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.
Ok here is a hypothetical question if noah landed on top of the mountain how did he get down the mountain.
Well they all just strolled down in the afternoon sun of course. As Campbell will tell you, the snow and ice that (conveniently) hide the ark today and (conveniently) prevent anyone getting to within anything more than a fuzzy camera shot distance of it, just didn't exist in those days (though quite HOW he knows that remains a mystery to us all ).
Ok here is a hypothetical question if noah landed on top of the mountain how did he get down the mountain.
Well they all just strolled down in the afternoon sun of course.
Yes, God created a beautiful day for the millions of passengers of the ark and provided them with nourishing vegetarian meals as they descended from thousands of feet above sea level. The animals had become fast friends with each other after their long voyage and bid each other a tearful farewell as they reached the bottom of the mountain and went their separate ways. The vegetarian lions didn't realize that their descendents would be ripping the decendents of their friends to pieces when they reverted back to a meat eating diet many years in the future. But on that glorious day as the kangaroos hopped towards Australia and the penguins headed to the polar regions all of the animals were joyful as they realized they would be populating the earth by incest and inbreeding.
Evidence from microscopic studies and photo analyses demonstrates that the supposed Ark near Dogubayazit is a completely natural rock formation. It cannot have been Noah's Ark nor even a man-made model. It is understandable why early investigators falsely identified it. The unusual boat-shaped structure would so catch their attention that an eagerness to be persons who either discovered Noah's Ark or confirmed its existence would tend to override caution. An illustration of the degree to which caution was disregarded by supporters of the Noah's Ark hypothesis is shown by the mistaken identification of a metamorphosed peridotite with crinkle folds as either gopherwood bark or casts of fossilized reeds that supposedly once covered the Ark (Wyatt, 1994).
Furthermore, if the Creationism Flood hypothesis were valid (Baumgardner, 1985, 1990), the "dead animals" represented by fossils in this limestone must have died in the supposed Flood, and these fossilized remains are found in channels that cut the supposed Ark. Therefore, the supposed Ark is older than the deposits of the supposed Noachian Flood, and this relationship in itself conclusively refutes the hypothesis that the structure is the preserved remnants of the Ark."
or... The Proceedings of The Sixth Annual Conference on Creationism, a Christian-oriented scientific committee:
This is a PDF document that concludes:
"There have been many alleged sightings of the Ark, and numerous attempts to find it mainly on Mt. Ararat ,but search attempts so far have been without success. In the light of history, geology and archeology, we need to conclude that the Ark probably landed elsewhere, and that there may be little of it left"
This from some dedicated Christian Arkologists. Tom, you listening? Read it for yourself. Christians systematically debunking all the various "findings" so far. BTW, these proceedings are dated in... wait for it... 2008. Not 1947 or 1972, as your "findings" always seem to be.
Check these high quality photos out (you'll need to scroll down).
It takes a lot of bourbon-soaked imagination to assume these are "The Ararat Ark", especially when there are many many other duplicate structures like it around this one. See them all? I'm seeing a veritable fleet out there. You didn't tell us, Tom....
I'm searching for the link I posted about 8 mo. ago that affirms X-Ray fluorescence imaging from about 1999 or 2001 that confirmed, precisely, that this formation is a normal non-unique limestone-basalt outcropping, nothing more. Nothing more.
Ahhh yes; here it is: Read this link, from one of my earlier posts:
Please do, however, note the specific part about the assumption of a man-made object within the limestone-basalt continuum. It's nothing more than rock. Nothing.
We seem to be repeating ourselves here, Tom. This has already been dealt with. But back when I made that post, we didn't have the recent 92008) agreement of the 6th Conference by those Christians, that it's NOT on Ararat. Perhaps you weren't available to attend that week? Or: you just choose to not read or agree with any of it.
(Oh BTW, I'm still waiting for that calculation of how many species pairs Noah had to have on board. I know, it's a really big number, but you should be able to get t on one 8.5 X 11 piece of paper if you try hard...)
BTW, We're waiting for you over on the 'Shroud' thread.
Well, if you do not believe even recent historical accounts, what can I say? And these accounts are well documented, and the participants have come forward telling their same story for many years. Ed Davis even took two lie detector test himself, and claimed till the day he died, that he saw the Ark on Ararat. You must believe everyone that confirms the reality of the Ark by their personal accounts must be bold face liars. I would find that hard to believe, especially when so many professional people are involved. I believe your worldview will not allow you to consider such stories, because that might force you to reconsider the Bible. So I think, your only other option forces you to believe everyone involved must be lying. Do you really think, this is all some kind of big conspiracy?
Evidence from microscopic studies and photo analyses demonstrates that the supposed Ark near Dogubayazit is a completely natural rock formation. It cannot have been Noah's Ark nor even a man-made model. It is understandable why early investigators falsely identified it. The unusual boat-shaped structure would so catch their attention that an eagerness to be persons who either discovered Noah's Ark or confirmed its existence would tend to override caution. An illustration of the degree to which caution was disregarded by supporters of the Noah's Ark hypothesis is shown by the mistaken identification of a metamorphosed peridotite with crinkle folds as either gopherwood bark or casts of fossilized reeds that supposedly once covered the Ark (Wyatt, 1994).
Furthermore, if the Creationism Flood hypothesis were valid (Baumgardner, 1985, 1990), the "dead animals" represented by fossils in this limestone must have died in the supposed Flood, and these fossilized remains are found in channels that cut the supposed Ark. Therefore, the supposed Ark is older than the deposits of the supposed Noachian Flood, and this relationship in itself conclusively refutes the hypothesis that the structure is the preserved remnants of the Ark."
or... The Proceedings of The Sixth Annual Conference on Creationism, a Christian-oriented scientific committee:
This is a PDF document that concludes:
"There have been many alleged sightings of the Ark, and numerous attempts to find it mainly on Mt. Ararat ,but search attempts so far have been without success. In the light of history, geology and archeology, we need to conclude that the Ark probably landed elsewhere, and that there may be little of it left"
This from some dedicated Christian Arkologists. Tom, you listening? Read it for yourself. Christians systematically debunking all the various "findings" so far. BTW, these proceedings are dated in... wait for it... 2008. Not 1947 or 1972, as your "findings" always seem to be.
Check these high quality photos out (you'll need to scroll down).
It takes a lot of bourbon-soaked imagination to assume these are "The Ararat Ark", especially when there are many many other duplicate structures like it around this one. See them all? I'm seeing a veritable fleet out there. You didn't tell us, Tom....
I'm searching for the link I posted about 8 mo. ago that affirms X-Ray fluorescence imaging from about 1999 or 2001 that confirmed, precisely, that this formation is a normal non-unique limestone-basalt outcropping, nothing more. Nothing more.
Ahhh yes; here it is: Read this link, from one of my earlier posts:
Please do, however, note the specific part about the assumption of a man-made object within the limestone-basalt continuum. It's nothing more than rock. Nothing.
We seem to be repeating ourselves here, Tom. This has already been dealt with. But back when I made that post, we didn't have the recent 92008) agreement of the 6th Conference by those Christians, that it's NOT on Ararat. Perhaps you weren't available to attend that week? Or: you just choose to not read or agree with any of it.
(Oh BTW, I'm still waiting for that calculation of how many species pairs Noah had to have on board. I know, it's a really big number, but you should be able to get t on one 8.5 X 11 piece of paper if you try hard...)
rifleman, how many times do I have to tell you, that the Dogubayazit site is not the site I have been pointing to? That site has nothing to do with the Biblical location. You post here as if you have slam dunked the Biblical account, when in fact, you don't even have the right location. Really, this is starting to get embarrassing.
Yes, God created a beautiful day for the millions of passengers of the ark and provided them with nourishing vegetarian meals as they descended from thousands of feet above sea level. The animals had become fast friends with each other after their long voyage and bid each other a tearful farewell as they reached the bottom of the mountain and went their separate ways. The vegetarian lions didn't realize that their descendents would be ripping the decendents of their friends to pieces when they reverted back to a meat eating diet many years in the future. But on that glorious day as the kangaroos hopped towards Australia and the penguins headed to the polar regions all of the animals were joyful as they realized they would be populating the earth by incest and inbreeding.
Well, there are many eyewitness accounts of the Ark of Noah, and we even have satellite photos of a large man-made object in the same spot where the Bible tells us the Ark of Noah landed.
If you make your mind up before you look at facts, as Campbell34 has, you will accept anything proposed as facts to support your beliefs, whether they are real facts, skewed facts, speculation, or flat-out lies, and there's nothing anyone can say to change your mind.
Fact 1. Eye witiness accounts for years have told us that the Ark of Noah is near the top of Mt. Ararat, and they personally saw it.
Fact 2. They stated the Ark is broken in two and seperated.
Fact 3. George Strephen a satellite photo interpretation specialist who does not believe in Noahs Ark, has confirmed that there is a large man-made object broken in two, and resting near the top of Mt. Ararat. And it is seperated.
Fact 4. George Strephen gave those GPS numbers of that objects location to Robin Simmons, George Adams, and another man named Ahmet.
Fact 5. Ahmet and the others went to Ararat, and Ahmet alone went to the site that matched those GPS numbers. And with his camera took the photo of the object in question. Ahmet stated it was a large man-made ancient object that was rectangular and had timbers sticking out of it. It also had a slanted pitched roof with snow on top.
Fact 6. The object in question was in the Area where the Bible stated the Ark of Noah landed.
I'm not ignoring anything, yet one could draw an obvious conclusion. Especially if one considered all the facts of the case. Of course if eveyone is a liar, which is pretty much the only claim one can make to dismiss these facts. Well then, no one could change your mind either. Just play the denial card. And you don't even have to prove they are lying. Just say they are. That's a good way to deny facts. Is that what you call the scientific method? LOL
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.
).
