have any archeologists discovered physical proof of Noah's Ark?
346968
I have included a web site that might help you.
385046
Searching for the Ark\n\nSince the 19th century, there have been numerous attempts to find the ark on the mountains of Ararat. These mountains have two prominent peaks, one 16,950 feet high and the other 12,840 feet. The higher of the two is perpetually covered by snow. Because of the climatic changes that followed the Flood, the ark would soon have been buried by snow. Some investigators firmly believe that the ark is still there, buried deep in a glacier. They claim that there have been periods when the ice melted sufficiently to permit part of the ark to be exposed temporarily.\n\nThe book In Search of Noah’s Ark quotes George Hagopian, an Armenian, who claimed that he climbed Mount Ararat and saw the ark in 1902 and again in 1904. On the first visit, he said, he actually climbed on top of the ark. “I stood up straight and looked all over the ship. It was long. The height was about forty feet [12 m].” Regarding his observation on his subsequent visit, he said: “I didn’t see any real curves. It was unlike any other boat I have ever seen. It looked more like a flat-bottomed barge.”\n\nFrom 1952 to 1969, Fernand Navarra made four efforts to find evidence of the ark. On his third trip to Mount Ararat, he worked his way to the bottom of a crevasse in a glacier, where he found a piece of black wood embedded in the ice. “It must have been very long,” he said, “and perhaps still attached to other parts of the ship’s framework. I could only cut along the grain until I split off a piece about five feet [1.5 m] long.”\n\nProfessor Richard Bliss, one of several experts who examined the wood, said: “The Navarra wood sample is a structural beam and impregnated with bituminous pitch. It has mortise and tenon joints. And it’s definitely hand-hewn and squared.” The estimated age of the wood was set at about four or five thousand years.\n\nAlthough efforts have been made to find the ark on Mount Ararat, the definite proof that it was used to survive a cataclysmic deluge exists in the written record of that event in the Bible book of Genesis. \n\nThe ark had a carrying capacity equal to that of 10 freight trains of about 25 American boxcars each!
55619
No scientific research has proven the Bible wrong.  Some might scoff at this statement but what science has proven wrong is false beliefs held by some within the church,  beliefs that were not found in the Bible (i.e. the flat earth).  There is past and recent archaeological research that supports the historical accounts in Exodus and other books of the Bible.  Below are two sources for further information.
632013
While many of the Holy books of many religions confirm the same astronomical facts discovered by science, I think you are going overboard in claiming that the Q'ran proves ALL the scientific facts established by astonomy.\n\nFor example, does the Q'ran confirm that Valles Marineris is the largest canyon in the solar system?  That vacuum fluctuations can cause black holes to evaporate? That there are approximately 10 million stars in the Omega Centauri globular star cluster? Can we go to the Q'ran to confirm if water does in fact exist in the polar craters of Mercury?\n\nI certainly would agree that God or Allah, being all-knowing, knows these facts and many more.  He knows infinitely more about the universe than we could ever hope to know or imagine.  But to claim that one small book proves ALL astronomical facts is going overboard.\n\nI hope my answer has not been disrespectful to your faith.
171697
Searching for the Ark\n\nSince the 19th century, there have been numerous attempts to find the ark on the mountains of Ararat. These mountains have two prominent peaks, one 16,950 feet [5,165 m] high and the other 12,840 feet [3,914 m]. The higher of the two is perpetually covered by snow. Because of the climatic changes that followed the Flood, the ark would soon have been buried by snow. Some investigators firmly believe that the ark is still there, buried deep in a glacier. They claim that there have been periods when the ice melted sufficiently to permit part of the ark to be exposed temporarily.\n\nThe book In Search of Noah’s Ark quotes George Hagopian, an Armenian, who claimed that he climbed Mount Ararat and saw the ark in 1902 and again in 1904. On the first visit, he said, he actually climbed on top of the ark. “I stood up straight and looked all over the ship. It was long. The height was about forty feet [12 m].” Regarding his observation on his subsequent visit, he said: “I didn’t see any real curves. It was unlike any other boat I have ever seen. It looked more like a flat-bottomed barge.”\n\nFrom 1952 to 1969, Fernand Navarra made four efforts to find evidence of the ark. On his third trip to Mount Ararat, he worked his way to the bottom of a crevasse in a glacier, where he found a piece of black wood embedded in the ice. “It must have been very long,” he said, “and perhaps still attached to other parts of the ship’s framework. I could only cut along the grain until I split off a piece about five feet [1.5 m] long.”\n\nProfessor Richard Bliss, one of several experts who examined the wood, said: “The Navarra wood sample is a structural beam and impregnated with bituminous pitch. It has mortise and tenon joints. And it’s definitely hand-hewn and squared.” The estimated age of the wood was set at about four or five thousand years.\n\nAlthough efforts have been made to find the ark on Mount Ararat, the definite proof that it was used to survive a cataclysmic deluge exists in the written record of that event in the Bible book of Genesis. Confirmation of that record can be seen in the great number of flood legends among primitive peoples all over the world. \n\nThe ark had a carrying capacity equal to that of 10 freight trains of about 25 American boxcars each!
5622
None.. It was Noah's Ark
620911
Being an historian I will reserve judgement until I see the evidence personally.  I've NEVER read from a credible source that scientists have stated that the Bible to be one of the most accurate books ever written.\n\n\nShow ME the source and I will decide for myself.
1145432
They came down with the polar bears, via FedEx.  God destroyed the first incarnation of FedEx, as well.\n\nEdit - reading a couple responses here, I see that we have a couple folks that actually DO believe this ridiculous fairy tale.  Let me explain... first of all, the story of Noah and the ark is quite impossible.  (But through God, anything is possible, right? Mmkay)  If the fact that it's impossible isn't good enough for you...\n\nHow about the fact that it's a pagan myth dealing with worship of the sun god?  This is not conjecture, folks.  This is fact.  See my source...
955765
I have studied earth science. \nFirst of all, their scientific name is a (best estimate) i.e. in their opinion. so the wee table is just their own version of what refers to modern day equivalent in science. \nThe only evidence they use to suggest the bible is talking about a dinosaur (rather than elephant or hippo) is a tail like a Cedar.  this could apply to crocodile but they don't mention that - apart from to say "oh -BTW it can't be a croc eh?" without actually giving any decent reason as to why.\nI don't know why I can't read Job 41 18-21without realising it breathes fire.  Such obviousness escapes me.  As also does the beetle chat. err...because one thing (and I haven't bothered to look up if it can) breathes fire, another surely can? What - how does that work? Because a flea can jump 50 times it's own heigth, can I? Also, all earth scientist would love to have a fire breathing lizard, but no studies have proved it's existance.   \nThen later (I'm skimming this now, there's loads of made up stuff), they say "Nobody has ever proven that the Bible contains any inaccurately recorded information" - well I'd kind of like to see the other way round.  Proving a negative is, well, impossible.  If I said there is a planet made of jelly a milllion light years away, does that make me correct until proven wrong? \nthen they do that wonderful thing of "hmm yes we have evidence of dinosaurs being created one day before man etc etc...but in order to see it you have to read through pages and pages of more subjective chat", personally I gave up cos if they are that confident they would put there evidence right in their on their page, or at least give a description of how.  \nThis page is someone's belief and doen't make me think anything other than what I have studied through rational science.
131136
go to yahoo/google,and just write "about Noah's Ark".i guess u can find the website.
1132521
Archeology is a science and the science is not static like the "true"  Bible. In the Bible all the thinks are true without question, they are "God" words.  In science we question all the thinks and the true of today maybe be false tomorrow and this concept is not bad is really good. If you are a believer your true is based on faith, if you believe in the science your true is based on proof and the proof are generally changing. Yes there are a  lot of discrepancies between the evidences. Are you willing to accept the differences even if they point that Bible is incorrect?
197174
it hasnt been proven, but there are pictures out there, tho most of them are fake\n\ni personally believe that there probably once was one, but there really isnt much chance that it is still alive\n\nit was probably a decendent of some dinosaur thing\n\nso yea, id say it is, well, WAS real
777497
LOL sorry I wasn't aware of that relic. Has it been scientifically studied? Or is it off limits to everyone like the ark in ethiopia?\nHell, we could do that, then implant it in a virgin and bingo, homemade holyman. I guess scientists work in mysterious ways too. LOL
510491
i hid it in a mayonaisse jar in my freezer...\n\n\nI think you mean the ark of the covenant...not the Ark of noah
1023108
The fossil history is false. The scientists don't know what they are talking about. Radiometric dating is flawed. Everything is a lie except the Bible. I am trying out the other side of this argument. It's pretty weak I must say.
922216
Yes,the Ethiopians really do have the Ark of the Covenant.I saw something about it being in their possession a few years ago on the Discovery Channel & read something about it in National Geographic magazine.\n\nAs to why the Vatican doesn't have it,what I read about it & what I watched on TV about it,that wasn't even addressed.My guess is that they weren't sure about its existence,since,up until a few years ago,many people(mainly archaelogists),didn't believe that it still existed after 586 B.C.
1073879
I dunno.  \n\nWhat kind of wood did God tell Noah too make the Ark out of?\n\nThere is a reason it took so long too make it. Why?