Jump to content


Photo

Is It Noah’s Ark?


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#21 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 30 April 2010 - 08:42 AM

a lot happens in China without the government's blessing

View Post


Until they squash it under their jack-booted army; or are turning a blind eye because they are getting a cut of the take.

#22 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 April 2010 - 01:02 PM

Why would the government get involved in a totally irrelevant glueing together of a couple of fossils anyway?

View Post


Because that is the history of most all communist governments anyway. Besides Nazism, they (communists) are masters of "Propaganda (misleadings, fraud and deceit, lies, etc as this world's present ongoing news reporting from there bears out) Machines" and controlling of media and other informational outlets or channels for supposedly their peoples own good. It's also hardly irrelevant considering religion is considered an enemy of these states. Certainly I never heard of some chinese religious person or organization who created this hoax and conspired to make atheists look bad. And the question should be asked, "Why didn't National Geographic do a better job of policing the thing in the first place instead of an openly outrageous display of Euphoria of yet more imagined evolutionary proof ???????" :mellow:

Chinese communism is simply a different religious denomination of atheism. :lol:

#23 Jet Black

Jet Black

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ireland

Posted 30 April 2010 - 01:18 PM

Because that is the history of most all communist governments anyway. Besides Nazism, they (communists) are masters of "Propaganda (misleadings, fraud and deceit, lies, etc as this world's present ongoing news reporting from there bears out) Machines" and controlling of media and other informational outlets or channels for supposedly their peoples own good. It's also hardly irrelevant considering religion is considered an enemy of these states. Certainly I never heard of some chinese religious person or organization who created this hoax and conspired to make atheists look bad. And the question should be asked, "Why didn't National Geographic do a better job of policing the thing in the first place instead of an openly outrageous display of Euphoria of yet more imagined evolutionary proof ???????" :mellow:

Chinese communism is simply a different religious denomination of atheism.  :lol:

View Post


National Geographic is a layman magazine, not a science journal. Even before Nat Geo published that story, many scientists were very skeptical about the nature of archaeoraptor.

And to be honest you still didn't give a reason why the communist government would want to fake a fossil like that, especially since it was inevitable that it would be found out. Just selling it for a lot of money seems to be a far simpler explanation.

#24 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 30 April 2010 - 03:36 PM

National Geographic is a layman magazine, not a science journal. Even before Nat Geo published that story, many scientists were very skeptical about the nature of archaeoraptor.

And to be honest you still didn't give a reason why the communist government would want to fake a fossil like that, especially since it was inevitable that it would be found out. Just selling it for a lot of money seems to be a far simpler explanation.

View Post


You provide no creditable links. Would not that be what you would require from us (creditable links)?

Then you say that NG is a layman magazine, not a science journal. And use a blog known for doing fake documentaries? That's making a oxymoron comment.

I hope you are not here to waste our time and derail threads with this stuff.

#25 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 30 April 2010 - 04:00 PM

You provide no creditable links. Would not that be what you would require from us (creditable links)?

View Post


Excellent 2nd point that I didn't spotlight in my rebuttal.


Then you say that NG is a layman magazine, not a science journal.

View Post

I would guess, since NG is a “layman magazine”, they don’t have the responsibility to insure their information is correct. After all, that would require their using credible sources wouldn’t it?


I hope you are not here to waste our time and derail threads with this stuff.

View Post


It kind of seems that way.

#26 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 30 April 2010 - 04:08 PM

It has been exposed as a fraud by a company that makes fraudulent documentaries. Apparently the wood is old wood imported from the Black Sea Area. They've even found the people who moved the wood and the trucks they moved it with.

http://michaelsheise...eobabble-update

View Post


Well, by the looks of the site, and the mountain it looks that trucks aren't capable of reaching those heights, because of the terrain. Plus, since the oxygen level is lower, then horsepower would be too.

Anyways, why would anyone risk their lives to put a wood structure under what appears to be 15 feet or more of rocks. Plus, if you look at the walls of the structure, the ice looks very old... unless this was staged with styrofoam, and fake rocks. Then they might be able to pull it off.

#27 Jet Black

Jet Black

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ireland

Posted 01 May 2010 - 03:26 AM

You provide no creditable links. Would not that be what you would require from us (creditable links)?

Then you say that NG is a layman magazine, not a science journal. And use a blog known for doing fake documentaries? That's making a oxymoron comment.

I hope you are not here to waste our time and derail threads with this stuff.

View Post


I thought the http://michaelsheiser.com link would be ok.

#28 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 01 May 2010 - 04:59 AM

I thought the http://michaelsheiser.com link would be ok.

View Post


And that link has what to do with the OP and the conversation in this thread?

#29 Jet Black

Jet Black

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ireland

Posted 01 May 2010 - 06:58 AM

And that link has what to do with the OP and the conversation in this thread?

View Post


it's the main site for the link I posted earlier:

http://michaelsheise...eobabble-update

ikester seems to be saying that this site is famous for making fake documentaries. I'm a bit confused.

#30 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 01 May 2010 - 10:50 PM

It has been exposed as a fraud by a company that makes fraudulent documentaries. Apparently the wood is old wood imported from the Black Sea Area. They've even found the people who moved the wood and the trucks they moved it with.

http://michaelsheise...eobabble-update

View Post


ikester seems to be saying that this site is famous for making fake documentaries. I'm a bit confused.


It is what you said. Now you change your mind? Not much difference between fake and being fraudulent. Unless you want to argue semantics along with everything else.

#31 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 02 May 2010 - 03:13 AM

it's the main site for the link I posted earlier:

View Post


The point of my question was this; that link had absolutely nothing to do with this conversation, the crux of this conversation, or anything on the periphery of this conversation. And, I was hoping that you could point out something I may have missed, in your posting of that link.

ikester seems to be saying that this site is famous for making fake documentaries. I'm a bit confused.

View Post


Actually, it was you who attempted to make that point (if I’m not mistaken).

It has been exposed as a fraud by a company that makes fraudulent documentaries.

View Post



#32 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 May 2010 - 06:47 AM

The point of my question was this; that link had absolutely nothing to do with this conversation, the crux of this conversation, or anything on the periphery of this conversation. And, I was hoping that you could point out something I may have missed, in your posting of that link.
Actually, it was you who attempted to make that point (if I’m not mistaken).

View Post


Well it's too bad the thread has morphed into this because at the point to where he hitch a ride on it, everyone else was pretty much in agreement that there were several unanswered questions by this group, some info was suspect, and seemingly not so credible. I thought everyone else who commented here did a very responsbile job of being reasonable on the matter.

This website is clearly that of our world's modern day "Higher Criticism" gang and is mostly directed on any and all things related to the Holy Bible. Also the title PaleoBabble is very cold and calculating in it's distaste for anything Christian worldview. The lack of any Atheistic PaleoBabble example contents like the story about the wolf jumping in water and evolving into a blue whale myth, Richards Dawkins - origin of life was nothing more than a happy chemcial accident fable, etc is not even remotely touched upon and makes the site suspect as to it's purpose. Yet all of those stories are every equal of atheism's own virgin birth stories.

Despite the fainting of ignorance and inocence , "I don't know what you mean", etc, I'm almost pretty certain he understood the purpose of that site and it was a calculated maneuver with massive amounts of purpose with intent on his part. Because once you read the story, you've then got a huge long list of other religious make fun of PaleoBabble stories for put down purposes only. :blink:

All in all the discussion could have rather focussed on what should be looked for as proofs and real evidences and that's been effectively derailed now. :unsure:

#33 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 02 May 2010 - 10:24 PM

Some people deem themselves to smart for anyone whom disagrees with them. They have the mindset of Social Darwinism that is so strong they cannot even debate the ones they oppose. To do so they deem as lowering their intelligence. So instead they derail threads by nick picking posts and putting up links that have nothing to do with subject of thread. Then try to blame all the problems on everyone else.

#34 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 03 May 2010 - 05:52 PM

Well it's too bad the thread has morphed into this because at the point to where he hitch a ride on it, everyone else was pretty much in agreement that there were several unanswered questions by this group, some info was suspect, and seemingly not so credible. I thought everyone else who commented here did a very responsbile job of being reasonable on the matter.

This website is clearly that of our world's modern day "Higher Criticism" gang and is mostly directed on any and all things related to the Holy Bible. Also the title PaleoBabble is very cold and calculating in it's distaste for anything Christian worldview. The lack of any Atheistic PaleoBabble example contents like the story about the wolf jumping in water and evolving into a blue whale myth, Richards Dawkins - origin of life was nothing more than a happy chemcial accident fable, etc  is not even remotely touched upon and makes the site suspect as to it's purpose. Yet all of those stories are every equal of atheism's own virgin birth stories.

Despite the fainting of ignorance and inocence , "I don't know what you mean", etc, I'm almost pretty certain he understood the purpose of that site and it was a calculated maneuver with massive amounts of purpose with intent on his part. Because once you read the story, you've then got a huge long list of other religious make fun of PaleoBabble stories for put down purposes only.  ;)

All in all the discussion could have rather focussed on what should be looked for as proofs and real evidences and that's been effectively derailed now.  :rolleyes:

View Post


Fortunately we were warned by Christ and the apostles that in the last days--when "knowledge shall be increased and many shall travel to and fro..." (Daniel)--that there would be "scoffers, walking in their own lusts..." men would be "heady and high minded" (Paul to Timothy), "having a form of godliness" [disciples of liberal theologians in my opinion, who have now sided with atheists], "but denying the power thereof"--"as Janes and Jambres withstood Moses in the wilderness, so do these men withstand the truth."

Do you have ears to hear?

Jesus said, "If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you." Jn 15:19

He also said, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me...." Jn 10:27

And..."Jesus said to them, If God were your Father, you would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand my speech? even because you cannot hear my word."
Jn 8:42,43

Some even want to claim Christ, but yet they deny his words--because Jesus says in Matt. 24:37-38: “But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. “For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark....”

#35 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 03 May 2010 - 06:19 PM

Here is the latest position of AiG:

....creationists need to apply the same standard as we attempt to do when examining evolutionists’ “proofs.” For example, we often note that the evidence of so-called “ape-men” is based on fragmentary evidence, and often ends up discarded by evolutionists themselves when they realize that they misinterpreted the scant evidence (as we are now seeing with last year’s much ballyhooed “Ida”). To be consistent, this principle of careful and rigorous interpretation of the evidence needs to be employed by creationists when they examine a claim that a Turkish/Chinese group has found what is declared to be the remains of Noah’s Ark. Without seeing the entirety of the evidence for this claim and noting that what has been provided to the public in the form of a video and photos have not been conclusive (even where the photos were actually taken is in question now), we remain cautious (even more so than earlier this week) as we make our final determination. Frankly, we are somewhat surprised that experts from the leading creationist research groups (such as ICR, AiG, CRS, etc.) were not given the opportunity to carefully examine the evidence directly (rather than simply through photographs and videos) so far obtained before such a confident conclusion was publicized to the world last weekend.



#36 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 13 May 2010 - 08:46 PM

It has been exposed as a fraud by a company that makes fraudulent documentaries. Apparently the wood is old wood imported from the Black Sea Area. They've even found the people who moved the wood and the trucks they moved it with.

http://michaelsheise...eobabble-update

View Post


From the expeditions homepage:

Query 3: Is it possible to deliver large wood beams to an elevation of 4000 meters?

An archaeologist queries that the huge structure is a reconstruction that was delivered from the Black Sea to Mt. Ararat.  In reply to this query, Panda Lee, a member of Hong Kong expedition team, reinstates that it is absolutely impossible.

The huge wooden structure has been discovered at the elevation of 4000 meters on Mt. Ararat.  It is a very sheer cliff. Scattered rocks are all over the place which makes climbing very difficult. Large trucks can only reach 2000 meters. Mountain jeeps can only reach 2700 meters.  Therefore, military helicopters are the only facilities that are capable of delivering such huge wood beams up on the mountain.  However, the Culture Minister of Agri Province, of which Mt. Ararat locates, immediately claims that no such kind of construction has ever been reported in the area.


I agree with Panda Lee on this one. There is no way to get that kind of lumber up there without a helicopter; and then they would need bulldozers, etc. airlifted in to cover it up with rocks and ice afterwards.

#37 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 16 May 2010 - 06:31 PM

From the expeditions homepage:
I agree with Panda Lee on this one. There is no way to get that kind of lumber up there without a helicopter; and then they would need bulldozers, etc. airlifted in to cover it up with rocks and ice afterwards.

View Post

Time will tell. I did think about that fact, but I wasn't sure about the details of the mountain. If the info given is true, then I wonder what could have caused those wooden planks to be up there so high---4 kilometers. ANd if the mountain is treacherous to climb one leans toward the point of the Hong Kong team.

One other point. The wood was buried in ice, so if it was a hoax, it would have had to have been planted a few years ago.

#38 Hawkins

Hawkins

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Hong Kong

Posted 26 May 2010 - 10:43 PM

It has been exposed as a fraud by a company that makes fraudulent documentaries. Apparently the wood is old wood imported from the Black Sea Area. They've even found the people who moved the wood and the trucks they moved it with.

http://michaelsheise...eobabble-update

View Post


I notice that those who deny it never verify it by themselves. From a more scientific point of view, if you'd like to deny an artifact to be a fraud, you need at least to verify it by yourself.

So, scientists (who ever) please go on site to have a check before you declare that it is a fraud. (it seems to me that scientists nowaday somehow prefer to taking a religious approach in declaring things :rolleyes: )

#39 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 30 May 2010 - 06:03 AM

I notice that those who deny it never verify it by themselves. From a more scientific point of view, if you'd like to deny an artifact to be a fraud, you need at least to verify it by yourself.

So, scientists (who ever) please go on site to have a check before you declare that it is a fraud. (it seems to me that scientists nowaday somehow prefer to taking a religious approach in declaring things  B) )

View Post


There is a 7 part video here for those who would like to listen to multiple and international scientific review in Amsterdam. This is only step 1, so why is everyone's 'britches in a bunch?'

The Hong Kong team is in cooperation with scientists in Turkey in the direct operation at this point. A French film team is the one who took the videos. An international team of scientists are scheduled to go to the site later this year. People from Creation Ministries international are going to meet the Hong Kong team in June--so things are proceeding.

Some facts I gleaned from the videos:

1. The very large, mutli-story, wooden structure is thoroughly embedded in a glacier, as past claims have stated.

2. The wooden structure is at 4000 meters, far above the tree line.

3. A very massive room (3 stories high it looks to be at least) semi circular with plank walls, along with 6 or 7 other smaller cambers have been videoed.

4. No human settlement has ever been found at this altitude.

5. The international scientific panel in Amsterdam consisting of geologists, archaeologists, and other scientists are encouraging further research and have cautious optimism. Most are impressed with the findings, but are not ruling out hoax.

6. There are recommendations by archaeologists for efforts of preservation of the site "for the sake of further research."

Maybe if the scorners understood what is actually going on, the history and challenges of the search, the weather and steepness of the mountain. And that not everyone outside of America requires 'instamatic' results, they might chill a bit.

We all know that they are motivated against this kind of evidence, because their worldview would be confronted with hard deluge data.

#40 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 31 May 2010 - 10:35 AM

We all know that they are motivated against this kind of evidence, because their worldview would be confronted with hard deluge data.


No; it would still be a hoax. :rolleyes:


Thanks for telling us about the video. I'm going to school and working full time, so I haven't found out anything new.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users