Donna’s Ark

I had passed on this story last week because it seems like a silly celebrity story where we were supposed to pooh-pooh the beauty temporarily ruined by her ridiculous bad judgment. I wasn’t amused. It wasn’t funny. But, this piece I liked because it talked about WHY people still search for the Ark.

‘Baywatch’ star ends Noah’s Ark search –  LiveScience.

“Baywatch” star Donna D’Errico was recently injured on a mountain in Turkey while on a quest to find Noah’s Ark. The former model and actress was on Mount Ararat with a documentary film crew when she slipped in a rockslide; a colleague caught her before she fell off a cliff.

Scientists have used satellites, computers, and powerful cameras to pinpoint the Ark’s exact location on Mt. Ararat.” Nearly 40 years later, that evidence remains elusive.

Like those before her, D’Errico insists that her quest is based in science as much as personal faith. True believers have long used science and powerful technology in their search for Noah’s Ark, including satellite imaging and powerful cameras. She was quoted in The Daily Mail as saying that she had studied the reports of Noah’s Ark extensively, and she “knows where the sightings have been. According to my research, the ark lays broken into at least two, but most likely three, pieces.”

Tip: Mike Hill

She is not deterred. People of faith usually are not. The ark story is NOT plausible and not scientific. Some sciencey-looking claims appear in Creationist literature but they are not credible.

It didn’t exist, and it won’t be found. You are free to spend your money and efforts, AND risk your life, on wild goose chases if you wish.

The Impossible Voyage of Noah’s Ark

The Skeptic Dictionary: Noah’s Ark

  7 comments for “Donna’s Ark

  1. August 22, 2012 at 7:51 AM

    She should have no problem finding the Ark – plenty of others have claimed to have found it so there should be a well-worn path leading to it.

  2. Massachusetts
    August 22, 2012 at 10:31 AM

    Isn’t there some kind of preserved wooden structure up there that attracts people’s attention? If so it would be interesting to know what it actually and how old it really is rather than the ark story.

  3. Massachusetts
    August 22, 2012 at 10:33 AM

    I’m not a believer in the ark story, but for the sake of argument, an ancient ship would be perhaps be big enough to house DNA samples of all the critters on the planet, 2 for each species. I’m sure that’s been the subject of a science fiction story, probably set in space. Though it would have to be smaller than the ark noted in the Bible, since those dimensions yield a ship that breaks under its own weight (as per previous posts I’ve read on this site. 🙂

  4. One Eyed Jack
    August 22, 2012 at 3:41 PM

    Silly skeptics. The ark was a Tardis, much larger inside than on the outside. Being a Tardis, it could create any number of rooms needed to house as many animals as required.

    This is the mistake creationist make. They keep looking for a big boat when they should be looking for a much smaller police call box.

  5. Geoff
    August 23, 2012 at 12:15 AM

    Yeah it’s kind of funny when people, all too readily, find hewn wood on the slopes. Proof!

    Yes it is. It’s proof of hewn wood on the slope. Like the thousands of tons of hewn wood that made up the crucifixes that pilgrims lugged up there in the middle ages. Not to mention the other thousands of tons of hewn wood there for no discernibly related reason.

    But the crucifix wood is so deliciously ironic. Mmmmm…irony. Tastes like chicken.

  6. Geoff
    August 23, 2012 at 12:20 AM

    I think a lot of people give the Bible way too much credit. They wax poetically about how lyrical it is and blah, blah, blah.

    Cripes…I find it a colossal. If they ever make a church of Dr. Who, count me in.

  7. One Eyed Jack
    August 24, 2012 at 12:28 PM

    You might be able to sneak in with the Unitarians.

    I hope we get to wear a fez if we join the Church of Dr. Who. Fezzes are cool. The Doctor said so.

Comments are closed.