 feet in the Elburz mountains of Iran. "I can't imagine what it could be if it is not the Ark," said team member Arch Bonnema. They brought back pieces of stone they claim may be petrified wood beams, as well as video footage of the rocky cliffs.

2007-06-28 09:25:59 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

btw i juss heard of a movie called "in search of Noah's ark" and they're has been a ark found and they are trying to see if it could be big enough to fit two of every animal which could be possible because i believe that theyre werent as many animals as theyre is now and i dont mean to cause trouble but like i said if you dont like it im sorry 2 hear that and no im not bashing any religion its simply another prt to my other question to those of you that HAVE to be "questioning" if my question is a question or not
anywayz thx and as for the sarcasim cute but that wont get us anywhere

-Brianna

2007-06-28 09:52:41 · update #1

oh and to the people who think they're so smart as to try and insult ask me about my reading before you talk crap because you'd feel stupid at the end

2007-06-28 10:08:52 · update #2

16 answers

It's about time for Bush to declare war on Turkey so we can once and for all find out what's on that friggin' mountain.

2007-06-28 09:28:45 · answer #1 · answered by S K 7 · 4 0

i know what it could be if it's not the ark- a rock formation. At first it might have looked to someone like there was an ark on Ararat, now, from what you tell us, it turns out to have been rock. First they found one rock formation that looked like an ark on ararat. Then they found a rock formation that looked like an ark elsewhere. Thus at least one rock formation that looks like an ark turns out to be just a rock formation. Why not both?

If it's supposedly petrified wood, they'll have to show how the wood petrified on a mountain slope that way. Normally, that's not a good place for the material in the wood to slowly be replaced over time by minerals that soak into it. Mineral water tends to run off of slopes.

So what we have, unless far far better evidence can be found, is people looking at rocks and trying to see them as being shaped like what they want to see. Like looking at clouds and deciding the cloud must be a mouse.

2007-06-28 16:34:03 · answer #2 · answered by thatguyjoe 5 · 2 0

With all due respect, your posting has too many "may be's" and "might be's" to ever be considered proof of anything.
Other problems with this claim are: 1.) The expeditions you mention were undertaken by religious organizations, so they clearly have an agenda. An independent scientific expedition would have a lot more credibility. 2.) The ark story was supposed to have taken place, what, 7 or 8,000 years ago? It takes millions of years for wood to petrify, so pieces of stone brought back as evidence of the ark are just that: pieces of stone.

2007-06-28 16:56:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

OK, so finding lots of arks is better proof than finding one? :-)

It is not clear that "They asked for proof?" is a genuine question, but I'll respond with a question for you. When you say this 'resembles a huge ark', does that mean it looks boat-shaped? If so, then this is something different than the ark described in the Bible, which was like a big box (hence it being called an 'ark').

2007-06-28 16:49:45 · answer #4 · answered by jamesfrankmcgrath 4 · 0 0

Key words:

ROCK FORMATION
MIGHT
RESEMBLE
CLAIM
MAY BE petrified wood (well, is it or not?)
ROCKY CLIFFS



This isnt proof of anything. This is wishful thinking. Its June 2007 - a full 16 months after this alleged fact finding mission - why hasnt it been announced that the rocks they brought back are indeed petrified wood beams from the Ark? BECAUSE THEY WERENT!

2007-06-28 16:32:11 · answer #5 · answered by ? 5 · 3 0

I'm sorry but you can't read apparently. I'm religious and believe in Noah's Ark, but the last sentence says "they brought back peices of stone they claim MAY be..." MAY be does not mean IS.

Oh, and you forgot to ask a question in there!

2007-06-28 16:31:36 · answer #6 · answered by mrb1017 4 · 7 0

I found a piece of driftwood on the beach the other day. It looked pretty old. I think it might be a piece of the Ark.

2007-06-28 16:30:20 · answer #7 · answered by ? 5 · 5 0

saw the reports.....testing will be done and answers will be forth coming I'm sure.....I think finding the ark will always be like the shroud of Torin.....some believe some don't since none of us was actually with Noah, the question is basically unprovable

2007-06-28 16:33:10 · answer #8 · answered by becca 2 · 1 0

Look on talkorigins.org
When people argue that the bible is literally true it is embarrassing. I don't care if they give me a thumbs down, its ridiculous and they should be ashamed. If they can accept it as symbolic in meaning then fair game, then they can enter philosophical circles not scientific.

2007-06-28 16:31:27 · answer #9 · answered by Raccoon 3 · 5 0

You clearly do not know what "petrified" means. And no one has any "petrified wood beams," or else it would have been on every news outlet around the world.

2007-06-28 16:29:59 · answer #10 · answered by SvetlanaFunGirl 4 · 4 1

fedest.com, questions and answers