Noah's Ark, why are people still looking?

Even if Noah and the flood existed, and he managed to survive a global flood to arrive at the top of Mount Ararat, wouldn't Noah have found it necessary to reuse the lumber from his ark to build shelter for his extended family - possibly carting it off for the lower altitudes of Mount Ararat, ending up like any wooden structure from that era, faded to dust. Logically you wouldn't just leave behind the only structure you have for shelter, wood would have been a precious commodity in the aftermath for several years at least.

Noooooo are you crazy? They were too busy having a gigantic animal sex orgy to save the planet! What you said would only be logical, and we can't have that nonsense there.

My bad, I didn't mean to invoke logic, I forgot we were talking about the bible.

Back to the OP, the feature is a rock outcropping, debunked after Ron Wyatt proclaimed it Noah's ark. Several of Wyatt's former colleagues have since denounced his research.

Ron Wyatt R.I.P.

If this was undeniable evidence that it was in fact Noah's Ark, don't you think that the Vatican would be on the case immediately? It has the political and economic resources to do it. Plus it would give the Church a much needed boost in its memberships, which are getting to be fewer and fewer each passing year. They would finally have some proof.

I don't call for 'god' so that's one assumption out the window!

Why do people try so hard to believe?

It wasn't even symmetrical as they say, and it looks like a classic rock formation, the result of igneous processes and most likely a dyke.





Patent nonsense and clutching at straws.

[edit on 17-5-2009 by aorAki]