Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bob Cornuke and Noah's Ark in Iran?
Textcritic
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 56 (323337)
06-19-2006 3:13 PM


Bob Cornuke is a self-styled "biblical investigator" with less than impressive credentials, who has claimed to have discovered remains of what may be the most ancient shipwreck in history. Located on a slope 13,120 feet above sea level rests an unusual "ark-shaped" object in excess of 400' in length. What is most peculiar and significant about the object is that many of the pieces of the find resemble petrified, hewn timbers, which have been located amid fossilized remnants of thousands of shells.
Check out links to a story with pictures and a video:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.worldviewweekend.com/secure/cwnetwork/article.php?&ArticleID=813
Page Not Found | Worldview Weekend Broadcast Network
Cornuke was recently featured on FoxNews, and there is a great deal of growing enthusiasm within Christian circles regarding his interpretation of the find. His pictures and video are compelling, and it appears that there is yet to be a response from the scientific community. Does anyone know anything else about Cornuke's claims? What is the geological evaluation of his evidence? Could this in fact be an ancient shipwreck? If not, what is it?
I felt that this deserved its own thread in light of the recent exposure Mr. Cornuke has received. His discovery is certainly much more persuasive than the widely debunked Ron Wyatt.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added missing space in topic title.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 06-19-2006 4:21 PM Textcritic has not replied
 Message 5 by arachnophilia, posted 06-19-2006 4:26 PM Textcritic has replied
 Message 27 by riVeRraT, posted 07-05-2006 10:04 PM Textcritic has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 56 (323369)
06-19-2006 4:16 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 56 (323375)
06-19-2006 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Textcritic
06-19-2006 3:13 PM


From the first link:
Even more intriguing, some of the wood-like rocks were tested just this week and actually proved to be petrified wood....
How does wood petrify without being buried?

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Textcritic, posted 06-19-2006 3:13 PM Textcritic has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by arachnophilia, posted 06-19-2006 4:23 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 4 of 56 (323377)
06-19-2006 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Chiroptera
06-19-2006 4:21 PM


How does wood petrify without being buried?
it petrifies buried, and then becomse un-buried. erosion is a magical thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 06-19-2006 4:21 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Chiroptera, posted 06-19-2006 4:30 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 5 of 56 (323380)
06-19-2006 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Textcritic
06-19-2006 3:13 PM


His discovery is certainly much more persuasive than the widely debunked Ron Wyatt.
i disagree. this read exactly like wyatt. the same second-hand stories, and the same any-wood-on-a-mountain-must-be-the-ark mentality, and the same kinds of books and dvds for sale.
frankly, the pictures are less than convincing. wyatt's site at least looks like a boat. kind of.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Textcritic, posted 06-19-2006 3:13 PM Textcritic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Textcritic, posted 06-19-2006 5:33 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 56 (323385)
06-19-2006 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by arachnophilia
06-19-2006 4:23 PM


An big boat sitting on a mountain side gets buried deep enough to be exposed to the ground water; the original material decays away, begin replaced by the minerals; then erosion exposed the petrified big boat again to the world.
I suppose 4000 years might be long enough for all this to occur, but I think you last comment is closer: magical indeed. But then I don't claim to be an expert. Are there examples of archaeological artifacts of wood that have been petrified after their initial manufacture?

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by arachnophilia, posted 06-19-2006 4:23 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by arachnophilia, posted 06-19-2006 4:43 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 7 of 56 (323394)
06-19-2006 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Chiroptera
06-19-2006 4:30 PM


I suppose 4000 years might be long enough for all this to occur,
*coughnocough*
but I think you last comment is closer: magical indeed. But then I don't claim to be an expert. Are there examples of archaeological artifacts of wood that have been petrified after their initial manufacture?
not that i know of. i was just pointing out that petrified wood sticking out of the ground is not uncommon. you can see some fine examples of it in arizona, for instance.
Edited by arachnophilia, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Chiroptera, posted 06-19-2006 4:30 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Textcritic
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 56 (323419)
06-19-2006 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by arachnophilia
06-19-2006 4:26 PM


It is at moments like these that I wish I were a geologist...ok, not really.
If the formations are indeed pertified wood (is it possible to tell from the photographs one way or another?), is there a naturalistic explanation for their "hewn" appearence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by arachnophilia, posted 06-19-2006 4:26 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Chiroptera, posted 06-19-2006 5:42 PM Textcritic has replied
 Message 11 by anglagard, posted 06-19-2006 6:29 PM Textcritic has not replied
 Message 12 by arachnophilia, posted 06-19-2006 7:12 PM Textcritic has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 56 (323421)
06-19-2006 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Textcritic
06-19-2006 5:33 PM


Let's forget the petrified wood business.
Suppose that wood that has been worked by humans has been found on a mountain in Iran.
What is the significance?

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Textcritic, posted 06-19-2006 5:33 PM Textcritic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by arachnophilia, posted 06-19-2006 7:14 PM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 25 by Textcritic, posted 06-19-2006 9:32 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 10 of 56 (323430)
06-19-2006 5:55 PM


Even more intriguing, some of the wood-like rocks were tested just this week and actually proved to be petrified wood....
And how does one test for petrified wood? My guess would have been by looking at it with an experienced eye to see if it had any of the morphological characters of known petrified wood: mineralogy would tell you almost nothing, I would think. (Unless it's basalt - I'd like to see a mechanism for replacement of wood by basalt. Or granite.) I realize this is apologetics/journalism we're getting, but I'd really like to know what tests they ran.....

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 11 of 56 (323465)
06-19-2006 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Textcritic
06-19-2006 5:33 PM


Shale
If the formations are indeed pertified wood (is it possible to tell from the photographs one way or another?), is there a naturalistic explanation for their "hewn" appearence?
From the pictures it looks like shale {ABE - or slate, depending on grain size}, a common fine-grained sedimentary rock. You can see eroded chips of it all over.
However, I would like a sample to be more definitive, hope they don't all magically disappear as has happened in the past with much of Wyatt's "evidence."
Edited by anglagard, : add slate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Textcritic, posted 06-19-2006 5:33 PM Textcritic has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by arachnophilia, posted 06-19-2006 7:19 PM anglagard has not replied
 Message 23 by Chiroptera, posted 06-19-2006 8:22 PM anglagard has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 12 of 56 (323496)
06-19-2006 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Textcritic
06-19-2006 5:33 PM


It is at moments like these that I wish I were a geologist...ok, not really.
i was vaguely interested in geology (and paleontology) for some part of my childhood.
If the formations are indeed pertified wood (is it possible to tell from the photographs one way or another?),
now, i'm not a qualified geologist, but i am comparing the photos of the petrified wood i happen to have in my closet. and the closeups certainly appear to be petrified wood to me. i could be wrong.
is there a naturalistic explanation for their "hewn" appearence?
i see nothing abnormal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Textcritic, posted 06-19-2006 5:33 PM Textcritic has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 13 of 56 (323499)
06-19-2006 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Chiroptera
06-19-2006 5:42 PM


Let's forget the petrified wood business.
no, let's not. because it looks a lot like petrified wood to me, which highly suggests that it is a natural formation. i know of no examples of any man-made wooden structure that has petrified.
Suppose that wood that has been worked by humans has been found on a mountain in Iran.
What is the significance?
also nothing. but i fail to see anything that indicate this wood was worked by humans.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Chiroptera, posted 06-19-2006 5:42 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Chiroptera, posted 06-19-2006 7:24 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 14 of 56 (323503)
06-19-2006 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by anglagard
06-19-2006 6:29 PM


Re: Shale
From the pictures it looks like shale {ABE - or slate, depending on grain size}, a common fine-grained sedimentary rock. You can see eroded chips of it all over.
yes, quite a lot of the stuff they photographed looks like your average shale or slate. but pictures 14 and 7 and 2 look a bit like petrified wood to me.
might not be, of course. hard to tell from these pictures, and with my very limite knowledge of geology.
Edited by arachnophilia, : bad link


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by anglagard, posted 06-19-2006 6:29 PM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by MangyTiger, posted 06-19-2006 7:40 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 56 (323508)
06-19-2006 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by arachnophilia
06-19-2006 7:14 PM


My intent was to bring up yet another issue that needs to be resolved in this "discovery". So far we now three separate issues that should be addressed to evaluate the significance of this 'discovery":
(1) Are these rocks petrified wood?
(2) Was the original wood worked by humans?
(3) What is the significance of a manufactured wooden structure (petrified or not) found on a mountain in Iran?
Even if (1) and (2) can be answered "yes" (and I don't mean to claim they aren't important questions in their own right), we would still need to ask "A manufactured wooden structure has been found on an Iranian mountain; so what?"
Just another point of discussion concerning the validity of this "find".

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by arachnophilia, posted 06-19-2006 7:14 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 06-19-2006 7:29 PM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 21 by arachnophilia, posted 06-19-2006 8:01 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024