new information on noah's ark on CNN

Thankyou guys for your response.

However, being a scientist again, how can we confirm that he was not religious. I have attached the lines by article for you guys to give it a read.

The Early Yearswww.anchorstone.com...

The Search for Noah's Ark - The Action Years March 1985

Noah's Ark
Update - June1,2001
Noah's Ark Update - September 19,2001

Noah's Ark Update - April, 2002

Noah's Ark Update

These are long articles and there is a lot of information.

I do agree there are articles and there are individuals who do not believe in Jesus and as been clearly displaced there has been a lot of research done into the authenticity. I however believe that if there is smoke there is fire. I am left quite impressed by the intellectuality of individuals during and around the time of Jesus Christ and the amount of time to create such a fiction. In the last century, Gandhi was a person in whom a nation had a great belief and had faith in his methods. Quite interesting that he too had read the bible and learnt from it. Truely said by Albert Einstein "The coming generations will scarely believe that such a man in flesh and blood walked on this planet"

posted by knowledge23:Thankyou guys for your response. However, being a scientist again, how can we confirm that he was not religious.

You know, K23, it is impossible to “prove” a negative. More to your point, I’d say the absence of religious artifacts would go to indicate a lack of religiosity. Just as the existence of such artifacts would go to indicate the presence of religiosity.

From a secular point of view, there are at least 2 questions posed by the Ark of Noah. In any order, was there a flood and is it feasible to imagine all the animals were taken onboard the Ark? I do not think there is any physical evidence for a great flood. Discounting the intervening of GOD, we know chemically speaking, you cannot MAKE and then UNMAKE the amount of water needed for such a flood. The water molecule is just too tough. If you say GOD did it, then really, nothing matters for we are then into the metaphysical and we are not likely to agree on the rules for traveling there.

Whether all the animals were taken onboard may not be required if the flood story is limited to the region of Mt. Arafat. Then the animal part of the story would be possible. But it necessarily eliminates a world wide flood. I have also seen convincing discussions that the inherent weakness of wood prevents making a boat as large as the Ark. Wave actions in the water would break it apart.

Lastly, the flight of P-38s in Greenland ran out of fuel due to unexpected headwinds. Some fellows from GA spent 10 years and $5 million and finally located and recovered one in flyable condition. The plane was found under 100 feet of accumulated snow and had “moved” 15 miles from the point of landing. In about 50 years. If a solid object landed or “settled” on the top of Mt. Arafat, over the millennia the weight of new falling snow would have first covered the object then pushed the it down the mountain side to the snow line. IMO.

I do agree there are articles and there are individuals who do not believe in Jesus and as been clearly displaced there has been a lot of research done into the authenticity [of the Ark]. [Edited by Don W]

I do believe in Jesus, I just don’t believe he was divine or was raised from the dead. I think the religions which claim his name today are homologations of religions from around the rim of the Mediterranean Sea. I do not believe the stories in the Books of Moses. I don’t think Moses was a real person. I don’t think the first 3 kings of Israel were real. And etc. And, by no means would I accept that Jewish people today have a birthright DEED to the old British Palestine Mandate.

But I do support the idea of a Jewish homeland mostly because Christians have done so badly by Jews over the millennia. Especially from 1492. It is too bad - and still unresolved - that we (Christians) consented to the ejection of the lawful inhabitants of the land in 1948-1949. We are still paying for that ill conceived and not thought out move. Our leaders let us down. I attribute the Nine Eleven event more to that than any other single issue. And, because of our reckless and thoughtless response, if we don’t get ourselves under control soon, we are going to bankrupt ourselves.

So what’s all this got to do with the Ark? I see everything is connected to everything. I am not good a compartmentalizing. Sorry about that.

[edit on 3/22/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by MMP
Am I the only person alive that thinks the circled area is showing nothing more than a huge chunk of rock???

No, you're not, and in fact it's been described as an outcrop of rock before. I could have sworn the "it's Noah's Ark" story had been thoroughly debunked and I'm startled that CNN reported it.

Marg has been giving a very good summary of the events in the area. The outcrop HAS been visited before (and is no anomaly to the locals)... and it's just rock. Not petrified wood. Just rock.

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by MMP
Am I the only person alive that thinks the circled area is showing nothing more than a huge chunk of rock???

No, you're not, and in fact it's been described as an outcrop of rock before. I could have sworn the "it's Noah's Ark" story had been thoroughly debunked and I'm startled that CNN reported it.

Marg has been giving a very good summary of the events in the area. The outcrop HAS been visited before (and is no anomaly to the locals)... and it's just rock. Not petrified wood. Just rock.

Yeah Byrd this is the same "Ararat Anomaly" that's been discussed before. The new interest and specualtion is based on the sat. imagery and documents that the CIA recently released via the FOIA. I guess CNN thought it 'fit for print' because of the fact that the gov./CIA did know of the anomaly and, for some reason, kept the pics and studies classified. Intrique i guess *shrug*

Here's some reading on it, if interested:

www.space.com...

Spysat Photos May Show Noah's Ark
Satellite sleuth Porcher Taylor has his fingers crossed. Later this week, the government is set to release oodles of old Keyhole spysat imagery.
In the batch may be KH-9 imagery taken in 1973 showing what Taylor calls the "Ararat Anomaly" in Turkey - perhaps the remains of Noah's Ark, or just a very strange rock outcropping.

As Taylor of Richmond, Virginia tells it there was "intense debate" for years about that KH-9 imagery among Central Intelligence Agency photo interpreters at the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC).
In that time period, the CIA conducted routine satellite surveillance over a Soviet missile depot to the east of Mt. Ararat. Some one turned the cameras on too early and acquired Mt. Ararat instead. A major icecap meltdown was clearly visible on the mountain, especially near the Northwest corner of Ararat's Western Plateau at 15,500 feet. What the imagery shows was hotly debated within intelligence circles some 30 years ago, Porcher told SPACE.com.

Meanwhile, Insight Magazine writer, Timothy Maier, last week reported that newly released CIA documents show the search for Noah's Ark worked its way into White House levels in the 1990s. While the declassified documents don't shed light on what exactly has been spotted on Mt. Ararat, they do show just how high up the political chain discussion reached, Maier reports.
-- Leonard David

The old 'debunks' still apply and there's nothing new here that changes any of that i believe. It's news cause the CIA/white house were involved i think... but there's not necessarily much if anything new so far as the ark -vs- geological formation. Looks like a rock to me too... could be interesting if it's man-made, boat or not, but the 'new story' is just the old one AFAIK.

Don..

Thanks for the conversation. It was good, with thoughts being shared at both ends......Got good insight and wish you well.....till we meet again in one of the forum...cheers

K23

Even if this site was proven to be the fabled Arc, I still don't think that it would cause me to believe in the bible any more than I already do, which is not very much. I can believe the flood part, but nothing much more past that.