Bob Cornuke and Noah's Ark in Iran?

interesting pic.....does look like wood.Guess we'll have to wait to see what tests they did to determine it was petrified wood at the site and not shale.

You serious?You don't think they tried to cram the wood beams as close as possible? I would think there wouldn't be too much space. The pitch is like mortar, right? As the ark would have been compressed, presumably, under rock or some such (in order to petrify), I wouldn't expect to see a lot of pitch; nor much space, but I noted in some pics, there does appear to be a slight bit of space sometimes.I think they attribute the black coloration to the pitch, btw.

You seem rather confident of the information given. How confident are you? Enough for a side bet? I bet that nothing will come of this in the next two years (lets put a date of July 4th , 2008). If this is still in the total speculation mode, or falsified by then, you will (without prosytlising), go to a reform,conserviative or orthodox Jewish synagouge for 4 weeks running to listen and pray (without invoking Jesus). If it gets confirmed that this 'rock' is petrified wood of the proper age, I will go to the christian church of the denomnination of your choice and do the same thing.

Ramoss, I am not involved and so will not take the bet. Thus far, all the facts indicate that there is a positive test for petrified wood. I suspect that is accurate, but whether this is the Ark or something else, we shall see.

That'd be awfully stupid of them. Wood expands when it gets wet, if they didn't give it room to expand it'd crack and you'd have a very leaky boat.

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

I'm calling bullshit. What would such a test consist of? Microscopic examination I might buy, but chemical tests are a bit chancy. Was there something here about organic vs. inorganic carbon content? Shale sometimes has a large organic carbon component. If these folks have any "facts," why won't they say what those facts are?

<---- not. uh, so far we don't actually have the evidence for the claims at all. all we have is the claim that it was tested to be petrified wood. we don't have the test, do we?

---

Time for a little reminder about "evidence"."Looks like" is not evidence.Saying "it has tested positive for......" is not evidence. No lab or investigator named, no methodology of sample collection and analysis,........... no evidence.We have no facts now except someone claiming on a website that they have discovered Noah's Ark and a few pictures of what appear to be natural rock formations, probably basalt, imo. Lots of rock formations "look like" something else. There are rock formations in Virginia caverns that look like petrified fried eggs "over easy". Are they fried eggs? No it is a rock formation.Once again, it is not up to skeptics to prove an extraordinary claim wrong. The burden of proof is on the people doing the extraordinary claiming. Always.Edited by deerbreh, : include quoteEdited by deerbreh, : edit subtitle

Which "facts" are you referring to? All I saw was a claim that a piece of rock they retrieved from the site tested positive for petrified wood. That is not a fact. That is an assertion. No methodology given for sampling or analysis, no lab or investigator named..........no fact.Edited by deerbreh, : edit subtitle

You need to review how wood gets petrified. Here.Petrified Wood - DesertUSAPetrified wood - WikipediaNote that it takes WATER carrying dissolved minerals. How did the ark get submerged in mineral bearing water on top of the mountain AFTER the Flood waters receded? Edited by deerbreh, : Edit Subtitle

I think deerbreh that a better subtitle would have been:"How wood is petrified" or "Is it really wood" the shipwreck isn't the main focus of your post. Thanks for helping other browse the threads it would be considerate of you.