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 have not been stumped, I have presented evidence that has not been refuted. The Ark is on the North Slope of Mt. Ararat. There is eyewitiness accounts, and photographic evidence that agrees that there is a man- made object at the 15,500 foot altitude. And this claim is made by one photo analyzer, who does not even believe in Noah's Ark. [...]
The arial photos show a man-made object high up on the mountain that appers to of been once joined together, but now is broken in two.
Sorry, it's probably in one of your earlier links, but I can't find the link to the reliable expert who made the claim that the Ararat anomaly is a man-made object broken in two. Could you re-post it please? All I've been able to find is the article linked by Wikipedia, where the Defence Intelligence Agency says that it is probably a natural formation, though they do not reject the possibility of a man-made object entirely.
So, we have a big object shown by blurry satellite pictures, with (maybe) experts acknowledging the possibility of it being a man-made object. This is the only credible evidence we have (see above for the problems with your eyewitness accounts). From this, you leap to the conclusion that this is Noah's Ark?
(Hey, look, we found this very old bone in the ground! Surely this must be the remains of Adam! The bible was right!)
Sorry, it's probably in one of your earlier links, but I can't find the link to the reliable expert who made the claim that the Ararat anomaly is a man-made object broken in two. Could you re-post it please? All I've been able to find is the article linked by Wikipedia, where the Defence Intelligence Agency says that it is probably a natural formation, though they do not reject the possibility of a man-made object entirely.
So, we have a big object shown by blurry satellite pictures, with (maybe) experts acknowledging the possibility of it being a man-made object. This is the only credible evidence we have (see above for the problems with your eyewitness accounts). From this, you leap to the conclusion that this is Noah's Ark?
(Hey, look, we found this very old bone in the ground! Surely this must be the remains of Adam! The bible was right!)
George Stephen is military trained, and a 30 year veteran of remote sensing satellites and is involved in photo interpretation, he was able to determin that on Mt. Ararat are (TWO) man-made objects. He himself does not believe it is Noah's Ark. But he states, "It is ancient, "I'm not saying it is Noahs Ark, both objects look like they were once joined at one time because there's a spectral trail going down from one to the other. What amazes me, is a structure at this altitude. The terrain is just teracherous! It's definitely not a military object or device, because it is under the ice almost all the time. I am 100% certain it is a man-made object. I can't tell you what it's made of, but it's not metal and it's not rock. It would have to be organic, perhaps wood. It looks like it crashed or landed there..."
Ed Davis, and others who over the years claimed to of seen the Ark up on Mt. Ararat stated that it was broken in two. Their statements were made before satellites were in use. George Stephen confirmed what Ed Davis and others have already stated. Link below. George Stephens account will be found on page five.
I have not leaped to any conclusion. I have actually listened to people who have gone before me, and I have not dismissed them all as liars. And their statements appear to agree not only with each other, but from photographic pictures from space.
Ed Davis, and others who over the years claimed to of seen the Ark up on Mt. Ararat stated that it was broken in two. Their statements were made before satellites were in use. George Stephen confirmed what Ed Davis and others have already stated. Link below. George Stephens account will be found on page five. Noah's Ark Search - Mount Ararat
Funny what you find in the FAQ from the same website...
Quote:
Nothing in the research since the 1940's or the explorers' hundred expeditions has proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Noah's Ark or it's remains have been discovered or that it has survived since the biblical flood of Noah. NoahsArkSearch.com attempts to look at the legitimate claims and present them on this website but there is no proof, photo, or science to support the ark's survival thus far, other than the eyewitness testimony.
It is also a very Christian-biased website. Do you have such an account coming from somewhere else? I couldn't find it anywhere else on the internet.
So anyway, you do not really answer my second point. Assuming this is indeed a man-made object - let's get one step further and assume it's made of wood - you still leap to the conclusion that it is Noah's Ark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by probably George Stephen
It's ancient but I'm not saying it's the Ark because I haven't 'seen' it.
Funny what you find in the FAQ from the same website...
It is also a very Christian-biased website. Do you have such an account coming from somewhere else? I couldn't find it anywhere else on the internet.
So anyway, you do not really answer my second point. Assuming this is indeed a man-made object - let's get one step further and assume it's made of wood - you still leap to the conclusion that it is Noah's Ark.
Based on eyewitness accounts that have seen it up close, with it's triple decks and cages inside, it's not that much of a leap. And historically, I don't know of any other ship that was stated to rest on Mount Ararat after a global flood. And outside of Christians, few are that intrested in the collection of stories that speak of Noah's Ark. You sure will not find it taught in the Public School system, after all, that would be illegal. And we don't see many believers in Evolution trying to gather up information about Noah's Ark to deep six their Theory. Do we?
Based on eyewitness accounts that have seen it up close, with it's triple decks and cages inside, it's not that much of a leap. And historically, I don't know of any other ship that was stated to rest on Mount Ararat after a global flood. And outside of Christians, few are that intrested in the collection of stories that speak of Noah's Ark. You sure will not find it taught in the Public School system, after all, that would be illegal. And we don't see many believers in Evolution trying to gather up information about Noah's Ark to deep six their Theory. Do we?
No we won't see it in the school system thankfully because there is no proof that it is anything more than a myth. Evolution cannot be "deepsixed" because there is proof, lots of it.
Based on eyewitness accounts that have seen it up close, with it's triple decks and cages inside, it's not that much of a leap.
Read what I wrote about those other witnesses, the ones that only appear on Christian websites?
"The Ararat anomaly is Noah's Ark" is an incredible statement. It needs a lot of evidence - more than a couple of blurry pictures analysed by a single expert (analysis found on a Christian website) and a bunch of biased witnesses. We have a lot more than that on Bigfoot and the UFOs.
If your claim was that it's a man-made object made of wood, then the evidence is enough to make it reasonable (though I would like to see more analysis of the pictures, with their results peer-reviewed).
No we won't see it in the school system thankfully because there is no proof that it is anything more than a myth. Evolution cannot be "deepsixed" because there is proof, lots of it.
The proof for Evolution is based on assumptions that cannot be proven. The Ark on Ararat has eyewitiness accounts that span hundreds of years, if not thousands. And those accounts are supported by photos from space. Evolution is a Theory that lacks this kind of proof. You simply ignore all eyewitiness accounts, and all areial photographic evidence.
Read what I wrote about those other witnesses, the ones that only appear on Christian websites?
"The Ararat anomaly is Noah's Ark" is an incredible statement. It needs a lot of evidence - more than a couple of blurry pictures analysed by a single expert (analysis found on a Christian website) and a bunch of biased witnesses. We have a lot more than that on Bigfoot and the UFOs.
If your claim was that it's a man-made object made of wood, then the evidence is enough to make it reasonable (though I would like to see more analysis of the pictures, with their results peer-reviewed).
Well I have faith that those who have viewed the Ark over the hundreds of years were not all liars. And their statements are back up by photos from space. There is far more solid evidence for the arks existance then the Theory of Evolution, yet we do not say that believers in evolution are biased believers. Based on eyewitiness accounts, and those photos from space, the object on Ararat could be nothing else but Noahs Ark. There is no way an object of this size and age, could of been built in place at an altitude of 15,500 feet above sea level. I'm not sure if you understand this yet? Yet from all accounts that have come back from the mountain, and these accounts come from people from all walks of life and times. The object in question, is both large, and man-made.
Well I have faith that those who have viewed the Ark over the hundreds of years were not all liars.
Your story would seem much more credible if one of those individuals who actually saw the Ark after the invention of photography had enough common sense to bring along a camera and provide photographic evidence that could be studied instead of spinning some wild tale, probably at a local pub, that became more embellished each time it was retold.
I don't understand why its always Creationism/Religion vs Evolution. There is a common relation that the two have.
Lets say we have two children asking their parents for an explanation on how living creatures in the world came to be.
Child A is told "God did it" and Child B is told evolution.
Child A sees that everything in this world was created or caused by something before it... so he poses the question "Well... who created God?"
Parents respond "He always was." (well that is not really satisfying)
Child B sees that evolution caused everything in a cause an effect relation so naturally asks "Well... how did evolution start? You needed your first strand of DNA to start evolving?"
Parents respond: "Well... we really don't know. A theory is that aliens or creator (created by evolution) came to earth and planted the first strand of DNA."
Now children always ask stupid questions and should be dismissed as stupid an uninformed. (these are quite smart children apparently)
There is the same idea across both. Both sound really far fetched but ironically similar. It appears we haven't come closer to a solution at all.
Oh and by the way... the theories about aliens are proposed by 'prominent' evolution supporters.
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.
