Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8904 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-18-2019 6:32 PM
17 online now:
AZPaul3, Phat (AdminPhat), Taq, Theodoric (4 members, 13 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,791 Year: 4,828/19,786 Month: 950/873 Week: 306/376 Day: 99/57 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
Author Topic:   Bob Cornuke and Noah's Ark in Iran?
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3003 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 46 of 56 (329377)
07-06-2006 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by RickJB
07-06-2006 12:37 PM


Re: so we have a shipwreck resting at 13,000 feet?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by RickJB, posted 07-06-2006 12:37 PM RickJB has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3003 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 47 of 56 (329380)
07-06-2006 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by sidelined
07-06-2006 12:36 PM


Re: so we have a shipwreck resting at 13,000 feet?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by sidelined, posted 07-06-2006 12:36 PM sidelined has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by ramoss, posted 07-06-2006 2:00 PM randman has responded
 Message 50 by DrJones*, posted 07-06-2006 2:23 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 55 by deerbreh, posted 07-11-2006 2:56 PM randman has not yet responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3100
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 48 of 56 (329398)
07-06-2006 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by randman
07-06-2006 12:49 PM


Re: so we have a shipwreck resting at 13,000 feet?
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by randman, posted 07-06-2006 12:49 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by randman, posted 07-06-2006 2:03 PM ramoss has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3003 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 49 of 56 (329401)
07-06-2006 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by ramoss
07-06-2006 2:00 PM


Re: so we have a shipwreck resting at 13,000 feet?
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by ramoss, posted 07-06-2006 2:00 PM ramoss has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Coragyps, posted 07-06-2006 2:31 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 54 by deerbreh, posted 07-11-2006 2:38 PM randman has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1819
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 50 of 56 (329409)
07-06-2006 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by randman
07-06-2006 12:49 PM


Re: so we have a shipwreck resting at 13,000 feet?
You don't think they tried to cram the wood beams as close as possible?

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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by randman, posted 07-06-2006 12:49 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5380
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 51 of 56 (329412)
07-06-2006 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by randman
07-06-2006 2:03 PM


Re: so we have a shipwreck resting at 13,000 feet?
Thus far, all the facts indicate that there is a positive test for petrified wood.

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by randman, posted 07-06-2006 2:03 PM randman has not yet responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 82 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 52 of 56 (329437)
07-06-2006 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by randman
07-06-2006 3:18 AM


Re: so we have a shipwreck resting at 13,000 feet?
Didn't you say earlier in the thread it looked like petrified wood?

<---- Not A Geologist.

superficially, yes, it does look a little like petrified wood. on closer examination, it does not.

Regardless, it does look like wooden beams and has tested positive for it. That's all the facts we have now. Do you have evidence those claims are wrong?

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?


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by randman, posted 07-06-2006 3:18 AM randman has not yet responded

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 997 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 53 of 56 (330848)
07-11-2006 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by randman
07-06-2006 3:18 AM


Rules of Evidence
Randman writes:

Regardless, it does look like wooden beams and has tested positive for it. That's all the facts we have now. Do you have evidence those claims are wrong?
If so, please produce them.

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 quote

Edited by deerbreh, : edit subtitle


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by randman, posted 07-06-2006 3:18 AM randman has not yet responded

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 997 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 54 of 56 (330852)
07-11-2006 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by randman
07-06-2006 2:03 PM


Positive Test for Petrified Wood?
Randman writes:

Thus far, all the facts indicate that there is a positive test for petrified wood.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by randman, posted 07-06-2006 2:03 PM randman has not yet responded

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 997 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 55 of 56 (330856)
07-11-2006 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by randman
07-06-2006 12:49 PM


Review of How Wood Gets Petrified
Randman writes:

As the ark would have been compressed, presumably, under rock or some such (in order to petrify),.....

You need to review how wood gets petrified. Here.

http://www.desertusa.com/mag00/jan/papr/rock.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrified_wood

Note 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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by randman, posted 07-06-2006 12:49 PM randman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by AdminNosy, posted 07-11-2006 3:55 PM deerbreh has not yet responded

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


Message 56 of 56 (330871)
07-11-2006 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by deerbreh
07-11-2006 2:56 PM


Better post subtitle please.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by deerbreh, posted 07-11-2006 2:56 PM deerbreh has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019