oh ,I know uk. what I meant is when I quickly read over the page and looked at some links, the people they are taking a poke at do not appear to be the same people who are involved in this news story. This is however from a very quick look and may be wrong.
FOUND NOAH'S ARK? LINKS
Sorry, yes you're right - the page is a response to the issue in general, not this latest specific 'find'.
From those pictures I saw no evidence of anything "manmade" aol had 9 pictures of the 9 TWO were of the find the rest were pics of the 'discoverers' and other people (Jimmy Carter) I did notice that 48% of people voted that they believed this was noahs ark from the two pics...
I'm really interested in where this will go but I'll tell you what... Faith is blind! What if the wood is dated to 200,000 bc? Will those same people who are convinced that this is noahs ark then dispute the dating?
Every child is told this story.
It is represented as true and the most trusted people a child knows assures them it is so.
Once a child is old enough to count and measure they face a dissonant fact: the story can't be true.
This is where TRUST takes precedence over rational thinking.
The majority of people living in the United States (over 70%) believe the story of Noah's Ark is true.
However, they also realize it cannot be!
Expeditions to Turkey and Iran have taken place throughout history. A great many of these expeditions have reported sightings and findings.
The proof always manages to vanish into thin air! Just as the SHROUD OF TURIN has been conclusively proved to be a pious fraud--so too all the testimony and artefacts purporting to relate to the ark are frauds. The news reports will bury the disproofs and people will be left with the false impression the assertions are true. News filtering and information filtering is a specialty of the Watchtower.
There were some real devastating floods that occurred in Iraq in the fifth to third millennia BC, corresponding in part to the latter half of the Holocene Maximum, and these match up to some of the details in the Sumerian flood myths (which lie at the basis of the two biblical stories). Also these floods were local to Mesopotamia (and probably only to certain parts of Mesopotamia) but it was not that difficult for the Sumerians to construe these as a universal flood since all they knew of the world was as far east as Syria, as far south as Bahrain (Dilmun), and eventually as far east as the Indus Valley civilization (Aratta)...it is also the tendency to universalize things in the development of myths. It is also possible that, owing to the widespread mytheme of a cataclysm in the primeval past, the notion was already present in Mesopotamia irrespective of the actual floods that occurred.
A huge structure built of quality wood covered in tar.
Would Noah and his family leave it behind as it was? Wouldn't they have broken it apart and used it for building materials or something?
Why is it on the wrong mountian?
I'm fond of asking people who say they read their bible how many Noah's Ark stories are contained in scripture. 9 out of ten don't know what I'm talking about.
I then ask how many of each animal was taken on the ark. The usual answer is 2 of each; male and female.
I ask about the passage which mentions the 7 of each "clean" animal and 2 of each "unclean" animal. What about that?
(The ceremonial and legal designation of "clean" and "unclean" would necessarily be written after Moses and not before).
Further, when the animals are taken off the ark: what did the carnivores eat?
The Noah's Ark story is about as credible as Santa Claus.
Hmmm, I'm no geologist, but this picture alone looks all wrong. Note that the angle of the weathering pattern on this slope resembles that of the crags further in the distance. This suggests to me that (1) this outcropping has been here quite a while to be shaped like this, and (2) the material responds to weathering in a similar way. Now, since a boat would not be built on a foundation like a building but would be on the move downhill with the glaciers (see the possible glacier to the left), the object here would be too stationary to be the remains of a manmade vessel but fits well with the surrounding outcroppings. What the material actually is -- igneous rock, fossilized wood, etc. -- must be determined through inspection or analysis, which should also determine a geological date for the material.