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 just now asked me why a 450' ark didn't convince me.Now you admit they actually have not found a 450' long structure that can be photographed?
I never said they found a 450 foot Ark. I did say how will you explain how such a vessel of that size got there? Please do not attempt to put words in my mouth. The Bible stated it is about that size. And their drawing on page two of the link below showing us what they have uncovered is of great size. The Russian account speaks of a vessel the size of a modern day battleship.. And George Hagopian speaks of a vessel of great size as well. George Stephen III, a military-trained, remote-sensing photo interpreter reports two large man-made objects on Mt. Ararat that are broken in two. It could be, that the Ark is bigger than 450 foot. Yet we are speaking of something of great size here. Look at the link below, page two. It should be obvious even to you, that we are not talking about a rowboat here.
And yet in all of these supposed viewings of the Ark every single person forgot to bring their camera. People take photos of birthday parties, sporting events, scenery, etc. as a matter of habit. Don't you find it odd that there isn't a single high quality photo from any one of these numerous individuals who are said to have seen the Ark with their own eyes? You mentioned military sightings but they always document events with photos and any other supporting evidence so what went wrong with all of these events that left us without any photographic evidence?
Anything dealing with the Ark has had many shades of mystery associated with it. One priest many years ago tried to search for the Ark. Yet when he would climb the mountain, he would fall asleep and find himself at the base of the mountain. Finally after about the third time, he said an angel appeared before him and said there was no need for him to search for the Ark. The reason given? He was told that near the very end of the world, God would reveal the Ark to the world.
And according to the Bible, the end of the world would be near, when we would see the rebirth of Israel.
Last edited by Campbell34; 05-22-2010 at 11:30 AM..
Anything dealing with the Ark has had many shades of mystery assoiated with it. One priest many years ago tried to search for the Ark. Yet when he would climb the mountain, he would fall asleep and find himself at the base of the mountain. Finally after about the third time, he said an angel appeared before him and said there was no need for him to search for the Ark. The reason given? He was told that near the very end of the world, God would reveal the Ark to the world.
And according to the Bible, the end of the world would be near, when we would see the rebirth of Israel. The time is now.
The greatest mystery is how any person living in the modern world today can in their wildest delusions actually give any credence to this utterly outrageous fable. But when supported with delusions, I guess believing in the nonsense is to be expected.
Of course it must be seasoned with "we're all going die" doomsday mantra, must keep the fear flowing.
I never said they found a 450 foot Ark. I did say how will you explain how such a vessel of that size got there? Please do not attempt to put words in my mouth. The Bible stated it is about that size. And their drawing on page two of the link below showing us what they have uncovered is of great size. The Russian account speaks of a vessel the size of a modern day battleship.. And George Hagopian speaks of a vessel of great size as well. George Stephen III, a military-trained, remote-sensing photo interpreter reports two large man-made objects on Mt. Ararat that are broken in two. It could be, that the Ark is bigger than 450 foot. Yet we are speaking of something of great size here. Look at the link below, page two. It should be obvious even to you, that we are not talking about a rowboat here.
In post # 253 you asked me why I wouldn't believe in a 450' 3 story ship,with the obvious inference that it was there and why wouldn't I believe something of that size wasn't the ark.Now you are admitting that they have NOT found a whole 450' ark?If they have NOT found it,then why did you ask me why I wouldn't believe that something of that size on Ararat wasn't the ark?This is your problem.You are making claims for what has in no way been proven.You are asking me why I won't believe in the presence of a 450' ship that you later say you never claimed was found.
You make no sense.And I suffer no delusions about changing the mind of someone whose thought process works the way yours does,but I can at least show the complete irrationality of your method of "logic".
And if all this isn't hilarious enough by itself,we have this.
Noah's Ark" Wood "Way, Way, Way Too Young"
Skepticism of the new Noah's ark claim extends to at least one scholar who interprets the Bible literally.
Biologist Todd Wood is director of the Center for Origins Research at Bryan College in Tennessee, which pursues biology in a creationist framework.
As a creationist, Wood believes God created Earth and its various life-forms out of nothing roughly 6,000 years ago.
"If you accept a young chronology for the Earth ... then radiocarbon dating has to be reinterpreted," because the method often yields dates much older than 6,000 years, Wood said.
Radiocarbon dating estimates the ages of organic objects by measuring the radioisotope carbon 14, which is known to decay at a set rate over time. The method is generally thought to reach its limit with objects about 60,000 years old. Earth is generally thought to be about four and a half billion years old.
Across the board, radiocarbon dates need to be recalibrated, Wood believes, to reflect shorter time frames.
Given this perceived overestimation in radiocarbon dating, the wood the Noah's Ark Ministries International team found should have a "traditional" radiocarbon date of several tens of thousands of years if the wood is truly 4,800 years old, Wood said.
"I'm really, really skeptical that this could possibly be Noah's Ark," he added. The wood date is "way, way, way too young."
Wood thinks Noah's ark will never be found, because "it would have been prime timber after the flood," he said.
"If you just got off the ark, and there's no trees, what are you going to build your house out of? You've got a huge boat made of wood, so let's use that," he said. "So I think it got torn apart and scavenged for building material basically."
To summarize,you have a creationist arguing that the 4800 yr old dates the "ark" discoverers are claiming for the wood is wrong,because,as a creationist believing in a 6000 yr old world,they automatically adjust the normal readings on carbon dating to arrive at dates under 6000 years,but in this case the discoverers are claiming that the wood actually dates 4800 years old unadjusted.So because other creationists won't admit to the accuracy of carbon dating,they are now claiming the wood is too young because using the unadjusted dates of 4800 years would mean that they had to accept the accuracy of normal carbon dating.Therefore,the supposed 4800 year old wood must really,in the mind of other creationists intent on discrediting carbon dating,only a few hundred years old or so.LOL!
BTW,my favorite quote from the article:
"I don't know of any expedition that ever went looking for the ark and didn't find it," said Paul Zimansky, an archaeologist specializing in the Middle East at Stony Brook University in New York State.
Russia had a number of planes, yet in 1917 the Russians did use a plane called the Nieuport Nie. 27. It's service ceiling was about 18,200 feet, and had a top speed of 116 miles an hour.
And if all this isn't hilarious enough by itself,we have this.
Noah's Ark" Wood "Way, Way, Way Too Young"
Skepticism of the new Noah's ark claim extends to at least one scholar who interprets the Bible literally.
Biologist Todd Wood is director of the Center for Origins Research at Bryan College in Tennessee, which pursues biology in a creationist framework.
As a creationist, Wood believes God created Earth and its various life-forms out of nothing roughly 6,000 years ago.
"If you accept a young chronology for the Earth ... then radiocarbon dating has to be reinterpreted," because the method often yields dates much older than 6,000 years, Wood said.
Radiocarbon dating estimates the ages of organic objects by measuring the radioisotope carbon 14, which is known to decay at a set rate over time. The method is generally thought to reach its limit with objects about 60,000 years old. Earth is generally thought to be about four and a half billion years old.
Across the board, radiocarbon dates need to be recalibrated, Wood believes, to reflect shorter time frames.
Given this perceived overestimation in radiocarbon dating, the wood the Noah's Ark Ministries International team found should have a "traditional" radiocarbon date of several tens of thousands of years if the wood is truly 4,800 years old, Wood said.
"I'm really, really skeptical that this could possibly be Noah's Ark," he added. The wood date is "way, way, way too young."
Wood thinks Noah's ark will never be found, because "it would have been prime timber after the flood," he said.
"If you just got off the ark, and there's no trees, what are you going to build your house out of? You've got a huge boat made of wood, so let's use that," he said. "So I think it got torn apart and scavenged for building material basically."
To summarize,you have a creationist arguing that the 4800 yr old dates the "ark" discoverers are claiming for the wood is wrong,because,as a creationist believing in a 6000 yr old world,they automatically adjust the normal readings on carbon dating to arrive at dates under 6000 years,but in this case the discoverers are claiming that the wood actually dates 4800 years old unadjusted.So because other creationists won't admit to the accuracy of carbon dating,they are now claiming the wood is too young because using the unadjusted dates of 4800 years would mean that they had to accept the accuracy of normal carbon dating.Therefore,the supposed 4800 year old wood must really,in the mind of other creationists intent on discrediting carbon dating,only a few hundred years old or so.LOL!
BTW,my favorite quote from the article:
"I don't know of any expedition that ever went looking for the ark and didn't find it," said Paul Zimansky, an archaeologist specializing in the Middle East at Stony Brook University in New York State.
I don't know of any other expedition that has shown us video, and still shots of rooms below ice. And their Arks locations, are not the same as stated in the Bible. Also, Scripture tells us that one day with God is 1,000 years. So God days of creation cannot be 24 hours. And in reality, creation would of occured more like 13,000 years ago. And how does Wood think Noah would be able to transport the Arks wood miles down a mountain? It's obvious that Mr. Wood does not have a clue as to what we are seeing here. And why would Mr. Wood think there would be no trees? After the flood, there would be trees up rooted all over the place.
In post # 253 you asked me why I wouldn't believe in a 450' 3 story ship,with the obvious inference that it was there and why wouldn't I believe something of that size wasn't the ark.Now you are admitting that they have NOT found a whole 450' ark?If they have NOT found it,then why did you ask me why I wouldn't believe that something of that size on Ararat wasn't the ark?This is your problem.You are making claims for what has in no way been proven.You are asking me why I won't believe in the presence of a 450' ship that you later say you never claimed was found.
You make no sense.And I suffer no delusions about changing the mind of someone whose thought process works the way yours does,but I can at least show the complete irrationality of your method of "logic".
At no time did I say anyone measured a ship in recent times that measured 450 feet. However, the Bible tells us the Ark of Noah was at least that size. The Russian pilots tell us the vessel they saw, was the size of a modern day battleship. I have given other examples, which you seem to ignore. I have given you the link of Noahs Ark Ministeries, and their drawings show us the location of at least seven rooms they have entered. You can see by their drawing, that what they entered is of great size. Yet it only appears to me, you are focused on the 450 foot measurement, while you ignore everything else. Why is that?
I have told you, the Ark is broken in two and maybe three sections. Ed Davis from the 1940s told us this. His account was confirmed years later by George Stephen who was a remote-sensing photo interpreter. Why do you ignore his accoount. The testimony is out there, and it appears to me you want to pretend such testimony does not exist. So all you seem to do, is fall back to the measurement of 450 feet. So lets forget the 450 foot measurement. And lets go with a wooden vessel being the size of a modern day battleship. Why would you not believe such a wooden vessel of that size, found at an altitude of 15,000 feet, and found on the very mountain the Bible said the Ark landed would not be Noahs Ark? And if it was not the Ark, how did such a vessel of that size get there in the first place? And did those who put it there in our ancient past, have endless bottles of oxygen to breath up there while they constructed it? My method of logic is just fine, and that is because I do not ignore the most obvious questions.
Last edited by Campbell34; 05-22-2010 at 02:42 PM..
The Russian pilots tell us the vessel they saw, was the size of a modern day battleship.
How would they have known what size a battleship would have been today?
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.
