Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Their words. "Pertrographic examinations conducted by the Applied Geoscience Center of the Department of Earth Sciences at Hong Kong Universite clarified that (THE SAMPLES SENT WERE FROM A PETRIFIED WOODEN STRUCTURE.)"
The key word you are relying on is the word "STRUCTURE". While "structure" can mean something like a building, a boat, or a man-made object, it is also used in reference to the composition of an object. For example, "chemical structure". In your quote of the word, structure is simply talking about the object which happens to have the structure of petrified wood. Is there any additional information that specifically states this piece of petrified wood was man-made? I don't mean a piece of petrified wood that was carved, but rather a piece of carved wood that petrified.
Presumably all wood can petrify under certain conditions. But it also means the wood has been buried. I don't think wood that is exposed to air will petrify. In the case of the Ark, the account is that it came to rest on Mt. Ararat. The water receded leaving it on dry land. The Ark would have eventually decomposed.
The wood used to build the Ark is translated as gopher wood, and is only found once in the Bible, in the account of the Ark itself. There have been efforts to try to identify what gopher wood is, but they are only guesses. In other words, no one knows what kind of wood was used to build the Ark. Translating it to say "gopher wood", is also just a wild guess. Regardless, it would have decomposed like any other wood.
Petrification involves a change of minerals. The chemical composition of the wood is leached out and is replaced by other minerals. Since the Ark would have been high and dry, it probably would not have been able to petrify. Instead, it would have gradually rotted due to bacteria, fungi, microbes and insects. There's no indication that the Ark was ever buried. In fact, the location of where the "wood" was found, would be mostly rock. Further, you wouldn't find any olive trees growing at that elevation (referring to the olive leaf plucked by the dove).
Interestingly, the Bible is not the only account of a great flood. The Assyrian version of the great flood predates the Biblical version. Most likely the Hebrew version is a modification of the Babylonian version which in turn originated from the Assyrian version.
That's why I do not like to adress such topics. And it's no more made up than evolution. Its all based on assumptions. I like to stick with what we do know, and not what we assume to know. Hey, I did not make up the answer, someone else did. My excuse is I don't know, and that should not be unbelievable to you unless everyone on the planet has full knowledge of earths past history. And of course, we don't.
Well at one time everyone KNEW that the world was flat. Refusal to further explore and learn what is 'known' may be wrong is simply 'stuck on stupid'.
I agree jdk, but assume you meant "hoax", not "oax".
Our most prominent poster here, Campbell34, has categorically failed to make his case on any level on this thread. His use of the inherently "silly" (I'm being generous here...) positions taken verbatim from Answers in Genesis or other YEC/Creationist sites has failed him completely.
Personally, I'm done with his persistent re-iterations of their nonsense, and his unwillingness to concede anything. I and others have categorically, systematically and logically refuted each and every point he's falsely made and all the assumptions he's fabricated and then repeated as though they were fact.
To this stubborn and combative perspective, we can add in his personal decision to not ever become involved in an honest and thoughtful debate. He's as Asheville said, "stuck on stupid". Understandably of course; it's his worldview that's collapsed.
It used to be romantic and heroic to "go down with the ship". I'll concede that much to Tom, but that's all.
I think the problem is that man wrote the words that comprised the Bible, so not everything is word for word accurate. How would Noah or anyone aboard know the entire world flooded? Maybe Their entire world isn't the same as the actual entire Earth as we know it. Maybe it was just their land. The people who wrote the Bible knew very little about the world outside them, and didn't have nearly the knowledge we do, so they described things as best they could. Who knows? I don't think Noah's story necessarily refutes the Bible's truthfulness, especially regarding spiritual matter and matters regarding God, which is what it was intended for. Being LDS, we don't dwell on those topics as we just don't know - we believe in scripture and science, and also understand the Bible has been translated many times in many different languages in many different generations.
I think the problem is that man wrote the words that comprised the Bible, so not everything is word for word accurate. How would Noah or anyone aboard know the entire world flooded? Maybe Their entire world isn't the same as the actual entire Earth as we know it. Maybe it was just their land. The people who wrote the Bible knew very little about the world outside them, and didn't have nearly the knowledge we do, so they described things as best they could. Who knows? I don't think Noah's story necessarily refutes the Bible's truthfulness, especially regarding spiritual matter and matters regarding God, which is what it was intended for. Being LDS, we don't dwell on those topics as we just don't know - we believe in scripture and science, and also understand the Bible has been translated many times in many different languages in many different generations.
It is more than just the debate of the ark. There is of course stuff like the idea that before the fludd, it never rained inferring that the known water cycle never existed and of course the creation of a rainbow.
The water cycle had to have existed since water is on the planet and makes up two thirds or so and of course, a simple elementary course in how rainbows are formed is amply described in a reputable science book.
The idea that a rainbow is a covenant from gawd that promises that he will never again destroy the world by water is so "assuring" seeing he still has other elements at his mythical disposal the next time he gets pissed, as we see in revelation OR the idea that he will consign the majority of his creation to eternal torment for all eternity, just because many do not recognize jeebus as gawd or never heard of him in the 1st place
How did Noah keep strong, well-armed men from storming his Ark? How did he fend them off? After all, he went all the way to New Zealand to get a pair of Kiwis, and the frozen waters of the Arctic for polar bears and the Antarctc for penguins, and the Arizona desert for Gila Monsters. How did he keep any other men from getting aboard to escape the rain?
Actually this is a mis-spelling that has been going on for centuries, in reality, it is Noahs' Arc!!! Noah was something of a drunkard and was well known for having a fondness for beer, the Arc was him relieving himself onto the decks of other boats as they tried to board his boat, by legend it was a particularly noxious fluid that repelled other boats when they got too close.
Folks, I have to make a point in support of Campbell.
Petrification of wood - the replacement of the organic tissue by mineral can (according to Wiki) take less than 100 years. The pilings of the Santa Maria of health in Venice have indeed been so impregnated by the minerals that they are, effectively, stone structures. I also read of wooden posts that got buried in sand and had turned into what certainly looked like stone within a lifetime.
It seems as though the process of fossilization in wood does not take anything like as much time as millennia and I have read that the same applies to the remains of prehistoric creatures, too. The age is not based on how long the fossils took to form but the strata in which they are found.
It may grate that Campbell may now crow but, this looks like science fact, so I don't think we can ignore it.
Where does this leave Noah's Ark? Perched on Ararat. Perhaps exposed to the weather in good summers and encased in snow and ice in bad winters.
I can see weathering but I can't see where the minerals are going to come from to 'petrify' the wood of the ark. There are wooden structures that stand for lifetimes in all weathers and they are still wood. There is no sign of petrification.
It seems that the wood of the Ark would have needed to be buried in soil or sunk in mineral - laden water for petrification to have occurred.
The waters, of course, receded before Noah came out and I must assume that the boat was still wood at that time. I suppose it might be argued that it only needed to be buried in soil for a few hundred years for petrification to occur.
But then, I've done archaeology and I know that that buried or sunken wood a thousand or more years old is still wood. It seems that very particular cinditions are needed for this petrification to occur. Despite the Wiki entry I still have some questions.
And of course, the main objection to the Ark is that it doesn't work as God's way of preserving all species during a flood, rather than the impossibility of petrified wood 9,000 years old (+/- 3,000 years).
I will look for futher information and also anything on the presently skimpy press release by the Hong - Kong Ark enthusiasts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Finis. The Ark Has sunk, ladies & gentlemen.
