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 stated the wood on the outside was petrified. Also, there maybe as many as four sections of the Ark. And I have no idea how each section may of been effected overtime. If the wood quickly petrified, there would be no visible rot. And why on earth do you believe spiders could not survive at 13,000 feet. I was on Pikes Peak in Colorado which is 14,100 feet. And believe it or not, I survived, along with a number of others.
The evidence, both from scientists laboratories and God's natural laboratory, shows that under the right chemical conditions wood can be rapidly petrified by silicification. Consider link below. ‘Instant’ petrified wood
Actually, I previously debunked this tripe, provided the link showing your fantasy "insta-poof" wood petrified only under extreme lab conditions in the presence of titanium minerals and nitrogen gasses and other components that are not naturally available or occurring on Ararat. They also required complete immersion under high pressures: not the case on your favorite hoax site. Or anywhere else on the natural planet. As well, the insides of this obvious goatherd shed were not petrified. So what are you odiously claiming?
Partial instantaneous semi-petrification? Absent the miracle components used in one lone lab experiment?
Let's get this straight now: No-one has ever seen nor documented instantaneous naturally occurring petrification.
Next, web-building spiders do so only in the presence of suitable prey species. The web type pictured is not found, ever, at the 15,000 foot level.
Next: why is the hay still evident? Ever heard of marmots (marmota flaviventris) or rock pikas (pica pica)? They do live at such elevations, but would have ravenously eaten this left-over Ark food about 1999.5 years ago (but then, so would the starving 1 billion occupants on that fairy-tale ride...).
Recent reports of the likely count of existing species on this planet (NatGeo magzine, May 2010; DNA Bar codes article) places the likely count at about 150 million species. Let's make the count about half that for sexual reproducers, each species needing about 40 per each gender, (80 of each, for the mathematically challenged) equals 6 X 10 to the 9th power number of sexually reproducing species on board, plus species-specific foods and living conditions, and you'd have to have well over a billion plant and animals species on board, each needing to be tended to properly. This of course includes plants and mushrooms and seaweeds and mosses and all the rest that would have died in a salinated (or alternately, de-salinated...) inundation.
How do you get around this? Answer: You don't. It didn't happen. Let me rephrase that from the perspective of simple, rational bio-science and reproductive ecology:
It couldn't happen. Regardless of claimed overflights in 1917 by trusted Russian pilots flying underpowered kites over gusty mountain ranges....
Finally, to the OP's claim, let me remind everyone again, comes from two years ago; the infamous Ertugrul expedition. No-one's been back since: this is the same expedition, re-hashed and re-presented to try to scam yet more funding from them. The archeologist has even provided testimony that it's all a fake, and a promised report never materialized.
Finally, even if there were wood up there, then as Nea1 and a few others have asked: So What? What makes that The Ark? Answer: nothing.
So why does C34 rehash and then defend? That's a good question. There may be a medical answer....
Only the delusional and demented would persist in believing and defending this one.
Answers in Genesis has not stated the Ark discovery is a fraud, only that they believe caution should be considered. And that is because of the false claims from the past. I personally believe this group has found the Ark of Noah. Because the false claims from the past, came from locations that were not consistent with the Biblical record. And I personally do not believe these people are lying to us. Caution can be a good thing, and I have no arguement with the stand that Answers in Genesis has taken.
Answers in Genesis has not stated the Ark discovery is a fraud, only that they believe caution should be considered. And that is because of the false claims from the past. I personally believe this group has found the Ark of Noah. Because the false claims from the past, came from locations that were not consistent with the Biblical record. And I personally do not believe these people are lying to us. Caution can be a good thing, and I have no arguement with the stand that Answers in Genesis has taken.
Are these the same false claims you have been telling us are true these many months?...How many times has the "ark" been found on Ararat...They have all been false.
Actually, I previously debunked this tripe, provided the link showing your fantasy "insta-poof" wood petrified only under extreme lab conditions in the presence of titanium minerals and nitrogen gasses and other components that are not naturally available or occurring on Ararat. They also required complete immersion under high pressures: not the case on your favorite hoax site. Or anywhere else on the natural planet. As well, the insides of this obvious goatherd shed were not petrified. So what are you odiously claiming?
Partial instantaneous semi-petrification? Absent the miracle components used in one lone lab experiment?
Let's get this straight now: No-one has ever seen nor documented instantaneous naturally occurring petrification.
Next, web-building spiders do so only in the presence of suitable prey species. The web type pictured is not found, ever, at the 15,000 foot level.
Next: why is the hay still evident? Ever heard of marmots (marmota flaviventris) or rock pikas (pica pica)? They do live at such elevations, but would have ravenously eaten this left-over Ark food about 1999.5 years ago (but then, so would the starving 1 billion occupants on that fairy-tale ride...).
Recent reports of the likely count of existing species on this planet (NatGeo magzine, May 2010; DNA Bar codes article) places the likely count at about 150 million species. Let's make the count about half that for sexual reproducers, each species needing about 40 per each gender, (80 of each, for the mathematically challenged) equals 6 X 10 to the 9th power number of sexually reproducing species on board, plus species-specific foods and living conditions, and you'd have to have well over a billion plant and animals species on board, each needing to be tended to properly. This of course includes plants and mushrooms and seaweeds and mosses and all the rest that would have died in a salinated (or alternately, de-salinated...) inundation.
How do you get around this? Answer: You don't. It didn't happen. Let me rephrase that from the perspective of simple, rational bio-science and reproductive ecology:
It couldn't happen. Regardless of claimed overflights in 1917 by trusted Russian pilots flying underpowered kites over gusty mountain ranges....
Finally, to the OP's claim, let me remind everyone again, comes from two years ago; the infamous Ertugrul expedition. No-one's been back since: this is the same expedition, re-hashed and re-presented to try to scam yet more funding from them. The archeologist has even provided testimony that it's all a fake, and a promised report never materialized.
Finally, even if there were wood up there, then as Nea1 and a few others have asked: So What? What makes that The Ark? Answer: nothing.
So why does C34 rehash and then defend? That's a good question. There may be a medical answer....
Only the delusional and demented would persist in believing and defending this one.
It's obvious, you did not read my link. Fence post have been removed from out of the ground showing them to be petrified. 70 year old wood showing ax marks, have also be dug up, and showing them to be pertified.
They found a lot more than wood up there rifleman. They found no less the seven rooms, with others yet to be explored. The structure is where the Bible said the Ark would be. And it was not that long ago. That you guys were saying nothing would be found there. It appears you were wrong. I love how you guys try to dismiss the scope of this discovery by suggesting that only wood was found. When the pictures themselves show us, that rooms of great size made of heavy wooden beams are in place up there.
The hay is present, because it most likely came from birds that nested in the Ark from recent times. The Ark has not always been covered by snow and ice. Only now does it appear below ground level. And that is why in 1916, and on other dates, people could actually walk up to it. And the Ark towered above them. I would say only the delusional would turn their heads away from such obvious evidence. And in the time ahead rifleman, I believe the full size of the Ark will be known. Tell me, if all the Arks sections are located, and they match the Biblical account. If it really is 450 feet long, and three stories high. How will you explain to us how it got there? Who could of built an structure this size, when it orginated at an altitude of over 15,000 feet?
Are these the same false claims you have been telling us are true these many months?...How many times has the "ark" been found on Ararat...They have all been false.
I never believe the account of Ron Wyatt. I told you it was just a ground formation. There was another account of the Ark being found in Iran. It was in the wrong location. Yet the one that was found at the 13,000 foot altitude found on Mt. Ararat would be the right location. Based on the Biblical account, and based on the accounts of eyewitinesses.
On Spiders.
Campbell34-spiders could have been there. Prove they couldn't
Several others-Provide proof that they couldn't
Campbell34-Yes, they could.
On glaciers
Campbell34-Glaciers preserved the ark, but disappeared once in a while so people could see it over the years
Several other-Glaciers don't come and go, melt and reform like that
Campbell34-Yes they do.
On straw
Campbell34-Birds brought it. Yeah, tunneling birds. Recently. They brought straw from the lowlands, flew to the top of a mountain, waited for the glacier to thaw, tunneled down to the ark, and left the straw behind. Then, the glacier came back and flash froze the straw to preserve it, until the glacier melted and left. When it melted, it flushed out the ash from the eruptions, but left the straw.
I am not even going to get into the petrified, not petrified wood thing.
On Spiders.
Campbell34-spiders could have been there. Prove they couldn't
Several others-Provide proof that they couldn't
Campbell34-Yes, they could.
On glaciers
Campbell34-Glaciers preserved the ark, but disappeared once in a while so people could see it over the years
Several other-Glaciers don't come and go, melt and reform like that
Campbell34-Yes they do.
On straw
Campbell34-Birds brought it. Yeah, tunneling birds. Recently. They brought straw from the lowlands, flew to the top of a mountain, waited for the glacier to thaw, tunneled down to the ark, and left the straw behind. Then, the glacier came back and flash froze the straw to preserve it, until the glacier melted and left. When it melted, it flushed out the ash from the eruptions, but left the straw.
I am not even going to get into the petrified, not petrified wood thing.
Of course, you fully ignore the historical accounts that speak of the Ark being fully exposed. So what tunneling would a bird have to do, if the Ark was a full thirty feet or more above ground level? Historical eyewitiness accounts speak of how the snow around the Ark from time to time and during very hot summers does melt back.
Of course common sense would tell you, that the eruption occured many years ago, the straw was place there in a more recent time.
Your logic is pretty much based on nonsense, and appears you have not thought out your arguement very well here.
Are these the same false claims you have been telling us are true these many months?...How many times has the "ark" been found on Ararat...They have all been false.
At no time did I say those claims were true. I have from the very beginning told you, that the Ark of Noah would be found around the 13,000 foot altitude or above on Mt. Ararat, and no where else. Please don't try suggesting that I said something else, when I did not.
Of course, you fully ignore the historical accounts that speak of the Ark being fully exposed. So what tunneling would a bird have to do, if the Ark was a full thirty feet or more above ground level? Historical eyewitiness accounts speak of how the snow around the Ark from time to time and during very hot summers does melt back.
Of course common sense would tell you, that the eruption occured many years ago, the straw was place there in a more recent time.
Your logic is pretty much based on nonsense, and appears you have not thought out your arguement very well here.
Hmmm. my last post several minutes ago disappeared..... A Godly interruption?
No matter. I'll cut to the chase-point.
The Ark? Impossible.
Birds building nests at 15k feet, after flying their nest material up to that elevation, where there's no food with which to feed their nestlings? Impossible. Energy-ineffective. Irrational, and thus Simply just an excuse to explain the straw.
Too many independent participants have now fessed up that this is just a hoax, recently re-hashed. You just chose to buy into it.
As well:
1. Boat too small for necessary genetic & diversity load, given that post-flood evolving is not allowed.
2. Impossible to sustain even the ridiculously inadequate claimed 3700 “types” for 18 months, food & water. For the required billion species, it would have been technically impossible then or even now.
3. Disembarking passengers at 15,000 foot level would have all certainly shortly perished, and in any event could never have made it back home to distant global destinations.
4. Acquisition of all species before the flood was equally impossible,
5. Boat not structurally possible.
6. Small crew of ancient humans totally inadequate to support the species on board.
7. Global inundation would have created intolerable salinity, temperature and humidity changes for marine and fresh water animals.
8. Dinosaurs unaccounted for, but would have wrecked havoc with other species on board.
In other rational words; it was implausible, impossible and unattainable: it couldn’t and didn’t happen.
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.
Logic 101 for the Delusional
