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.
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."
Why do you call the sample found a bit of rock? Do you base that on your personal opinion? How do you just dismiss the findings of Hong Kong University? They clarified, that the samples tested were from a petrified wooden structure. Are you just pretending the samples were never tested?
The reasons people in the 1800s were able to walk up to the Ark, was because of the unusual heat from the summers. George Hagopian at the age of 10 with his uncle, was able to go there because they had four hot summers in a row. And that was back in the early 1900s.
They do know where the Ark is, yet as photo interpretation specialist George Stephen pointed out. The last time he looked at the object in question, it was buried under 70 feet of ice at an altitude of 15,000 feet.
Should we call into question any scientist who starts claiming evolution based on the fragments of a skull? At least with the Ark of Noah, God told us were to look for it. So I would say, such claims of discoveries found on the upper reaches of Ararat, have a lot more credibility.
Anyone who claims they found the Ark of Noah anywhere but on Mt. Ararat, are simply people who have not read their Bible. The Bible pretty much pin points the Arks location.
Last edited by Campbell34; 10-20-2009 at 02:07 AM..
Of course they were not. It was not like uncle Noah's boatyard was anywhere near the sea now was it? Actually the only fish that could have made it to the ark are these;
You lot always point to the "sea shells" on mount Everest as proof of your fludd. Does that mean like us skeptics, your gawd destroyed the entire marine population by changing the salinity of the water?
Pray tell - or better yet show us where it states that the millions of marine (fresh and salt water) mammals and fishies and crustations were stored during this epic fludd of yours? Did captain Noah also have a submarine version of teh ark?
I mean after all your gawd decided to wipe out all the beasties he created, where do the marine critters we have today come from?
Seeing I do not know the bible story as you infer, please help us and give us a bible verse(s) to explain this dilemma.
Why do you call the sample found a bit of rock? Do you base that on your personal opinion? How do you just dismiss the findings of Hong Kong University? They clarified, that the samples tested were from a petrified wooden structure. Are you just pretending the samples were never tested?
The reasons people in the 1800s were able to walk up to the Ark, was because of the unusual heat from the summers. George Hagopian at the age of 10 with his uncle, was able to go there because they had four hot summers in a row. And that was back in the early 1900s.
They do know where the Ark is, yet as photo interpretation specialist George Stephen pointed out. The last time he looked at the object in question, it was buried under 70 feet of ice at an altitude of 15,000 feet.
Should we call into question any scientist who starts claiming evolution based on the fragments of a skull? At least with the Ark of Noah, God told us were to look for it. So I would say, such claims of discoveries found on the upper reaches of Ararat, have a lot more credibility.
Anyone who claims they found the Ark of Noah anywhere but on Mt. Ararat, are simply people who have not read their Bible. The Bible pretty much pin points the Arks location.
I have to say that there's a lot I don't know about it. I looked at the information on this object and it seemed to be a solid chunk of rock, perhaps fossil wood and perhaps weathered stone. Is it claimed to be a piece of wood? If so why is called 'petrified'? Is it covered in a mineral deposit? If so, how on earth could it have got that way stuck on a mountain?
These are questions I asking you, me ol' mate. since you are the one putting the rock forward as evidence.
You can save yourself the trouble of insiting that I accept unsubstantiated stories (it is said that Hagopan's uncle fired at the Ark and the bullets bounced off. We don't often hear that bit of 'proof' as it tends to make one doubt the whole story) since you know well that only when some man made structure is definitely found and validated with more than a block of something, rock, wood or something in - between, will it be scientifically valid to accept that there is a man - made wooden structure up there.
And only when it is substantially studied and it is clear that it can only be a huge boat and the building of a pious replica Ark (during some of those hot summers you glibly spoke about) is ruled out can any credit be given to the identification of this raft (no pun) of varied claims as having some substance.
Your attempt to equate these tall stories and and a bit of rock (or wood) which could have been carried up in someone's knapsack for all we know (don't try to tell me that this was not a Bible - literalist Ark -enthusiast expedition) with the museums- full of fossil evidence for evolution by reducing that medaciously to 'fragments of a skull', does you no credit. And you have rather little left after your performance on the evolution thread.
I have of course completely discredited you assertion that the Ark location is identified by the Bible, and I would still like to know - is ths Ark site on Mount Suleiman in Iran on on Ararat in Turkey? It sure looks to me like it's on the Elburz mountains in Iran. You evidently do read these posts but you have a remarkably well - developed ability to ignore any awkward questions and then repeat discredited 'proofs' again and again.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-20-2009 at 09:11 AM..
Reason: evolution, not evoltuion
Gotta hand it to you delusionalists, getting a straight answer is like the Bill Clinton and his "what the meaning of is is".
A website created specifically to support the delusionalists delusions is not a credible reference, and the fact that you even used it proves the fallacy of the point you are trying to support.
Haven't we given yeshuasavedme and Campbell34 enough attention on this silly subject already? It's quite obvious that they are firm in their ridiculous delusions and won't see plain fact if it walks up and smacks them in the head.
So let's not stroke their attention wh*redom on this anymore. I know I have put a lot into this thread too, but they are both lost causes.
Ok. Now this is all I've been able to find on this expedition to Ararat.
"A panel of experts, comprising Turkish authorities, veteran mountaineers, archaeologists, geologists and members of Hong Kong-based Noah’s Ark Ministries International, also displayed an almost one-metre-long peice of petrified wood before the media and specially invited international experts....
The structure was discovered in the interiors of an unusual cave. The 11.5m wide and 2.6m high white wooden texture was revealed after removing thick layers of volcanic ash on the cave wall,” panel members said at a press conference.
One of the underlying issues in the search for the Ark is the proper identification of its wood fragments. A petrographic examination carried out by the Applied Geoscience Centre of the Department of Earth Sciences, University of Hong Kong, identified the object as a petrified wooden structure, the panel said.
“Some of the big holes found on the structure indicate the locations where branches used to grow on tree. In places, original holes are partly or completely replaced by individual minerals and crystalline materials that can be found in rock materials,” said Dr Ahmet Ozbek, a panel member, who is also a faculty of Geology Engineering Kahramanmara Suctcu Imam University.
The structure was discovered in the interiors of an unusual cave. The 11.5m wide and 2.6m high white wooden texture was revealed after removing thick layers of volcanic ash on the cave wall,” panel members said at a press conference."
(various sources which generally cut and paste the same article".
However it still isn't clear what is meant by 'petrified wood'. Is it fossilized, or just mineral - coated? And how could they go all that way, find the Ark and come away with just this 'petrified wood' (whatever that means) and some claimed 'white wooden texture' under the volcanish ash layer. The volcanic ash is odd. Mt Ararat is supposed to have been long - dead. I suppose that can be argued both Old -earth and Young -earth though.
I'm still not clear whether this is the same artefact found split into two. A cave doesn't sounds much like that broken half of the Ark buried in snow or ice and I'm still not clear whether that Ark site in Iran is the same as the one shown in the aerial photos. Since you were talking about an Ark split in two, it must be the same site.
These are serious questions and I'd like clarification. I hope you can clear them up rather than parade the claims of "Hong Kong-based Noah’s Ark Ministries International," (pretending to be scientists) and their take on what 'petrified wood' means. Let's face it, the people doing the tests could only say it was petrified wood. That it comes from a 'structure' must be the 'Panel's' take on it. Look at the pictures. It is a chunk of something that shows no sign of having been part of a structure.
I can see that you are bending over to accept all the claims made by this bunch of ark -enthusiasts but we really do need a lot more from this site. From a proper bunch of scientists, not a group of Bible - literalists.
So you pass a christian site on to us for your answer?hahahahahahaha Oh give me a break. More made up answers and excuses. unbelievable.
Think we need a new term to describe those that support these outrageous theories. A christer or a fundie can believe feverently in their religion, yet recognize that some aspects of it are just a fable and apply common sense and even some intelligence to their views.
Then there are those the view fable as reality, and believe in such nonsense as the universe is 6000 years old, adam and eve, noahs ark, that man and dinosaur co-existed, etc. etc.
de-lu-sional-ist: noun
1. A person that practices and supports delusional thought or beliefs.
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.
