Questions about noah ark

[Thumpalumpacus]

From here it looks like the collective answer so far is a big nuh-uh! The floods not real, so their couldn't be a boat on top of a mountain!

The ark as described in the Bible wouldn't last six months on the open ocean, due to a phenomenon known as "hogging". The ship would have broken up.

Never mind all the difficulties mentioned by Gawdzilla upthread, which are far more detailed than your dishonest summary would imply.

I'd suggest you pray to your god for some integrity -- you're in dire need of it.

[Drich]

Yes, because we all know that the science and history channels on TV never promote bullshit... [rolling eyes]

Either way your highness, it is still a source that demands to be answered with stronger or more complete evidence.

Just because you close your mind off to things you don't like to think about, it doesn't mean everyone else has.

[Chad32]

The seashells on mountaintop "proof" boggles my mind. You're supposed to learn how mountains form in middle school, at the latest, aren't you? Mountains rise. sometimes they rise from beneath the ocean. Hence fossils of sea creatures in very high places.

[JesusHChrist]

Didn't want to wade through 6 pages of Ark-shit.

Short version - do we have proof of the Ark yet or not? All it would take to satisfy my skeptical ways is a documentary on the History channel pointing to some old stones that, in the right light, might look like wood. And we's a got SEA shells on tops of the MOUNTAINS! Yup, that's some critical thinking there.

Holding breath until I know for sure! Because...then....Ark....means.....JEEBUS!

[thesummerqueen]

Just because you close your mind off to things you don't like to think about, it doesn't mean everyone else has.

When you bring me something more substantial than their usual superficial and suppositional documentaries, I promise my mind will be open enough.

Ever heard the expression, "able to shit through a screen and not touch a single wire"? That's basically what the vast majority of biblically related material on TV is worth. It passes through the brain sieve with diarrhea-like ease.

[professor]

When KK comes back, maybe there will be some feedback questions they will have.

[Esquilax]

Either way your highness, it is still a source that demands to be answered with stronger or more complete evidence.

No. You don't get to make assertions, whether they're yours or the arguments from ignorance of other sources, and then say they stand until someone disproves them. That's not how the burden of proof works; all of those sources present what is, at best, an unknown, and then assert that it's Noah's ark because they can spin the story to fit. But arguments from ignorance are just that, regardless of the source.

Just because you close your mind off to things you don't like to think about, it doesn't mean everyone else has.

... So when Aoi Magi posted a refutation on the first page, and when I presented a detailed explanation of why arguments from ignorance are not good evidence, and you maintained even after both of those things that all you've gotten from the atheists in this thread was "nuh uh," you think you were exhibiting an open mind?

[Nope]

I am reading through the links the OP posted. This is from the first article

Despite the numerous sightings and rumors—of pictures taken by the CIA and locked in vaults, of lost photographs taken by a Russian expedition at the behest of Tsar Nicholas Alexander in 1918—no scientific evidence of the ark has emerged.

_
"On the one hand, I'm hopeful. On the other hand, I'm very skeptical" of the validity of the satellite images, said Rex Geissler, president of ArcImaging (Archaeological Imaging Research Consortium). "There is no publicly available picture that readily shows a man-made object that has any clarity whatsoever … Some of the photos are outright misrepresentations, non-scientific, and do not prove anything.

"We think that with the hundreds of explorers who have visited the region, if the ark was jutting out of the ice, it would be obvious."

[pocaracas]

Drich, if you want to use National Geographic's name, link to the correct place... not some shody youtube video.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...n-culture/

Better Explanations for "Noah's Ark" Structure?

Even if the Noah's Ark Ministries International team did find a wooden structure or even a boat on Mount Ararat, there are other explanations for what the structure might be.

For example, it could be a shrine constructed by early Christians to commemorate the site where they believed Noah's Ark should be, Zimansky said.

Even in that speculative case, it wouldn't be 4,000 years old. "The Bible hadn't even been written yet," he said.

Bible scholar Sasson said he thinks biblical writers intended the story of Noah's ark to be allegorical, not a true recounting of historical events. By presenting a scenario in which humanity is punished for its wickedness, "they were trying to draw us to the notion of a God who asks us to be acceptable," Sasson said.

[IATIA]

The atheist response so far:

.....

Show me the ark. We can go to the moon, but we cannot get a boat off a mountain? I am sure that if there were really an ark up there, some bible-thumper would have found the resources to bring it down. The only thing stopping one from retrieving it? IT IS NOT THERE!