Skip to comments.'Noah's Ark' discovery on Turkish mountain
Posted on 04/26/2010 9:01:21 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
A group of Chinese and Turkish evangelical explorers said Monday they believe they may have found Noah's Ark -- 4000m up a mountain in Turkey.
The team say they recovered wooden specimens from a structure on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey that carbon dating proved was 4800 years old, around the same time the ark is said to have been afloat.
"It's not 100 percent that it is Noah's Ark but we think it is 99.9 percent that this is it," Yeung Wing-cheung, a Hong Kong documentary filmmaker and member of the 15-strong team from Noah's Ark Ministries International told AFP.
The structure had several compartments, some with wooden beams, which were believed to house animals, he said.
The group of evangelical archaeologists ruled out an established human settlement on the grounds that one had never been found above 3500 metres in the vicinity, Yeung said.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.ninemsn.com.au ...
God: “Noah ... This is the Lord ...”
Noah: “Riiiiiiiight !!!”
Thats assuming that the Mountains were at the same height during the flood. I tend to believe that the continents broke apart during the flood and the mountains raised up in the aftermath of the flood which would probably have included massive volcanic and tectonic activity.
I'm wondering if a glacial dam may have burst ...
Saw a show on PBS that stated there was a MASSIVE pre-historic lake dammed up with a glacial wall. Thousands of trillions of gallons ...
When it broke, it raced to the West Coast [forming the Columbia River] and into the Southweat, where it carved out Monument Valley ...
Same thing in Europe ???
Noah sent out a Raven first, which never did come back, then sent out the same dove once a week for a few weeks until it didn’t come back, an indicator that livable habitats were beginning to reemerge.
The ark had already come to rest somewhere high on Ararat at a time when other mountaintops were still not visible. The sea was, as you say, apparently calm, and it took several weeks for the other mountaintops to become visible, so apparently the mechanism for depositing all that water could not have been as transitory as tsunamis or tidal behavior, so I must retract my earlier statement. The water that was there must have been relatively uniform in global distribution.
The foregoing does not, however, eliminate the possibility that exceptional tectonic relationships might have displaced vast quantities of both surface and subterranean water, and that is closer to how the Biblical text describes it than my brief excursion into “big wave” theory. My apologies.
I don’t think the sea level would raise much if the ice melted...but it would spread out....Drop some ice cubes in a glass of water and when they melt, the water is at almost the same level as when you put them in the water..(I think)
Well, we’re not talking modern subdivisions, to be sure. But Noah had to have neighbors. Otherwise where did his son’s wives come from? Adds a whole new flavor to “no man is an island.”
Correct for ice already in the water (north pole, south pole margins). Land bound ice would flow into the oceans and raise the levels. Obviously not as high as Mount Everest all the way around.
I figure this supernatural event was, well, supernatural. The videos on that link are interesting and intriguing. Although they could also be from some remote warehouse in China I suppose.
And just like with the shroud, it probably won’t sway too many folks in what they already believe.
But yes, you’re right, the tin foil hat business is not in Genesis. It’s a reasonable inference based on New Testament texts (Matt 24:38, 2Peter 2:5, etc.) saying that everyone but Noah acted as if life would go on as normal. Why would they do that if they believed Noah? And we know they did get an earful from Noah, because he is accounted as a preacher of righteousness. If his preaching followed the pattern of other prophets, he surely preached of God’s coming judgment, and that must be the important part they didn’t believe. An extra-Biblical Jewish tradition even recounts the words by which he exhorted the unbelievers:
“be ye turned from your evil ways and works, lest the waters of the flood come upon you, and cut off all the seed of the children of men.”
That only works for ice that's already in the water, such as icebergs.
We've got millions of square miles of ice piled up on land surfaces, though. If that were all to melt, it would definitely raise sea levels, because it would add to the amount of water in the oceans. But, how much it would raise it, I don't know.
Hiking up to 12,000 feet for Chopsticks? I don’t think so.
not only millions of acres of ice, but also underground aquifer freshwater, and, of course, given that God is God, any or all of the water of other planets if He chose to use it.
Thoght this might interest you Quix.
The glaciers in Alaska lead to water and are always calving. I don't think that raises the water levels as the towns are all along the water way. I have watched the calving and it goes on continually. been on two cruises but there are no floods of the towns...
Some of the breaking off is as big as a house or bus and you can hear the glacier booming all day...(Side note) the natives call it white thunder and it sounds like thunder as they crack and then fall... Of course if it all melted at once there would be floods until the water reaches its level but the waterways all lead to the ocean. When dealing with a body of water as big as the Pacific Ocean, is it possible to actually raise the level of the Ocean more than a few inches...
Nearly all of the icecap at the south pole sits on land, and it is miles thick. A lot of ice (but not all) at the north pole also sits on land, and that is very thick, as well.
If it were all to melt into the oceans at once, it would have an effect on sea levels, but by how much is anybody's guess.
The reason those towns near the glacier calving don't become swamped, is because as big as those chunks of ice are, they're infinitesimally small, compared to the volume of the ocean water they're falling into. The amount they raise the sea level isn't even measurable.
The Chinese are great on publicity for their doings. Should be very interesting, indeed.
Here’s what I found on a search from one of the first sites that came up. Seems to sound about right from other things I recall:
The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world’s ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37°C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing.
At the other end of the world, the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as at the South Pole. The ice floats on the Arctic Ocean. If it melted sea levels would not be affected.
There is a significant amount of ice covering Greenland, which would add another 7 meters (20 feet) to the oceans if it melted. Because Greenland is closer to the equator than Antarctica, the temperatures there are higher, so the ice is more likely to melt.
But there might be a less dramatic reason than polar ice melting for the higher ocean level — the higher temperature of the water. Water is most dense at 4 degrees Celsius. Above and below this temperature, the density of water decreases (the same weight of water occupies a bigger space). So as the overall temperature of the water increases it naturally expands a little bit making the oceans rise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.