|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,901 Year: 4,158/9,624 Month: 1,029/974 Week: 356/286 Day: 12/65 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Noah's ark found ?!? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined:
|
Ok people, we're getting soft here. Noah's ark discovery has been announced for a couple of hours and no one has made a thread here
Has Noah's Ark Been Found on Turkish Mountaintop? | Fox News a skeptic's opinion: MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos AbE: Article+video http://www.bittenandbound.com/...rk-ministries-international Could be interesting to discuss: 1- What is your level of skepticism ? (I gotta say mine is extremely high) 2- If it really turns out to be what they say it is, what are the implications ? Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined:
|
I'll play devil's advocate since my own skepticism is also very high. Hopefully, as the other link mentioned, there is a scientific paper in the works that could be published (which of course couldn't conclude with 'so we think this is Noah's ark'.)
So...they found a wooden structure, with fasteners that predate metal nails, on a mountain. It's high up, man-made, and made of wood. And they rule out anything other than Noah's fucking Ark because "none have ever been found above 11,000 feet in the vicinity?!" What. The. Fuck. And it has "compartments." Why do you think it was holding animals? Even if it were, why do you jump to "Noah's fucking Ark" rather than "it's an old barn from a high-altitude community?" This whole thing screams confirmation bias. Well, they have a hypothesis that predicts Noah's ark would be there. They go there and find what was predicted, or at least something that fits perfectly. And you accuse them of bias because they think they found what they were supposed to find and not start thinking they found something else ? AbE I just want to add that of course, I agree every other possibility must be examined if this is to be taken seriously. But you can't take it against them that they say they believe they found what they were looking for. Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
It would be a great question to ask them, I suppose. But you can't just bungle all creationists in one package. I'm not the one who did the dating and thought it was valid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Or Noah was the Amiral of an incredible fleet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
I can't find who he is either ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
what's 'the sun' ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
No. although it does seem like a decently big structure from the video (at the minimum as big as a small barn)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
They say no in the article. Very little precision on this though. What is the next highest man made structure in the region ? What is the highest ever found man made structure ?
could all be interesting to know
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Did they carbon date the wood? Wouldn't the wood be too old to carbon date to begin with and would return inaccurate results? Carbon-dating goes back up around 60k years (depending on the size of the material) This is what I find wierd in all this, they carbon-dated it to 4800 years. Creationists usually say accelerated nuclear decay is responsible for the wrong results given by this method, yet the carbon in the ark would have been exempt from this ?
Naturally I am skeptical of this "finding" because it has happened before. Here is a wiki article on searches for the Ark: Searches for Noah's Ark - Wikipedia. Yeah, same reason I am also skeptical. I mean, with the number of arks that have already been ''found'' you gotta think Noah actually had a whole fleet of boats. Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
And the first news source that you cite has this to say: "There have been several reported discoveries of the remains of Noah's Ark over the years, most notably a find by archaeologist Ron Wyatt in 1987." Ron Wyatt was always a ****er, seriously. ''Hey Guys, I found the ark of the covenant. Yeah I know it's pretty cool, but the best part is that there was some of Jesus's blood on it, and I analysed it and it proves Jesus didn't have a human father. Yeah I know crazy isn't it ? What, You want to see it for yourself ? But no you can't, I've already stored it in my basement alongside the Tablets of the Ten commandements, Noah's wife jewelry, ash from Sodom and Gomorrah, chariots wheels from the Pharaoh of the Exodus, and artifacts from the Ark ... sorry and I lost the key''
The survival of the Ark is not even implied by scripture. If you believe the Bible, it was a structure built out of wood, made four thousand years ago, and designed to last for about a year, and then lodged on a mountain, rather than, for example, in a peat-bog. Even if every word of the Book of Genesis was true, I wouldn't expect a 4000-year old wooden artifact to survive in those conditions. Yet curiously enough, people keep on discovering it. Well ... kinda discovering it. But not really discovering it. Agreed, the 'survival' of the ark isn't logically necessary from the Bible. HTis has been repeated many times by CMI and AiG who are also very skeptic by each new 'announcement' of it's discovery. Although it would fit well with the historical references that it did survive and could still be visible such as the one by Josephus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
the Chinese seem to have answered a bit to Price's leaked email (found here: Welcome michaelsheiser.com - BlueHost.com). they posted a video on there website explaining why they doubt this could all be a set up hoax.
http://www.noahsarksearch.net/big5/content02.php the text on the right reads: ''Responds some archaeologist to suspect the wood construction is the Turk counterfeits the event, the Hong Kong square boat explores member Li Yaohui to reiterate: The Hong Kong members mount truly and witness four kilometer Asia to pull on the sacrificial mountain to have the giant wood construction.He thought if the Turkish troop counterfeits, does not need to make multitudinous spatial as well as the neighbor fragmentary lumber, when space is slips along with the team photographer the accident enters.The environment sees, the neighbor has the break thick wood, longest amounts to 20 meters, Tibet in six meter deep ice cavern, discovered obtained 絶 not impossible is counterfeits '' (thanks online translator) Meanwhile, CMI have been following all these and have an updated page on there website: Noah's ark or what - creation.com
ADDENDUM 2: Posted 6 May 2010 1. A number of CMI staff have been involved in ongoing discussions over the phone with reliable folk in Hong Kong we have known for years. These are people who have close contact with the team announcing the discovery and vouch for their integrity. 2. Indications at present are that the theory that ‘the Chinese team were victims of a hoax’ is getting harder to sustain. In particular, we have had direct assurance that the following pictures posted here below are ones taken directly by the team at various times at the site (click images to enlarge). Also, the discoverers have specifically responded on their website to the email by Dr Randall Price. 3. While unable to comment with certainty yet about items such as the straw and the cobwebs in some photos, in light of some of the comments circulating, it should be noted that spiders (and their insect prey) exist at even higher altitudes. There are many anecdotal accounts of people going up to something like this over the centuries, in which case straw may be useful for overnight bunking, etc. 4. Further investigations will likely require, initially, face-to-face inquiries with eyewitnesses, and hands-on inspection of artefacts/samples in Hong Kong. With the gracious consent of the discovery team, CMI has expressed that we are more than willing to cooperate with all relevant players, which will also assist us in being able to offer reliable commentary to our constituency via this page as it is updated. 5. If such investigations continue to progressively rule out the ‘planted hoax’ theory, then it would appear that a substantial wooden construction exists under the ice at this very high altitude on Greater Mt. Ararat, a construction whose nature is yet to be determined. 6. Greater Mt. Ararat is a volcano, with much evidence of ancient (hence postFlood) eruptions. So this could well be a memorial erected to the landing (which could have been elsewhere in the region, given that the Bible says the mountains of Ararat/Urartu centuries later). If so, it would still be a major archeological discovery of great interest to creationists in particular. So I'll add a couple questions: 1- Do you believe the chinese crew is being truly honest ? 2- Do you believe they really found a manmade structure up there ? 3- Were they tricked by the local Turks ? How could they have done that ? 4- If they were not tricked, and they really found a manmade structure up there, what are all the possibilities ? Is the ark even a possibility for you ? This should get some more discussion going. Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
So you're suggesting that the turks transported cobwebs up there during their attempted fraud ???
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024