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.
No other recent confirmations? So your ignoring the recent evidence uncovered on Ararat in 2007. And that 2007 expedition, confirmed what Ed Davis saw in the cave he was taken to on Ararat back in the 1940s. Do you just ignore such accounts?
No it didn't!!!!!!you really are laughable. All the expedition did was find some petrified wood, date unknown!!!!!!hahahahahahahahaha BTW the results are nowhere to be found!!!!!hahahahahahahaha
Total and complete failure....Here is the opening paragraph from your link. I highlighted the words you obviously ignored in red.
Russian Expedition - 1916-1917 A.D.
There is an enormous amount of material to digest
about the alleged Russian Expedition. In order to study this in an
organized manner, we will first look at the statements of those who claimed to be directly involved in the alleged expedition in chronological
order, then of those who claim to have second-hand knowledge of it
we have already been over this The much sought-for Ark of Noah
expedition didn't even happen, no records ever found. Iti s all over the net if campbell would get off the creationist sites!!
I believe, there were two seperate accounts from two Russian who were part of the group that went to Ararat back in 1916. If I recall, both men were living somewhere in North America. Yet they both gave the same account of what was uncovered. I will try and locate their stories if I can. The lake, and the Ark is under 80 feet or more of ice. And only when we see three or four very hot summers in a row do we see the Ark, or the lake. Only during such a series of hot summers are such Ark sightings reported.
I believe this is the account I was speaking of. And I must say, this is quite an account of what they found up there. And many of the details match the Ed Davis account. Russian Expedition
That's quite a tale, but no way to confirm it other than something posted on the Internet. No photos. Nothing.
The problem is that there are too many inconsistencies coming from different sources.
For example, you're saying the ark is buried under 80-feet of ice. If there are 3 or 4 hot enough summers, the ice will melt enough to see the ark. I'm assuming even if it could be seen, it's unreachable because it's still buried under ice.
The tale of the Russian Expedition in the link you provided seems to say something different. Supposedly, the Russians not only reached the petrified ark, but they actually entered it. It goes on to say they chipped off pieces to try to determine what kind of trees were used. Even more hard to believe is the claim that edible grain and honey was found on board.
From the hard-to-follow wandering text, 93-year-old Armais Arutunoff's recollection is that the dimensions of the craft measured 450 feet long by 50 feet high by 100-150 wide and had a catwalk along the top. In addition, 3 soldiers stood side by side in the doorway which was estimated to be about 25 feet high by 25-30 feet wide. Off to one side of the ark (not sure if inside or outside of it) was some kind of altar. The point is that this description suggests the 1/4 of the ark was sticking out of the ice. It seems to suggest the ark was still intact, not split into pieces as other have suggested.
The beginning of the page, a 93-year-old E.W. Maslowsky states in a letter: "Around 1916, an archaeological expedition climbed Ararat under the direction of Mr. Pastounow and found debris of rocks which resembled the petrified remains of wood. I must admit that at my age (93) the state of my health has become rather precarious and my memory is quite weak."
However, there are other expeditions claiming a piece of wood is sticking out the the ice here and there, or that the ark is in a lake, or was found in a cave. So there all kinds of people making all kinds of claims with different descriptions and different locations. All of them seem to be inconsistant.
I don't know, but the Russian tale sounds too far fetched. I'm not saying other peope haven't seen something. They probably did. The problem is that the sightings could be anything, but easy to conclude it must be from the ark considering that's what they were hoping to find in the first place. Photos taken of what people claim to be the ark seem to somehow be grainy, out of focus, or just dark shadowed shapes in the distance. You can't make heads or tails what it is. I would think there should be better photos of these shapes.
Part of the problem is that a lot of emphasis places the biblical Ararat in Turkey. Compounding the problem even more, there are two Ararats in Turkey, Greater and Lesser. There have also been claims that neither one are the location, that it's somewhere else. It's not unusual for place names to change over time. The only reason I can see why the focus is at Turkey is because of Turkey's historical legend that the ark landed there. The same problem is with Mt. Sinai. No one knows for sure where they are.
What evidence is produced to support the claims of the ark in inconclusive at best and bolstered by local legends. It's like trying to prove Bigfoot by a claims, unclear photos or videos, a few so-called "footprints", broken twigs, and an occasional hair. The actual remains of one needs to be found and examined. Same thing with the ark.
That's quite a tale, but no way to confirm it other than something posted on the Internet. No photos. Nothing.
The problem is that there are too many inconsistencies coming from different sources.
(snip for brevity, but v. well summarized)
Part of the problem is that a lot of emphasis places the biblical Ararat in Turkey. Compounding the problem even more, there are two Ararats in Turkey, Greater and Lesser.
Precisely. And C34 has also recently introduced the highly questionable Ertugrul site now, since he is completely convinced that old wood on a mountain = an Ark. For him, that's all it takes, apparently.
There have also been claims that neither one are the location, that it's somewhere else. It's not unusual for place names to change over time. The only reason I can see why the focus is at Turkey is because of Turkey's historical legend that the ark landed there. The same problem is with Mt. Sinai. No one knows for sure where they are.
Oh contraire! Tom does!
What evidence is produced to support the claims of the ark is inconclusive at best and bolstered by local legends.
(..and truly weak at worst.)
It's like trying to prove Bigfoot by a claims, unclear photos or videos, a few so-called "footprints", broken twigs, and an occasional hair. The actual remains of one needs to be found and examined. Same thing with the ark.
Of course, the Bigfoot legend was sorta destroyed by the confessions of the two guys who provided the Upright Ape suit and possession of the original blurry video. Similarly, we have Ed Davis adding his bias-laden comment that "he really wanted it to be The Ark", or that George Stephens "hadn't actually visited the site." but was "sure it was made of wood" (from 100 miles up?) and was "likely the Ark". Yawn.
In addition, there's all the other implausible requirements for a successful Ark trip that the Arkists simply won't respond to. So they harp on controvertial and convenient "new" evidence of petrified wood bits from caves on the mountainside. New proof, yep!
But the impossibilities of the overall concept? Let's not answer or discuss them, OK?
1. I'm wondering if you'll bother to answer the point-form issues I raised on two of my previous posts here. You even pasted my post but then didn't answer any of them.
2. As regards sanspeur's paste of the words from your link:
COVER EARS. YELL NAHNAHNHANHANHAH loudly. Tear out the offending pages or paragraphs. Stomp your foot. With feeling.
Of course what's missing here is an Ararat expedition by a credible and internationally recognized team. Now you've added in members from Hong Kong and the Turkish government. The video and Ertugrul's comments and the link provided does not mention that.
wood, or petrified wood, ≠ The Ark. simpler" Wood ≠ Ark. Desperate Frantic Hope ≠ Ark.
The quality and veracity of Etrugrul's so-called fact-finding tourist expedition is easily seen in the quality of his "special" video that you've already defended as "proof".
"My Summer Camping in The Turkish Mountains". That's all it was. It ranks as The Worst Documentary Evidenceever provided by anyone posting here. Ever.
Keep up the good work, Tom. And oh BTW, answer at least a few of those questions, willyah? Like:
Post #834, pg 84
Post #842, pg 85
Post #846, pg 85
(Well, of course I know; you can't... it's too terrifying. But isn't the intent of this forum to put forth and debate each person's questions? To answer them as best you can?
(Of course, Christian fundies can't answer these questions because if they did, honestly, it would point out the simple truth that their entire belief system is based on a fantasy, fairy-tale interpretation. Giant wooden barges ramming ashore on the top of a volcano, all on board surviving. Hee hee. )
Let's just say this: by your continued refusal to answer my (and others') simple point-form questions, you concede defeat in this debate.
I did not answer any of your question from a previous post? You know rifleman, that is an untrue statement. Many of your questions would require me to make assumptions about things that occured in the past. I like to stick with facts I do know, and not what I assume to know. And just to remind you. One of your questions was. How do I know all the other Ark locations are wrong, and only the one high up on Ararat is right? I believe I gave an entire post to that answer. Did you forget that? My defeat, only exist in your mind rifleman. Yet, when I do give a clear answer, some how, it appears my answers are filtered out or forgotten by you. Why is that?
No it didn't!!!!!!you really are laughable. All the expedition did was find some petrified wood, date unknown!!!!!!hahahahahahahahaha BTW the results are nowhere to be found!!!!!hahahahahahahaha
Well of course, you are ignoring what Hong Kong University has clearly stated. And that was, the petrified wood came from a structure found high up on Ararat, and in a cave. And that structure was about 36 feet long, and about 8 foot wide. And I'm sure if you contacted Hong Kong University, they would be more than happy to repeat that information for you. And it was Ed Davis who stated back in the 1940s that he was taken to a cave on Ararat, and in that cave he saw petrified wood that came from the Ark when it broke in two. The expedition only confirmed the Ed Davis account. And you can only dismiss this account, it your are willing to filter out all the details of the story.
It's a stunning defeat for the Defender. He just doesn't have what it takes anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
I did not answer any of your question from a previous post? You know rifleman, that is an untrue statement. Many of your questions would require me to make assumptions about things that occured in the past. I like to stick with facts I do know, and not what I assume to know. And just to remind you. One of your questions was. How do I know all the other Ark locations are wrong, and only the one high up on Ararat is right? I believe I gave an entire post to that answer. Did you forget that? My defeat, only exist in your mind rifleman. Yet, when I do give a clear answer, some how, it appears my answers are filtered out or forgotten by you. Why is that?
Huh? Sorry, I was asleep. Did he answer all those questions in the listed posts?*
Didn't think so.
The Intransigent Cheering the Implausible on to Impossible Conclusions.
How convincing.
The judges are in agreement, since you won't answer: You lose.
(Tell me; how long have I and others asked you to calculate and answer that simple Q about how many animals and plants , plus food and water, had to be on the Ark for a 6 month trip?)
That's quite a tale, but no way to confirm it other than something posted on the Internet. No photos. Nothing.
The problem is that there are too many inconsistencies coming from different sources.
For example, you're saying the ark is buried under 80-feet of ice. If there are 3 or 4 hot enough summers, the ice will melt enough to see the ark. I'm assuming even if it could be seen, it's unreachable because it's still buried under ice.
The tale of the Russian Expedition in the link you provided seems to say something different. Supposedly, the Russians not only reached the petrified ark, but they actually entered it. It goes on to say they chipped off pieces to try to determine what kind of trees were used. Even more hard to believe is the claim that edible grain and honey was found on board.
From the hard-to-follow wandering text, 93-year-old Armais Arutunoff's recollection is that the dimensions of the craft measured 450 feet long by 50 feet high by 100-150 wide and had a catwalk along the top. In addition, 3 soldiers stood side by side in the doorway which was estimated to be about 25 feet high by 25-30 feet wide. Off to one side of the ark (not sure if inside or outside of it) was some kind of altar. The point is that this description suggests the 1/4 of the ark was sticking out of the ice. It seems to suggest the ark was still intact, not split into pieces as other have suggested.
The beginning of the page, a 93-year-old E.W. Maslowsky states in a letter: "Around 1916, an archaeological expedition climbed Ararat under the direction of Mr. Pastounow and found debris of rocks which resembled the petrified remains of wood. I must admit that at my age (93) the state of my health has become rather precarious and my memory is quite weak."
However, there are other expeditions claiming a piece of wood is sticking out the the ice here and there, or that the ark is in a lake, or was found in a cave. So there all kinds of people making all kinds of claims with different descriptions and different locations. All of them seem to be inconsistant.
I don't know, but the Russian tale sounds too far fetched. I'm not saying other peope haven't seen something. They probably did. The problem is that the sightings could be anything, but easy to conclude it must be from the ark considering that's what they were hoping to find in the first place. Photos taken of what people claim to be the ark seem to somehow be grainy, out of focus, or just dark shadowed shapes in the distance. You can't make heads or tails what it is. I would think there should be better photos of these shapes.
Part of the problem is that a lot of emphasis places the biblical Ararat in Turkey. Compounding the problem even more, there are two Ararats in Turkey, Greater and Lesser. There have also been claims that neither one are the location, that it's somewhere else. It's not unusual for place names to change over time. The only reason I can see why the focus is at Turkey is because of Turkey's historical legend that the ark landed there. The same problem is with Mt. Sinai. No one knows for sure where they are.
What evidence is produced to support the claims of the ark in inconclusive at best and bolstered by local legends. It's like trying to prove Bigfoot by a claims, unclear photos or videos, a few so-called "footprints", broken twigs, and an occasional hair. The actual remains of one needs to be found and examined. Same thing with the ark.
Most accounts coming to us from the upper reaches of Ararat will tell you, that the Ark is covered by Ice most of the time. What inconsistencies are you speaking about? Of course the Russian account was different, because it occured during the time when much of the ice had melted away. The Bible clearly tells us, the Ark landed on the mountains of Ararat. And the Bible also clearly tells us, the Ark landed on the highest mountain, on the mountains of Ararat. There are different stories about the Ark. Such as the Ron Wyatt's side show. Yet, the real Ark is right were the Bible said it is. Near the very top of Mt. Ararat. Any other accounts of the Ark being anywhere else, has nothing to do with the Bible. It is not only local legends that support the Ark being on Mt. Ararat. There are also numerous eyewitness accounts. The fact is, so many of the details of these accounts agree. And if you really start doing the footwork, you would come to understand, that such details cannot occur by accident. And it matters little how many years seperate such accounts.
Call the Russian account far fetched, yet then, you must believe that many people all came together to fabricate a lie. And then they moved to distant places across the globe waiting for someone to ask them to repeat their lie. That, I find far fetched. Unlike Bigfoot, the Ark can only be in one place. And unlike Bigfoot, we have more than a few broken twigs. The 36 foot, by 8 foot petrified structure stored in a cave high up on Ararat, confirms the Ed Davis account. Just like a crime scene, the evidence is mounting. Now, do we pretend nothing was found up there?
Campbell, How many animals would have had to be loaded into the Ark?
How were they fed?
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.
It's a stunning defeat for the Defender. He just doesn't have what it takes anymore.
