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.
ARE, this has been covered in an earlier discussion with YSM, who also contended that petrification can and does take place in very short periods of time. She cited telphone pole bases in the Canadian north, plus wood that had fallen into pools in Yellowstone. Yes: these results prove that wood placed in a quiescent and mineral-laden body of water can indeed be inundated with minerals (i.e.: petrified).
But as I've asked Tom (C34), where exactly did the heavily mineralized water come from up on Ararat? Where, as we all know, the water would come from melted ice, which is essentially precipitation in the form of snow or rain. That's about as pure as water can be, certainly not carrying ANY minerals. I posted two pics above, one of Yellowstone, and the other of a nice meltwater stream.
The answer is, quite obviously, that any wood up there would not have undergone any petrification. no matter how long it was up there. If Hong Kong got a petrified sample, Ertugrul planted it before his "expedition", not understanding the physics and chemistry of petrification before he planted it up there.
Tom's answer? 1) well, he didn't, and then 2) he just repeated, again and again, his 'statement" of assumptive "proof", that indeed the wood was petrified, and that it's ...
THEREFORE....
...from the Ark. Simple as that!
Petrified wood where none could have formed, plus GPs coordinates for some other site than this latest one, plus old photo interpretation of visible form, not composition, and very assumptive statements by an analyst, plus some sort of assumptive scientific credibility by using REALLY BIG SCIENCE WORDS (out of context of course) "proves", to Tom anyways, that this is The Ark.
Quite the leap of faith, wouldn't you say.
As I mentioned, we have all spent more than enough time rebutting each and every possibility and point made by Tom and any other dedicated fund Arkinst here.
________________________________________________
There simply is no convincing evidence, not even slightly suggestive at this point, of a 2500 year old biblical boat up there. Not to mention all the other requirements for a successful voyage and subsequent successful re-introduction of all the species we now know to inhabit this Earth.
________________________________________________
It's all just nonsense, and Tom knows it, so he just goes into rote-repeat mode.
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.
I ran into the same problem concerning the petrified fence posts. Doing a search, the primary source for a large number of websites mentioning the subject seems to point to a TV program called Burke's Backyard. Apart from that the only photo I could find is of an object that was claimed to be a fragment of a petrified fence post from Washington state. The photo was found on the Institute for Creation Research's website. Even the ICR is not 100% convinced the object actually is a fence post. http://www.city-data.com/forum/11247626-post736.html
For the sake of clarification, there can be some confusion between the words petrification and fossilization. From what I can find, I don't see any real difference other than the words. Any organic matter can become petrified, but not all organic matter becomes petrified. Petrification only happens under certain conditions. I agree that petrification (or fossilization) involves burial and the movement of minerals via water which replaces the organic material with minerals like silica, calcium, etc. What you end up with is sort of an imprint of what once was a living organic plant or animal. However, not all organic matter petrifies in the same manner. Some objects become carbonized in the form of coal. The conditions are different from those that produce the typical forms of petrified wood.
Some plants and creatures (usually insects) can become encased in amber. Volcanic ash can leave imprints as well. For example, in the lava beds south of Bend Oregon, you can find holes in the lava that are the imprints of where trees once stood. Of course, the trees were completely disintegrated. All that's left is the cast of the tree. Same thing applies to the victims of Pompeii. It should be mentioned that imprints are not fossils though. With organic matter trapped in amber, Even though an insect may still be in the amber, it's doubtful you could extract anything useful from it, such a DNA. It may just be an imprint with the actual remains long disintegrated into a pile of dust at the bottom of the bubble, or the object simply absord the amber which replaced the organic matter.
Back to the Ark, I agree that if it settled on Mt. Ararat, it would have been left high and dry on the rocks. Even though a form of petrification can occur within a relatively short period of time, it still requires some form of coverage. The wood posts in water may be one example, but again it requires the object to be buried. That pretty well rules out petrification for the Ark. Nothing of it would remain to be found today.
There's another bone of contention as well. A lot of focus has been placed on Mt. Ararat in Turkey. I'm not certain it's known when it was given that name though. The point is that there are also several other locations suspected as where the Ark settled, but the names may have changed over time. That said, it's possible the location in Turkey is not where the Ark is said to have settled.
Then there's the other major problem, namely Sumerian and Akkadian accounts of a great flood which probably predate the Biblical account. There's little doubt such accounts would have certainly been known by the Babylonians and in turn the Israelites. Gilgamesh flood myth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There's also some compelling indication that it appears a catastrophic flood occurred in the Black Sea from a dislodging of material at the Bosphorous Straight (Istanbul Straight), which raised the level of the Black Sea to where we see it today. This would account for the remains of towns and villages found beneath the water. It could also be the source of accounts of the Great Flood which certainly would have been known to people away from the flooded areas. Any survivors of such a flooding would have thought the entire world had been flooded. Over time, the stories of the flood became more legendary leading to the accounts of the Epic of Gilgamesh and the flood of the Book of Genesis. Bosphorus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Finally, the items in question, such as the video showing what looks like a wooden beam sticking out of the ice, and the findings in a cave. As I understand, it was not possible to reach the "beam" sticking out of the ice. So it remains unknown if it was wood or not. It has only been speculated that it might be a remnant from the Ark. As for the debris from the cave, unless the debris is exceptionally large, it's not unthinkable that wood could have been placed in the cave. Isn't there some kind remains of monastery somewhere on the mountain? Also, which mountain is thought to contain the Ark - Greater Ararat or Lesser Ararat? Mount Ararat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ARE, this has been covered in an earlier discussion with YSM, who also contended that petrification can and does take place in very short periods of time. She cited telphone pole bases in the Canadian north, plus wood that had fallen into pools in Yellowstone. Yes: these results prove that wood placed in a quiescent and mineral-laden body of water can indeed be inundated with minerals (i.e.: petrified).
But as I've asked Tom (C34), where exactly did the heavily mineralized water come from up on Ararat? Where, as we all know, the water would come from melted ice, which is essentially precipitation in the form of snow or rain. That's about as pure as water can be, certainly not carrying ANY minerals. I posted two pics above, one of Yellowstone, and the other of a nice meltwater stream.
The answer is, quite obviously, that any wood up there would not have undergone any petrification. no matter how long it was up there. If Hong Kong got a petrified sample, Ertugrul planted it before his "expedition", not understanding the physics and chemistry of petrification before he planted it up there.
Tom's answer? 1) well, he didn't, and then 2) he just repeated, again and again, his 'statement" of assumptive "proof", that indeed the wood was petrified, and that it's ...
THEREFORE....
...from the Ark. Simple as that!
Petrified wood where none could have formed, plus GPs coordinates for some other site than this latest one, plus old photo interpretation of visible form, not composition, and very assumptive statements by an analyst, plus some sort of assumptive scientific credibility by using REALLY BIG SCIENCE WORDS (out of context of course) "proves", to Tom anyways, that this is The Ark.
Quite the leap of faith, wouldn't you say.
As I mentioned, we have all spent more than enough time rebutting each and every possibility and point made by Tom and any other dedicated fund Arkinst here.
________________________________________________
There simply is no convincing evidence, not even slightly suggestive at this point, of a 2500 year old biblical boat up there. Not to mention all the other requirements for a successful voyage and subsequent successful re-introduction of all the species we now know to inhabit this Earth.
________________________________________________
It's all just nonsense, and Tom knows it, so he just goes into rote-repeat mode.
Quite convincing, eh?
Ta.
Campbell does have a tendency to ignore awkward questions and simply repeat what he's said before.
What has come out here is that a lot of claims for an Ark have been made (Wyatt's is quite the theme-park now but not even Creationists accept it) nothing has been shown to be a large wooden structure up to anything like scientifically valid levels and the recent Hong - Kong/Turkey expedition has not 'published' as the Archaeologogists say and so far, the claims have only raised a lot of questions. At this stage it is far too early to leap to conclusions.
The real problem with the Ark story is that the Biblical story is unfeasible both in mechanical and theological terms. The Ark ain't up there mainly because there couldn't be an Ark. So the present state of evidence indicates.
So the petrification argument has some merits in that it can happen very quickly, but it doesn't seem that simply putting wood in water or earth will always produce wooden rock in 100 years and, yes, it is hard to see how we'd get these conditions in either Ararat or Mt. Suleiman.
So far the Jury is perhaps not 'still out', but is still waiting for some evidence.
Ta.
Campbell does have a tendency to ignore awkward questions and simply repeat what he's said before.
What has come out here is that a lot of claims for an Ark have been made (Wyatt's is quite the theme-park now but not even Creationists accept it) nothing has been shown to be a large wooden structure up to anything like scientifically valid levels and the recent Hong - Kong/Turkey expedition has not 'published' as the Archaeologogists say and so far, the claims have only raised a lot of questions. At this stage it is far too early to leap to conclusions.
The real problem with the Ark story is that the Biblical story is unfeasible both in mechanical and theological terms. The Ark ain't up there mainly because there couldn't be an Ark. So the present state of evidence indicates.
So the petrification argument has some merits in that it can happen very quickly, but it doesn't seem that simply putting wood in water or earth will always produce wooden rock in 100 years and, yes, it is hard to see how we'd get these conditions in either Ararat or Mt. Suleiman.
So far the Jury is perhaps not 'still out', but is still waiting for some evidence.
I'm sure most of the time when wood ends up in water, petrification will not occur. However, petrifed wood can be found in natural settings, especially around volcanoes. And as we know, the object in question sits on top of an extinct volcano. And based on the Russian report from 1914, the Ark was spotted half immersed in a small lake. Now, no one can say for sure, if the Ark was ever underwater entirely. Yet, with the volcanic enriched environment, along with the wooden Ark being immersed in water. Well, you would have an environment that would assist in wood petrification.
And of the numerous accounts I have read, most that saw the Ark up close will tell you, it is petrified. And of course, now we have the latest accounts coming from the joint Japan and Turkish venture. And they are telling us, that the wood they recovered from a structure found in a cave, is also, "petrified".
And the Ark that I am speaking about here, has (NOTHING) to do with Ron Wyatt. His discovery is a land formation and nothing more. The Ark of Noah, will be found near the very top of Mt. Ararat. Which is the Biblical location. And there are numerous accounts that speak of a large ship broken in sections, with rooms inside and cages as well. The Ark of Noah, has been presevered. And I believe it will be revealed to the world, at the time of God's own choosing.
I found the Ark in the southwest part of the USA, when I picked up a piece of petrified wood. So the Ark DOES exist, and there must have been a world-wide cataclysm!
I'm amazed that this thread is still alive...The flood myth has been disproven six ways from Sunday already, but I suppose the thread still has some entertainment value.
I'm amazed that this thread is still alive...The flood myth has been disproven six ways from Sunday already, but I suppose the thread still has some entertainment value.
I'm amazed that this thread is still alive...The flood myth has been disproven six ways from Sunday already, but I suppose the thread still has some entertainment value.
The only thing more entertaining is Moosiah's 2012 presidential bid ironically the same year when all the woo woos expect to be raptured away.
All hail Joel's army
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.
