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.
The Ark is really not in a cave. It is buried under deep snow and ice. They had to dig down through the ice to get to it. For years photo interpreters told us the Ark was buried in deep ice.
Odd. I though that a few months ago you were insisting that some large ice blocks were interpreted by an expert as bits of Ark sticking up out of the ice.
You seem to change your evidence to suit whatever there is. (1)
Fair enough Archaeology does the same...it's circle, definitely a temple..well, maybe a burial pit..hmm, no, just a geological feature.
Did you ever say why the Ark was first petrified wood and is now just wood? Or is all that wood supposed to be petrified? I saw one of the bods knocking on it apparently saying it was wood, not rock.
(1) Ok, I note that you now say that it's all the same thing. I thought is was in a different location but I may be wrong there. Problem is it's all Discovery channel stuff and imaginative reconstructions. The hard answers to pertinent questions are hard to come by.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-23-2010 at 05:24 AM..
"The 'evangelical explorers' even say they have carbon-dated the 'ark' to around 4,800 years,"
Noah's Ark Discovered on Mount Ararat in Turkey? | Heritage Key (http://heritage-key.com/blogs/sean-williams/noahs-ark-discovered-mount-ararat-turkey - broken link)
So this is for sure organic wood.
"The Christian Science Monitor and a number other organizations are already calling the find a hoax. The Monitor quotes Dr. Randall Price, an Ark researcher and professor at Liberty University. He says he was with the team in a 2008 expedition to the site. Price claims in a leaked e-mail that a group of Kurdish men transported ancient wood beams to the site and planted them there.
However, Dr. John Morris, the president of Dallas' Institute for Creation Research, disagrees. He led 13 expeditions to Mt. Ararat between 1970 and 1990.
"I think it would be highly unlikely that anybody could carry wood up.… I don't think there's fraud involved. But that is a possibility," Morris told the Monitor."
"Even if you assume the explorers found what they say they found, linking the discovery to Noah's Ark requires lots of leaps of faith: Is the carbon dating accurate? Cornell's Kuniholm said he would like to know who
did the dating, especially considering that previous tests reportedly came up with more recent dates. ..Many comments relate to carbon dating: In this case, Kuniholm is not questioning the validity of carbon-dating techniques, but just wondering whether the dating was done correctly. He said he was presented with earlier samples of wood from Ararat that he was told were dated to just 1,400 years ago."
I do not apologise.. much .. from quoting from the skeptic side since we already know what the evangelical side is saying.
"A video of the exploration shows team members wearing crampons and trekking through snow to reach the site.
"You can hire horses to carry bags, but they cannot balance themselves with 20-meter-long timber," says Wei, adding that there was no cultural evidence - such as pottery - that the structure was a former house or church... many explorers have hunted for Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat, and a number claimed to find the boat.
Russian World War I aviator Vladimir Roskovitsky claimed to see a large ship resting high on Mount Ararat in 1917. The astronaut James Irwin led a number of disappointing expeditions to Mt. Ararat between 1982 and 1986. French industrialist Fernand Navarra ascended Ararat in 1955, recovering a piece of oak initially dated 5,000 years old; more accurate carbon dating later showed it in the range of A.D. 620 to A.D. 90.
However, NAMI claims that their expedition was the first to invest several years of effort with the locals. Starting in 2004, NAMI spent several months every year at the mountain conducting searches while also maintaining contact with local fixers. What began as a documentary about the legend of Noah's Ark turned into their own obsession with finding the mythic vessel when a local guide by the name of Parasut told them in mid-2008 that he knew the boat's location. One team member, Panda Lee, visited the location that October."
No mention of those aerial photos - you sure it's the same place, Campbell?
"Mr. Price has questioned why Parasut and NAMI refuse to reveal the location of the finding.
Yeung and Wei say that this could open the site to pillaging."
If one can sneak 20 foot planks down a mountain, one could sure sneak them up.
There's also the question of who owns these artefacts.
"Turkey's culture minister this week ordered a probe into how NAMI brought pieces of the wood sampled from Turkey to China.
"How did these objects get there [to Hong Kong] and under whose authority were the officials present there? We are investigating this," Culture and Tourism Minister Ertuğrul Günay said, according to local newspaper Today's Zaman. At the same time he welcomed the finding and said it could boost tourism.
(webpage given above)
My belief is based on the accounts of numerous people who have actually been to the site, took video, and pictures. And confirmed the accounts of other numerous people who were there in the past. Boots on the ground, not personal bias opinions from armchairs. Accounts from people, who were actually there and saw the Ark with their own eyes. Laugh all you want, but the evidence is on my side and not yours.
Sorry. I do the best I can, and spend wayyy tooooo much time on my posts as it is. I always do change the font and color though, so you should never have a problem deciphering which are mine.
Hey; I gotta sleep sometime, huh? But anyhow, thanks for the constructive input. I'll consider it all.
But BP is not asking for money, Tom. They have the humility to clearly state that they need help and are open to valid, logical engineering suggestions.
This tribe of loons is simply asking for free money, and their marketing sucks!
As I've clearly said in my OP, we'll see how it all runs it's course. If it's at all like their last effort and lack of documentation, where after 3 or 4 years they only drew up some unsupportable artwork, then this will retain it's already stunning credibility.
(Tom, in credible science,"unsupportable artwork" does not mean it's not potentially accurate, it just means they failed to provide the necessary backup, measurements, photos and peer review. Absent those key elements, it's all just their word and conclusions against common sense. In this regard, they loose!)
Meantime, you have proven that you are completely prepared to believe all of it absent anysuch valid supporting documentation. That would be your loss and failing, Tom, not mine.
Rifleman, as you can see, when you don't parse out your responses from the quote to which you are responding, they get left out, as seen in the example above when I quoted you. Besides, it's just confusing. The only verbage that automatically gets posted is what you have outside of the quote to which you responded. The time and effort required to do this is about the same, if not less than the time or effort required to change the font or color. There is a button at the top of the reply-to-thread text editor window that makes it real easy to parse them out. The quote button looks like a little text ballon (as seen in comic strips), located between the photo insert and the (show/hide) buttons. Clicking on the button places the tags "<quote></quote>" around what you are quoting. All you have to do is highlight the words that you want in a quote box and then click that botton. Then if someone wants to respond to your colored text that you would have left in the original quote box, it is now remains outside whatever you were quoting and they won't have to go back and reconstruct your entire response from scratch, pulling out your responses, which is labor intensive, and in many cases, more trouble than it is worth. ...just sayin'...
Tens of thousands died when Iraq used gas which was a weapon of mass destruction. Most of those weapons were sent to Syria just before the war broke out. They did have the weapons, they were historically used. And they were moved.
And the photo interpreter that reported the large manmade object on Mt. Ararat did not believe in Noahs Ark. So he had no reason to report it was the Ark. Yet he did report seeing a large manmade object that was broken in two. And I believe what has now been uncovered, is part of what the photo interpreter reported. So now we have his account, and pictures of the object up close from the six members of the NAMI, and we have your denials. And I do believe the reports that came from the photo interpreter, and the six members of the NAMI over you personal and unfounded opinion. Boots on the ground are far more convincing, than someones personal bias opinion from an armchair.
Clearly the meaning of the word "interpertation" has eluded you.
Bush had to eventually own up to there were no WMDs, and soon you will have to own up to the hoax of the ark.
Odd. I though that a few months ago you were insisting that some large ice blocks were interpreted by an expert as bits of Ark sticking up out of the ice.
You seem to change your evidence to suit whatever there is. (1)
Fair enough Archaeology does the same...it's circle, definitely a temple..well, maybe a burial pit..hmm, no, just a geological feature.
Did you ever say why the Ark was first petrified wood and is now just wood? Or is all that wood supposed to be petrified? I saw one of the bods knocking on it apparently saying it was wood, not rock.
(1) Ok, I note that you now say that it's all the same thing. I thought is was in a different location but I may be wrong there. Problem is it's all Discovery channel stuff and imaginative reconstructions. The hard answers to pertinent questions are hard to come by.
What is odd, is that you do not appear to be paying attention to what I have actually stated. It was not ice blocks, but a petrified wooden structure that was found in a cave. It was about 36 feet long. Years ago Ed Davis who stated he saw the Ark, stated some of the Artifacts from the Ark were stored in a cave. I believe that was the cave that the NAMI located. The Ark itself was found in another location.
The Ark is broken up into two or three sections. I believe. And I only say I believe because we don't have the full picture as of yet. But some of the sections my be petrified, where another one may not be. It is also possible, that we only have partial petrification. The Ark in question is located near the top of Mt. Ararat. There are at least two others that claim to of found the Ark of Noah. Yet both are found in the wrong place, and neither one has anything to do with Noahs Ark. Yet some people want to believe they are the ones that found Noahs Ark, even if their discovery is just a rock, or land formation.
Clearly the meaning of the word "interpertation" has eluded you.
Bush had to eventually own up to there were no WMDs, and soon you will have to own up to the hoax of the ark.
Bush had to own up, correct. Yet the reason was, the weapons had already been moved months before the start of the war. And I do believe the NAMI are not partners in any hoax. Just from the obvious size and construction we now see, this alone should give you a heads up that no one would go to such lengths. It would require millions of dollars for such construction, and not to mention the time it would take. This is no hoax. It is the Ark of Noah.
"The 'evangelical explorers' even say they have carbon-dated the 'ark' to around 4,800 years,"
Noah's Ark Discovered on Mount Ararat in Turkey? | Heritage Key (http://heritage-key.com/blogs/sean-williams/noahs-ark-discovered-mount-ararat-turkey - broken link)
So this is for sure organic wood.
"The Christian Science Monitor and a number other organizations are already calling the find a hoax. The Monitor quotes Dr. Randall Price, an Ark researcher and professor at Liberty University. He says he was with the team in a 2008 expedition to the site. Price claims in a leaked e-mail that a group of Kurdish men transported ancient wood beams to the site and planted them there.
However, Dr. John Morris, the president of Dallas' Institute for Creation Research, disagrees. He led 13 expeditions to Mt. Ararat between 1970 and 1990.
"I think it would be highly unlikely that anybody could carry wood up.… I don't think there's fraud involved. But that is a possibility," Morris told the Monitor."
"Even if you assume the explorers found what they say they found, linking the discovery to Noah's Ark requires lots of leaps of faith: Is the carbon dating accurate? Cornell's Kuniholm said he would like to know who
did the dating, especially considering that previous tests reportedly came up with more recent dates. ..Many comments relate to carbon dating: In this case, Kuniholm is not questioning the validity of carbon-dating techniques, but just wondering whether the dating was done correctly. He said he was presented with earlier samples of wood from Ararat that he was told were dated to just 1,400 years ago."
I do not apologise.. much .. from quoting from the skeptic side since we already know what the evangelical side is saying.
"A video of the exploration shows team members wearing crampons and trekking through snow to reach the site.
"You can hire horses to carry bags, but they cannot balance themselves with 20-meter-long timber," says Wei, adding that there was no cultural evidence - such as pottery - that the structure was a former house or church... many explorers have hunted for Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat, and a number claimed to find the boat.
Russian World War I aviator Vladimir Roskovitsky claimed to see a large ship resting high on Mount Ararat in 1917. The astronaut James Irwin led a number of disappointing expeditions to Mt. Ararat between 1982 and 1986. French industrialist Fernand Navarra ascended Ararat in 1955, recovering a piece of oak initially dated 5,000 years old; more accurate carbon dating later showed it in the range of A.D. 620 to A.D. 90.
However, NAMI claims that their expedition was the first to invest several years of effort with the locals. Starting in 2004, NAMI spent several months every year at the mountain conducting searches while also maintaining contact with local fixers. What began as a documentary about the legend of Noah's Ark turned into their own obsession with finding the mythic vessel when a local guide by the name of Parasut told them in mid-2008 that he knew the boat's location. One team member, Panda Lee, visited the location that October."
No mention of those aerial photos - you sure it's the same place, Campbell?
"Mr. Price has questioned why Parasut and NAMI refuse to reveal the location of the finding.
Yeung and Wei say that this could open the site to pillaging."
If one can sneak 20 foot planks down a mountain, one could sure sneak them up.
There's also the question of who owns these artefacts.
"Turkey's culture minister this week ordered a probe into how NAMI brought pieces of the wood sampled from Turkey to China.
"How did these objects get there [to Hong Kong] and under whose authority were the officials present there? We are investigating this," Culture and Tourism Minister Ertuğrul Günay said, according to local newspaper Today's Zaman. At the same time he welcomed the finding and said it could boost tourism.
(webpage given above)
Dr. Price did not know what he was talking about. And that is because he never climbed the mountain with this group. And he never went to the site they went to either. And his hoax comment was based on she said, he said. And the NAMI did ask Mr. Price to appear on a news show with them, yet he declined. So it appears Mr. Price is not to confident about the story he is spreading. And it would not require any leap of faith to believe this is the Ark of Noah. And that is because No. 1, there are very few ancient vessels of this size, found on mountain tops. No. 2, there are even fewer vessels found on Mt Ararat. And No. 3, this is the very mountain the Bible stated the Ark landed on. Scripture stated, that the Ark of Noah landed on the highest mountain, of the mountains of Ararat. And this is were the discovery was made. Mt. Ararat, is the highest mountain of the mountains of Ararat.
What is odd, is that you do not appear to be paying attention to what I have actually stated. It was not ice blocks, but a petrified wooden structure that was found in a cave. It was about 36 feet long. Years ago Ed Davis who stated he saw the Ark, stated some of the Artifacts from the Ark were stored in a cave. I believe that was the cave that the NAMI located. The Ark itself was found in another location.
The Ark is broken up into two or three sections. I believe. And I only say I believe because we don't have the full picture as of yet. But some of the sections my be petrified, where another one may not be. It is also possible, that we only have partial petrification. The Ark in question is located near the top of Mt. Ararat. There are at least two others that claim to of found the Ark of Noah. Yet both are found in the wrong place, and neither one has anything to do with Noahs Ark. Yet some people want to believe they are the ones that found Noahs Ark, even if their discovery is just a rock, or land formation.
Well, that's what I mean by changing the theory about. Bearing in mind the method of petrification, the ark would be either in mineral - intense water so as to petrify or not. You can't say that the first bits you come to are petrified (the top or outer parts) and inside it's wood. And there's still the question that no reference was made by the Chinese - turkish expedition to the two blocks aerial photo. Is it in the same place or not?
I know if it turns out to be some ancient wooden structure that doesn't matter too much, but you claim they're the same feature. Are they?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-23-2010 at 08:48 PM..
Dr. Price did not know what he was talking about. And that is because he never climbed the mountain with this group. And he never went to the site they went to either. And his hoax comment was based on she said, he said. And the NAMI did ask Mr. Price to appear on a news show with them, yet he declined. So it appears Mr. Price is not to confident about the story he is spreading.
And it would not require any leap of faith to believe this is the Ark of Noah. And that is because No. 1, there are very few ancient vessels of this size, found on mountain tops. No. 2, there are even fewer vessels found on Mt Ararat. And No. 3, this is the very mountain the Bible stated the Ark landed on. Scripture stated, that the Ark of Noah landed on the highest mountain, of the mountains of Ararat. And this is were the discovery was made. Mt. Ararat, is the highest mountain of the mountains of Ararat.
Apparently Mr. Price did climb the mountain with them and seems to have misgivings about what he saw. It is inevitable that you would discount those.
And when you think about it your reasons to believe that this is the ark described in Genesis are really reasons to suppose it isn't.
Still it's sufficiently surprising to find any kind of wooden structure up there so we'll have to wait and see. The wood certainly seems hefty and old -looking but one photo seemed to show bedding straw still surving. That takes a bit of believing.
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.
pertinent questions.
