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.
The entire fairy tale, the whole enchilada, the hook, line, sinker, pole, angler, and the boat.--snip--
..the pier, the boathouse, the boat salesman, the boatbuilder, the anglers sports shop, the rod manufacturer, the reel manufacturer... Why stop when you are on a roll?
Ahhhh, what the heck... Go ahead, Tom. You're going to believe it no matter what little obtrusive facts get in the way. The pictured location of your particular Ark remnants do not support an ancient and stable "lake" filled with heavily mineralized water. That's what petrification requires. That and at least some extended period of exposure.
Seasonal ponds caused by summer melt, OK. That's possible, but the water would be very mineral-free. Yellowstone's colorful lakes, yes, that'd be believable. But there's none of those up on Ararat. Yellowstone's nice flat country, with lots of stagnant ponds. But a meltwater-filled temporary pond on the 50˚ slope pictured? Hardly the stuff of fast petrification. Or, frankly, any petrification.
But then again, I really don't care if it's petrified or not. It's just another indicator of the total implausibility of this entire story. The Hong Kong study, and I repeat for the umpteenth time, onlysaid that the sample provided was petrified wood. There's no claim whatsoever from them that it even came from Ararat (how would they know wherre a sample came from?), but even if it did, does that, in your agile mind, prove that it came from the Ark? The Hong Kong University did NOT say "This proves the Ark" now did they? That part's your own personal "stretch", plus that of Ertugrul.
If so, that means, in your mind, that any sample of anything organic from Ararat proves the Ark, right?
Seems that's all you need.
___________________________________________
As others have carefully summarized here, the major Ark problems are:
1) a barge large enough to hold the necessary numbers of animals and plants could not have been constructed by a few men with the materials and engineering available at the time. Not even today, with modern shipyards and engineering, could it have been built to sustain the legendary weather. This is easily demonstrated and calculated. Numbers don't lie.
2) the known requirements of successful reproductive ecology mandate that a species type being re-introduced requires a minimum sustainable startup population. Logical, right? Two ain't enough. Usually, this is in the 20 to 50 pair range (40 to 100 of each type), more for some sensitive species. No such numbers were claimed for the Ark's on-board population. Just a nicey-nice kiddie's fairy-tale "two by two". Utter silliness on it's face! And then there's this....
3) we now know (by count, not speculation) there's at least 35 - 40 M types, as in unique species, of organisms, reproductively isolated, on this planet. We also know there's at least that many again we haven't yet cataloged. Couple this with the usual requirement for at least 75% of them to have a male & female available for sexual reproduction, and the requirement from point #2 above, let's conservatively say 20 pairs of each, means, well, a REALLY BIG NUMBER of animals onboard. Actually, about 600 M minimum. No way around it. Impossible.
4) a global flood would devastate the landscape for, literally,decades. The salinity issues and vegetation ruination would be incalculable, and essentially makes this entire exercise in fantasy quite impossible. All marine and freshwater organisms would have been killed off. Talk about an ecological disaster!
5 Dinosaurs were not vegan, but even if they were, their food consumption (let's say 20 pairs of breeding brontosaurs) would exceed the carrying capacity of the barge. That's for them alone. And of course, then there's absolutely no mention of dinosaurs post-flood, or where they all went. Know why? The authors had noknowledge of dinosaurs; they'd long before gone extinct.
6) the original authors, not understanding any of this factual scientifically valid stuff, merrily concocted an allegory simply to make a point about obedience to God's will. Their entire life-long world-view extended about 5 miles from their hometown, and the entire colorful Ark story was never intended to be taken seriously, as a fact.
7) recent new high-resolution remote sensing studies have shown that there's absolutely no wooden structures up there, complete with cages and deck levels. Since these latest, high-tech findings do not support the Arkist's ramblings, they are either ignored or dismissed. Then the old 1947, 1980 or other tired old studies funded by Christian groups are trotted out once again as "proof". How convincing.
8) to disregard all of these facts, and the studies that have clearly shown no ancient wooden boat up on Ararat, but to then believe any silly new story that comes along simply because it suggests an actual Ark, is, well, delusional. Sorry; that's the only word that applies.
9) finally, Kirk Cameron believes in it, so it's gotta be a fake!
The entire fairy tale, the whole enchilada, the hook, line, sinker, pole, angler, and the boat.
Location? That my friend is solely in the mind of the delusional that see this fairy tale as anything different than a fairy tale. A bedtime fable about a gawd that kills 99.99999999% of all life on the planet because he is 'displeased'. Really dude how do you all rationalize that as the work of a loving and caring gawd?
God cares for those who love Him, and he judges those who oppose Him. And I believe the Bible is factual, and that is why every new historical discovery only confirms the Biblical account. And the only way you could dismiss the Bible, is if you are willing to dismiss all the evidence that continues to comfirm it. And if you are willing to do this, then perhaps, your the one who is delusional. For only one that is delusional, will dismiss or ignore evidence, and will imbrace their personal opinion only.
Ahhhh, what the heck... Go ahead, Tom. You're going to believe it no matter what little obtrusive facts get in the way. The pictured location of your particular Ark remnants do not support an ancient and stable "lake" filled with heavily mineralized water. That's what petrification requires. That and at least some extended period of exposure.
Seasonal ponds caused by summer melt, OK. That's possible, but the water would be very mineral-free. Yellowstone's colorful lakes, yes, that'd be believable. But there's none of those up on Ararat. Yellowstone's nice flat country, with lots of stagnant ponds. But a meltwater-filled temporary pond on the 50˚ slope pictured? Hardly the stuff of fast petrification. Or, frankly, any petrification.
But then again, I really don't care if it's petrified or not. It's just another indicator of the total implausibility of this entire story. The Hong Kong study, and I repeat for the umpteenth time, onlysaid that the sample provided was petrified wood. There's no claim whatsoever from them that it even came from Ararat (how would they know wherre a sample came from?), but even if it did, does that, in your agile mind, prove that it came from the Ark? The Hong Kong University did NOT say "This proves the Ark" now did they? That part's your own personal "stretch", plus that of Ertugrul.
If so, that means, in your mind, that any sample of anything organic from Ararat proves the Ark, right?
Seems that's all you need.
___________________________________________
As others have carefully summarized here, the major Ark problems are:
1) a barge large enough to hold the necessary numbers of animals and plants could not have been constructed by a few men with the materials and engineering available at the time. Not even today, with modern shipyards and engineering, could it have been built to sustain the legendary weather. This is easily demonstrated and calculated. Numbers don't lie.
2) the known requirements of successful reproductive ecology mandate that a species type being re-introduced requires a minimum sustainable startup population. Logical, right? Two ain't enough. Usually, this is in the 20 to 50 pair range (40 to 100 of each type), more for some sensitive species. No such numbers were claimed for the Ark's on-board population. Just a nicey-nice kiddie's fairy-tale "two by two". Utter silliness on it's face! And then there's this....
3) we now know (by count, not speculation) there's at least 35 - 40 M types, as in unique species, of organisms, reproductively isolated, on this planet. We also know there's at least that many again we haven't yet cataloged. Couple this with the usual requirement for at least 75% of them to have a male & female available for sexual reproduction, and the requirement from point #2 above, let's conservatively say 20 pairs of each, means, well, a REALLY BIG NUMBER of animals onboard. Actually, about 600 M minimum. No way around it. Impossible.
4) a global flood would devastate the landscape for, literally,decades. The salinity issues and vegetation ruination would be incalculable, and essentially makes this entire exercise in fantasy quite impossible. All marine and freshwater organisms would have been killed off. Talk about an ecological disaster!
5 Dinosaurs were not vegan, but even if they were, their food consumption (let's say 20 pairs of breeding brontosaurs) would exceed the carrying capacity of the barge. That's for them alone. And of course, then there's absolutely no mention of dinosaurs post-flood, or where they all went. Know why? The authors had noknowledge of dinosaurs; they'd long before gone extinct.
6) the original authors, not understanding any of this factual scientifically valid stuff, merrily concocted an allegory simply to make a point about obedience to God's will. Their entire life-long world-view extended about 5 miles from their hometown, and the entire colorful Ark story was never intended to be taken seriously, as a fact.
7) recent new high-resolution remote sensing studies have shown that there's absolutely no wooden structures up there, complete with cages and deck levels. Since these latest, high-tech findings do not support the Arkist's ramblings, they are either ignored or dismissed. Then the old 1947, 1980 or other tired old studies funded by Christian groups are trotted out once again as "proof". How convincing.
8) to disregard all of these facts, and the studies that have clearly shown no ancient wooden boat up on Ararat, but to then believe any silly new story that comes along simply because it suggests an actual Ark, is, well, delusional. Sorry; that's the only word that applies.
9) finally, Kirk Cameron believes in it, so it's gotta be a fake!
So. Petrified wood or no, it's all bunk. Fact.
Pond? I did not say anything about a pond, I said a lake.
Mineral free? How did you come to that assumption? Especially when lakes on or around volcanoes are rich in minerals.
Turkish authorities, and the a team from Japan went to the cave found by Ahmet Ertugrul and took samples from the cave themselves. And those samples were sent to Hong Kong University. And it was that University that stated the samples were from a petrified wooden structure. Are you now suggesting that both the Turkish authorities, and the team from Japan are lying. Here we go again, everyone according to you must be lying, because their findings do not agree with your worldview?
You see rifleman, when the evidence supports the Biblical account, you cannot bring yourself to believe the evidence. So the only thing you can do, is to suggest that everyone must be lying. WOW.
So I guess it comes down to this. Any evidence presented that does not agree with your theories of choice must be faked. Is that what you are telling us?
And the reason I say the petrified wood helps confirm the existance of the Ark, is because it confirms the photos from space, and the Ed Davis story, and other accounts. And those are accounts you have dismissed as well. Yet it was Ed Davis who stated he saw petrified wood from the Ark high up on Mt. Ararat, and he saw it in a cave. Really rifleman, at some point you have to start putting 2+2 together here. These people from the past were not lying, and these new finds only help confirm the truth of their stories. And Ed Davis said, not only did he see the wood in a cave, yet higher up on the mountain, he actually saw the Ark broken in two, and that was also confirmed by the photos from space, and other eyewitiness accounts.
Last edited by Campbell34; 10-27-2009 at 12:53 AM..
No, but the ark never existed and you have not shown any credible evidence to the contrary, just a bunch of hooha that has all been debunked.
But, it has been entertaining to read the deluded ramblings of a bunch of folks that grasp at straw to prove the ancient myths of the bible.
When was the Ed Davis account debunked? When was the George Hagopian account debunked? In the year 1955 Fernand navarra who was a French industrialist explored an area on Ararat and discovered a five-foot piece of ancient, (hand-crafted) wood. He discovered it about 40 feet under the Parrott Glacier on the northwest slope. Navarra's discovery was only a few hundred meters from an Anomaly filmed by the Pentagon in 1949. The wood was tested by the national Museum of Natural History in Paris, France.They stated the wood was subject to conditions very favorable to fossilization, and believed the wood to be about 5,000 years old. Can you tell us when this story was debunked? There is a great deal of credible evidence, and personal accounts. Yet if you keep going into denial, and pretend such evidence does not exist. Well, what can I say.
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.
Why stop when you are on a roll?
Massive Delusional Fantasies.
