Where? As I stated, the text says "the mountains of Ararat" which is a huge geological area. The Ararat mountains covered a geological region of approximately 100,000 square miles. Furthermore, the word 'har' of, for example, Gen 7:2 can be translated just as easily to "hill" as "mountain". In other words, there is no reason to think that the text of Gen 8:4 does not say that the ark came to rest "in the foothills of Ararat." This is also supported by the fact that the dove in Gen 8:11 brought back an olive leaf and olive trees do not grow above 5,000 ft.
oh come on use a little (un)common sense.. the MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE .. "THE GRAND PUBA" as it were needs a wooden boat to keep things rolling.. bwhahahahahaha!! get your head out your ass!!
Actually, I don't know much about Noahs Ark. But, if anyone is interested, here are some pretty good subs instead.
I disagree (of course). I think that "insanity", or better put "irrationality", is to think that hundreds of unrelated and disparate pre-missionary cultures around the globe came up with flood traditions "coincidentally"...But everyone is entitled to their opinion. Next thing you're going to tell me that Paul Tudor Jones put together his 10+ year track record with just "good luck"...
God should act according to your concepts of "right" and "common sense?" The point is not whether or not God exists, but rather that you would place yourself in a position to judge Him or His existence on the basis of human behavioral standards, which are lacking absolute foundation and are little but relativistic opinions. Practically speaking, your argument is weakly analogous to an infant child judging his parents behavior. The logical fallacy is that you are arguing from conclusion.
For the claustrophobically inclined who would prefer taking a pass on a journey 20,000 miles under the sea, there are of course alternatives:
Actually, the ark would have been around 450 feet by 75 feet by 45 feet high which could easily hold the three decks mentioned and about 30,000 animal species. This is just about right for a local flood. Contrast that with the need if there is a global flood: a half billion species of life sprang (sprung? springed?) out onto the earth during the Cambrian Explosion 550 million years ago and then a species or two followed (on average) each year therafter. In other words, a global flood requires an astronomical number of species on board. Is it possible to put this many animals on a small craft? Personally, I don't see how nor do I think it's necessary....
Umm, I have no intention of wading into the ET religious wars. But the story of Noah's Ark could very well be based on an actual ancient catastrophic flood. The Genesis story might merely represent that society's attempt at explaining a devasting global event in a context that made sense to the people of that time. That does not mean, however, that the story is not true in a literal sense or that the religious aspects of the story have no validity. But that is not for me to judge and it's really beside the point, imo. But the fact that similar stories of a devastating ancient flood appear in various cultural legends (i.e. the Epic of Gilgamesh) lends support to it's having occurred in some form or another. Also, research done in the Black Sea region has recently provided additional evidence of an ancient flood of giant proportions. Hence, if remnants of an ancient ship are actually found on Ararat (of which I remain skeptical), the legend of the Ark will no doubt gain further credibility as a historical fact. This would be nothing new as archeological research has discovered plenty of evidence to support various biblical stories as history. However, the religious implications are of course a whole other matter and, whether the Ark is found or not, should continue to be debated to all your hearts' content. So please, carry on.