STORM2K

A team of archaeologists claim to have found the remains of a large ship (about the size of an aircraft carrier) at an elevation of 13,000 feet in Iran. I'm extremely hesistant to believe this until it is confirmed by another archaeological team. But the story is below.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2133311&page=1

People want so to believe there is an ark somewhere. Why could this not be a boat that transports animals, etc. There could have been hundreds of boats from the past built in the shape of the ark with stalls, etc. for transporting animals, even slaves.

Well there are two things that make it stick out:

1) It's the size of an aircraft carrier

2) It's on top of a mountain

That's assuming it's true. I know nothing about this team that found it, so I'm making no real assumption yet whether it's true or not (though it probably isn't).

Well it is a bunch of wood or at least gives that apperance....It say the bible say it is about the size of a aircraft carrier not that it is what they have found....And I found it somewhat suprising they would let a team from TEXAS into Iran...Another researcher in the 40's thought he had found the ark as well in these same mountains but no one believed him..Maybe this is what he had found..\

Edit : I now see where they say it is the same size.

Here is another site on the subject...Alough a bias site..

The way they took the pictures makes it hard to see the scale of it..

http://www.worldviewweekend.com/secure/ ... icleID=813

Regit wrote:Well there are two things that make it stick out:

1) It's the size of an aircraft carrier

2) It's on top of a mountain

That's assuming it's true. I know nothing about this team that found it, so I'm making no real assumption yet whether it's true or not (though it probably isn't).

yeah, the fact that it is 13,000 feet up a mountain is a bit odd.

Extremeweatherguy wrote:

Regit wrote:Well there are two things that make it stick out:

1) It's the size of an aircraft carrier

2) It's on top of a mountain

That's assuming it's true. I know nothing about this team that found it, so I'm making no real assumption yet whether it's true or not (though it probably isn't).

yeah, the fact that it is 13,000 feet up a mountain is a bit odd.

Not really they find sea shells on the top of the tallest mountains and city's that are now under the ocean...Our surface is always moving..


http://www.globaleye.org.uk/primary/focuson/intro.html

feederband wrote:

Extremeweatherguy wrote:

Regit wrote:Well there are two things that make it stick out:

1) It's the size of an aircraft carrier

2) It's on top of a mountain

That's assuming it's true. I know nothing about this team that found it, so I'm making no real assumption yet whether it's true or not (though it probably isn't).

yeah, the fact that it is 13,000 feet up a mountain is a bit odd.

Not really they find sea shells on the top of the tallest mountains and city's that are now under the ocean...Our surface is always moving..


http://www.globaleye.org.uk/primary/focuson/intro.html

Well assuming these mountains had grown from sea level to their current height at the same rate the himalayas are currently growing (which hasn't happened), then this ship is 312,000 years old.

If you figure how long it would have to have been for THESE mountains to be at sea level, you'd have to go back many million years.

Regit wrote:

feederband wrote:

Extremeweatherguy wrote:

Regit wrote:Well there are two things that make it stick out:

1) It's the size of an aircraft carrier

2) It's on top of a mountain

That's assuming it's true. I know nothing about this team that found it, so I'm making no real assumption yet whether it's true or not (though it probably isn't).

yeah, the fact that it is 13,000 feet up a mountain is a bit odd.

Not really they find sea shells on the top of the tallest mountains and city's that are now under the ocean...Our surface is always moving..


http://www.globaleye.org.uk/primary/focuson/intro.html

Well assuming these mountains had grown from sea level to their current height at the same rate the himalayas are currently growing (which hasn't happened), then this ship is 312,000 years old.

If you figure how long it would have to have been for THESE mountains to be at sea level, you'd have to go back many million years.

They don't know it is a ship...Only thing they do know is that it rock with a appearance of wood...And they have some petrified wood around the rock...It could be just whats left of some ancient forest...I say they have to wait until the get more official testing done ...Such as carbon dating and such...What ever it is ..It is kind of unique...

Janice wrote:People want so to believe there is an ark somewhere. Why could this not be a boat that transports animals, etc. There could have been hundreds of boats from the past built in the shape of the ark with stalls, etc. for transporting animals, even slaves.

I haven't quote figured it out yet, but you seem so pro-slavery.. Nothing personal, just a concern I have regarding your past posts condoning this hideous behavior..

NBCintern wrote:

Janice wrote:People want so to believe there is an ark somewhere. Why could this not be a boat that transports animals, etc. There could have been hundreds of boats from the past built in the shape of the ark with stalls, etc. for transporting animals, even slaves.

I haven't quote figured it out yet, but you seem so pro-slavery.. Nothing personal, just a concern I have regarding your past posts condoning this hideous behavior..

What?

NBCintern wrote:

Janice wrote:People want so to believe there is an ark somewhere. Why could this not be a boat that transports animals, etc. There could have been hundreds of boats from the past built in the shape of the ark with stalls, etc. for transporting animals, even slaves.

I haven't quote figured it out yet, but you seem so pro-slavery.. Nothing personal, just a concern I have regarding your past posts condoning this hideous behavior..

What you said seemed a little odd, but giving you the benefit of the doubt, I searched for any time Janice has mentioned slaves or slavery and got a total of 5 posts, none of which condoned it. They all seemed to be passing references to me. Sure you're not getting people mixed up?

NBCintern wrote:

Janice wrote:People want so to believe there is an ark somewhere. Why could this not be a boat that transports animals, etc. There could have been hundreds of boats from the past built in the shape of the ark with stalls, etc. for transporting animals, even slaves.

I haven't quote figured it out yet, but you seem so pro-slavery.. Nothing personal, just a concern I have regarding your past posts condoning this hideous behavior..

How do you derive a correlation between her mentioning a possible slave transport ship and her condoning slavery???? I think you missed the "boat" with that assumption.

fwbbreeze

I am only referring what cages or stalls in any boat could be used for. Slavery was just one mentioned as that was a big trade at one time. I for one, think slavery is and has always been horrible. Sorry, you took my post wrong. If you see cages or stalls in a sunken boat, what do you think they were used for?

fwbbreeze wrote:

NBCintern wrote:

Janice wrote:People want so to believe there is an ark somewhere. Why could this not be a boat that transports animals, etc. There could have been hundreds of boats from the past built in the shape of the ark with stalls, etc. for transporting animals, even slaves.

I haven't quote figured it out yet, but you seem so pro-slavery.. Nothing personal, just a concern I have regarding your past posts condoning this hideous behavior..

How do you derive a correlation between her mentioning a possible slave transport ship and her condoning slavery???? I think you missed the "boat" with that assumption.

fwbbreeze

Maybe I did, I was up late lastnight playing PS2 with my bro. SORRY JANICE........

No problem at all. I remember the story of their finding of what they thought was the ark on Mt. Arafat. Some of the townspeople living there said their fathers took them up there when they were little. They said it looked like cages or stalls inside. That is when I thought that could have even been a cargo ship of some sort.

I haven't quote figured it out yet, but you seem so pro-slavery.. Nothing personal, just a concern I have regarding your past posts condoning this hideous behavior..

That's a very unfair charge to level. I recall the "previous" thread wherein Janice only speculated that perhaps, for some, slavery was preferable to a horrible death...while personally I didn't agree with the expressed opinion in citing how many have died to avoid slavery, hers was an opinion justly expressed as so, and some folks jumped on it like ducks after a June-Bug... what is it with all this PC policing? Do you really think for one second she was "condoning" the abominable practice of slavery? I can assure you that after having read countless posts by her that this is decidedly NOT the case. The fact that millions of folks of every ethnicity have known the history of bondage at one time or another lends some credibility to that opinion. I just wish that unless someone clearly posts something over the edge, that people would stop playing PC police and/or trying to psychoanalyze someone for simply expression an opinion.

All that aside... more on the topic of the thread: I agree with Regit's assessment of this thing clearly NOT being a marine fossil for already expressed reasons. I do recall the movie about the first group that claims to have found Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat, (which is the Biblical name of the mount on which it is supposed to come to rest)...but as has been suggested, we'll just have to wait and see what, if anything, develops here.

A2K

Okay... once again, I seem to have missed the boat myself on a few posts... *sigh* sooner or later this ISP slowdown just might get fixed... anyway... I still think that needed saying.

Does anyone know if they have any samples of this ship? I remember in the movie them claiming it was under umpteen hundred feet of glaciated ice...they allegedly sent someone into some crevasse and came back reporting of "stalls" and wood samples allegedly approx. 5,000 or so years old by carbon-dating. I don't know that any of that was any more than sensationalism... but it was interesting, and it's odd that about 20-30 years later this subject comes up again--and in a similar area.

A2K

Just based on this initial story, it sounds very exciting to me!

Secular science doesn't jive with Genesis, but the search for artifacts is popular. It's possible that when testing of samples is done, some will believe it's the Ark, and some won't. And no matter how much evidence or what else is discovered, there will always be varying opinions on whether, to paraphrase the news article, "God exists". And that's as it should be, because faith must enter in.

So where's the wood? All I see is rock - looks like some type of shale.