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 real Noah's ark I believe is actually high up on Ararat. Link below speaks of it.
We've been through this so many times. Everyone who owns a camera realizes when they've taken a good shot and when they've taken one that should be deleted. I've seen thousands of photographs of ships, sailboats, kayaks, tugboats, aluminum fishing boats, etc. and it's very easy to recognize them for what they are. Your Ark photos are very different. All I see are blurry photos and a wild imagination. I really think you're a sincere person and I know you think this is true but I have to ask you to look at the evidence. Do we have actual photos of a vessel that is seaworthy? No, we don't. Why in the world would Turkey or any other country try to conceal evidence that there is a wooden ship at a very high elevation? It doesn't seem like a national security issue. What I'm suggesting is that believers in Noah's Ark seem to be resorting to desparate means to promote their theory.
Final lesson. Please sit up properly and take notes!
When certain inarguably valid but unidentified items have been found in the past, there has then generally followed an honest effort by all concerned parties, both scientific and non-scientific, to establish just what it is/was. Fossilized bones, skulls, bits of remnant DNA (as with Lucy's mitochondrial DNA, giant dino bones). That something was found was not in dispute, just what it actually represented.
Interestingly, when it's then positively ID'd as, say, human mito-DNA, or a mammoth tusk, then the battle begins as to just where (and in Lucy's case, just when...) it was formed. And so the battle continues. But at least it's a battle about something in hand, not something photo'd from 6500 or more feet. I note that before they spend multi-millions of exploration funding, oil and mineral exploration companies now do extensive satellite imagery and remote sensing studies on difficult access locations. These techniques have been sufficiently developed and accurized to the point that they can be believed before the rock drills and camps are expensively air-lifted in. When these technicians, with no religious axe to grind, say the reflectance, X-Ray fluorescence signatures, material density, surrounding materials makeup and a myriad of other things indicate Basalt, you can be pretty sure that it's basalt. And Basalt is not even a fossilization end product. It's volcanic.
And so when I read about a biased highly religious guy deciding that he's found an Ark, versus the results of remote sensing tests telling us it's Basalt, who should I believe? Hopeful faith-based beliefs or an honest scientific evaluation?
In the case of the Mt. Ararat Basalt Barge, there is not yet any consensus (with accompanying and requisite on-site photos, samples of wood, either weathered or fossilized, clear photos of "cages", etc.) to support that anything has yet been truly identified as a boat remnant, much less that it has also been accurately dated. Let's say for a moment that a piece of assembled boat-shaped wood could withstand thousands of years of weathering, ice expansion and cracking, etc. Who then decides that it is/was The Ark? Where's the critical and thorough analysis that typifies true analytical science? Or do you just plain really really WANT it to be The Ark , and so, ergo, it MUST BE?
Sorry, Campbell, but even by the loosy-goosy standards that you allow as proof and religious science, this is a tad bit hard to accept for anyone who might be actually interested in the truth.
But I'm open to a personal re-evaluation when more in-hand info is available. Call me when the Turks stop playing silly religious politics and allow someone popularly believable up there like National Geographic, complete with good cameras and lighting, and an open mind that, yes, it might be The Ark, but also that no, it might NOT be the Ark. THAT'S real science, old chap.
A final BTW: if, say, National Geographic does hike up there in the future and positively determine that it's just a rock formation, and was never a part of a boat, will you then deny that? Just curious, as all us mad scientists are...
Last edited by rifleman; 12-29-2008 at 12:39 AM..
Reason: typos
...which does contain the particular gem that follows, so funny that I had to copy and paste it in here. But please, don't let this stop you from reading the whole irreverent but sensible article:
p. 108 The total amount of water carried for the animals would have sunk the ark, the total weight of provisions would have sunk the ark, the total weight of vertebrates would have sunk the ark many times, the amount of excreta generated would have sunk the ark every five days and the aquarium for a pair of whales would have sunk the ark many times. Furthermore, if a couple of large animals had the urge to procreate, the ark would become terribly unstable. Imagine if the two-tonne Ultrasaurus dinosaurs converted the snaking stinking sinking overcrowded freighter into a love boat. The ark would have capsized!
Details, details! rifleman's add: (Over the ship's loudspeaker system shortly after departure): "Attention, your attention please! There will be absolutely NO lovemaking by animals weighing more than 400 lb on this ship, by order of the capitan!"
"Let's see - two zebras, plus two wildebeests, plus two antelopes, plus two gazelles, plus two pigs, etc., do not add up to many meals. Oh yeah, they were supposed to be busy reproducing offspring. So those poor lions, and tigers, and bears, etc., couldn't eat them anyway. But, there definitely wasn't an extinction of carnivores thousands of years ago. The lions, and tigers, and bears, etc., are still alive, today. This food situation alone proves that this story is pure fiction. It never really happened. But, most important, it never could have happened the way it is written. The story of Noah's Ark is a myth."
But in the end, I know it was just a wiggle of god's nose. But why then, didn't he just do that wiggle thing to begin with? Seems he likes to test folks' faith and belief in the unbelievable as some sort of admission into the inner sanctum. Seems like a few selected islands scattered around this planet would have offered a significantly more hospitible and probable means of guaranteeing survival of his selected ones. Or, as someone else said, why the heck didn't he simply "re-genesis" the whole lot of 'em one afternoon after the flood. Or in one nano-second? Why work old Noah half to death here for 75 years? Why a flood at all as a rather "shotgun" approach to cleansing sin? Why not a vast cloud of toxic volcanic gases? Or shutting off the sun for, say, 10 weeks? Hmmm.... Too logical. He seems to have taken the very least believable option.
Last edited by rifleman; 12-29-2008 at 01:07 AM..
Reason: typos
The Earth can't possibly be more than about 6,000 years old, because if people had been around for a million or more years, as the evolutionists claim, there would be way more people than there are now. The Earth would have been totally overpopulated long ago, and we wouldn't even be here, because our ancestors would have died of starvation after 10,000 years or so of normal human reproduction. So there. That proves that evolution isn't true.
As a matter of fact, if you begin at the time of the biblical Flood (as calculated by most creationists), and figure a steady reproduction rate and the resulting geometric growth of the human population, you can end up with a figure for this year in the several-billions. With just a little fiddling with average number of kids per couple, average lifespan, etc., it's not difficult to end up with a population figure for this year that's right on the money. How much more proof could anyone want that humans have only been populating the Earth for a few thousand years?
Sorry, but it just ain't so. The math may be all right, but the basic assumptions behind it are totally wrong. The creationist date for the beginning of humanity works out only if we assume that the population has been growing steadily from a small beginning a few thousand years ago. Fine. Let's assume that. That would be true for other animals as well, wouldn't it? Their populations would have steadily grown since those rescued pairs walked, flew, or slithered off the Ark, just like the human population. No fair to start throwing in all sorts of qualifications to limit the growth of an animal population, because we didn't do that for people--did we?
Try rabbits. Let's work up a few numbers. We'll be very conservative (since creationists seem to have taken up the "conservative" banner). Start with the one pair that hopped off the Ark (not seven, since, if I'm not mistaken, rabbits are "unclean"). Assume that pair had only four kits in the first year (very conservative for rabbits). It's been a long time since I raised bunnies, but I think it would be fair to say that by one year of age, each pair of kits has produced a 4-kit litter of its own. Continue adding rabbits at that rate each year. Rabbits do die, though, so assume every pair of rabbits dies after its third year, after having produced three litters of four, for a total of 12 offspring. Conservative enough so far? At this ludicrously slow rate of reproduction (for rabbits), one year after the waters receded there would be six: the original pair that Ham, Shem, or Japheth herded in, plus four kits (we're even assuming Mr. Rabbit did not "know" his wife, in the King James Version sense, while aboard the Ark). Those six pair up, male and female, and populate the Earth after their kind, and a year later we have eighteen. And so on. The simplest computer spreadsheet will do all the math for us in a snap. We'll even remember to have all rabbits die after reaching three years of age. Keep this up for a few years. After five years we have 432 rabbits (nothing to worry about, right?). After ten years we're up to 85,512. By the twentieth year we're up to 3,349,845,900 -- a lot of bunnies, but hey, it's a big world. And let's throw in another astoundingly conservative assumption: that they only weigh a pound each.
Time to cut to the bottom line -- and we reach it in a hurry: at this very modest rate of rabbits' being fruitful and multiplying, by the fifty-third year there would be 1.669619x1024 rabbits, more or less, and they would outweigh the entire Earth (1.32x1024 lbs.)! That's after a mere fifty-three years of the same kind of reproduction the creationist assumes when he calculates the human population to be just about right for growth since the Flood! (Feel free to check my math.)
Read on (http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/noahbun.htm - broken link)
Ten to the 24th? Wowowowowow! A mighty big number!
Well, yes, Seeker, but this isn't ever about facts is it? The "wiggle-nose" factor wasn't included in your calculations. When it serves them, as with their supposedly rational calculation of the true age of the Earth (6035 as of this New Year's Day, BTW), or the capacity and size of The Ark, they utilize math, so-called objective observations, photos from old warplanes at yumpy-thousand feet up, and on and on.
But when cornered with simple "bunny logic", they either note that "Oh yeah? Well your mother wore army boots and men's underware, nyahhhh!", or they note god's simple ability to do whatever he wants with a simple "nose-wiggle", including making vastly unstable wooden boats float happily in a constant 4 inch per minute deluge of rain, with happily cavorting bunnies merrily tripsing under the skidding, stomping feet of T-Rexs and Bronti's in love while tons of solid and liquid excretia pile up in the hold, burying the "lesser"animals alive. Unclean indeed!
This is more akin to a sort of "Ping-Pong Game From Hell" where the devil (assuming he existed..) forces you to continue playing an endless game, ping - pong - ping - pong - ping - pong AOAOAI. You KNOW you've won on points, and if normal rules and logic applied, but nonetheless, yah gotta keep pinging and ponging forever. Useless, pointless; no one's ever going to be declared the winner despite you having all the points. And you can hear the devil laughing in the other room...
Perhaps, as I'm concluding now, it's all just for entertainment value? HaHa funny?
Last edited by rifleman; 12-29-2008 at 08:50 AM..
Reason: typos
We've been through this so many times. Everyone who owns a camera realizes when they've taken a good shot and when they've taken one that should be deleted. I've seen thousands of photographs of ships, sailboats, kayaks, tugboats, aluminum fishing boats, etc. and it's very easy to recognize them for what they are. Your Ark photos are very different. All I see are blurry photos and a wild imagination. I really think you're a sincere person and I know you think this is true but I have to ask you to look at the evidence. Do we have actual photos of a vessel that is seaworthy? No, we don't. Why in the world would Turkey or any other country try to conceal evidence that there is a wooden ship at a very high elevation? It doesn't seem like a national security issue. What I'm suggesting is that believers in Noah's Ark seem to be resorting to desparate means to promote their theory.
Because it gives credibility to a religion other than their own.
We've been through this so many times. Everyone who owns a camera realizes when they've taken a good shot and when they've taken one that should be deleted. I've seen thousands of photographs of ships, sailboats, kayaks, tugboats, aluminum fishing boats, etc. and it's very easy to recognize them for what they are. Your Ark photos are very different. All I see are blurry photos and a wild imagination. I really think you're a sincere person and I know you think this is true but I have to ask you to look at the evidence. Do we have actual photos of a vessel that is seaworthy? No, we don't. Why in the world would Turkey or any other country try to conceal evidence that there is a wooden ship at a very high elevation? It doesn't seem like a national security issue. What I'm suggesting is that believers in Noah's Ark seem to be resorting to desparate means to promote their theory.
Well how many boats have you taken pictures of incased in ice? And why would Turkey allow people to climb all over Mt. Ararat, (but not the North Slope?) That is a great question, when the Turkish government gives you an answer, please let me know. And why you are at it, why don't you ask the Saudi government why they built a fence around Mt. Sinia? And why won't they let anyone from the west explore that site either? It is not believers in Noah's ark that have put up these road blocks to truth. It is both the Turkish, and Saudi goverments. Both of these two sites have been closed to anyone from the outside, that is a fact. And it appears these countries are not the only one's keeping this information from the general public. There is also the National Geographic Society, and who knows who else. All of this has been documented. We have eyewitiness accounts of the ark on Ararat. As I have stated some of these accounts tell us the Ark is broken in two. Areial photographs show us what appears to be two man-made objects near the top of Ararat, and on the north slope. The same slope where Turkey will not allow anyone to go. Some of the accounts state that they saw the ark broken in two, and it had triple decks inside, and cages. The wood is now like stone. Another account stated some of the Curds have taken objects that fell out of the Ark and placed them in a cave. Ancient oil lamps, a cage doors ect. Even if you don't believe in the Ark. Why can you go anywhere in Turkey, but not the north slope of Ararat?
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.
Final lesson. Please sit up properly and take notes!
