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.
Nice try Tom, but no cigar....Ararat is a volcano, and basalt columns are formed of lava during the cooling period, not necessarily under water. Did you know that there are many such formations in the US and other places world wide including Turkey? Devil's Tower in Wyoming for instance is nowhere near any water.
Uh, by the way would that blade of grass be petrified?...Don't you have any idea how silly your arguments are?
Science, you gotta luv it Man we can even apply it to C34 now, he is very predictable, threw us a bit with the GPS coordinates but hey lets throws spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks.
(blatent change of direction...follow it or not, its up to you) Since we are talking about basalt columns in strange places, I found a page that has a remarkable piece of something that looks just like a wooden beam could anyone who knows about what these basalt columns look like take a look and tell me if that is what it is?
(blatent change of direction...follow it or not, its up to you) Since we are talking about basalt columns in strange places, I found a page that has a remarkable piece of something that looks just like a wooden beam could anyone who knows about what these basalt columns look like take a look and tell me if that is what it is?
I dunno, but it sure does look like an old timber and if you enlarge the full image there are more in the background...I do know that there is basalt on Mars though. Could be the rover is near the edge of a caldera, or perhaps there was life on Mars eons ago and it had a thicker atmosphere and plentiful water...
If you have read any of YSM's posts, you will have noticed she says the sudden upheaval of land during the fludd et al caused the craters on the moon or something to that effect. With that logic, this could have been a bit of left over timber from capt. Noah's boatyard flung into space and landed on Mars.
Basalt columns are usually formed by underwater extrusion. If those wood beams are really Basalt columns, how were they extruded underwater when they are located near the top of Mt. Ararat? Also, the ends of those beams do not look like the smooth break we see in your Basalt columns, they look more like broken timbers. And I might add here, the upper beam seems to have something hanging on it like a blade of grass, this would be more in keeping with wood and not a Basalt column.
Ohhhh Tom; you REALLY oughta stay away from things you know nothing about. Basalt columns are usually formed when volcanic basalt (hence the name...) cools but NOt under water. It crystallzes in predictable ways depending on the thickness and rate of cooling in air. You'd get real tired of looking at them around my place, which is a good 250 miles from any ocean, and they KNOW these ones formed during the massive Cascade Range volcanic period. No oceans involved. Period. Geology 101, Tom.
You know, formed millions of years before Genesis?
Basalt Columns at Reynisfjara Beach on Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rjbusch/3109381802/ - broken link)
(Do check out the comment below the pic about "slowly cooling". Hardly the case underwater, huh? Oh well... nice try at obfuscation again. It's the Tom Campbell "Say it, they'll buy it!" model of story-telling...)
You're thinking of "basalt pillow" formations, Tom. Not basalt columns.
Dr. Mies Bringing into Existence Some Pillow Basalt on Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cavemanjonny/2455440849/ - broken link)
(Doread the Dr. of Geology's comments below the photo, won't you?)
Sorry, but thanks for playing! Next! (Frank, stop sending these duds out... We need to get past the $100 dollar level! The audience is getting restless!)
Anyhow, I did like your latest video "proof" (you really don't understand that concept, now do you?), esp. the circular saw marks, from you know, a power saw, on the sides of that beam someone planted in the snow.
Alternately, it's an actual wooden beam. That make it THEARK, Tom? Again, your idea of proven evidence shows why the Church loves types like you. Give you a silly bit of evidence and you go all gaw-gaw, and send in your money. Great! I think I'll start a new Church:
"The Church of The Vague Video"
You still haven't answered if that previous video by the tour guide fellow Ertugrul qualifies in your mind as "hard new evidence". As has become your very predictable style, you now quote it all the time as an absolute.
You really think that stupid nonsense video qualifies as absolute proof, Tom? That video, on it's face, was an absolute travesty. It could have been covering an expendition to find the Yeti as far as we know. Or a search for a high altitude Starbucks. It provided absolutely nothing, other than Ertugrul is out making money taking the gullible to new heights.
And where is the report you speak of? The scientific publication from the Univ. of Hong Kong? Or was that a church out there? Ooopppsss. I think so.
You DO LFJ, Tom. Now proven.
Last edited by rifleman; 10-19-2009 at 03:44 AM..
Reason: typoz'n'stuff!
I'm really not persuaded by this bit of rock which may be fossil rock. 'Petrified', rather like Campbell's grave 'clothes', can cover different things in the hope that they can be made to look the same. Covering some object in mineral deposits can be done quite quickly, depending on the amount of mineral in the water. Fossilization - the replacing of organic material with a 'cast' of mineral, takes a lot longer. If this is a chunk of fossil tree, it is likely to be geological rather than from a wooden Ark. The conditions of Ararat don't seem to be conducive to petrification of the speedy kind, either.
Further, given the anecdotes that Campbell cites as evidence. If it is possible for so many people back in the 18th c. or earlier to stroll up there and examine the Ark, how is it that Irwin couldn't find it? How is it that this latest bunch found only a chunk of rock? Don't they know where the Ark is? I thought the location had been photographed.
This is nothing like good enough and there are so many objections that it must call into question the credibility of the Turkey/Hong -Kong expedition, no matter what credentials they wave about, as proper scientists, if they start yelling 'Noah's Ark' on the basis of a chunk of rock.
And I'm still not sure which of these Arks are in Turkey and which in Iran.
"Interest in Noah's Ark resurfaced in February 1993, when CBS aired a two-hour primetime special titled, "The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark." (Little did CBS know that they were using incredible in its accurate, proper meaning: "not credible.")
As Ken Feder describes in his book "Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries," the special "was a hodgepodge of unverifiable stories and misrepresentations of the paleontological, archaeological, and historical records." It included the riveting testimony of a George Jammal, who claimed not only to have personally seen the Ark on Ararat but recovered a piece of it. Jammal's story (and the chunk of wood he displayed) impressed both CBS producers and viewers. Yet he was later revealed as a paid actor who had never been to Turkey and whose piece of the Ark was not an unknown ancient timber (identified in the Bible as "gopher wood") but instead modern pine soaked in soy sauce and artificially aged in an oven.
Red-faced CBS, which had done little fact-checking for their much-hyped special, said that the program was entertainment, not a documentary.
Recent claims
More claims surfaced periodically, including in March 2006, when a LiveScience writer reported on yet another incarnation of the Ararat claim. A team of researchers found a rock formation that might resemble a huge ark, nearly covered in glacial ice. Little came of that claim but a few months later, in June, a team of archaeologists from the Bible Archaeology Search and Exploration (BASE) Institute, a Christian organization, found yet another rock formation that might be Noah's Ark.
This time the Ark was "found" not on Ararat but at 13,000 feet in the Elburz mountains of Iran. "I can't imagine what it could be if it is not the Ark," said team member Arch Bonnema. They brought back pieces of stone they claim may be petrified wood beams, as well as video footage of the rocky cliffs.
The team believes that, within the rock formation, they can see evidence of hundreds of massive hand-hewn wooden beams laid out in the presumed size and shape of the Ark.
The Biblical archaeologists seem to have experienced pareidolia; seeing what they want to see in ambiguous patterns or images. Just as religious people will see images of Jesus or the Virgin Mary in toast, stains, or clouds, they may also see images of Noah's Ark in stone cliffs. (In New Mexico's Sandia National Forest there is a large rock formation called Battleship Rock, which—from a certain angle—does indeed look like a battleship. One wonders what the BASE team would make of that.)
Other researchers remain certain that the Ark is in fact on Mt. Ararat. Noah's Ark enthusiasts are therefore in the somewhat awkward position of deciding which (if any) of several scientifically "definitive" Ark finds is the real one.
The BASE claims, as with all previous reports of finding the Ark, have yet to be proven. Ultimately, it may not matter, because, as BASE president Bob Cornuke states, "I guess what my wife says my business is, we sell hope. Hope that it could be true, hope that there is a God."
Yet the question is not about faith, hope, or God; the question is if Noah's Ark is real and has been found. Like Atlantis, the ever-elusive Ark will continue to be "found" by those looking for it—whether it exists or not."
"High in the mountains of northwestern Iran, a Christian archaeology expedition has discovered a rock formation that its members say resembles the fabled Noah's ark.
The team discovered the prominent boat-shaped rocks at just over 13,000 feet (4,000 meters) on Mount Suleiman in Iran's Elburz mountain range. (See Iran map)
[Alborz ... also written as Alburz or Elburz, is a mountain range in northern Iran stretching from the borders of Armenia in the northwest to the southern end of the Caspian Sea, and ending in the east at the borders of Turkmenistan and Afghanistan. The tallest mountain in the Middle East, Mount Damavand, is located in the range.(Wiki)]
Mt Suleiman and Ararat are in the same geographical area - east Turkey, N.Iran, but otherwise are nowhere near each other.
See the map below.
Campbell, I have to ask you. There seems some confusion. The site you favour, though 'Ararat' is often mentioned in the relevant websites, does not seem to be Ararat but Mt. Suleiman in the Elburz mts.
Can you clarify this?
Turkish authorities, veteran mountaineers, archaeologist, gelolgists, and members of Hong Kong-based Noah's Ark Ministries International displayed an almost one-metre-long peice of petrified wood before the media. The wood is part of a long structure they had unearthed during their 2007 exploration. And this is the first time in the history of the Ark search that an exploration team is getting material evidence and graphic documentation.
So now you are saying (admitting) that all of the evidence you have continually referred to is bogus? Not true (false)?
You have been lying to us about how it proves everything that you imagine? Gawd will get you.
Quote:
They have already found something credible, and you are now in serious denial of the facts. The photos from space showed us that there was a man-made object up there, and other personal accounts have been telling us the samething.
Or these photos show that something is there and you chose to call it man made, and declare it this ark of yours. All from second hand information of course. And we should believe you why?
Quote:
I believe from this point forward, there will be more attempts to reach the Ark, and it appears now even the Turkish authorities are onboard. Weather and wild bears and numerous other problems have made the search very difficult. Yet, I believe we will have more evidence coming to us as time passes.
Once again you try to foist off what you believe as fact. Not so. In your case, merely another attempt at deception.
Quote:
In 2002, Claudio Schranz took a video of what appears to be heavy wood beams protruding high up on the parrot glacier on Mt. Ararat. He was not able to get to that spot, but did take this video. The beams look man-made. Consider link below.
To you, anything that you can find that even hints at supporting your silly ideas is considered by you to be actual support and prove beyond reproach of your stand. You intreprete and claim fact. Others look at the same thing and laugh their butts off at your explanation and sources.
I dunno, but it sure does look like an old timber and if you enlarge the full image there are more in the background...I do know that there is basalt on Mars though. Could be the rover is near the edge of a caldera, or perhaps there was life on Mars eons ago and it had a thicker atmosphere and plentiful water...
Who knows...Perhaps all the life that god tried to drown went to mars instead....After all it seems in this thread anything is possible.
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.
Man we can even apply it to C34 now, he is very predictable, threw us a bit with the GPS coordinates but hey lets throws spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks.
Fibbing for the Lord, Pt. Deux
