Noahs Ark..

Hi everyone i am new to this and this is my first topic i have done.
I dont know if this belongs here in (conspiracies in religions) but ill get on with it anyway. Being a catholic and believing in the the bible (that i sometimes question) i decided to do some research on Noahs Arc and came up with some very interesting evidence. the Arc is supposed to lie on Mt. Ararat in Turkey, www.isitso.org... here is one of the late archaeologists who have explorerd the Arc Ron Wyatt's versions and accounts of hes finds. Here is some more evidence and a lot of reported sightings www.noahsarksearch.com... and here is a site with some outstanding pictures www.pilgrimpromo.com... scroll down on the left hand side to view the pics.

Ok now this might sound abit stupid but i also read somewhere else i cant remember or find the link, it could be false. I cant remember the name of the man but he was or claims to be a german soldier in ww2 when the nazis invaded Turkey. The germans made a lot of propaganda films and one of them was soldiers marching through turkey in the mountins, anyway he said to have witnessed this film and in the background was a huge like woodern figure (the arc). sorry i cant remember the source of this information but maybe someone knows where to search for such films or know anything more about this.

Well anyway i hope for some feedback and anymore information about this topic would be great, thanks.

[edit on 6/7/2005 by lightbringer__]

EDIT: edited spelling of title for search reasons.

[edit on 7-6-2005 by Gazrok]

The theory of that 'ark' being found has been refuted.. and as this has been discussed before I'll just summerise points that have previously come up on this topic:

Aborigines are definently not decendents of Noah.
Koalas and other australian animals could not have swam all that way.. and/or carry gum trees behind them which is the only source of food for koalas.
There is no evidence to support a world wide flood.. and fresh water creatures would not have survived it.
The obvious.. a boat would have to be the size of a city to house that many animals, fresh water and food supplies.. plus extra animals would have had to been brought along to feed the carnevours.


There's probably alot more points I could add but common sense and this subject don't mix together too well so it'd be futile.

Since when did the Germans invade turkey in ww2?

There's some good threads here on the topic, and of course everyone is welcome to discuss it here and now, but here are the other ones which you all shoudl find interesting.
Ark
Noahs Ark
Those might not be the best threads that have come up, but they should be a good starting point.

Anyway, breifly, on wyatts claims.

None of this claims have proven true. THe best evidence he had that he had found the ark was this pattern of magnetic 'anomolies' that were supposedly caused by the remains of nails used to build the ark, that still rested in an organized pattern on the site today. Problem was, they don't, and the things that make the 'pattern' (which was nothing more than a relatively diffuse scattering of the things) were simply iron-containing minerals.

edit to add
Here's a long one:
I got a question

[edit on 7-6-2005 by Nygdan]

you know it's funny , darwin probably liked noah's ark story , because it supports his theory . supposedly , all the species originated from much fewer species , i.e . the different types of pigeons came from one type etc... so if we take that into prespective , we could say that the wark wouldn't have to be THAT big . on the other hand , a roman catholic would probably frown on the notion of darwin being nothing but a dreamer to say the least . i like the idea myself , but everyone to his own opinion i guess.

thanks for the input guys.

Originally posted by riley
The theory of that 'ark' being found has been refuted.. and as this has been discussed before I'll just summerise points that have previously come up on this topic:

Aborigines are definently not decendents of Noah.
Koalas and other australian animals could not have swam all that way.. and/or carry gum trees behind them which is the only source of food for koalas.
There is no evidence to support a world wide flood.. and fresh water creatures would not have survived it.
The obvious.. a boat would have to be the size of a city to house that many animals, fresh water and food supplies.. plus extra animals would have had to been brought along to feed the carnevours.


There's probably alot more points I could add but common sense and this subject don't mix together too well so it'd be futile.

interesting points riley i didnt really think of that before posting, but what you people think of the evidence towards and the pictures? what could they be?

[edit on 6/7/2005 by lightbringer__]

It looks like natural land formation to me but then when the Government are involved this immediatly arouses suspision as to what was really found there. It is possible it may be found in ice somewhere brilliantly preserved who knows!

It may have even been a UFO, I am a firm beliver in biblical UFO'S
Chow

Originally posted by lightbringer__
interesting points riley i didnt really think of that before posting, but what you people think of the evidence towards and the pictures? what could they be?

Evidence towards either a natural formation.. even possibly an ark.. but boats have never been a rare thing.. their conclusions seem to be based on wishful thinking rather than actual evidence.

Unless of course they find a 'noah was here' carved into it somewhere.

Originally posted by tempogen
you know it's funny , darwin probably liked noah's ark story , because it supports his theory . supposedly , all the species originated from much fewer species , i.e . the different types of pigeons came from one type etc... so if we take that into prespective , we could say that the wark wouldn't have to be THAT big . on the other hand , a roman catholic would probably frown on the notion of darwin being nothing but a dreamer to say the least . i like the idea myself , but everyone to his own opinion i guess.

The time period between the ark and now is not nearly enough to explain the myriad of different species we have today.

Originally posted by tempogen a roman catholic would probably frown on the notion of darwin being nothing but a dreamer to say the least .

Er, actually the RCC has an official position that is aok with Darwin and Evolution. Technically its worded like 'evolution is more than a theory', but generally its understood, by the church, to mean that evolution is just as acceptable as gravity and anything else.

earth angel
but then when the Government are involved this immediatly arouses suspision

The mountian is in a moderately unstable place, and may also be a national park type thing, so its not inconceivable that they'd not be willing to give christers looking for the ark access.

CaptainJailew
The time period between the ark and now is not nearly enough to explain the myriad of different species we have today.

Or at least, if everything evolved from the few things on the ark some 6 thousand years ago, then the rate of evolution would be fast enough that we could observe all sorts of things today that we just don't see.

Originally posted by CaptainJailew
The time period between the ark and now is not nearly enough to explain the myriad of different species we have today.

Aside from anything else a world wide flood would have completely destroyed the planet's ecosystem to an extent that if would take 100s of thousands (or maybe even millions) of years to recover to the point it is today. When the flood subsided there would have been total and utter devastation - what did the millions of animals (did they take plants on board as well?) eat when they got off the Ark?

Anyway, like a previous poster said: this subject and common sense don't mix too well.

lightbringer - I'm not sure why you, as a christian, can't just take the story as a metaphor for God cleansing the earth, or something like that. Most christians manage to do that and remain faithful. If you take everything in the old testament as the literal truth you are in for a whole world of madness.

The German soldier was probably talking about the Nazi advance through the Caucuses, a mountain range between Turkey and Russia that runes between the Black and Caspian seas.

The Nazis may well have made propaganda films about the discovery of noahs ark, since the SS had a strong interest in the occult and other nonsense, but there is no proof at all for a real ark.

someone said something about aborigines not being descendants of Noah, and some other Australian impossibilities with a flood in mind.

i'd like to point out that using the Bible as a reference, EVERYONE is a descendant of Noah. if you don't believe the Bible as true, then you can't be quite as certain about it.

Originally posted by southern_cross3
if you don't believe the Bible as true, then you can't be quite as certain about it.

Huh? You can be more certain about it. With the bible as reference, you have to have faith that everyone is related, with science and observation, you 'know' everyone is related (as well as you 'know' that water will boil when given sufficient heat, or any other scientific 'fact').

you didn't contradict me, unless i missed something

i'm saying that i believe the Bible as 100% true, therefore i have no doubt that everyone is related, the Flood covered the entire earth, Noah was the sole survivor with his three sons and their families, etc etc. whereas someone that sees the Bible as a collection of historic yet misguided accounts will try to "interpret" the story and fit it in with other accounts of the same story, and try to sort fact from fiction.

that said, i don't believe the Bible as 100% true; more like 97% true, allowing for some corruption of facts, especially in the case of Genesis, which was written several hundred years after the events in it occurred. that's why i don't get too zealous about particular statements in the Bible, but overall i believe that everything in it truly happened.

Hmm, perhaps I did misunderstand.

Nazis never invaded Turkey, they were in pact with the ottoman padisah who ruled around Turkey then. I dont event think that any Nazi army had ever been in turkey. Later the Padisah was Overthrown by M. Kemal for establishing a republic later however this didnt prevent the Allied forces to invade Turkey later.

and about the fresh water issue, for gods sake it was raining all over the place, just hold your glass and you are done.

I dont know if Noah is real but probably it was derrived from a more local event ( a local flood, note that world was very small those days in fact as small as a village) and than been documented and later became a legend.

Could it not be a Myth for Modern DNA? If God was real he would know such a thing existed. That's easy enough to understand and I think everyone can agree on that? So what if Noah and his Ark is just a Myth for removing imperfect parts of our DNA?

here's aniother old thread that you might find interesting.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Hello there is no evidence of a world flood but there is huge evidence of the Caspian sea and Mederteranian(sp) joining together so no the flood wouldnt have wiped out all animals but it wouldnt have killed all sinners so godif he did it wasnt very good at it.