Noah's ark found on mt. Ararat in eastern turkey (Revelations, Satan, temple)

[lifertexan]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

Soon the Ark of Noah will be seen around the globe. How deep will your denial be? How will you ignore that truth? .

*yawn*

When that day comes,let us know.It certainly hasn't yet,as even Christian ark experts deny this is the ark,and your only response is that they are jealous and lying because they didn't find it first.Great endorsement of the integrity of all the ark hunters campbell.

Until then you are the Linus of CD,proclaiming that "Soon you will see the Great Pumpkin!What will you do then?How will you deny seeing the Great Pumpkin flying through the air delivering presents?Huh?Huh?What are you going to do then?Huh?"

[Asheville Native]

Watching the delusion, denial and insanity here is like watching a side show freak, it makes you ill, yet you can't look away. You wonder is this real, or just an act, and if real how how sad.

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by rifleman

GORE™, or The C34 principle that some minor event, any minor or imagined, often generated only in a lab, or only in someone's dreams, is then applied, with a Gratuitious (or Gross) Over-Reaching Exaggeration, to the entire global community, is tested here.
(some quick refresher examples, paraphrased from C34's own posts:

• "Scientists are now finding underwater cities all around the world."
• "Scientists are now finding dinosaur DNA in fossils, all around the world."
• "they (???) are now finding dinosaur and human artifacts everywhere!"
• "they are finding dinosaur footprints mixed with human footprints all over the world..."

Etc. etc. You get the bigger picture. All false, and known to be so.

It seems that Tom should review the Mexican volcano, in the link so thoughtfully provided by NightBazaar above,:


YouTube - Volcan Paricutin (Michoacan, Mexico)

...and must now be globally applied (via the GORE™ principle) to all volcanoes. Therefore, no volcanic mountains, including Ararat, were even there a thousand years ago. The hinted-at phantom Ark would have to have been coughed up from the water-filled earth's mantle (another GORE episode, previously discussed...), having made it's gentle way up the volcanic eruption tube, tossed gently out on a floating, angelic clooud of cool Godly gasses, and then gently depositied into a fluffly bed of discarded angel's wing feathers, at a spot where it was forever after unaffected by the continuing pyroclastic upwellings, outpourings, frequent volcanic blasts and intermediary ice accumulations, flows, recessions. Oh, and weather.

Yeah; quite believable. I don't know why I doubted it for an instant, do you, Tom?

PS: this factoid just in regarding Ararat:

"The last eruption will have occurred somewhere in the last 10000 years. It seems that Ararat was active in the 3rd millennium BC; under the pyroclastic flows, artifacts from the early Bronze Age and remains of human bodies have been found.

According to a legend, a Roman emperor ordered a number of Roman soldiers who converted to Christianity (now called ten thousand martyrs of Mount Ararat) to be crucified on Mount Ararat.
"

So that's where that wood came from! Roman cruciforms! All documented. Bet you weren't aware of that, huh, Tom?

The answer at last, not to mention those Bronze-age (pre-God, even pre-Earth!) items buried under those measured and visible flows....

All false and known to be so? Based on what rifleman? Your people refuse to do scientific reviews on such evidence. If I'm wrong, could please present us with the scientific review that would back up your claim? So rifleman, do you consider your personal opinion a true scientific review? I believe it is your personal over exaggerations which are not scientific, and these exaggerations are the only thing that allows you to dismiss evidence. Your belief system rifleman appears to me to be only supported by your denials. You speak of science in one breath, yet you reject evidence without any scientific review in the next. WHY IS THAT? AND WHERE IS THE SCIENCE IN THAT?

[PanTerra]

How could the Ark be on the top of Mt Ararat, since the water level had to be low enough for a dove to bring back to the Ark a "freshly plucked olive leaf," making Noah aware that the waters had receded from the Earth, so the story goes, and waited for all the water to dry up from the earth. However, olive trees only flourish in sub tropical zones and native to the coastal and foothill areas of the eastern Mediterranian Basin. So the problem arises, how to get the Ark back up to the top of Mt Ararat without the benefit of water to float it up. Just sayin'.

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by lifertexan

*yawn*

When that day comes,let us know.It certainly hasn't yet,as even Christian ark experts deny this is the ark,and your only response is that they are jealous and lying because they didn't find it first.Great endorsement of the integrity of all the ark hunters campbell.

Until then you are the Linus of CD,proclaiming that "Soon you will see the Great Pumpkin!What will you do then?How will you deny seeing the Great Pumpkin flying through the air delivering presents?Huh?Huh?What are you going to do then?Huh?"

Again, I did not say they were lying. I did say they were jealous because some of them have been searching for the Ark much of their life. And for them to debunk the evidence when they themselves have never saw the evidence is remarkable. One of the one's who deny the discovery never secured a permit even to scale Mt. Ararat. And Turkish authorities said they did not even know who he was. They also stated they had great trust in the people who actually made the discovery. Not every Ark hunter should be given a blank check for intergrity. So I have no idea why you would think they should. Especially when they debunk evidence without ever seeing it.

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by PanTerra

How could the Ark be on the top of Mt Ararat, since the water level had to be low enough for a dove to bring back to the Ark a "freshly plucked olive leaf," making Noah aware that the waters had receded from the Earth, so the story goes, and waited for all the water to dry up from the earth. However, olive trees only flourish in sub tropical zones and native to the coastal and foothill areas of the eastern Mediterranian Basin. So the problem arises, how to get the Ark back up to the top of Mt Ararat without the benefit of water to float it up. Just sayin'.

Well most of the trees were no doubt up rooted. The olive branch would of been found on land were the dove set down. And that olive branch may not of even been from around the area. No doubt, the mountain ranges were loaded with all kinds of trees and branches after the storm. Trees and such had months to float and find a place to settle. And the Ark still would of been able to land near the top of Mt. Ararat.

[rifleman]

Gosh, the InterNet's fun, isn't it? All kinds of fact-filled stuff that anyone with an interest in the truth can easily look up! Like the following, from: ( it's a pdf.doc...)

The Explorers of Ararat, Clifford Burdick (“PhD*”), 1945 – 1974.

(NOTE: The University of Arizona actually declined to grant his PhD days before his questionable thesis defense. He still claimed that rank, unearned, anyhow. He claimed their denial was solely because of his Creationist leanings, but in fact, further review clearly shows he’d frequently made hugely unscientific and indefensible claims, in public, under the guise of the U. of Arizona’s good name, that ran against common sense and established factual knowledge.

Example: he once claimed to have found “modern” fossilized pollen in deep rock from the Grand Canyon, thus "proving" it’s Flood origins. [as an actual educated geologist, he nonetheless ignored all the other obvious implausibilities of such a nutball claim.. but then, that's what they do..] This was later clearly and completely debunked by others, with real PhD credentials, but no matter. The urban myth stood in the minds of the already-decided.

As well, he’s known for having refuted all radio-isotopic dating, a “fact”” often cited by Creationists to this day. Of course, the date of his critique, 1945, leaves a bit to the imagination and technical credibility, since most of the now-credible and now very finessed 21st century techniques have been more than validated, but still it’s an oft-cited “fact” by desperate Creationists as still valid. Implausible as it all was, even in '45. 1945, furchrissake!)

At any rate, he pretty much buries the Theme Park idea of any modern undisturbed, or even vaguely remnant, finds up on the violent Ararat peaks, thusly, by his own words: pg 6..:

"Evidence gathered at Mt. Ararat indicates that the original mountain was much lower than the present one and was of different composition or at least of different texture and different color. The metrological differences will be discussed later, but the original Ararat was apparently not more than 10,000 to 12,000 feet in height. The present peak is about 17,000 feet, and at it’s greatest height perhaps measured nearer 20,000 feet. Erosion has worn it down.

During the Flood period – in the broadest sense- at least three blankets of basaltic or andesitic lava were extruded over the first Aarat. Volcanic eruptions have taken place periodically ever since, but with subsiding activity. More recent flows have been extruded from cracks lower down on the mountain as each succeeding extrusion had less force that the preceding one.

Ararat is known as a shield type of volcano. This section would not be complete without mentioning what is perhaps the most violent eruption associated with Ararat. This did not occur in 1840 as some have surmised; it was infinitely more terrific. Very likely some time after the floodwaters had subsided, almost the whole northeast side of the mountain blew up. A long deep gash was opened in the mountain, known as the Ahora Gulch. This is many miles long and thousands of feet deep and wide, and a conservative estimate would be that from one to two cubic miles of rock debris and volcanic ash was blown from the mountain.

(ed note: Ahora village is where Noah & wife & kids trekked down to after "landing", not too far from the landing site up in that gulch. Likely directly below it, in fact. That's logical, huh?)

This is the type of volcanic eruption that buried Pompei and Herculaneum.

Presumably Noah and his family had left the area by this time."

(ed note: But of course, his boat would not have "left", being still tied up or wedged immovably in new ice at the 13,000 foot level.)

But continuing now, from page # 4, this additional factual information :

"Storms of wind of 100 miles per hour, and temperatures below zero made life disagreeable for our glaciologists. Also, our geologists were caught out in a thunder-storm in pelting sleet and rain, and the ensuing fog made it difficult to find their way back to camp at night, soaking wet, cold and exhausted."

Yup. Likely easy survival conditions for the lucky Ark dis-embarkees, huh? Especially the Amazonian parrots and desert lizards and grasshoppers and... Then this:

"Following the 18040 eruption, the village of Ahora (ed note: where Noah & wife were claimed to have been buried, near to his Ark...) was destroyed by an earthquake and resulting avalanche, which came thundering down Ahora Gulch [water, morainal materials, mud and iceflows wiped out the town of Ahora.]"

All, one can easily and technically assume, originating from the very location of his barge's final resting place.

And so, despite a Pompei-like massive, mountain-shattering eruption, and deep gashes on it's sides, and massive debris flows, an intact Ark has remained, not even counting subsequent advancing and retreating and re-advancing ice flows, weather, erosion, etc.
_________________________________________

The implausibility factor ("IF¡" let's call it...) here is extremely, astronomically high, even disregarding all the other implausibility factors like the absence of a believable reproductive ecology model, the count of known and established species on this planet, mega-ship construction using only wood, wooden pins and pitch, the trouble-free re-establishment, post-disembarkation, of the necessary huge human populations and cultural experimentation to accomplish, for instance, the engineering and cultural accomplishments of ancient Egypt or China or India or Japan, or any other well-documented culture. All in 240 years? Is that credible to anyone with a brain older than 6 yrs of age?

I will note that Burdick had no intention of proving The Ark is still up there. In fact, his dissertation in the document cited here was to provide evidence of a global Flood via fossil finds on Ararat. That was his specialty. But he inadvertently also completely debunks even the most vague possibility that any such structure could possibly have survived the volcanic disturbances (if you can euphemistically call a nearby "hydrogen bomb-like" explosion a "disturbance"... ) of Ararat.

None of these things has been credibly addressed by it's defenders on the possibility of a still-existing Ark specifically on ancient volcanically violent Ararat, but this Creationist-worshiped pseudo-Doctor (one of many, I'll add...) get easy credibility. Must be their use of big words, huh?

The entire paper, which has since been thoroughly refuted, still remains an interesting read. It reeks of assumption and modification of facts. This think-mode is nothing new to Creationist pseudo-science of course.

And we're the delusional ones ignoring the evidence? (Stop it! It's hurting my sides! Please! STOP IT!)

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

Well most of the trees were no doubt up rooted.

(drowned is more like it...)

The olive branch would of been found on land were the dove set down. And that olive branch may not of even been from around the area. No doubt, the mountain ranges were loaded with all kinds of trees and branches after the storm.

Actually, this is addressed by Burdick's report (above) in which he notes the lack of any local forestation in the Ararat area. So your casual "no doubt" commentary is only your wishful assumption, as usual... And also wrong, as usual.

And of course, after 18 mo of submersion under salty water, with no light to allow any photosynthesis, in fact, all vegetation would be dead dead dead. Never to recuperate..)

(Dead) Trees and such had months to float and find a place to settle (and rot...). And the Ark still would of been able to land near the top of Mt. Ararat.

____________________________

Yep. Those Koalas love olive leaves, to be sure!

(Ooopsss...all dead!) "What'll we do, Noah?" "Just bury them in the ice I suppose..."

What did the Brazil nut and mango-eating parrots survive on though? All 100 of them, as is absolutely necessary for any hope of reproductive survival? Did they eat volcanic ash? Hows about the fish that the seals and egrets and fish eagles and humans would require?

Wait; where were those fish kept on the Ark anyhow? And hows about what the fish required to eat? Where were the tons of fish food kept? In fact, where was anything kept?

Just being curious about your various troubling claims, Tom. Being intellectually honest, which you repeatedly claim we aren't, and asking a few thoughtful questions, you understand.

As usual, I patiently await your thoughtful and information-filled factual response.

(But oh, BTW, with admittedly growing impatience, where is that promised detailed summary report, ref. 2008, from the Shanghai Theme Park crew?)
_______________________

Late ad. note: ref. the Implausibility Factor: IF¡: let's give it a 1 - 10 rating, shall we?

Totally, impossibly implausible = 10. 1 = quite plausible, like Evolution. You know, like some loon claiming the moon's made of green cheese, despite the lunar landing evidence? Or that the universe rotates around us here on Earth. Even Tom would give that lunar claim a firm 9.5, minimum, because you never know, those astronauts may well have just decided to keep the discovery to themselves, having brought along a large supply of good cheese crackers...

But this Ark stuff? I'd give it and IF¡ rating of 10 for sure. Based on at least ten different "angles" of consideration and rational thought. Anyone else?

[Fullback32]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

Well most of the trees were no doubt up rooted. The olive branch would of been found on land were the dove set down. And that olive branch may not of even been from around the area. No doubt, the mountain ranges were loaded with all kinds of trees and branches after the storm. Trees and such had months to float and find a place to settle. And the Ark still would of been able to land near the top of Mt. Ararat.

Not totally trying to be a wise-guy, but this part of the conversation makes me think of the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail concerning how coconuts could have arrived in England.

1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: Where'd you get the coconuts?
King Arthur: We found them.
1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: Found them? In Mercia? The coconut's tropical!
King Arthur: What do you mean?
1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: Well, this is a temperate zone
King Arthur: The swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin or the plover may seek warmer climes in winter, yet these are not strangers to our land?
1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
King Arthur: Not at all. They could be carried.
1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: What? A swallow carrying a coconut?
King Arthur: It could grip it by the husk!
1st soldier with a keen interest in birds: It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut.

[rifleman]

Hey! if God wants them to carry coconuts, that's what they'll carry! Got it?