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.
You mean like, if they are asked: "So... exactly how many angels are dancing on the head of this pin?" they answer, confidently..
"I... Wait! Isn't that Jay Leno over there?" and when you look back to resume the questioning, they've skipped out.
Like that?
BTW, I just did a quick and very easy bit of research*, easily discovered, on the current bestresolution of agricultural remote sensing data by satellites. The BEST they can do right now is a 30 X 30 m pixel. I'd link the site, but it's a PDF document and I don't know how to grab it. It's remarkably easily found though; just Google "agricultural remote sensing resolution".
Point is, the alleged wooden Ark stub remnants sticking out of the snow hardly amounted to a 900 sq. meter [30 X 30; about 850 sq. yds for the unscientific] readable surface. Under the best possible viewing/scanning conditions if you hope to get even those results.
So, now Tom presents and expects us to then assume that these recent 2003 technological abilities somehow work backwards in time to when George Stephens did an entirely different sort of relatively low-tech analysis, with simple IR photography. Resolution back then, at best, was probably about 150 X 150 meters, or in simple terms, an object the size of two football fields was necessary to even differentiate it from the background noise.
And therefore this was "OBVIOUSLY" a man-made object? A fuzzy little bit of darkness sticking out of an icefield? Tell me, Tom, if you just gaze out at a forested hillside about two miles away, (we'll assume the clearest of all possible days just to help you out here) can you clearly tell us, with your naked eye, that it's a obviously a Downy woodpecker or a Common flicker? "What bird", he says, squinting...
Really? Wow! You can? Amazing.
Well then I guess it WAS the Ark after all. No questions here.
(Gag.)
(*I warned you about getting ahead of yourself on this scientific stuff, didn't I, Tom? You really ought to check up on your points, from a sort of minimalist perspective, before you set yourself up for this sort of quick dismissal!)
The point I was making, is the fact that unless we have advanced knowledge, there are some questions we will never be able to answer. I have not defeated my argument at all. I am only pointing out a factual statement. Now there are people here, who do not believe the Ed Davis account. Yet, Davis did say back in the 1940s, that he was taken to a cave on Mt. Ararat. And in that cave, he saw petrified wood from the Ark of Noah that had broken in two. Now, in February of 2007, we have Turkish authorities, archaeologist, and geologists who climb Mt. Ararat. And what do they find? That's right, they find a large petrified wood structure, that was placed in a cave, where no structure should be found. So to the unbias mind, that should let us know, that maybe Ed Davis was speaking the truth after all. And maybe the rest of the Ed Davis story is true as well. So why is it, when the evidence confirms his account of the cave, and the petrified wood. Why do some of you, still refuse to believe him?
Where exactly is this cave Ed Davis claims? Is it the same one shown in the Chinese photos?
Where exactly is this cave Ed Davis claims? Is it the same one shown in the Chinese photos?
Ahh yes... The latest big hope for C34. Noting, of course, that these are all different sites. But oddly, and illogically, they're all "The Real One".
In case you missed it, here's the definitive and stunning bit of video evidence provided by Tom's new heros. Who also note they will be looking at locations A and C. (When, again?) Because now the Ark's in 3, not 2 or 1, separate pieces or locations. It's all SO confusing!
(Brought to us, I also note, by the Noah's Ark International Group. Ahhh yes; unbiased, you betcha! [this ain't how good investigative science is done, folks...])
I particularly like the little model of The Ark with snow hand-dribbled over it, briefly glimpsed in the video twice. Plus Ertugrul's definitive statement that this is, you know, the site, because the people, you know, want it to be.
The point I was making, is the fact that unless we have advanced knowledge, there are some questions we will never be able to answer.
So, if we remain ignorant we are justified in saying god did it? Is that what you are saying? If so, it is the first truth I recall coming from you.
Quote:
I have not defeated my argument at all. I am only pointing out a factual statement. Now there are people here, who do not believe the Ed Davis account. Yet, Davis did say back in the 1940s, that he was taken to a cave on Mt. Ararat. And in that cave, he saw petrified wood from the Ark of Noah that had broken in two. Now, in February of 2007, we have Turkish authorities, archaeologist, and geologists who climb Mt. Ararat. And what do they find? That's right, they find a large petrified wood structure, that was placed in a cave, where no structure should be found. So to the unbias mind, that should let us know, that maybe Ed Davis was speaking the truth after all. And maybe the rest of the Ed Davis story is true as well. So why is it, when the evidence confirms his account of the cave, and the petrified wood. Why do some of you, still refuse to believe him?
Once again, you take a second hand statement and claim it to be the verified truth. Because it happens to agree with the snake oil you are trying to sell.
Explain to me how, even if petrified wood were found in these caves of yours, it automatically makes it from this ark. You appeal to the "unbiased" mind yet fail to display it in your own statements.
You have no supporting evidence, independent verification, access to what you claim as evidence yet you claim it as fact. The question you should be asking is why do you continue to blindly believe what some others tell you while denying what others tell you? There is your bias.
But we KNOW how many species of plants and animals inhabit the earth. Thus common sense tells us that these millions and millions of animals and millions and millions of plants (with the exception of aquatic plants, plants DROWN just like animals) that would also have to have been saved.
Now as a reasonable and thinking person would one not assume that ALL of these millions and millions plants AND aminmals had to be on the 'big boat'?
Or am I just wasting my time expecting common sense, reason and thought from the defender of an outrageous fairy tale.
But to answer your question, the current answer is 13 billion light years, but unlike fairy tale thinking, science is always striving to learn more, and increase man's collective knowledge, where fundies want to teach outrageous fairy tales such as the 'big boat' crap AS science.
And science uses knowledge, common sense and reason and freely admits that 13 billion light years is likely not the 'final answer' vs. fairy tale followers that use one convoluted book of fables and the 'final answer', thus there will be no discussion, or reasoning that just maybe there is no way in hell it happened as the fairy tales goes.
And yet, when science is confirming that Biblical account, should we ignore that science? Should we ignore the discoveries, only because they defy are personal understanding, and logic?
And I believe you are wrong about how many animals needed to be on the Ark of Noah. Just look at the different breeds of dogs we see today. Do you understand, that most breeds of dogs have only existed for about the last 400 years? And if that is the case, then the few dogs needed to produce those future generations, would of required only a small area on the Ark.
And taking into consideration that the Ark may of equalled the volume of 569 railroad stock cars. And the fact that no plants or aquatic life was on the Ark. Well then, the size required to house such an abundance of living animals may be greatly exaggerated. Of course, all of this is just speculation. There have been studies to consider such questions, yet I believe most of them are a waste of time. I hate to speculate on things, especially when other hard facts are available, and should not be ignored. However, here is a link below that has taken the time to consider such a question.
So, if we remain ignorant we are justified in saying god did it? Is that what you are saying? If so, it is the first truth I recall coming from you.
Once again, you take a second hand statement and claim it to be the verified truth. Because it happens to agree with the snake oil you are trying to sell.
Explain to me how, even if petrified wood were found in these caves of yours, it automatically makes it from this ark. You appeal to the "unbiased" mind yet fail to display it in your own statements.
You have no supporting evidence, independent verification, access to what you claim as evidence yet you claim it as fact. The question you should be asking is why do you continue to blindly believe what some others tell you while denying what others tell you? There is your bias.
Well first of all, my second hand account comes to us from Hong Kong University, and the Turkish authorities. Your claim that we have no independent verification simply ignores the reality of all the sources.
It was Dr. Ahmet Ozbek, who is a faculty of Geology Engineering Kahramanmara Suctcu Imam University, who dismissed the possibility of the wooden structure appearing naturally around the discovery site. And it was Professor Oktay Belli, director of Eurasian Archaeology Institute, University of Istanbul, who stated there was no vegetation on Mount Ararat since 2000 B.C. It was a petrographic examination carried out by Applied Geoscience Center of the Department of Earth Sciences, University of Hong Kong, that identified the object as a petrified wooden structure. This discovery was conducted by an international effort. You could not hope to get any more independent verification than this.
The reason I say the wood comes from the Ark, is because the Bible places the Ark of Noah, almost at the very top of (THIS) mountain. And only (THIS) mountain. And the fact, that only (THIS) mountain has such a wealth of corroborated eyewitness accounts, all telling us, the Ark is there, and broken in two. These statements, and others only confirm what they are now finding. For years, such men as Ed Davis, George Hagopian, David Duckworth, George Stephens, and so many others have stated. That there is a man-made structure very close to the top of Mt. Ararat, and it's wood is petrified. Ed Davis stated, that the petrified wood he saw was both in a cave, and on the Ark itself. George Hagopian said, when he first saw the Ark, he thought it was an ancient stone house. David Duckworth stated he had been told by Dr. Robert Geist, that back in 1968, they had to use thermite to burn into portions of it's hull. Now in 2007, we have this Turkish-Hong Kong exploration team, that is in the same location as the other before them. And they are telling us, they have found a large structure 36 feet long, and 8 feet wide stored in a cave. And this structure is petrified wood. Yes, you are correct, I am very bias. Yet, I am bias because of the evidence. And these stories from the past, and this new found evidence, should not be ignored. And the others who do not believe this is the Ark of Noah, only do not believe, because they themselves have not experience it. They cannot even get their minds around it. Yet all those who have gone there, in the rare times of summer heat, they will tell you. It is the Biblical Ark, great in size, and broken in two.
Well first of all, my second hand account comes to us from Hong Kong University, and the Turkish authorities. Your claim that we have no independent verification simply ignores the reality of all the sources.
It was Dr. Ahmet Ozbek, who is a faculty of Geology Engineering Kahramanmara Suctcu Imam University, who dismissed the possibility of the wooden structure appearing naturally around the discovery site. And it was Professor Oktay Belli, director of Eurasian Archaeology Institute, University of Istanbul, who stated there was no vegetation on Mount Ararat since 2000 B.C. It was a petrographic examination carried out by Applied Geoscience Center of the Department of Earth Sciences, University of Hong Kong, that identified the object as a petrified wooden structure. This discovery was conducted by an international effort. You could not hope to get any more independent verification than this.
The reason I say the wood comes from the Ark, is because the Bible places the Ark of Noah, almost at the very top of (THIS) mountain. And only (THIS) mountain. And the fact, that only (THIS) mountain has such a wealth of corroborated eyewitness accounts, all telling us, the Ark is there, and broken in two. These statements, and others only confirm what they are now finding. For years, such men as Ed Davis, George Hagopian, David Duckworth, George Stephens, and so many others have stated. That there is a man-made structure very close to the top of Mt. Ararat, and it's wood is petrified. Ed Davis stated, that the petrified wood he saw was both in a cave, and on the Ark itself. George Hagopian said, when he first saw the Ark, he thought it was an ancient stone house. David Duckworth stated he had been told by Dr. Robert Geist, that back in 1968, they had to use thermite to burn into portions of it's hull. Now in 2007, we have this Turkish-Hong Kong exploration team, that is in the same location as the other before them. And they are telling us, they have found a large structure 36 feet long, and 8 feet wide stored in a cave. And this structure is petrified wood. Yes, you are correct, I am very bias. Yet, I am bias because of the evidence. And these stories from the past, and this new found evidence, should not be ignored. And the others who do not believe this is the Ark of Noah, only do not believe, because they themselves have not experience it. They cannot even get their minds around it. Yet all those who have gone there, in the rare times of summer heat, they will tell you. It is the Biblical Ark, great in size, and broken in two.
Simply amazing that you say first, it is extremely difficult to get to and restricted by the Turkish government.
Second, apparantly anyone can get there at any time since, according to you, so many have been there.
Third, it is buried in 80 feet of ice and invisible, except when it isn't.
Fourth, it is either in one, two or three pieces and only at the cite that you approve of in direct contrast to what equally "qualified" so called experts say. Only you could possibility be correct. Why? The buybull says so! Yours are the only assumptions (you know, made up facts) that can possibly be valid.
All this and you continue with your fallacy that you should be taken seriously.
And you wonder why others have a problem with your credibility?
It is the Biblical Ark, great in size, and broken in two.
Didn't you say it was in a lake 80 feet under? But you're also saying that it's broken in two? And yet the Noah's Ark Discovery clip, says there are 3 locations, one of which is a cave. The video clips of the cave doesn't look the same as the cave photos by the Chinese. Are there 2 caves? If so, then we now have pieces of the ark in at least 5 different locations. The plot thickens and gets more confusing by the moment.
And yet, that doesn't jive with the account of the Russian Expedition as described by 93-year-old Armais Arutunoff to Dave GuMaer. Remember, you're the one who used the link about the Russian Expedition to validate Ed Davis' claim.
Quote:
From what Dave GuMaer could remember from Arutunoff’s description, the dimensions of the Ark were some 450 feet long, by fifty feet high, some 100 to 150 feet wide. It was in the shape of a barge. The Ark had a narrow catwalk running along the top length of the barge. The soldiers had walked inside the structure and had observed animal stalls of all different sizes made of wood. All the wood was petrified. They also found edible wheat and honey.
This description says it was 450 feet long x 50 feet high x 100 to 160 feet wide. Does the description sound like it was broken to you?
Further, the text goes on to say:
Quote:
It was at this point when Mr. Arutunoff reached into a drawer in his desk and very casually removed two photographs which he laid in front of Dave GuMaer. Here were the photographs of Noah’s Ark taken by the Russian photographer on Mount Ararat. Dave remembers them as being grainy and enlarged but clearly showing the barge Arutunoff had just described. The pictures were of a large, barge-type craft protruding from the ice. The barge was on a shelf overhanging a frozen lake below. About three-fourths of the structure was still encased in an ice pack. The Ark was tilted at an angle. In the doorway of the Ark stood three Russian soldiers linked arm in arm. The doorway appeared to be about twenty-five feet high and some twenty-five or thirty feet wide. Off to one side of the Ark was some type of wooden altar.
Do these descriptions sound like it was broken in two to you? Okay, you're saying the piece Ed White described as "a large structure 36 feet long, and 8 feet wide stored in a cave." If this is the same cave shown in the Chinese photos, how would it end up in a cave with such a narrow opening?
I think you (or someone) also mentioned a figure using boxcars in relation to the size and volume of the ark. Here's an interesting tidbit:
Quote:
It is given in cubits as being 300 cubits long by 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high. A cubit in the OT was generally about 17.5 inches. However, an Egyptian royal cubit measured about 20.5 inches. Since Moses was educated in Egypt we must allow for the possibility that the longer measurement was meant here. The Ark, therefore, could have measured from 437 feet to 512 feet in length! It was not until the late 19th century that a ship anywhere near this size was built.
With the shorter cubit the Ark would have an internal volume of 1,518,750 cubic feet, or the equivalent of 569 standard railroad boxcars. If the average sized animal was the size of a sheep it means the Ark could hold over 125,000 sheep. (Assuming the shape of the Ark to be rectangular there would have been over 100,000 sq. ft of floor space!
Okay, that's fine, but certainly many animals would have been much larger than a sheep. Could 2 of every kind of animal in the world (including dinosaurs) be crammed into that kind of space?
To the opening poster...
You can test this question by visiting the WI Dells. Everytime I drive by the Noah's Ark there, I see a long line of mostly children, but also men and women. I think admission is only $7, so visit it and test to see if you can keep other men off it or whatever your concern.
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.
