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.
Around the year 1916 a Russian pilot saw the ark in a half frozen lake in a gully on Mt. Ararat. Story can be found on page 3 in the link below. It's titled, Expeditions Past: Lieutenant Roskovitsky
Around the year 1916 a Russian pilot saw the ark in a half frozen lake in a gully on Mt. Ararat. Story can be found on page 3 in the link below. It's titled, Expeditions Past: Lieutenant Roskovitsky
Since there's no permanent lake up there, but rather the not-uncommonn pool of melt-water (a "lake" in a gully up near the summit of a mountain? We call that a pond!), I stand by my assessment that it was an ephemeral (short-lived) pond. Else, where is it now?
You constantly make assumptive judgements, such as "Especially when lakes on or around volcanoes are rich in minerals."
Really? Are they always? The many lakes around volcanically active Mt. Rainier near my home are not heavily mineralized. Nor are they around Mt. St. Helens' summit. They CAN BE, but not often, and not near the top of the peak, Tom. That's called melt-water ponding. I'm simply applying logic and reason, and you make statements that apply to general cases, and to lakes down from the peak, as if they then apply to every case, especially up on the peak. You wish.
Simple logical thought tells us that some ephemeral lake near the summit, which isn't there today, does not indicate, or even suggest, that conditions are right for rapid mineral petrification.
You also continue to state that the early photo interps were convincing and that they made absolute statements that there was an Ark up there. Nonesense. no such statements were ever made. Other than, you know, of the type that your pal George Stephens made, along with his little disclaimer that "Of course, I've never been there..."
Others have been prompted to do higher-tech, much later and more thorough analyses, and they have concluded there is no evidence for a wooden Ark structure up there. Modern (versus 1947 or even 1988) analytical methods far outclass your stuff, and they all conclude there's no evidence yet. None.
Tell yah what, Tom: why don't you impress us all for a change and list both the positive and the negative studies, in quick point-form, to prove to us you've read both sides. Versus what's actually happened so far: that you've chosen, on purpose, to only read one side.
I get all my facts from reading the posts you provide us, Tom. I'm just passing on the vast confusion and inerrancies and contradictions in what you've provided. But then I do a larger, deeper search and I inevitably find conflicting evidence, always done by ACTUAL Universities, and credible geologists and archeologist. Your stuff mostly comes from devout wishful Christians, or expeditions funded by questionable groups.
(BTW, where's the follow-up research and expeditions from Hong Kong University & the intrepid but $$$-minded Ertugrul? Just curious, for such an astounding finding and all...)
You never mention those other studies, as any honest researcher would do. You know, like stating "Of course Dr. So&So, professor emeritus in geology from Indiana State University did note in 2007 that the outcrops on Ararat registered only as limestone/basalt in his careful studies using the latest X-Ray fluorescence techniques, unavailable until late 2006, but considered highly accurate, and regularly used in the modern mining industry with no errors to date".
You inevitably leave those statements out, now don't you, Tom?
Around the year 1916 a Russian pilot saw the ark in a half frozen lake in a gully on Mt. Ararat. Story can be found on page 3 in the link below. It's titled, Expeditions Past: Lieutenant Roskovitsky
Noah's Ark: Officially dead. In the water. So to speak.
Now an honest man would read what you've provided, Nea, and come back to confess his previous lack of attention to the finer points you've politely provided. But I'm telling you; this is his adopted and well-documented style: to ignore anything that's counter to his assumptions, to over-state the conclusions of others, merging them with definitive statements as his post history progresses, and eventually making broad (but totally unsupported) statements. And to openly prefer old studies, even going back to the 1800s, in lieu of modern proven technologies.
__________________________________________________ ____
When asked about specific issues that he knows will corner his errant ideas, he ignores them. Here's a few he's ignored in the past, despite the diligent efforts of many of us to get answers from him:
How many animals were required to be on the Ark, given that there's at least 40 M species / types on the planet right now, and probably more like 100M?
How did Noah feed and water and manage them? [even if there were "only" the stated 35,000 on board, for 180 days, this presents an unmangeable problem. But of course, there had to be WAY more than 35,000. There's 100,000+ kinds of beetles alone, for heaven's sake!)
Explain away annual sedimentary depositional varves and their incontrovertible proof of a multi-million year old Earth.
Tell us how recent and technically advanced satellite remote sensing scans are somehow less accurate and believable than old photo-ops ones from 20 years ago? [could they even spell X-Ray fluorescence, IR and UV, plus surface-penetrating radar back then?].
Explain, in short point form, the pros and cons of just the top ten archeological and paleontological dating methodologies, giving their strengths and weaknesses, as scientists always do. (short add: then explain why they used the wrongtechnique [C14] to date the stone Acambara dinosaurs).
Tell us why a piece of wood, petrified or not, equals The Ark.
Tell us why all the other Ark sites are wrong except the Ararat summit one, until Ertugrul suddenly comes up with a new cave find, and then sudddenly "That's it!".
How do GPS coordinates proveanything?
What's a "transitional" species?
Tell us why gross salinity changes in all the world's oceans would not kill off all aquatic life?
Tell us what happened to the dinosaurs after the flood? The bible ignores them completely. It's hard to ignore a herd of successfully reproducing T-Rexs!
Tell us why no credible studies have ever concluded that there's even the possibility of an Ark up on Ararat?
Explain how scholarly and well-organized Chinese writings do not mention a global flood, and do not mention a singular divine God, and, oddly, predate the Genesis creation timeline by thousands of years. Those lying Chinese, eh?
Give us a very brief point-form description of the basics of Evolution, as you understand them, since you criticize them endlessly. what, exactly, are the points you deny or criticize? (add point: is it logically and rationally acceptable to debate something about which you are totally in the dark, both academcially and spiritually? Just asking...)
Tell us why you only read and post articles with a Christian fundy "bent", and refuse to then read or comment on any other links provided to you?
_______________________________________________
Well, we all know the answers to these questions, even Tom. He just can't bring himself to admit it. He's totally cornered. And out-argued.
Last edited by rifleman; 10-27-2009 at 12:18 PM..
Reason: typoz and clarifications
Now an honest man would read what you've provided, Nea, and come back to confess his previous lack of attention to the finer points you've politely provided. But I'm telling you; this is his adopted and well-documented style: to ignore anything that's counter to his assumptions, to over-state the conclusions of others, merging them with definitive statements as his post history progresses, and eventually making broad (but totally unsupported) statements. And to openly prefer old studies, even going back to the 1800s, in lieu of modern proven technologies.
__________________________________________________ ____
When asked about specific issues that he knows will corner his errant ideas, he ignores them. Here's a few he's ignored in the past, despite the diligent efforts of many of us to get answers from him:
How many animals were required to be on the Ark, given that there's at least 40 M species / types on the planet right now, and probably more like 100M?
How did Noah feed and water and manage them? [even if there werre "only" the stated 35,000 on board, for 180 dyas, this presents an unmangeable problem. but of course, there had to be WAY more than 35,000. There's 100,000+ kinds of beetles for heaven's sake!)
Explain away annual sedimentary depositional varves and their incontrovertible proof of a multi-million year old Earth.
Tell us how recent advanced remote sensing scans are somehow less accurate and believable than old photo-ops ones from 20 years ago? [could they even spell X-Ray fluorescence back then?].
Explain, in short point form, the pros and cons of just the top ten dating methodologies, giving their strengths and weaknesses, as scientists always do. (short add: then explain why they used the wrong technique [C14] to date the stone Acambara dinosaurs)
Tell us why a piece of wood, petrified or not, equals The Ark.
Tell us why all the other Ark sites are wrong except the Ararat summit one, until Ertugrul suddenly comes up with a new cave find, and then sudddenly "That's it!".
How do GPS coordinates proveanything?
What's a "transitional" species?
Tell us why gross salinity changes in all the world's oceans would not kill off all aquatic life?
Tell us what happened to the dinosaurs after the flood? The bible ignores them completely. It's hard to ignore a herd of successfully reproducing T-Rexs!
Tell us why no credible studies have ever concluded that there's even the possibility of an Ark up on Ararat?
Explain how scholarly and well-organized Chinese writings do not mention a global flood, and do not mention a singular divine God, and, oddly, predate the Genesis creation timeline. Those lying Chinese, eh?
Tell us why you only read and post articles with a Christian fundy "bent", and refuse to then read or comment on any other links provided to you?
_______________________________________________
Well, we all know the answers to these questions, even Tom. He just can't bring himself to admit it. He's totally cornered. And out-argued.
Yes then he would have to admit, maybe he is wrong on ALL counts. Scary thought for them.
It's very obvious, that the one who wrote this article, did so not to consider the truth, but to smear the names of those who presented evidence for the Ark of Noah. Just look at how he presented the claim of Fernand Navarra. Navarra was a sucessful French "industrialist" who was now retired. Yet, in the article, before it speaks of him as an "industrialist", it states this first. (has been variously described as a "JUNK DEALER".
They really wanted to paint the picture of some guy who was driving a pickup truck and and throwing metal in the back, trying to make a buck. From the very beginning of this article, they wanted to diminish this mans character.
Yet now lets move on to their claim. Navarra stated he found a wood beam buried deep under the snow high up on Ararat and it was tested to 5,000 years of age.
Now the article stated, that one of the expedition members and his guides have said that Navarra purchased the wood from natives in town and carried it up the mountain himself.
The first thing I don't see here is the names of those who made that accusations. The second thing I don't see here, is the name of the town where he supposedly made the purchase. And the third thing we are not given, is the name of the person who supposedly sold the wood to Navarra. And then we are told that Navarra carried the wood up the mountain, (HIMSELF). And of course, the article failed to mention, that the wood he supposedly carried up the mountian Himself, was a petrified wooden beam that was 9 inches by 9 inches, and 5 feet long. How does an older retired man get a beam weighing around 200 pounds up a 14,000 foot mountain himself?
And then of course they go after the fadeing memory of old Ed Davis. Yet Ed told us he was in a cave on Ararat, and saw petrified wood from the Ark of Noah in that cave. Now in the year 2007, we have Turkish authorities with a team from Japan on Ararat. They find a cave, and inside the cave they find a petrified wooden structure that is 36 feet long, and 8 feet across. Of course, it would have to weigh thousands of pounds. And this petrified wood is in a place where no wood structure should be found. And finding it, only confirms the Ed Davis account. So now what are they going to tell us? Will they now accuse Navarra or Davis for hiding it there?
The stories of petrified wooden structures are being confirmed by recent discoveries. The empty accusations of others cannot be confirmed, because there is simply no names, or facts to back up such accounts. So if you want to base your beliefs on evidence found, your going to have to side with Ed Davis, and Fernand navarra. If you want to base your beliefs on nameless accusers. Well then, your beliefs will have to be based on accounts from the unknown.
Last edited by Campbell34; 10-27-2009 at 11:10 PM..
Now an honest man would read what you've provided, Nea, and come back to confess his previous lack of attention to the finer points you've politely provided. But I'm telling you; this is his adopted and well-documented style: to ignore anything that's counter to his assumptions, to over-state the conclusions of others, merging them with definitive statements as his post history progresses, and eventually making broad (but totally unsupported) statements. And to openly prefer old studies, even going back to the 1800s, in lieu of modern proven technologies.
__________________________________________________ ____
When asked about specific issues that he knows will corner his errant ideas, he ignores them. Here's a few he's ignored in the past, despite the diligent efforts of many of us to get answers from him:
How many animals were required to be on the Ark, given that there's at least 40 M species / types on the planet right now, and probably more like 100M?
How did Noah feed and water and manage them? [even if there were "only" the stated 35,000 on board, for 180 days, this presents an unmangeable problem. But of course, there had to be WAY more than 35,000. There's 100,000+ kinds of beetles alone, for heaven's sake!)
Explain away annual sedimentary depositional varves and their incontrovertible proof of a multi-million year old Earth.
Tell us how recent and technically advanced satellite remote sensing scans are somehow less accurate and believable than old photo-ops ones from 20 years ago? [could they even spell X-Ray fluorescence, IR and UV, plus surface-penetrating radar back then?].
Explain, in short point form, the pros and cons of just the top ten archeological and paleontological dating methodologies, giving their strengths and weaknesses, as scientists always do. (short add: then explain why they used the wrongtechnique [C14] to date the stone Acambara dinosaurs).
Tell us why a piece of wood, petrified or not, equals The Ark.
Tell us why all the other Ark sites are wrong except the Ararat summit one, until Ertugrul suddenly comes up with a new cave find, and then sudddenly "That's it!".
How do GPS coordinates proveanything?
What's a "transitional" species?
Tell us why gross salinity changes in all the world's oceans would not kill off all aquatic life?
Tell us what happened to the dinosaurs after the flood? The bible ignores them completely. It's hard to ignore a herd of successfully reproducing T-Rexs!
Tell us why no credible studies have ever concluded that there's even the possibility of an Ark up on Ararat?
Explain how scholarly and well-organized Chinese writings do not mention a global flood, and do not mention a singular divine God, and, oddly, predate the Genesis creation timeline by thousands of years. Those lying Chinese, eh?
Give us a very brief point-form description of the basics of Evolution, as you understand them, since you criticize them endlessly. what, exactly, are the points you deny or criticize? (add point: is it logically and rationally acceptable to debate something about which you are totally in the dark, both academcially and spiritually? Just asking...)
Tell us why you only read and post articles with a Christian fundy "bent", and refuse to then read or comment on any other links provided to you?
_______________________________________________
Well, we all know the answers to these questions, even Tom. He just can't bring himself to admit it. He's totally cornered. And out-argued.
Tell us why all the other Ark sites are wrong except the Ararat summit.
Genesis 8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
Most people stop there and then say. "See, know one can really know where the Ark is. It could be anywhere on mountains of Ararat."
Yet, they can only say this, if they fail to read verse five, and fail to consider what is being stated.
5. Now the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, (WERE THE TOPS OF THE MOUNTAINS SEEN.)
So after another two and a half months, the other mountains could be seen. Which means the Ark of Noah, would of had to of landed on the tallest mountain, of the Mountains of Ararat. And that would be, Mt. Ararat. It seems obvious to me, that God has placed such detail in the Scriptures in order to give us a clue as to the Arks location. The other Ark sites are wrong, because according to the Bible, the real Ark, landed near the very top of the highest mountain, on the mountains of Ararat.
"The bible says"....... "according to the bible".........Therein lies your problem...The bible accounts are fiction.
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.
Bias
