Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
27 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, dwise1, ICANT, ringo (5 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Happy Birthday: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,468 Year: 18,504/19,786 Month: 924/1,705 Week: 176/518 Day: 50/52 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Noah's ark found ?!?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 390 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 76 of 88 (558701)
05-04-2010 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Buzsaw
05-04-2010 12:21 AM


Not Up There. Not anywhere.
Buz, what about all of the evidence that shows there was no global flood some 4,350 years ago?

How can you ignore that in favor of what really amount to a tribal myth? That flood myth was already old when it was included in the bible.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 05-04-2010 12:21 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by PaulK, posted 05-04-2010 2:20 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15439
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 77 of 88 (558714)
05-04-2010 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Coyote
05-04-2010 12:52 AM


Re: Not Up There. Not anywhere.
The same way that he thinks that the Ark is more likely to be a natural rock formation - as even YECs who have examines the site say - rather than an actual wooden structure dated to be the right age ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Coyote, posted 05-04-2010 12:52 AM Coyote has not yet responded

    
Species8472
Junior Member (Idle past 3166 days)
Posts: 29
Joined: 01-13-2010


Message 78 of 88 (558790)
05-04-2010 1:03 PM


I don't know if anyone has read this article. Some long time ark searchers are having doubts. Read it at

http://www.csmonitor.com/...st-on-Noah-s-ark-found-in-Turkey

quote:
A group of Chinese and Turkish explorers announced this week they are '99.9 percent' sure of their discovery on Mt. Ararat. While Noah's ark found in Turkey would bolster Bible literalists, an American ark-hunter says the latest discovery could be a hoax.


    
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 695 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


(1)
Message 79 of 88 (558795)
05-04-2010 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Buzsaw
05-04-2010 12:21 AM


Re: It's Not Up There
Hey Buz.

It would be impossible for cows, horses and other animals to leave the ark on rough terrain.

What makes this so farfetched to you? You believe God could've done anything he wished with the animals after the ark came to rest on, well, wherever it came to rest, correct? If not, where must the ark have ended up in order to satisfy all the terrain, dietary, and climatic requirements of every pair of animals?

Low lying tropical rain forest? Penguins, polar bears, arctic wolves are all screwed.
High mountain arid area? Crocodiles, frogs, newts, salamanders, screwed.
Desert? See ya bobcats, cows, gorillas and tigers.
Anywhere but Australia? Nice knowing you, marsupials.

You see Buz, unless you invoke divine intervention in the form of The Miraculous Redistribution of Post Flood Animals (what would the carnivores have eaten? Plants? You'd need yet more miracles, I guess), the whole story (again) falls to pieces. So in light of this, what were you saying again about cows' ability to negotiate mountainous terrain?

Have a good one.

Edited by Apothecus, : Speelig


"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 05-04-2010 12:21 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


(1)
Message 80 of 88 (558798)
05-04-2010 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Buzsaw
05-04-2010 12:21 AM


Buzz makes a good point
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Flood was a real event as described in the Bible:

I'm thinking that the reason little if any evidence of iron is with the ark or much else is that after landing, most of the ark, including the iron parts were dismantled to use for building structures to live in, etc since they would have landed with need for supplies.

This is valid reasoning. If the entire world has just been flooded for a year, there will be no shelter available. Any homes or other buildings would have been destroyed. Even after disembarking, the Ark would have been the sole source of shelter until new structures could be built, and would very likely be cannibalized for materials (even fuel for fires) once new shelter had been constructed.

The Ark would have been needed as shelter for quite some time, because a global Flood would ruin existing supplies of wood and other building materials. All of the trees would have been killed and left as driftwood for the entire event, possibly buried under sediment. Noah and company may have been able to find a cave for shelter, but the Ark, having already served as effective shelter for both the family and innumerable animals would have made a perfect barn and living structure for continued use as (presumably) the ecology magically begins to recover. Let most of the animals out for their magical cross-continental migrations, but keep most of the domesticated animals like cows, goats, sheep, etc for food and the re-establishment of agriculture.

As Noah et al work on more permanent structures or at least prepare to leave the landing site, the Ark would have represented a massive amount of recoverable resources. You could try to re-use the wood either for construction or for firewood, since other wood sources would take decades to be replenished. If metal was used, it would be especially valuable, as post-Flood there would be no mining/smelting infrastructure set up for acquiring new metal - a process that would also take significant time given the number of people involved and their other challenges and priorities.

Even if we assume the Flood myth to be true, there is still little reason to expect that we would ever actually find the Ark itself. It's far easier to support or falsify the Flood myth by looking at biology, archeology and geology to find broken cultures, sudden extinction events, genetic bottlenecks, global sediment deposits, etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 05-04-2010 12:21 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2924 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 81 of 88 (559392)
05-09-2010 12:58 AM


the Chinese seem to have answered a bit to Price's leaked email (found here: http://michaelsheiser.com/...04/noahs-ark-paleobabble-update). 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:

http://creation.com/is-it-noahs-ark

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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by hooah212002, posted 05-09-2010 1:29 AM slevesque has responded
 Message 86 by Huntard, posted 05-10-2010 3:24 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 106 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 82 of 88 (559395)
05-09-2010 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by slevesque
05-09-2010 12:58 AM


This is still an issue? Even World nut Daily is admitting fraud. If WND is going against biblicals, it's safe to say it actually is a hoax.

Bob Cornuke of the Bible Archaeology Search and Exploration Institute writes:

"This is a fake. It's a fraud and it's of the highest caliber according to what I can assess from the evidence and talking to eyewitnesses and people from Turkey."

Regarding some of the photos published online, Cornuke told American Family Radio, "There are cobwebs up in the beams. You're not going to have wood at 14,000 feet in a glacier to have cobwebs in it. It's impossible to have that situation."

I don't think we need to open up any more discussion about this hoax.


"The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go" -Galileao

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by slevesque, posted 05-09-2010 12:58 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by slevesque, posted 05-09-2010 2:10 AM hooah212002 has responded

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2924 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 83 of 88 (559400)
05-09-2010 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by hooah212002
05-09-2010 1:29 AM


So you're suggesting that the turks transported cobwebs up there during their attempted fraud ???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by hooah212002, posted 05-09-2010 1:29 AM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by hooah212002, posted 05-09-2010 2:17 AM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 85 by ramoss, posted 05-09-2010 7:48 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 87 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2010 3:31 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 106 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 84 of 88 (559401)
05-09-2010 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by slevesque
05-09-2010 2:10 AM


Not sure what exactly they did. But I am saying it is a hoax. I know how badly you wish for this to be true, but all evidence points to the contrary.


"The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go" -Galileao

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by slevesque, posted 05-09-2010 2:10 AM slevesque has not yet responded

    
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3122
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 85 of 88 (559465)
05-09-2010 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by slevesque
05-09-2010 2:10 AM


It would be more logical to assume that the photograph they took was not at 14,000 feet, but at a different location. Moving that amount of timber would disrupt spider webs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by slevesque, posted 05-09-2010 2:10 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 579 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 86 of 88 (559521)
05-10-2010 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by slevesque
05-09-2010 12:58 AM


slevesque writes:

So I'll add a couple questions:

1- Do you believe the chinese crew is being truly honest ?


Even if they are the victim of a hoax, they're still not honest. Honest people do not go around saying stuff like "It's 99.9% sure this is the Ark!" without some proper research and tests being done first.

2- Do you believe they really found a manmade structure up there ?

Could be. Would have to see some evidence first though, and some confirmation by independent scientists.

3- Were they tricked by the local Turks ? How could they have done that ?

They built a structure there themselves?

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 ?

It's a possibility, though a very very small one, so small as to be almost entirely unlikely, in my mind. Even if the Ark story is true, then there still would be no reason for there to be an ark today. I would've tore it down to use as building material, if I were Noah. Other possibilities? A shelter for shepherds who took their stock into the mountains, perhaps? Though I admittedly do not know enough about this to comment on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by slevesque, posted 05-09-2010 12:58 AM slevesque has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15439
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 87 of 88 (559523)
05-10-2010 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by slevesque
05-09-2010 2:10 AM


The story is that many of the photos were taken at the original Black Sea site, and that the timbers were then transported up the mountain to be "discovered" later. If it is true that cobwebs don't belong in a glacial site (and it seems plausible to me) then the existence of the cobwebs is consistent with the fraud story - and inconsistent with the Chinese claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by slevesque, posted 05-09-2010 2:10 AM slevesque has not yet responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 1575 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 88 of 88 (565649)
06-18-2010 5:24 PM


Any news on this? I couldn't find anything on google.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019